May 10, 2022 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:29] (archive recording) City Clerk: California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city.clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical median location. members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com, youtube.com forward slash mountain view gov, and on comcast channel 26. Noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:05:29] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Koga?

[00:05:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[00:05:32] City Clerk: council member labor?

[00:05:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure,

[00:05:34] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[00:05:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here,

[00:05:37] City Clerk: Council member, Shalter,

[00:05:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: here,

[00:05:39] City Clerk: by Mayor Hicks,

[00:05:40] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: here,

[00:05:41] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez.

[00:05:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here. Of course. Thank you. We'll proceed to item 3.1, affordable housing at 87 East Evelyn Avenue. The purpose of the study session is to receive council feedback on the project principles and development priorities for future affordable housing development on the former Valley Transportation Authority site at 87 East Evelyn Avenue. Council Direction at today's study session will inform the request for qualifications and request for proposals processed that staff initiated to select an affordable housing developer from the site. Would any council members last make disclosures? I'm presuming that's to anyone visited the site.

[00:06:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I did.

[00:06:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bounce number leader.

[00:06:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, I'm, I'm sure that I, I, I definitely have visited the site and I'm sure that I must have met with someone.

[00:06:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member, I'll be Koga.

[00:06:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I have visited the site and I don't know if this matters, but I am an ex officio member of the VTA board.

[00:06:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member Matt Jack.

[00:06:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I have visited the site. On my own.

[00:06:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Vice Mayor Hicks.

[00:07:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I visited the site as well.

[00:07:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And council member show, Walter.

[00:07:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Same for me. I visited the site, um, with uh, homeless advocates.

[00:07:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Housing and neighborhood services manager, Michaela Helvin Tincher will present the memo. whenever you're ready.

[00:07:25] Michaela Humintincher: Thank you very much. Council members and Mayor Ramirez. Just want to make sure you can see my entire PowerPoint. Okay.

[00:07:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[00:07:36] Michaela Humintincher: Thanks all. Again, my name's Michaela Humintincher, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager. The purpose of tonight's study session is to receive your feedback on project principles on the, um, development priorities and for and and development priorities for the future Affordable Housing Development at the VTA site at 87 East Evelyn Avenue. And your feedback today will inform our request for qualifications and request for proposals process, which we will initiate to select an affordable housing developer for the site. The site is outlined here in yellow. It's approximately 2.one um acres in size. It's bordered by Pioneer Way, East Evelyn Avenue, and some office buildings. Across of East Evelyn Avenue is the Caltrain Railroad tracks, and just beyond the adjacent property is Highway 85. The property is about a half a mile from the Mountain View transit center, and 0.2 miles from an entrance to the Stevens Creek Trail. It's currently has a general plan land use designation of high intensity office, and it's zoned as general industrial, and as mentioned, the site is a former VTA parking, right lot, and is currently being used as a safe parking site. Just a little history on where we've been with this site. In May of 2019, Council authorizes city manager to negotiate and execute a long-term lease with an option to purchase the VTA property, with an intended future used as affordable housing. In September, staff signed the ground lease with VTA. And since then, staff have been working with consultants to examine the economic feasibility of different housing scenarios for the site. We worked with an architect to understand possible densities and parking scenarios. And we've been coordinating with planning and public work staff. In advance of this meeting, staff sent notices to neighbors and also met with the safe parking residents on the site to inform them of meeting, and also about the general timeline that we're working with. The ground lease that the city has with ETA is involves an $11000000 upfront payment with $2000000 due at year 10 or at the time of purchase. The option to purchase begins in January of 2023 and staff intend to execute the purchase option per council's direction. Of note, there is a continuing federal transit administration interest in the land because their funding was involved in the original acquisition of the land. FTA has reviewed and approved the city's ground lease and purchase and sale agreement with VTA. There are some restrictions that carry forward after the city purchases the property, mainly that it must be used for affordable housing. The housing must be built within 10 years of the ground lease commitment, commencement, with a few extensions, if there are extenuating circumstances. That if there is a preference for Mountain View residents, that VTA employees be included in that preference. And that the site be developed at a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre. As city staff studied different scenarios for future affordable housing on the site, We developed a few principles to guide the analysis and to guide the RFP process, noting that this is a particularly rare opportunity to meet the city's housing needs due to its location, size, and the fact that the city will be an owner, the owner of the site. The 1st project principle that we recommend is that we use the site to focus on unmet housing needs, meaning housing solutions that are mostly underprovided in the city's current affordable housing stock, partially because there have been limited opportunities to provide them. This would include more units for large families, as well as more units for residents experiencing homelessness. There are simply not a large amount of 2 and 3 bedroom units in the city's current affordable housing stock, and there's quite a lot of demand for them. There's also only one development in Mountain View right now that has the combination of rents and support services that would make the units appropriate for households that are just coming out of homelessness. We do have 200 of these, what we call supportive housing units in our pipeline. which is extraordinary, but it's still significantly less than the need. There were 606 unhoused community members counted in the last homelessness census in Mountain View. The next principle that staff recommend is balancing the opportunity for density. It is a large site and a lot of units are possible. With the need to include appropriate amenities to support all the residents on the site. Third, staff recommend using the extraordinary location of the site, so close to downtown, Stevens Creek Trail and Caltrain. Uh, to to make a, uh, a big housing opportunity, but also recognizing that this is the 1st residential development in this neighborhood, and any housing will have to create a residential feel where there wasn't one before. 4th staff recommend being mindful of cost, the city's affordable housing pipeline exceeds our projected available funds. So when we are selecting a developer, staff will make it a priority that the developer leverage and maximize external funding sources, all else being equal. Fifth, staff recommend that this development be high quality and well designed. The developers will be asked to consider placemaking and community building, and be encouraged to make this place a place at the residence and also the city can be proud of. We reviewed a few scenarios that led us to determine a few suggested priorities that we would like council input on tonight before we incorporate them into the RFP and RFQ process. The 1st parameter that we looked at was density. As I mentioned, the ground lease requires a minimum of 75 units per acre, and based on some feedback we received from our economic feasibility consultant and also our architect consultant. We studied a maximum of 120 units per acre. Given how close the site is to transportation, it's a good opportunity for high density, but we also want to give the developers room to add amenities like open space and service space, which would cut down on density, as well as larger units for families, which would also take away the density because we calculate density on a per unit basis, not a per bedroom basis. In the end, staff recommend a density that results in approximately 160 to 200 units on the site, which would probably be somewhere between 6 and 8 stories high. And that sort of large range is meant to give some wiggle room for the developers to include amenities and service space. Then we looked at potential affordability scenarios. And we studied scenarios from well below 30% of area meeting income, all the way up to 110% of area meeting income, keeping in mind that if this project is going to be competitive for state tax credit financing, it needs to have an average of below 50% area meeting income. We particularly looked for area, area meeting income or AMI levels that are not covered by our existing below market rate program, which typically serves households at 50% AMI or above. And also thinking about the fact that even our 100% affordable housing sites typically serve households at 30% AMI and above, but we know that there are at least 6000 households in Mountain View that are in 30% AMI or below. We also wanted to think about the fact that in a project of this size, we need to be thoughtful about it being truly inclusive, with a diverse range of residents, as is typical of any hopeful development in an inclusive community. Um, we also were mindful of the fact that there isn't a lot of funding for units above 80% AMI, and we do have units above 80% AMI being built right now in our inclusionary program in market rate developments. So with all that considered, staff recommends reserving at least 30% of the units for households below the 30% threshold, which is highly needed in our necessity. As well as a range of other incomes, with a max of 80% AMI. And I realized that was a lot of percent AMI numbers, so I thought we should show you the actual AMI levels as they stand today. This is the latest chart. It gets updated annually by the state. Um, and just as an example for us to put some real numbers to this. If you look at what a household of four, so that sort of 4th column, uh, it would be making, if they were considered extremely low income, which is 30% of area meeting income, they would be earning $49,700. That's clearly not enough to live off of in our market rate developments here on Mountain View. But it's also quite a lot to ask of a household to earn if they, you know, for example, recently lost their job or their housing, as we know many of our community members have, especially in the recent years. So that's why we're looking to ensure that some of the units would be affordable to people below that income level. Next, we thought about the desired resident population and really, really thought considered the unmet needs that we analyzed and referenced earlier, which are the permanent supportive housing units for people who have experienced homelessness as well as housing for larger families. And when serving those populations, we thought about the need to make sure that whichever developer is our partner, they need to provide the right amenities and services to support each of them appropriately. So we would require things like service spaces for the formerly unhoused and play spaces for families with children. Finally, we analyze potential parking needs for the site. We considered a couple of factors, including the high cost of potential subterranean parking. The proximity of the site to Caltrain and the Stevens Creek Trail, as well as the lower car ownership and use of lower income populations. The RFQ and RFP will ask the applicants to propose a parking plan that balances a parking ratio with other project features. If it's the case that the applicant proposes a ratio that's lower than the state density bonus requirements, then we would ask the applicants to propose a rationale and a TDM plan. And we would acknowledge that a parking study may be required during the entitlement phase. There are a few other items that we will highlight in the RFP and RFQ that we'd like to highlight for council tonight. The 1st is that the intention is that the city will own the land and ground lease it. Either at a no cost or nominal lease amount to the selected developer, which would help with the economic feasibility of the project. Additionally, the city would intend on providing a subsidy, which would be along the same lines of those in our, um, affordable housing guidelines, and we would evaluate the funding request of the potential developer, and have a goal or a target of providing no more than 20% of the project's funding needs. which is what's in our guidelines now. I wanted to highlight that there may be phasing needed for this project. The low income housing tax credit program is typically the largest source of funding for affordable housing projects in the city. And most of the projects that those funds aboard are only projects of 60 to 120 units. So as a result, this project may need to be built or proposed in 2 phases. to make it financially feasible to compete for these tax credits 2 different times. This is totally feasible from a construction perspective. Um, it may not even really change the timeline, but I just wanted to make everyone aware of that. In the RFP and RFQ, we will ask respondents to propose appropriate amenities for future residents, including open spaces, with separate areas for different populations, such as families with children or single adults. Community rooms, programming and support services. And we'll also ask them to consider additional amenities like childcare or communal services if possible. The amenities will need to be well designed, incorporated into the building and built in with appropriate circulation and other considerations to make it a lovely place to live. As noted before, this site will need to go through a land use process. It will require a general plan amendment and a zoning map amendment, along with all the typical development permits in order to become a residential development. Staff will work with the selected developer to work to figure out the appropriate land use process. And finally, I'd like to highlight an opportunity posed by the adjacent property. Which you can see here in the red triangle. At 5767 East Evelyn. Charities housing, purchase this site. It's approximately 2 acres, and knowing that there will be 2 affordable housing efforts, both likely to involve city funds, next door to each other, presents some opportunities, at a minimum, the city will work to seek to work with charities housing, to collaborate on the design of both sites, so that we can maximize open space, maximize units, come up with thoughtful circulation patterns, and potentially work to support each other on construction staging. And depending on the timing of both projects and the willingness of both developers, there may be more formal collaboration opportunities to work on land use processes or to embark on master planning. There is no requirement that the 2 sites be master planned unless council provides alternative direction. I want to note that the current safe parking site is allowed to be there through January 2024 under the current lease with ETA. And once the city owns the site, we can extend that. Between now and when construction begins, city staff will be looking into transition plans, particularly pathways to permanent housing, for the current residents. And this would be true for all safe parking residents everywhere, frankly. Uh, we everywhere in the city. We've met with the city with the residents of this lot once, and we will do it again to see where we can connect them to our existing pipeline. And we will also ask developers who respond to the RFP and RFQ to think of creative solutions that take into account our existing unhoused residents, including safe parking residents. Here we have a timeline for what the next 8 months or so will look like. The plan is to release an RFQ in June. Followed by all RFQ selection. Then an RFP for appropriate developers who should move forward, and then a selection of a developer partner coming back to city council in February. In order to streamline the process. Staff recommend that, uh, the invitation for RFQ applicants to follow through with the RFP be made by staff in accordance with the direction from council on priorities and principles tonight. If we need additional input for any reason, though, we will bring the RFQ selection back to council. With that, I'd like to turn it back to council to weigh in before we start the RFQ and RFP process and ask for your feedback. Specifically, does counsel agree with the proposed project principles and development priorities for affordable housing at the site located at 807 East Evelyn Avenue, including the proposed mix of residents, particularly a significant number of family units. The proposed approach regarding density, the proposed approach regarding the parking ratio, and any other considerations you have to share.

[00:24:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much.

[00:24:37] Michaela Humintincher: Thank you.

[00:24:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic presentation. Um, we will uh, now turn to the public for input and then after the public comment period. We'll come back to council for questions and deliberations. 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. A timer will be displayed on the screen. I'll give a time based on the number of speakers. Let's go with 2 minutes. First speaker is James Kuzmo.

[00:25:18] James Cousmont: Good evening, Council. My name is James Cousmont, um, and I just wanted to say I support the project and concept, and I look forward to that having a surface lot be, um, used for housing. The 3 main comments I would have would 1st off. Please be sure to ensure that, um, the people currently, or the amount of residence currently using the safe parking, not, are have good options going forwards. Secondly, I know in the written staff report, there are some allusions to ensuring that the building fits in with the surrounding area or something along those lines, and I would just hope that it doesn't, considering that the surrounding area is largely ancient industrial buildings that hopefully we have fewer of going forwards. Um, and thirdly, I appreciate this. The staff recommendation to not have excessive parking, and I hope that the city can impose no particular parking minimums on this project. as consistent with council's own direction in the previous housing element study session to have affordable housing projects be left, flexible to have the developer, figure out how much parking is needed for a given project, and then they can maximize as many homes as they want. Thank you.

[00:26:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Celine.

[00:26:38] Salim: Hi. Yeah, my name's Salim. I really appreciated staff's presentation. I hope council gives staff direction. Um, to exercise wyatt latitude, and getting the best project across the finish line. Uh, I think the idea to streamline, the RFQ, uh, makes a ton of sense. It really is, you know, something you could trust staff to do well. Uh, without the council slowing down the project. I also think it's a great idea to see to what extent we can merge this project with, I believe it's 6770 Evelyn, the adjacent parcel. Just to see, like, what can we do to increase density in open space? I think that's an amazing idea. I'm also supportive of giving staff latitude when it comes to parking and in density because at the end of the day, we want our affordable housing dollars to go as far as they can for affordable housing. We have a housing crisis, not a parking crisis. So it's important that we not set any standards or any caps right now for density or any minimums for parking, in my opinion. Thank you.

[00:27:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kevin Mop.

[00:27:52] Kevin Ma: Evening, counsel. My name is Kevin Ma. I be speaking on behalf of Mountain of the UV tonight, we support this project, and we think that there should not be a maximum density limit set at this point, because inherently, we're trying to maximum number of homes, the number of people who are able to stay in the city, given that the cost of land is considered prohibitive, and it's not very often that the city gets into the direct action of, you know, planning out aside for affordable housing. So we don't want to be undercutting the number of potential residences in this, uh, development so early on. Uh, we agree with stats reasonings for minimizing parking requirements. We go further and ask just for sending no minimum parking requirements at this point. Instead, we should look at what developers can come up to see what's feasible, given that cost of parking is non-trivial and does mean that we are trading car spaces for people. That's the fundamental thing at the end of the day. It is relatively close to downtown. It's relatively close to a chance center. You know, it's within 10 minutes walk. There are amenities in the area, although, as James alluded to, the current direct neighbors of this place are quiet offices and auto shops, so I believe there's less opposition in this area that should be useful for ensuring that we have a relatively tall building, closely so close to downtown. Um, and Yeah, that's all they're going to do.

[00:29:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Kalisha Webster.

[00:29:27] Kalisha Webster: Good evening, council members. My name is Kalisha Webster. I'm the senior housing advocate. Housing Choices, a nonprofit service provider, supporting San Andreas Regional Center Consumers, with developmental and other disabilities, to find and retain safe, stable, and affordable housing. I'm calling in strong support of the project principles and development priorities recommended by staff, and urge council to consider how this site could be utilized to further your efforts to create a city inclusive of people all abilities. We recognize that the city has shown a willingness to help house extremely vulnerable members of the Mountain View community, such as that the Muna Vista, San Antonio Place, where a number of the units are set aside for people of developmental disabilities, who require coordinated supportive services from the regional center, in order to maintain their housing. However, it needs still exists as only 30% of Mountain View adults with developmental disabilities have been able to move into their own apartment with supportive services. As I said, city prioritizes, um, the plans to address, um, housing needs of vulnerable Mountain View residents, we hope that you would also include in your plans to include some units set aside or people with developmental disabilities. Inclusion of this population also supports plans for lower parking for the project to qualify for lower parking requirements as this, uh, population is mostly transdependent. Thank you for your time and your consideration and, um, help to support you as you continue to look for ways to create a more inclusive city.

[00:30:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. The next speaker is Kelsey Bains.

[00:30:58] Kelsey Baines: Hi, good evening, council members. My name is Kelsey Baines. I will try to keep my comments short because so far they all have been wonderful. So I'll just say I agree with the previous speakers. Um, and am really excited for this opportunity to get more affordable housing, but specifically more permanent supportive housing, um, for people who have experienced homelessness. Um, and I'm also really excited for family units. So, I hope we take full advantage of this opportunity. Um, and maximize the number of homes we get at this site, um, and don't put additional onerous restrictions on, um, the nonprofit developers, um, in terms of adding things like parking requirements that don't help to house people. Um, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you so much.

[00:31:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Next speaker is Bruce England.

[00:31:59] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. This will be very fast. Um, speaking, Bruce England speaking for Mound View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. A number of you on this session tonight will remember. A few years ago, a lot of us worked very hard to try to identify additional safe parking locations and came up pretty much empty. It's a huge challenge, and I know Kimra knows this and already knows that Wayne knows it, and council members know it, but I just wanted to bring it up that, although we absolutely want this housing to happen, no doubt about that, um, there's that separate project of identifying the additional safe parking for the spaces lost there, and making sure that we have enough safe parking spaces that meet the need, um, whatever happens to be at any point in time. Thank you.

[00:32:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[00:32:53] Alex Brown: Hey, what a fantastic way to kick off affordable housing month, right? Uh, this is great. Yes, what all the previous speakers said, as for this project. I wanted to keep highlight the fact that the denser you build, the more you build now, the less the marginal cost of each unit, the longer the lifetime success of the project and its ability to house people, but also the lower the carbon usage, because a lot of that, those costs are fixed at startup. So if you build dents, you're able to save yourself long term from having more spread out housing or having to redevelop to increased capacity later on. But yeah. Good job. Thanks for taking care of the people who are there now. I love seeing the city take care of all of his residents in any form that they take. Go team.

[00:33:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak. We will return to the council for questions, and then uh, deliberation, um, and uh, well, the process will be the same. I'll collect, um, any, uh, new ideas or suggested, um, deviations from the staff recommendations, and we'll take some straw votes, and if there aren't any, then we'll just vote on the staff recommendations. Vice Mayor Hicks.

[00:34:21] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Hi. So, my 1st question is for the mayor. I assume you want our questions first, and then we'll do a 2nd round of, uh, how we feel about the staff proposals and anything else we want to say? Is that, or do you want me to run them all together? Questions first.

[00:34:38] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So my question is, um, the, uh, to staff with the childcare community services, are you envisioning those to be just for the, uh, on site residents or open to, um, members of the general public as well? There's other affordable housing residents fairly nearby, and, of course, members of the general public also. But I know that can also be a problem for tax credit projects. So I'd like to know a little bit of your thinking on that. And I will turn my video off, because I have to plug in my computer. I'm out of batteries, but I am listening.

[00:35:21] Deanna Talavera: Thank you, Vice Mayor Hicks. It's really open ended at this point. We want to see what the developers can come up with. Um, and if there's any creative hunt funding sources that they might be able to use, um, you're right that most most of the time with tax credit funding, the services really need to be for the on-site residents. So my short answer is we don't know yet. Um, and we'll see if the restrictions keep it from keep those things from happening. I know that it's been hard to build childcare and things like that in affordable housing, so we're not acquiring it, but we'd like to encourage it and ask the developers to think creatively about what might be possible.

[00:35:59] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you very much.

[00:36:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member show, Walter.

[00:36:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah. I didn't get an opportunity to put it in questions this week because I was traveling back for my dad's 99th birthday, which was great fun, but whoever put in the questions did a great job, so thanks for doing that, but I do have a couple more. One is, um, The Franklin Street Apartments, that the parking ratio was mentioned on that, but you didn't mention how much of the parking was utilized. Do we know that? Have we done a count? Of what percentage of those spaces are being used?

[00:36:44] Deanna Talavera: Thank you, council number shoulder. I think I'll turn it over to Wayne Chen, who I think has a bit more information than I do on this one.

[00:36:51] Wayne Chen: Uh, good evening, counsel. Thank you, Wayne Chen, assistant community development director. There have been parking utilization counts that have been performed, um, and specifically including Franklin Street. Um, the counts and also in our conversations with past property managers at the time, have suggested that there is um, an underutilization of the existing parking. We do know that there may be situations where residents are choosing to park, um, on the street rather than in the parking, uh, so we we did want to flag that, but based on the official, um, parking counts, uh, it did appear that there were, um, parking spaces not, not utilized.

[00:37:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And then my other question is about kind of, um, sharing of resources. We, it looks like we're going to have a really a very, fairly large complex of affordable housing, but it's not larger than many of the apartment complexes in our community. There are lots of them that are 4 acres. Um, even though the affordable housing ones aren't necessarily that big. I mean, it's not an unwieldy size for an apartment complex. That's what I, that's what I'm getting at. So I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. And then the other thing I wanted to mention was that, you know, we also have an affordable housing project at the corner of Bernardo and Evelyn, which isn't very far from this site. I honestly don't know how far it is. I would think it was less than half a mile. But anyway, I wondered if, um, given that there will be, you know, these sites close by, will there be an opportunity to, um, uh, provide services that can be shared, or have, perhaps have a TDM, um, plan that is shared, or, or things like that? Have we, have we given much thought to that? And would we want to include that in an RFP, or would that be the kind of thing that would be, that kind of logistics that would have to do with the implementation plan, not the construction?

[00:39:14] Deanna Talavera: Thank you, council member, show Walter. It's the type of thing that we could include in the RFP for developers to consider if staff would like us to. Um, I mean, sorry, if the council would like us to. And, um, It is important to include all these implementation pieces in the upfront RFP because that's a big part of what we're asking the developer to do as well. So we, this would be, now would be the time to talk about it.

[00:39:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Well, then I just wanted to bring that up because I do think if somebody could check how close Evelyn Avenue, the Evelyn Avenue site, Bernardo one is to this. I mean, I really think it's quite close. And so I think that the ability to share resources is is pretty realistic, um, for things like maybe childcare and, um, certainly TDM.

[00:40:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That doesn't make sense. Great, thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[00:40:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I want to follow up on the question of the utilization of parking at Franklin, um, street apartments. Um, I'm sorry, did I miss this? Did you say what percent is utilized? I heard you say there are some empty spots, but I'm looking for a percent.

[00:40:32] Wayne Chen: We don't have the data right here at our fingertips. We can certainly follow up with that and I can try to see if I can locate that information during this item. Um, So let me, let me do that during the week.

[00:40:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. That'd be great. Thank you. Um, then a couple other questions. Um, the federal transit administration. Um, I understand that they have interest in this property, but I'm really not clear as to what they're interested is and how long does it last?

[00:41:03] Deanna Talavera: Thank you, council member Mattachek. My understanding of the interests and, um, we can ask some of my colleagues who have a bit more history on this project than I do, uh, for clarification is that they contributed some of the funding for the original VTA purchase. And so essentially, if the site would ever be, the interest is forever, unless the, uh, They are paid back, and I believe the terms of their payment meant that it involves the appreciation of the site. So it would be somewhat significant. Um, so the current plan is for us to just continue with the interest there. They have approved similar projects in the past and they've approved our plans going forward on this one. So there's not a concern about that interest, but it's just something that everyone needs to be aware of going forward. So when we say we are going to exercise the option to purchase the property, We would not own 100% of it. We would own it, but they would have this interest. So I think if we're, and I should be careful not to talk out of turn. I'm not sure if the city attorney wants to, uh, chime in at all and correct me, but my understanding is, if we wanted to do something that they didn't approve of. Uh, we would probably have to buy them out. Um,

[00:42:24] Jannie Quinn: Council member Mattachek, if I'm, if I may respond, um, uh, we talked to VTA about this at many of their sites. that have been developed with residential projects, have been bought with, um, FDA funds, and so they do have interest in, um, uh, staff actually had a conversation. I had a conversation with the FDA, uh, member of the FDA because we had some specific concerns about what this could mean. Um, and their conversation was very much along the lines of VTA, which said, um, they do have a number of sites, um, they, they do support residential development, um, on the sites, and they didn't necessarily see that, um, because we were concerned about the FDA coming in and saying, okay, now we get a, you know, build a facility or something. But both the BTA and the FTA, um, verbally, at least assured us that, um, this is common, um, on such sites and residential development has happened. Um, and there was very low risk that anything would change. Um, and so we are moving forward with the with the purchase on the ground lease. We're recommending that.

[00:43:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, I want to follow up on the question about the safe parking. So it's my understanding that the current residents are required to work with caseworkers to, um, have them on a path to more stable housing. I see a head knot. So, um, what would be different? Um, What would what would we do differently? Uh, to help them, um, as we get closer to developing this property? Thank you, council member Matachak.

[00:44:08] Deanna Talavera: The, um, When we met with the safe parking residence last week, I had a hunch, this would be the case. We sort of said, we know you've been looking for affordable housing and we'd like to hear what your obstacles have been at some point. And they already started sharing several. I had sort of said that as a thing we'd like to come back and learn, but they shared several and they are along the lines of what we've heard in other places of the city. There are not units that fit their needs. There are not, the unit, the waiting list is extremely long. So we would like to consider opportunities to try to make sure our units more, uh, appropriately fit the needs of our unhoused community members, which our current pipeline probably is going to compared to our previous pipeline. Um, so we're hoping that we can try to make sure that they are made aware of those, uh, pipeline opportunities, potentially there are some pathways that are more direct. Um, but basically trying to understand any obstacles and if there's a way for the city to proactively remove those obstacles to do so. Okay. Thanks. Um, and that's it. And if Mr. Chen, whenever he, if he is able to find the data, I'd love to hear it, but I'll, um, that's all, that's it for now for me. Thank you.

[00:45:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm a member of a Koga.

[00:45:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had some other questions, concerns, um, regarding transportation. So, um, definitely would be interested in the Franklin Street parking utilization, um, since that seems to be the closest type of, um, development that this is um, this might be, um, moving towards becoming. Um, but, and then, and follow up to Council member Shel Walter's comments about shared resources. Um, if I remember correctly, and I'm just wondering what the status is when we did the Evelyn, the other Evelyn. I can't remember the developer's name right now, but that project on Bernardo and Evelyn. We had asked, I believe we had asked for them to look at providing shuttle service to the children so that they could get to the elementary school. And I was wondering where if that's still happening, what would happen to that? And is that something that we could, um, you know, try to coordinate so that the same transportation service if it's still there. can swing by and pick up the kids at this at all. Thank you.

[00:46:46] Deanna Talavera: I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm, um, we'll also try to see if I can find it during this conversation and if not, we will certainly follow up with, um, Rome, the developer there.

[00:46:57] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. That's it, Rome.

[00:46:59] Deanna Talavera: Yes. Um, yeah, and it doesn't have to be tonight, but if we could just have that, um, in mind as we move along with this project, that would be great. And I did just get a message from Vera Gill, who, I should say, is one of the staff members who worked very diligently on this project, and she said that that shuttle service is working well, so we can definitely reach out to them.

[00:47:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, that would be great if we could coordinate and partner with them on that. Um, I, the next question has to do with, um, charities and their, um, parcel that they've acquired next door. Um, I'm very much interested in seeing how we could work with them. Um, and to, even to the extent, if my question is, like, if, do we have to, legally, do we have to go out for an RF QRFP process, or is there a way to, um, just partner with charities since they're next door? Um, Yes, that would be my 1st question.

[00:48:08] Deanna Talavera: So staff has researched this question and it's a little bit unclear. At the very least, if we were to try to bypass a competitive process, we would have to do some significant justification work. Um, and what I've been told is that typically with such a large amount of public funds involved, it's best to do a competitive process, charities housing would certainly be allowed to apply, along with all the other developers. So that's where things stand at this moment.

[00:48:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So given that, which I thought would be the answer. What is there, like, in terms of like scoring the proposals when they come in, is there, um, you know, consideration given to a project that could maximize both parcels? So like, Could that get extra points, but for instance, for doing that? Um, you know, in particular, I'm just concerned because their parcel is an odd shape and um, may be limited in building, and so if we do 2 standalone 2 separate projects, we may not be able to maximize the land, but, you know, I'm thinking in that funky triangle, maybe there's a way to utilize that for parking. So, is there a way, yes, to kind of give bonus points for something that has the entire or master plan. I don't want to do a master plan if it's going to slow down the process, but doing something that would, you know, combine the parcels and maximize the land.

[00:49:42] Deanna Talavera: Council member Abi Koga. I think we can certainly give points to a development that recognizes the fact that there is an adjacent parcel and asks them to design a project on this parcel that maximizes the opportunity to master plan. And examples of this could be circulation, open space, recreational space, you know, maximizing buffers along the freeway, um, gathering spaces. And so a creative design team can work on that. Um, and I will add that, you know, um, the council will ultimately choose the, the developer, um, and you do have the choice. But we also will have charities go through the Nova process. And so those 2 processes, even if the council doesn't ultimately choose charities, I think staff will be able to work on something. Ideally, it'd be best if we could master plan both sites and then they move forward, even if it's on the separate schedule. But I think either way, whoever the council picks, um, we're gonna definitely, um, have the RFP show the maximizing master planning opportunities. Um, and then we can certainly work, even if they're separate developers on separate timelines, um, it's, it's, um, not unusual that we've done master planning.

[00:51:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess I'm trying to understand that better because, um, Like, how do you, how does, if they, let's say we do end up with 2 developers. How does the developer for our lot plan, let's say, you know, the best use of land, utilization of land is to put the park and the parking on the charities parcel. But how do they plan for that if they don't have control of both parcels?

[00:51:37] Deanna Talavera: You're right. We won't have the ability to master plan to that extent where they have control over both sites, and the city does not control over both sides. So, I think charities can probably provide the best master planning effort in that realm. But a creative team can certainly, what we're thinking is you might have the open space in the middle. Um, you might have circulation around the open space, and they can show examples of what they would certainly do on their site, and what a master plan could loosely look at on the, like on the other side. So, while they don't have that ability, they could show how that might work. And if charities has done some preliminary planning on their own site, um, and and is willing to share, we're happy to share that information with other, um, you know, participants. So, it's possible, but a lot of it would have to assume that some of these shared spaces are on the, on the city site.

[00:52:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So it's more about uh, combining um, the parts of the sum is greater than just the sum of its parts, right? It looks, it looks better, um, that way, instead of designing it in such a way that there's no way for them to work together. Um, so, again, um, we can, we can design the RFP to show these master planning efforts, but they can't assume they own the charity site. Only charities can. Um,

[00:53:06] Deanna Talavera: so cancel will be able to see sort of the array of, of plans and be able to, Use that as a criterion.

[00:53:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So then could charities potentially master plan with their city parcel. If they're proposing a site, um, if they're proposing, um, there RFP, the fact that they own their parcel gives them more flexibility.

[00:53:32] Deanna Talavera: Definitely.

[00:53:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, got it. Thank you. Um, last question was in terms of funding, it looks like we have 9 or so projects in the works and pipeline, but it doesn't look like we're gonna have sufficient funding for all of them. Um, what is the plan? Or will that, or actually, will that be a part of the RFP actually? Um, you know, uh, them proposing a funding mechanism that will utilize other sources. Is that right?

[00:54:02] Deanna Talavera: Yes, certainly the developers will be asked to maximize leveraging other funding sources in their proposals, and we will be, you know, all else being equal, scoring that very highly. Um, and also, uh, we will be coming back to council with an affordable housing study session to talk about our expenditure plans and funding needs. Um, later this year. So that will be something else we can study as well.

[00:54:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. One concern with that is that we've had, I think, a couple of projects that had, you know, plans that looked really solid and then they came back and asked us for more money later. So, um, yeah, how do we, you know, how do we try to avoid that as much as possible would be the question. No need to answer right now, but just want to, yeah. Be mindful of that. Thank you.

[00:54:54] Deanna Talavera: Just one comment on that piece is we would, um, typically want to include in the RFQ RP information, to ask a developer to propose a funding option, and a potential alternative funding option, and then provide a description about the feasibility of their funding. Um, proposal to give a sense of how competitive that they would be for, for the funds. So that would be one way for us to be able to better evaluate their proposals.

[00:55:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, I do have a couple, and I appreciate your questions, Councilman Bobby Koga, because I had substantially similar ones, especially the relationship with the charities, properties, um, so, uh, maybe a follow on question for staff. Um, if it sounds like there might actually be a policy question here. We don't necessarily, we're not legally obligated to do an RFQ RFP if we can come up with a good justification, and maybe a good justification, quit. well Okay, the city attorney has her end up, so I'll go there and maybe you could stop me in my track.

[00:56:07] Jannie Quinn: Thank you. Sorry, I just wanted to, yes. Um, the actual ground lease does require RFPQ. So it is going to be required in this situation. Sorry, I just got an email from a member of my staff who helped me answer that question for you.

[00:56:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you for removing the ambiguity. Um, so that question is moot now. Um, I did have a separate question about the housing element process, uh, since these sites are included within the site inventory, um, are, are we able to expedite the work by initiating the, um, uh, you know, the environmental review and and maybe even the rezoning and general plan work as part of the housing element rather than waiting for, uh, charities and for the prospective developer for our property to do that work. Can we speed things up that way? Um,

[00:56:59] Deanna Talavera: You mean, um, I could find out, but I think our, our environmental review is on a track. I wouldn't be surprised if this is considered a pipeline project of sorts, but it would have to likely do its own environmental review. Um, I could certainly check. Um, you know, we've got, um, Yeah, that was our assumption, but we can certainly check and let you know.

[00:57:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. That's the only question I have then. Um, So, uh, we'll now start, uh, deliberation if, if members of the council want to speak to the staff recommendations or introduce new ideas, um, uh, feel free to put your hand up.

[00:57:45] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Tysoner hits. And so I essentially, I say yes to all of the staff proposals on, um, you know, I particularly agree that we need to do family units and serve, uh, some currently homeless people we've not been able to serve the density I agree with, and, uh, the parking ratio, I guess the, I would be open to, um, no parking minimums with the, with the chosen provider figuring that out with a robust TDM program, but, um, see whether, so that would be going a little further than the staff recommendation. Then, in terms of other comments, I'm actually open to taller buildings in this area, um, I know that one of the limits so that we can serve more people. I know that one of the limits, I mean, this seems like a particularly appropriate area for that, because there are no single family homes around, or, you know, um, less dense buildings and residents who, uh, might be particularly disturbed by that. Um, and I know that the, uh, materials are what made, uh, midsized buildings in, like, the seven to 14, maybe eight to 14 stories more, uh, prohibitive, or they wouldn't pencil out, basically, is what I've been told. But I know that it was basically going to steel frames didn't pencil out in that range. But I know that, now, given mass timber, that, and maybe other materials, that some of that may be changing. I know that, um, there are, uh, non profit housing developers that are building mid height, uh, like first community housing, I guess, has a seven and a 13 story building. So, using mass timber, which, by the way, with my sort of, if you have an architectural background, the buildings can be beautiful. So, which is important to me. So, I would be open to exploring that, and to adding a little density, and actually, this is not on our plate tonight, but that whole area, I would be, you know, interested in housing more people by looking into that realm. I just think it's an excellent location for that. And why limit ourselves? Um, I, I also, you know, the, the transit and the proximity to the downtown make it an excellent location for that as well. So, that's one comment, I'll bring it up now, and maybe in future areas that I think are appropriate for that. I think it's the time. Um, I'm also, uh, would particularly like to see an ample tree buffer, uh, by the freeway, and I think taller buildings, and also as other council members have been talking about coordinators. with charities housing would allow for that. I think we've seen over the past week, at least, that ample tree buffers near freeways are important to people, including myself. Um, and, uh, as far as fitting into the area, I, my, um, thoughts on that, I are that, um, and whether it should have, how to have a residential look. My thoughts on that are to look at equivalent, industrial areas, like the dog patch area in San Francisco, which is an industrial area that's becoming very popular, but they don't do faux historic, you know, tall buildings with craftsman details or something like that. They do handsome buildings with great architecture that give a nod to a nod to the areas, industrial routes. And so, um, that would be my recommendation to look at some of those things. And a lot, I think they have affordable houses in that area as well. I want to make sure we have a large enough sidewalk and setback to make it a pleasant place to be. Um, I'm interested in ground floor uses that other members of the community can use, if possible, so that we're integrate, so that the community isn't isolated as an, you know, a low income community. If other people would feel welcome there, whether it's for bike repair, use bookstore, child care. You know, whatever. I think I would like it to be a member, this development, to be a member of the community, that people around feel comfortable in. And I know, as we talked earlier, that can be hard in tax credit projects. Um, I'm also concerned as other people have raised about finding, making sure that the people currently living in the safe parking are housed, and I want to make sure we continue to talk about that. Um, and I guess everything else I've said, encourage maximum coordination with charities housing is the last comment I wrote down for myself. But I also assume, mayor, that you will go through what I may, of course, agree with things that other council members say, and I assume you're gonna go down the line and make sure that we all speak up for each other.

[01:03:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thank you, and yes, I'm taking notes and I'll run through the ideas after everyone has spoken. Council membership, Walter.

[01:03:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. I'm just gonna go down the list that Vice Mayor Hicks gave us. Um, I I do think that this is an excellent place to make things taller, and that's something we should leave open to the developer to consider. Um, and she's right. There are a lot of new methodologies that are being considered now, and sort of are coming out of the realm of research, too, you know, what are actually being done, um, reasonably commonly, that allow buildings to be higher, um, less expensively. Okay, um, the parking ratio. I have often thought that letting the developer decide could be reasonable, but I... Anyway, I think that this is a logical place for lower parking ratios because of the, um, the closeness to the Stevens Creek Trail, the train station downtown. I mean, it should be a really walkable, um, uh, community. And as, um, vice mayor, um, Hicks said, one of the ways that we do that is we make sure that the sidewalks are adequate, and, um, that there's good shade trees, and, you know, that, that sort of thing, so that, you know, there's a really nice pedestrian, um, connection there. I, uh, The, um, I think the idea of having ground floor uses that are available for other, for non-residents could be good and or it could be good for to have sort of shared spaces for the, um, the 3 community houses or, or maybe even for community housing. There could be, you know, maybe some, um, um, uh, classrooms there or, uh, um, offices for, uh, services that that they that would be useful to them. Um, it is really important that as we transition this site from a safe parking site to a, you know, an affordable housing site that we don't leave, um, the people who are residents there behind. And I know that that is going to be one of the most difficult parts of this. But I think it's something that, um, we, um, you know, we really just need to be aware of, right from the get go, that it's just gonna be a part of the long term job for the city. Um, and then, um, I wanted to talk a little bit about the inclusion of collaboration with the, uh, the other land owner, um, to get a site that works cohesively. I think that should be included in the RFP. And right now, charity's housing owns that site. And it'd be great if they held onto it, but we don't know that they will. Sometimes these sites change hands. So I think it might be prudent to say something along the lines of, of, you know, the other owners, or the owner of the adjacent site, but I'm sure that, um, you know, planning staff and and the legal, um, our legal team can, uh, work that out the best way. So, that's, those are my comments right now.

[01:07:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. Council member labor.

[01:07:11] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm very glad to hear my other colleagues talking about um, ensuring that the people who are on the site, uh, through virtue of safe parking. Um, have an alternate place to go, and and I know that city staff will, um, be working with them and also working with the volunteers and the service providers who have been there, um, through safe parking, the tutors and, um, the other people that are working with kids and families, they're, And, um, I very much like the idea of the wider sidewalks. I want to make sure that our safe routes to school are baked in from the very beginning, um, of this process. And um, I'm flexible on, um, the mix of the residents. Um, in terms of, is there enough of a critical mass to have service providers be interested to coming to provide the the services that are needed if there's a smaller number of people who need them on the site. So I'm, I'm kind of open on that. And there, um, there is not, uh, to my knowledge, a whole lot of street parking. Um, that's that's there. And so I want to be mindful of that in terms of, um, the, uh, the parking ratio and it would be great if everybody took the train, but, uh, right now, Caltrain is tremendously expensive. And if you take it, you notice that there are not a lot of working people who are on the train, um, just because it is uh, so expensive. And, um, then, uh, in terms of commercial spaces on the ground floor, um, It's, there's not a lot of residential that's, uh, very close to here, and so I'm okay with keeping the uses of the, the ground floor, um, for the, the families and individuals who will be living there. I think if we try to be all things to all people, and not have enough in terms of the numbers to support, um, a business being in there. I would rather, um, see it maxed out for the good of the, the people who will be, uh, living there. And, um, What else did I want to mention on that? I think that, uh, I think that that's it. I definitely agree on, um, classroom or gathering type space, and also if it's possible to have some smaller spaces for individual meetings. And people who might come from a service provider who are meeting with just a couple folks so that they have the privacy of that. Um, And that was one of the, The uses that kind of came right to the top when we were originally looking at the redo of the community center. was, um, those kind of, uh, smaller individual meeting spaces for consultation with, uh, you know, whoever needs to meet one on one or 2 on one. Um, so those are just my comments there and and really appreciate staff with a thoughtful approach. Uh, that has been brought to this. I think that this will be a really good place for people to live. In Mountain View. So thank you.

[01:11:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Medachek.

[01:11:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I have a question before I dive into this. I made the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that if you have permanent support of housing, um, you do have the space for the providers to meet with residents. Or if you have any services that that's factored in, is that not the case, do we have to specify that?

[01:11:53] Deanna Talavera: That is the best practice and we will also specify it just to make sure.

[01:11:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Just check in there. Thank you. Um, So I largely agree with staff's recommendation on density, the resident population and the affordability levels. And I definitely agree on having some larger units. Um, that is something that is in demand. Um, I would like to add a few things. Um, I would like to have a preference for Mountain View residents. I didn't hear anybody mention that before. Um, but that's important to me. Um, I agree with having this uh, walkable area, so the Good sized sidewalks with trees is important. Um, I am concerned about the fact that this is an industrial area, and um, I sent in the question about, you know, where's the nearest grocery store? It's almost a mile away. So um, I think that's kind of an issue. And this is not an area where people will be able to walk a short distance for their everyday needs. Um, which brings me to parking. And um, it'd be nice if we had a council meeting where we didn't talk about parking. Um, but, Here we go again. Um, I am concerned about, um, having a fairly low parking ratio, which is why I was asking about the Franklin Street Apartments, um, because this isn't close to a lot of, um, goods and services. It might be close to the Stevens Creek Trail and the transit center, relatively speaking, but that isn't where you get your groceries or, you know, buys things. So, um, I am concerned about parking. And, um, I'm very interested to find out what, uh, is the utilization of the Franklin Street family apartments, um, because I'm thinking that it has to be at least one parking space per unit, especially when you have these larger units with 2 or 3 bedrooms, you might have many drivers in those units. Um, So I actually think we, I guess, I would say, if someone's proposing less than one, I would want a parking study. Um, but, Without that, I think it has to be at least one per unit, and, um, in addition to the robust TDM program, because, Right now, there are a lot of cars parked on Pioneer. And there's actually quite a bit of spillover from the safe parking lot. And I know staff is looking into that. But it is having an impact on the businesses in that area. Um, I tend to drive down pioneer a lot because it's my way to get downtown or get home from downtown. Um, very easily. And, um, it's, it's surprising to me, um, no matter what time of day or night, I go down pioneer, they're, the street is filled with cars. Um, so clearly there's an issue there. And, um, if we don't have enough parking on site, it's gonna make the situation worse. Um, let's see. Um, I guess the other thing is, um, when we look at the cost, I know in the past, um, council is asked to look at the cost, based on the cost per bedroom, um, whereas a lot of people want to just look at the cost per unit. And because these are larger, uh, units potentially, uh, when this comes back to us, I would like to see the cost per bedroom. Uh, I think that's a more realistic view of uh, the cost per person or people that we're helping. Um, and, um, it can make it perhaps more palatable. Um, and let's see, I guess I'll just wait for the mayor to go through the rest. Um, because I might support some of those as well. Thanks.

[01:16:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, city manager, I see you've unmuted yourself. Did you want to respond to something?

[01:16:24] Unknown Speaker: No, apologies, mayor. It was an accident.

[01:16:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, no worries. Just checking. Council member, I'll be Kobe.

[01:16:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor, and thank you to staff. This is a very, um, well, put together presentation and and right and thoughtful, um, approach to this project. I appreciate that. Um, I do in general support, um, what's being recommended and the comments that have already made, uh, in terms of the, um, mix of residents. I've, um, I tend to and continue to, uh, want, um, larger units that can support families because I know that there is a a need for, for more family units. So, the 23 bedrooms, even if we could do 4, I would be open to that. So, um, that would be my my, my preference. Um, I'm gonna, I, I, I, I think the 80 to 110 units and acre is reasonable. Um, I can be open to more or, you know, at some said higher. Um, I'll leave that up to, I guess, the developers, um, to see what's feasible. Um, My concern, though, is that the more, the more folks we have, the more amenities, um, we will have, you know, we should be providing. And, and that's the real, um, I think the, the real issue here is council member Matachek mentioned. I do agree with her. I looked on the map and it's, um, well, I already stated in the grocery store and save more. I love save more. I go to there for my little needs, but it's not a full-fledged grocery store by any means. And, um, even Landau schools is .6 miles. So it is a ways from, you know, from amenities, from services. And so I don't think it's, um, realistic to expect folks to to walk from here, um, biking. I know we're making bike improvements, but that might be a way, a ways away. So, um, I think, you know, depending on the timing of this, that realistically, um, folks are gonna be using cars. And so we just should be, you know, upfront and realistic about that. And so that ties into the parking ratio and I agree with council member Mattachek as well. Um, Franklin Street, it seems like it would be a good, um, model to look at. Um, I just have to share this because this, you know, in general. I support lower parking ratios and when we can. Um, but, uh, at the Luna Vista opening on Friday, I got a earful from a resident who told me that there's not a parking and he needs his car to get to work and he parked his car in El Camino. He and someone else and they were vandalized. So, you know, what is the city doing to provide more parking for residents? And, you know, it's not fair to expect low income residents to not drive. So, um, you know, I, I, I know that's one, one person or 2 people or however many folks are there experiencing that, but it did give me pause to think about, you know, what, what, um, what the real on the ground situation is. And so I would hope that we could look at that a little more carefully. I mean, Luna Vista is right on El Camino. And, you know, I gave him all of the, the, you know, reasonings and encouraging alternative meds, transportation, and the bus line. of that worked in this situation. So I just think we just need to be more realistic. And if we are going to have families, they have more needs, frankly, to get to places. So I think we should be very realistic about that and create and have a parking ratio that is, um, that is conducive to the needs of the residents there. So, um, that's the parking issue. And then other considerations is my line of questioning was, I do have a real interest in trying to see if we can, um, work with our neighbor, whether it's charities or whoever else to to maximize the land and, and, um, and share resources and try to, um, build as many units as we can on that property. But I would say, um, you know, I do want to make sure that we provide, uh, sufficient amenities, and, um, I do agree. I think it should be for the residents there 1st. Um, And, um, and I think it might be tight, frankly, if we're looking at such density. So, um, I would I would say let's focus on on amenities for the residents there. Thank you.

[01:21:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Um, so I think we're getting to a 2nd round. I'm gonna, um, ask a quick question of staff. We did have a couple of suggestions for exploring ground floor uses, which I think is contemplated in the staff recommendation, but is the policy question for us, whether the city, whether the council would be willing to provide a city subsidy to help make the ground floor retail work? Is that, is that, really the question we should be asking ourselves? Uh, Council member.

[01:21:40] Unknown Speaker: I think we just wanted to focus on the question of whether or not the council was interested in seeing the ability of folks to propose something and get creative about it. I think we need to be realistic. Um, in, in, letting people know that we want them to maximize out other funding. And so they can't expect funding for that particular purpose. And they need to put the proposal together the best they can. So, no, we're not specifically asking that because we know for sure um, money is tight.

[01:22:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so it should, if the council were to affirmative, affirmatively say we want to include within, um, the RS QRSP, some provision for ground floor, um, uses that are publicly accessible, then we should come in with the understanding, right? The eyes wide open, that there will probably be an ask for a subsidy to make it work. Okay, um, that will influence how I ask the question, um, once we've concluded the, uh, deliberation. Um, just very quickly. Uh, so a lot of the ideas that have been shared. I generally support. Um, so, I'll ask the question, you know, for some of these, even though I'm not sure it's really necessary, some like wide sidewalks. I think the council has long expressed an interest in walkability and improving bicycle and pedestrian amenities. So, um, I, I'm, I might ask that just to get the show of hands to ensure it's, you know, included, you know, and uh, express to the prospective developers, but, um, you know, some of those, I think, are, are very easy to support. I'm interested in exploring, um, uh, you know, uh, or allowing for higher densities or taller buildings, and I would say we don't necessarily stipulate. We see what the, um, developers, um, uh, propose to us, and whether that influences our interest in pursuing one particular project over another. Um, you know, I think probably the biggest question will be, what do we do about parking, and personally, I, I'm comfortable with, uh, not explicitly saying we need a certain amount of parking, but letting the, the, each developer come forward with a proposal. Um, and uh, and then I agree that, you know, if there is, uh, a ratio that is, you know, maybe a little bit more challenging, that it include, uh, a requirement for a parking study to justify it. Um. So that's where I'm landing so far. And what will now go to the 2nd round and then once we've concluded, I'll go ahead and run through the list of questions.

[01:24:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye, snare things.

[01:24:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, this is on. I wanted to clarify something I'd said on ground floor uses because of, uh, things that other people had said, and I made me feel that I needed to clarify. Um, I certainly, I don't think this is an area where we're going to be promoting retail, you know, a dress shop, a shoe store. I certainly wasn't saying that. Um, I, I do think, though, that if there are, I would prefer that if there were ground floor uses, such as bike repair, or, um, or community meeting room, you know, many community meeting rooms, I see, lie empty, you know, much of the time, that there, if possible, that there'd be some way that those be shared with other members of the community, um, and then I've seen community in frankly, other states. Community meeting rooms with used bookstores in them. So it's just, and I liked the idea of childcare, which, I think, doesn't have to be on a retail corridor. It's a different kind of ground floor use. So those are the kinds of things that I would be interested in. Although, with all the talk of grocery stores, I have to say that if somebody proposed an Amazon Go, on the ground floor, maybe it would solve some of the problems that people have there, I've heard, I've never experienced one myself, but I've heard that they're, um, very small, and provide a lot of the things that, um, one would need to, you know, to walk to for your, sort of, it could operate sort of like a corner store, or a CSA drop off point, would be another thing that I think might be a resource the community. So, I'm not looking to kickstart a retail corridor, a shopping center, but I am open to and would even encourage some of those kinds of community uses.

[01:26:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. How's the member lever?

[01:26:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, uh, I wanted to ask the question of our city attorney, um, before we go into, uh, voting on specific proposals, in terms of, uh, it was mentioned, uh, a preference for people who already live in Mountain View, and previously, we've been, um, advised that, that would not, um, That that would open us up to a legal challenge and. Uh, and I think that we certainly have put a lot of work into diversity and equity within the community. And it definitely, um, those kinds of things, to my mind, amplify, um, the exclusion of, of individuals who are not already in the community, um, in terms of living here. But would we face a legal challenge around preferences, uh, for people who already live in Mountain View?

[01:27:39] Unknown Speaker: Unfortunately, that's not, um, a question I'm going to be able to answer off the top of my head, something that I can look into, but I'm assuming, um, you're talking about providing housing preferences to current residents. Um, over non-residents. Okay, that's something that I would have to look into. I don't know the answer to that question right now.

[01:28:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Lieber. Wayne Chen can respond to that.

[01:28:07] Wayne Chen: We have been dealing with some comments from HUD about our current practices. Um, and how we've been working on solutions. Thank you, RT. Um, and thanks for the question. Um, typically what we have in our affordable housing projects and whether BMR program is that we will implement the cities live work preference, um, where feasible. And we always work with our developer partners to uh, see if that's feasible. Some of the restrictions that can come up, depend on the funding sources. So the tax credit program or other state funding sources may have limitations on that. And as our team mentioned, uh, we are uh, working with with HUD regarding the federal fair housing regulations, um, as well to see what opportunities there are to meet, uh, specific preferences or needs. Um, one of the items that we are looking at is whether there is an opportunity to create that pathway approach that Michaela mentioned in terms of folks who may be living in RBs and there may be a possibility to do that, um, within the fair housing rules. Um, so, It's a somewhat complicated answer because fair housing is quite complicated and it's a little bit nuanced, but we look for opportunities where we can. We are mindful of the restrictions from funding, but there are opportunities we are looking at, particularly for safe parking residents. And I will add that we've been working with the county to make sure that, um, our residents are processed into their system, so that they have options outside of Mountain View, and the county has said that they look at, The county is a totality. So they're not, you know, if they don't have, we don't have the ability to house them in Mountain View, they have other options in nearby communities. So we're trying to figure out the best approach, um, to house, um, residents.

[01:30:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, okay. And just to be clear, I'm not definitely not requesting a live work preference, um, because I feel that it has some unintended consequences, um, particularly in terms of excluding, um, uh, communities that are not already present in mountain view. So, um, I just wanted to posit that before we get into a yes or no kind of a situation.

[01:30:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any additional comments, council member believer?

[01:30:46] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Thank you.

[01:30:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, for my benefit, staff, um, because it is a request from a council member. Um, would it be fair to say then, uh, to, uh, express a preference of, of, a live work preference to, to the extent legally feasible? Is that, is that fair direction to provide the staff, or do you have any concerns about that?

[01:31:09] Unknown Speaker: So that's okay. I think we'll say we'll take that back and we will, um, and make sure that, um, it's legally okay to include, and we'll report back.

[01:31:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. Bye, Samara.

[01:31:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I was, I was gonna ask what would be now, with that additional, um, information, what would be a way to phrase the, uh, I think it was council member Mattachek's, uh, idea. Uh, I was thinking maybe something along the lines of a pathway for, um, current RV residents and homeless people in Mountain View, if feasible, since that's something staff's working on. I don't know if that's something council a way that council member manager would word that, given the recent information, or just go with what you came up with a moment ago. But those were my thoughts. Thank you.

[01:32:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: My understanding was the staff recommendation already included exploration of ways to retain or to to help transition the folks in the safe parking lot either into the new development or into other alternatives. So, um, if, uh, the 1st question I'm going to ask is, is there support for the staff recommendations and then we'll move on to the additional direction. And if that passes, then the presumption is that we are accepting the staff recommendation to explore ways to help the safe parking clients transition to some other opportunity in that. Uh, council member Libra.

[01:32:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor, and uh, just for for clarity's sake. Um, I am, uh, of course, interested in seeing how we can serve our, um, vehicle dwelling community and people that are experiencing, uh, homelessness in mountain view. But I, I'm not comfortable with, um, uh, sort of signing off on policies that that have an unintended, um, consequence. Uh, and I think, uh, for example, we don't have a, a large Vietnamese population already living in Mountain View, um, whereas other, other cities in our county do, and if we pursue policies that perpetuate the, um, current, uh, current residents of, of Mountain View only. Then I, I think we're, we're moving in a fraught direction uh, with that. So, I hope that the, um, uh, the, straw poles can reflect that, and, and also, frankly, I'd like to see our, our live work preference, um, come back to us, uh, for discussion. Um, I know from doing constituent casework when I'm looking for housing for, um, individuals. I'm looking for housing, uh, anywhere in or out of county. And, and so I think if we try to construct a wall around mountain view, um, then they're, uh, we're in, we're in a, um, a fraud situation at best.

[01:34:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any additional comments or questions? Not. I'm going to run through the, uh, the recommendations and uh, we'll just take a straw motion by raising hands. The 1st is the baseline staff recommendation. So, um, if that's approved, then any recommendations made afterwards would modify the staff recommendation, but is there generally support for the staff recommendations. Oh, well, so question from Council member Matt Shack?

[01:35:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so the staff recommendation included, um, a recommendation on parking that I don't support, but, um, I do the others. So I'm not sure how you want me to indicate that.

[01:35:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: At some level, we'll have, so I was thinking, we're gonna go through the parking recommendations, and if there's a majority support for one, it will override the staff recommendation, but at some level, we have to provide some direction. Um, but if, if we, we could, we could even say explicitly. I just don't want to have like 5 different boats on parking, because I don't know which one's going to get majority support, but as a baseline level, the staff recommendation. Is that okay?

[01:36:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sure.

[01:36:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so staff recommendations and then we'll go, we'll take, we'll visit the other ideas. Afterwards. So, 12345. So, just, as, as a baseline, we're moving forward with the staff recommendation. Now, the following ideas will change those recommendations. And let's do the easy ones first. So, is there support for including exploration of, uh, wider sidewalks and, um, uh, tree buffers by the freeway. three, four, five. So that's unanimous in fact and decide how best to incorporate that into the RSQ RSB. Um, is there support for uh, allowing exploration of higher densities and taller buildings than what is included in the staff recommendation. So letting the developers provide different recommendations. above beyond those, one, two, three, four. So if there's majority support for that. Um. There was a, uh, recommendation to explicitly include a direction to collaborate with the adjacent property owner or charities housing, is just support for that recommendation, one too, there's unanimous support for that. Thank you. Um, there was direction to explore um, publicly available or accessible ground flooring uses. And again, you know, at the discretion of the developer, is there support for that? One, two, three, four, five. Yes, there is support for that. And then after all of this, I'll ask staff if you need clarification on any of these. Um, and then, you know, getting into the more challenging ones. Uh there was a recommendation to express a preference, a live work preference. Um, to the greatest extent legally feasible. Is there support for that? One, two, 3, 4, 5. Yes, there is support for that. And then, um, there was a recommendation to not have a minimum parking requirement, but instead to allow the developer to just, a recommended amount of parking, um, justified by a parking study and with a TDM program, is there support for that? 123. There was not support for that. Uh, there was a recommendation to, um, have a baseline requirement of one space per unit, um, if no parking study is provided to justify a lower parking ratio, is there support for that? Two, 3. Four. Oh, so keep in mind that is more parking than the staff recommendation. Um, okay.

[01:39:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I don't want more parking than this recommendation.

[01:39:19] Aarti Shrivastava: The SAP recommendation is between .5 and .75 spaces.

[01:39:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I misspoke. I take it back.

[01:39:28] Aarti Shrivastava: Okay. Just as a point of clarification. Um, the staff did study the .5 to .75 with the consultants, but um, we know in the staff report that the RFQRFP will ask applicants to propose a parking plan that balances the parking ratio. Um, and if they are proposing a lower ratio, then the typical requirements, um, that would be associated with a similar type of project to provide the rationale, propose a robust TDM plan. So it, um, the, the, the staff recommendation is to have more flexibility, though we did study a lower parking ratio as part of the feasibility scenarios.

[01:40:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you for the clarification. Um, but just to make sure we are all on the same page. Um, I'll ask the question one more time. The recommendation was to have a requirement of, uh, one space per unit, minimum, and then if the developer provided a, uh, parking study to justify a lower ratio, then that could be considered, if there's support for that. recommendation. One, two, three, there is not. Um, so that means that the parking ratio supported by a majority of the council is the staff recommendation. Um, so here's what I've got, the staff recommendations with council direction for, uh, wider sidewalks, or consideration of wider sidewalks and a, uh, tree buffer along the freeway. Um, allowing the, or exploration of higher densities and taller buildings, so, uh, you know, as, as, uh, uh, suggested by the developer, for council consideration, um, exploration of, of publicly available or, or accessible ground floor use. Um, and a preference for, uh, a live work preference to the greatest extent, um, legally feasible. Those were the modifications. Oh, and then the requirement that the uh, prospective developer collaborate with the adjacent property owner or charities, if it remains charities. Um. Did I miss anything? Staff, do you need clarification on any of those on any of the additional directions? Not, then, uh, thank you, Michaela, and Queen and our team, um, for, uh, the presentation and for doing, uh, your good work on this, very, to move forward with this, uh, affordable housing proposal. Um, thank you very much. So I'm gonna request of my colleagues, if you don't mind, I'd like to start the regular session, do the pledge of allegiance and the presentations, and then we'll take a break before the consent calendar. Is that okay? Because I think some items will be pulled. You might spend some time on that. Okay. Um, and I'm going to start the 630 regular session at 6.37 PM. Good evening everyone. Uh, welcome to the meeting, the city council of May 10th, 2022. I will now read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953 E as authorized by the resolution of the city council. Please contact heavy dot clerk at mountainv.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. 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, youtube.com slash Mountain View Gov 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 meeting to enter the Zoom webinar or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag, 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. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:44:06] City Clerk: Counselor for Abby Program?

[01:44:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[01:44:08] City Clerk: Counselor reliever?

[01:44:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[01:44:10] City Clerk: Council member, Matt.

[01:44:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[01:44:13] City Clerk: Council member Shelter,

[01:44:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: here,

[01:44:15] City Clerk: by Mayor Hicks,

[01:44:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: here,

[01:44:17] City Clerk: Mayor Amirez.

[01:44:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:44:19] City Clerk: You have a car?

[01:44:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. We'll now move to item 3 presentations, please note, these are presentations only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. First presentation is item 3.one Asian Pacific Heritage Month proclamation. And we will need to, uh, welcome our, uh, recipient. We are happy to be joined this evening by human relations commission chair and at Lim, will accept this proclamation. Thank you, Annette, for joining us. Proclamation reads, whereas in 1978, Joint Congressional Resolution established Asian Pacific American Heritage Tweet to coincide with 2 important historical milestones. The arrival of the 1st Japanese immigrants to the U.S. And the contributions of papers to the building of the Transcontinental Railroad completed May 10th, 1859, and whereas in 1990, a joint congressional resolution extended the commemorative week to a month. And whereas this year marks the 80th anniversary of Japanese internment. On February 19th, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed executive order 9066. Corsina, 110,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry into relocation relocation centers, and then into internment camps. This executive order affected 100s of families in the Mountain View area. And whereas the city of Mountain View and the entire nation are enriched by the diverse cultural contributions, made by residents from the Asian continent, and the Pacific Islands of Melanesia, New Guinea, New Caledonia, uh, Vanuatu, Fiji, and the Simone Island, Micronesia, Marianas, Guam, Wake Islands, Pau, Marshall Islands, Curribatsu, Naru, and the Federated States of Micronesia, and Polynesia, New Zealand, Hawaiian, Hawaiian Islands. Ratuma, Midway Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, and Easter Island, and where I, whereas, Asian Pacific Americans have had a profound impact on the nation, and the mountain view community, which is home to a number of Asian Pacific Americans who serve as excellent representatives of both the mountain view. Asian Pacific American community and the Mountain View community at large. including members of the city council, council advisory bodies, and the school district board of trustees. And whereas during these unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic, where xenophobia and anti-Asian sentiment have been on the rise, it is of the utmost importance that the city of Mountain View reaffirm its commitment to all Asian Pacific Islanders and people of all backgrounds to ensure a community for all. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2022 as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Matt, would you like to say a few words?

[01:47:40] Annette Lim: Yeah, um, thank you mayor. I'm honored and humbled to accept this proclamation on behalf of the Asian Pacific American community of Mountain View. Um, I feel fortunate to be a member of this diverse and integral group of people. And I think the city and the mayor for their acknowledgment of the APA community's contributions to Mountain View, the state of California and the nation. I look forward to witnessing the continued progress of the APA community alongside all communities of color into the future. Thank you again.

[01:48:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for joining us and for receiving the proclamation and also for your contributions to our community, including your service as chair of the human relations commission. But any member of the council like the speak. Council member Abi Koga.

[01:48:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank you for recognizing me as AAPI heritage month. Um, I, um, I'm a very proud member of this community and um, really appreciate um, the many contributions that um, members of our community and have um, made throughout um, the history of the United States. Um, I did want to mention it, you may have heard. Uh, we lost a giant in our community, um, a few days ago in, um, cabinet secretary and former congressman Normanetta. And when I think of API heritage month, I always think of Norm and all of his amazing contributions to the city, and he's someone that we, um, many of us, I think, I think we can call are fortunate to call mentors, role models, and we aspire to be like, but I just wanted to, um, mention him. Um, and and recognize him and all of his contributions in this um, during this month. So thank you very much.

[01:49:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other members of the council who would like to speak. If not, thank you again, Annette. We really appreciate your time. We're going to move on then to 3.2 Affordable Housing Month proclamation. And welcome the recipient. Uh, Sonia Avita, is she available? That wouldn't mind. I be at home, so I'm going to go ahead and promote you to panelists. We are happy to be joined this evening by SB At Home Director of Operations Sonia Avida. Uh, oh, I didn't realize. Okay, uh, President and CEO of Altar Housing Randy Suda, and County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing Director Consuelo Fernandez to accept this proclamation. So are Randy and Consuelo available as well? Here's Randy. Thank you both for joining us. And then, uh, I'm not seeing, oh, there she is. Thanks for joining us. The proclamation reads, whereas our communities thrive when they are inclusive, and everyone has a safe, stable, and affordable place to call home, and whereas housing is a basic human right, and yet each year, 1000s of Silicon Valley families and individuals struggle to find a home they can afford in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. And whereas, based on the 2019 point in time count numbers, on any, on any given night in Santa Clara County, more than 9706 individuals are experiencing homelessness, 606 of whom are in Mountain View, and whereas, 1000s of Mountain View residents, who are already feeling financial stress before the COVID-19 pandemic, have suffered from lost jobs, lost wages, and incurred additional debt. And there will be a prolonged period during which people will struggle to pay their rent or mortgage, and whereas the pandemic has both exacerbated housing instability and the homelessness crisis, and further increase the need for affordable housing, and whereas Mountain View is committed to putting the ongoing need for affordable housing, developments, preservation of existing affordable homes, and protection of its most vulnerable residents as top long term priorities, demonstrated in the council strategic priorities. The city, housing element, and consolidated plan, and the city's endorsement of the regional plan to end homelessness, and whereas organizations throughout Silicon Valley are dedicated to providing safe, stable, and affordable housing to all members of the community to meet a wide range of needs in a region. And whereas FB at home has partnered with local agencies and community members to organize affordable housing month and a wide range of events to listen, learn, educate, and share opportunities, challenges, best practices, and solutions to provide housing that is the right of all individuals, especially during these unprecedented times. And whereas the city of Mountain View will continue to collaborate with its partners and lead efforts in the production, protection, and preservation of affordable housing, and in the past year, among the many collaborative efforts, the city partner would partnered with altar housing to open its most recent 70 unit affordable housing development at 950 West El Camino Real. 15 units of which provide housing and services for the development of disabled, and with the county of Santa Clara opposite of housing on several measure a projects on the pipeline, including the Crestview Hotel. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the mountain, the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of May, as affordable housing month in the city of Mountain View, and to call upon all members of our community to continue to support affordable housing solutions, and inclusive, diverse communities, to recognize the successful efforts of the city of Mountain and its dedicated partners, who seek to improve access to affordable housing opportunities in Mountain View. And our neighboring communities and present those proclamations. All the housing and the. Congratulations. Sonia, would you like to say a few words?

[01:54:09] Sonia Avitia: Yes, thank you. Thank you to the entire city council, housing department, staff and city clerk's office of the city of Mountain View for the recognition of Affordable Housing Month 2022. I'm Sonia Avitia, the director of operations from Silicon Valley at home.

[01:54:24] Sonia Avitia: And I'm so excited to be joined here by Alta Housing, at Randy representing them, and the Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo. And actually, this is the 1st time I'm actually seeing them. Usually we communicate via email. Um, it is uh, SV at home is honored to have worked with the city to address the housing needs of the community over the years from planning for housing in the North Bay, in the North Bay precise plan, to the new partnership for the Bay's future grant focused on advancing equitable housing policies, to the recent opening of the Luna Vista Affordable Housing Project. We also want to thank the advocates and residents who support the policies and projects making Mountain View a leader in the region on housing. We would like to draw attention to the many events listed on our website for Affordable Housing Month 2022 to celebrate this month that you hear proclaimed. Altogether, there are over 50 events happening this month, educating about and celebrating affordable housing. Our theme this year, reimagining home, invites participants to think outside of the box, deepening their knowledge, and shifting the collective perspective on building equitable, inclusive, and restorative communities. Once again, thank you to Mayor Ramirez and city council for your leadership during this affordable housing month, May 2022. We're excited about the city's future, and look forward to our continued partnership. Thank you so much.

[01:55:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much for joining us. Randy and Consuelo, did you wanna share some quick thoughts as well? If not, that's okay, Randy.

[01:56:09] Randy Tsuda: I just, uh, just very, very quickly. Thank the Mountain View Council for your long-term support of affordable housing and of all the housing specifically. I also wanted to personally thank the council for your acknowledgment, uh, your previous acknowledgment of Asian, Pacific, American, uh, month, and, uh, specifically mayor, for your mention of the intern, internment of Japanese Americans, that event directly affected my family with their internment at Jerome Arkansas. So I did just want to make those remarks and thank the council.

[01:56:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Andy. And thank you. Thank you for your.

[01:56:48] Consuelo Hernandez: Sorry about that. Go ahead.

[01:56:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worry, sorry about that.

[01:56:53] Consuelo Hernandez: just wanted to take a minute to thank the council for your tremendous support and leadership. in the space of affordable and supportive housing. Uh, we went through a lot last year in our seek to apply for home key funds for the Crest view. It was a particularly challenging time for us as staff to hear, um, and read all the messages and just wanted to commend the council for their continued leadership and the staff for their perseverance and, um, being honest with the community and answering all the questions. So thank you so much for your partnership.

[01:57:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: There we go. And thank you very much for your partnership as well. Not only on press you, but on the uh, MO MOU for the, uh, $80000000 in measure funds to help, uh, deliver a number of affordable housing projects in the city. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? If not, thank you very much, Sonia, Randy, and Consuelo. The only other group that I would like to recognize are the city staff who do phenomenal work as we saw in the previous item and uh, reviewing uh, the projects and uh, helping make these very challenging projects uh, viable and ultimately to deliver them. So, um, this is uh, some celebration of your work as much as it is our uh, partners uh, in the community. But thank you all very much for joining us. Well, now, move on to item 3.3 national public's work week proclamation. And we are happy to be joined this evening by public works director Don Cameron, who will accept this proclamation. Don has joined us. Welcome, Don. Proclamation read. Whereas, public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities, and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life, and well-being of the people of the city of Mountain View. And whereas the infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government, and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, water treatment, solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities, essential for our citizens. And whereas it is in the public interest, for citizens, civic leaders, and children in the city of Mountain View, to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest, in understanding of the importance of public works programs in their respective communities. And whereas in the year 2022, sorry, the year 2022 marks the 62nd annual National Public Works week, sponsored by the American public, public works association. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do recognize the week of May 15th through May 21st, 2022, as National Public Works week, and urge all citizens to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association, and government agencies and activities, events, and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and employees. And to recognize the substantial contributions they make to protect our national health, safety, and quality of flight. Public works director. Cameron, would you like to say a few words?

[02:00:28] Don Cameron: Yes, thank you. Thank you, mayor and council members for this recognition of public works employees and the valuable work that they do. As shown on my Zoom background, the theme for this year's National Public Works week is ready and resilient. I think this thing truly describes our Mountain View public works team, especially over the last 2 years of the pandemic. All public works employees have consistently demonstrated their readiness and resiliency. Whether it is our utility staff working all night to repair a broken water main, fleet services keeping the public safety vehicles in prime condition, landfill staff being out there every day during the pandemic, keeping the closed landfills safe. Streets cruise repairing potholes and sidewalks, or facilities helping to prepare the community center to be a vaccination site. At the same time, public works is in the forefront of meeting the councils and community goals for sustainability and resiliency. With water resources promoting water conservation, solid waste helping our community move towards 0 waste, transportation and traffic, working toward more and safer bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and engineering, designing, and constructing recycled water and sea level rice projects, new all electric buildings such as the Rings Storef Aquatic Center. New parks and major transportation improvements. I feel fortunate to have an exceptional team of public works employees who help keep the city running. And they do it well with a commitment to service, professionalism and hard work. They amaze me every day with their readiness and resiliency and taking on new challenges. At the same time, they couldn't do what they do without the strong support they receive from the city council, all of you, and the city manager. One thing that makes working for the city of Mountain Vee so special, is that we have a council that truly appreciates us, and the value of public works. Thank you.

[02:02:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Don. By Snare Hicks. Oh, yes. Very grateful for your work and the work that your team does for our city every day. Uh, would any member of the council like to say a few words, vice nerd hit?

[02:02:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So for my few words, I'm gonna, uh, I'm gonna steal a comment from my sister, who, a comment she made when she was, um, she became a doctor when she got her degree. Um, you know, people congratulated her, and told her they were so proud, because think of how life expectancy in America has increased over the past century, you know, because of doctors like her, and she said, Actually, when we studied public health in school, we were told that it wasn't doctor. primarily. It was planners. That's for myself, and people working for the public work in public works. So my thank you is, thank you for increased life expectancy and public health and keep up the good work.

[02:03:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Shelter.

[02:03:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I just like to, um, also offer my thanks to the public works staff. I think that, um, public works is just really foundational to, uh, a civil society, and, um, uh, you... they hear from us. when things don't work. We just sort of take many of the things that are part of public works for granted, but, um, they're actually quite complex. Uh, like, like our water systems, and our wastewater systems, and our solid waste systems, and, um, our roads, and, um, they make our lives much better. So, um, thank you for all that work and and keep up the good work. We really appreciate it.

[02:04:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other members of the council wishing to speak? If not, I'll go ahead and move on to 3.4. Thank you again, Don. Uh hopefully I can get through this without losing my voice. Um, we are happy to be joined this evening by bicycle pedestrian advisory committee chair Valerie Fenwick, who will accept this proclamation. Proclamation reads. Whereas, for more than a century, the bicycle has been, of the lives of, whereas today, 1000000s, Asian bicycling has an environmentally sound form of transportation, an excellent form of fitness, and a healthy recreational activity. And whereas the educational cyclists and motorists, as to the proper and safe operation of bicycles, is important to ensure the safety and comfort of all users. And whereas the league of American bicyclists and independent cyclists throughout our state are promoting greater public awareness of bicycle operation and safety education in an effort to reduce collisions, injuries, and fatalities. And whereas Mountain View has been named a silver level bicycle friendly community by the League of American bicyclists. Now, therefore, I, Mr. Mares, mayor of the city, Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of May as bike month in the city of Mountain View, California. Yay, Valerie, would you like to say a few words?

[02:06:06] Valerie Fenwick: Yes, thank you so much, Mayor Ramirez. I really appreciate this recognition and all of the recent and ongoing work by the staff and city council, as well as the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee to make our streets and trails safer for bicyclists of all levels and abilities. I really am excited about all the events planned, particularly with bike to anywhere. month happening and I just would say, council members and staff and anyone else from the member of the public. Come join us. We'd love to see you out on the trails this month. Thank you very much.

[02:06:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your service to our community. Would any member of the council like to speak? Say a few words. If not, thank you again for joining our salary. Uh, and congratulations for uh, receiving this proclamation. We will now take the uh public comment on the presentation items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. We have one member of we got a couple of members. So this is for the presentations only. Uh, not for any other item on the agenda. So if you would like to speak regarding the presentations you've just heard. Please raise your hand. I'm no longer seeing members of the public wishing to speak on the presentation. So we will conclude the presentations, and um, take a break. How about 715? Does that work for everybody? All right, so we'll take a break uh until 715? See you then. We will resume the meeting and proceed with item 4 consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Would any member of the council like to pull an item by Snare Hicks?

[02:06:49] (archive recording) Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I actually, I don't know if I want to pull one or not. I'm going to ask the city manager for, um, some advice on 4.2, which I would like to comment on, but my, um, my, uh, take on this is that we're just receiving an update, and the PRC will discuss and get community input on this later this week. Um, and if that's so, and that we'll have the ability to adapt, uh, the process, give an input from PRC members, canopy, residence, et cetera. So if that's the case, I won't be, I'll just comment on it, and let other members of the public and council members comment on it. Um, is that the case that if you could digest everything I just said? Is that the case that I can just comment on it? Other people can comment on it, and then, because it's just an update, and, uh, then we have the ability to adapt the process, as, um, as it goes to the PRC and so forth.

[02:21:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Council member Hicks, or Vice Mayor Hicks. Yes, that is correct. You're talking about the Parks and Rec strategic plan and the biodiversity strategy, correct?

[02:22:06] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. So I would like to comment on it. Uh, let other council people and members of the public comment on it, but not pull it, although, frankly, it doesn't pull it and then pass it wouldn't make much difference. Um, uh, and for members of the public, they could comment on it when the mayor takes comments on all of the uh, consent items, I assume, just to be clear, so that people aren't left out.

[02:22:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, um, are, are you, are you requesting to pull 4.2 or did you want to make comments, uh, uh, motion to approve the balance of the consent founder?

[02:22:52] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I assumed that I could comment on it, Dan, and that members of the public, I want to make them aware that if they want to comment on it, they would do it when you take general comment on all the consent items. That's what I'm trying to do in order to make the meeting work efficiently. And I'm also trying to be clear on it.

[02:23:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. So, yes, you are correct unless another member of the council chooses to pull 4.2. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[02:23:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I also have comments on 4.2 that I would like to make. Um, but I also have a question on 4.5. Um, and if it's, Um, I might not have to pull that for being uh, looked at separately. Um, I sent in the question about the TOT, and whether or not we could have the consultant, uh, take a look at that and give us their perspective on timing and increase. And it came back saying, um, yes, we could expand the scope, but I wasn't sure, did that mean? Yes, we could, if the council votes on it and approves it, or we could just automatically do that. I, well, is, is staff able to answer that question? right now?

[02:24:10] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, Mayor Ramirez and council member Matachek. So this is something that staff can incorporate as part of the economic vitality strategy in looking at our overall, uh, what's happening with TOT, what's happening in the region and what they may recommend. So I believe this is something that we can incorporate as part of the scope.

[02:24:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we don't have to vote on it. Great, thank you.

[02:24:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any other member of the council like to pull an item? If not, I'm going to pull 4.4 plant-based eating resolution program. And I'm just taking some notes so I can remember that.

[02:24:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, seeing no other members of the council wishing to speak, um, as Vice Mayor Hicks mentioned, We will 1st take public comment for every item on the consent calendar except 4.4 plant-based eating resolution and program. We'll take public comment on that separately after we've uh dispensed with the balance of the consent calendar. Uh, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar except for 4.4? If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Let's go ahead and allocate, um, 2 minutes. 1st speaker is Rashi Sharma. Uh, and I do not have the ability to mute or unmute for some reason, so I might, I will need a staff system.

[02:25:58] Rashi Sharma: Good evening there, Ramirez and council members. My name is Rashi Sharma, and I'm a local high school student and volunteer with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. I would like to speak on consent item 4.2 Parks and Open Space Update. Audubon appreciates the intent to start a parks and recreation strategic plan, biodiversity strategy, and a community tree master plan update. The biodiversity strategy is broad in scope and expected to influence the heritage tree ordinance, landscaping ordinance, community tree master plan, parks and recreation, strategic plan, the active transportation plan, and shoreline managed wildlife management plan. We commend staff for taking this approach, but we are very concerned about the timelines, especially for the strategy for biodiversity, which will only come back to council in mid 2024. While development, loss of trees and canopy, and increased pressure on parks and ecological resources continues. We are facing a global biodiversity crisis with the Bay Area, one of the most at risk locations for losing biodiversity in North America. Mountain View has been able to keep some endangered species from becoming extirpated. The borrowing owls, for example, but they too are in the brink of disappearance from our area. We must expedite the work on biodiversity strategies so implementation can start sooner rather than later. There is an urgency to protect and expand parks, biodiversity, lighting, and the community forest. Thank you for your consider. you for your consideration.

[02:27:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Bruce England.

[02:27:36] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. Do you hear me okay?

[02:27:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:27:41] Bruce England: Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, I want to speak on 42 also, and um, now that I've heard from council member Hicks that it's going to be uh, handled by PRC coming up, I don't necessarily want to say too much on this, but uh, the comment that was already made about the timeline, this for Green Space's Mountain View, this is a big concern too. There is too much going on around biodiversity and canopy and climate protection and all of that, um, to have things way too long. We're somewhat concerned with a community tree master plan staggered schedule, where they do, uh, tweaking for the 1st 5 years and then major changes in the last part, and I can bring this up with PRC. And also putting the Community Tree Master plan in with biodiversity in general might not be broad enough because there are other considerations to take into account. I'll leave off the rest and save that for a PRC. And on 4.6. Can I just go into that? I assume that's okay. Yes. Okay. That's about Moffat Wisman repaving projects, and I was a little puzzled what that meant because that's not a location. It's an area. And I wanted to point out that, um, I personally hope that that will include the bike lane on North Wisman, between Wisman Station Drive in Dana Street, the bike waves there are in very poor condition, and they're not adequately inviting to anyone, particularly those who might be hesitant about biking in our city, given that we are increasing our attention on active transportation in Mountain View. Such obviously needed improvements must be prioritized.

[02:29:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. The next speaker is Robin Lynn.

[02:29:28] Robin Lynn: Hey there, I wanted to talk about 4.2 as well. Thanks so much for taking the time to listen to the comments. Um, yeah, I mean, I think one thing where there is kind of intersection of all these plans is that if you don't have park space, it makes having a really good biodiversity plan and canopy plan. Um, it just makes it that much harder to implement. And I think, That's, to me, one of the heart of the problems is just that the city has does not have very much city, part of city park space that it owns itself. Um, I think the reliance, there's a huge reliance on, um, school owned property. Um, there seems to be going forward going to be a very big reliance on, um, privately owned, um, park space that may or may not be accessible at, you know, all the times that say, uh, Questa Park would be. And I think this is something that I hope that you all, the 7 of you as well as city staff, really think deeply about. Um, this is not something that is going to be solved overnight. It's not something that, um, without a lot of deep thought and a lot of kind of discussions will be solvable. I don't think this is an easy problem to solve. We not growing more land, and, um, as far as I can tell. We haven't figured out how to, um, build over over water yet. So, you know, I think this is something that if we don't start thinking about it now, the problem is only going to get worse. And I really try want, I hope that we are trying to leave this city in better shape for future generations, um, like past generations have for us. So thank you very much for your time.

[02:31:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Celia Paymer.

[02:31:33] Celia Paymer: Hi. Can you hear me?

[02:31:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, okay.

[02:31:38] Celia Paymer: Um, so, um, I also wanted to speak on 4.2. Um, one thing, kind of in line with what everyone else has said. Um, that we would like to see, like, a faster timeline and more of a focus on, like, really, um, achievable goals, like quantifiable and achievable goals. One thing I would love to see on there would be, um, something about, um, evaluating and assessing the ratios for park space, um, related to new developments. Um, so either the, um, in Loop fees or the space provided currently, the ratios are at one. 5 per 1000 residents on average. Um, and since Quimby is 3, that means we're actually being taken away from going towards Quimby Act of 3 acres per 1000 residents, um, because all of the, like SB 9s, they're not going to be required to contribute to that. So we're actually going to get worse park ratios over time with the ones we have currently. So I would like to see an evaluation of that. And maybe some sort of timeline on recommending that that get reassessed and possibly changed. I don't know that PRC is able to change it themselves, but at least a recommendation of what that should be so that we can actually meet Air Quimbiak goals. Um, I think that's where the 5 acres per 1000 residents in our neighboring cities is coming from because they're actually trying to catch up, whereas we're falling further behind. So, I would like to see something in there along those lines.

[02:33:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. The next speaker is Hala.

[02:33:17] Hala Alshawani: Yes, thank you, Mayor. Good evening. City council and city staff. My name is Hala Alshawani. a longtime resident in Mountain View. Um, on 4.2, yes, I would like to see the council, uh, move the timeline, so there are decisions to protect and save our heritage trees and cooperate them into the design of new developments would come much sooner, uh, than later in 2024. Losing these great assets are gonna negatively impact our quality of life, the quality of the air, the biodiversity of our city. The last list of developments that the city listed, there were a total of 1760 heritage mature trees. are either being removed or will be removed in the process of getting these developments built. So I urge you to really put an urgent timeline to come up with a plan that can save these trees and incorporate them into a sustainable design that can serve the community in growing, but also keeping our lives and our community sustainable. Thank you.

[02:34:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I will now bring the item back for counsel action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar, uh, should also include reading the title of the ordinance attached item 4.3 and the resolutions attached to items 4.one and 4.6 uh, since 4.4 has been pulled. We will uh take a motion on that separately. Council member, council member, Mattachek.

[02:35:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I do want to make a couple of comments on 4.2. Um, I, uh, am concerned about the timing, as has been mentioned by, uh, quite a few folks here, um, of both of the plans. Let's put it that way. Um, and I am wondering if there is a way to uh, do phases where we can get some phase one um, actions done sooner rather than later. Um, I, I do feel a sense of urgency around these, uh, because we are, um, a critical point. And I don't want to lose any of our, um, wildlife birds, um, other things because of a changing environment. And so I do feel a great sense of urgency. I feel the sense of urgency around parks too, because, um, as it been pointed out, um, land is a finite resource. So, um, I would like to see, um, some way to phase these where we can have actionable steps sooner rather than later. And, um, then specifically on the Parks and Rec plan. Um, I was wondering if, um, When the PRC looks at this, um, they could take a look at the planning area boundaries. I looked at those and thought, I don't feel like these are natural boundaries that people think about, um, when they think about areas of the city. And when it comes to parks, some of these areas are pretty large. And perhaps it would be better to look at this in more deep in smaller areas so that we're focusing on getting parks distributed throughout the city, within walking distance of residents. Um, so, for example, like the Miramonte area and the Ringstarf area, I don't think someone is going to walk from one part of that area to the other to a park. And so I think, if possible, I don't know how we came about with these. But I think maybe we need to revisit them, and focus on smaller areas, if possible. Um, and then for the, um, biodiversity strategy, which, um, as the staff report, um, proposes is to include the community tree master plan. I am concerned about the community tree master plan kind of getting lost in that. And so I'm glad that the PRC is going to discuss this, and I hope they can come up with a good solution. Um, I was very intrigued by the letter from canopy, and I thought perhaps that's a good idea. But I guess I'll leave it up to the PRC to come up with the proposal. Um, I'll just express my concern about um, the potential loss of the focus on trees. Um, and I don't want to do that. Thanks.

[02:38:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Bye, Smur Hicks.

[02:38:24] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I originally spoke up on uh, 4.2, the Parks and Open Space update because it was on, uh, it was on the consent calendar, and I think it's a really important topic for, uh, our city and and many residents of the city have said that they think it's important as well. And so I didn't want it to get lost in the, uh, in all our numerous sort of, before summer break, uh, consent calendar items. I want to say this is highlight that it's really important, and that it's become, as several people have said, urgent, in part, because I guess this has been happening gradually over time, as our population has been growing, particularly over the past decade. And also, as, I think, our access to the schoolyards as parks has been gradually eroding with summer school and after school programs, sort of that more intensive use by the schools of those yards. And then the sudden, I think the fencing was kind of the straw that we needed to draw to our attention. What's been happening over time, that those are no longer really places that we can rely on as neighborhood parks. So, I think that just makes this whole realm of things, very important and urgent. I agree with what is named in the update, combining multiple plans. I think combining them under the biodiversity plan. Um, I don't think we should silo them and look at themselves. separately. At the same time, I do, um, it resonated with me when canopy and advocates for perks also said that there's the danger, when you combine them, of not making each one of those components, not doing as thorough a job, as you might, otherwise. So, I am. So I'm aware of that, and I, you know, I wanted to speak out about that. I am hoping that the next PRC meeting will be a good place to hash that out in great detail. And I'm encouraging, interested members of the public to go there. Um, I don't think right now we can make a pronouncement on, um, on what that will be. But I'm gonna bring up two other things that I hope come up, uh, during that discussion, um, there was a talk. I agreed mostly with what, probably completely, with what council member Mattachek said, about phasing. I also want to look at, um, equity, you know, clearly, there areas of the city that are much better served with parks than other areas. So of course, that's something we have to look at. And I also think we have to do a deep dive on the changing needs for parks over time. Like my neighbor, who was a child here 100 years ago, said he could go out on a walk and see green space any time he wanted. They needed, um, they needed baseball fields because you couldn't play baseball in an orchard, but you could walk past one. We're in a different place now. You know, we need different things, probably, than we needed when our, um... We need, as we densify, and we no longer have orches around, we need a whole different set of things, and I want to make sure we do a deep dive on that as well. So those are my comments. Thank you.

[02:42:07] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, you're muted.

[02:42:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry. Thank you, Council member, I'll think I'll be here next.

[02:42:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you mayor. I agree with council number Medachek. The idea of facing is sounds like a good idea, option given the rather lengthy timeline to complete the entire project. In particular, um, someone, and remember the public had mentioned, um, designing, um, with trees and mind, and, um, in, and I'm thinking, frankly, the project we're going to see next, um, is an example of something where, um, you know, we trees are being posted. More trees are being supposed to be saved after the fact, but, um, you know, um, it's been a topic of conversation. I know my former colleague, council member, Bryant used to bring it up, but, you know, how do we encourage or even requ- start to require, um, you know, certain more trees to be heritage trees, to be saved, to design around the trees, where possible. Should we even start to put in, um, you know, guidelines or, or numeric, um, you know, actual numbers or goals on goals, numerical goals on, you know, how many trees should be saved, um, so that we don't do it after the fact, but actually do it up front. So I hope that that's something that can be included. And if there are ways to speed up certain parts of this, um, planning process, um, we do that and include, include the issue of design. um, with trees in mind as one of the items to look at immediately just because within 2 years, you know, I imagine we're going to see quite a few housing projects um, or just development projects in the next 2 years. Thank you.

[02:44:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show Walter.

[02:44:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted on top of what everyone else has said. I just wanted to thank the, um, uh, PRC in advance for all the work they're gonna do for the community. This is a very important topic. And, um, I, uh, having worked in the environmental field for many years, I know that biodiversity is really not something you can separate out, um, at any time, you're looking at, um, uh, wildlife and and tree and flora issues. I mean, it's just inextricably combined. So, um, you know, it is possible to develop a separate biodiversity plan, if you want to do that. Of course, you could do it that way, but you can't really completely separate them. It just doesn't work that way. Um, and, uh, I'm sure... so, but I'm sure that they'll, they'll figure out a good balance. Um, but we really, in particular, in an urban setting like this, want to promote pollinators, um, and, uh, interconnection between pollinators and reoking. And, um, so those are just two things, I want to say. I, um, thank you for the work you're gonna do, and, and don't forget about reoking and pollinators. Thank you.

[02:45:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and let's not forget that, uh, motion is in order to approve the balance of the consent calendar. That's the member show, Walter.

[02:45:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well, I'll move the balance of the consent calendar. I think I can just read it here from the um, The agenda flow, right? Um, I move the balance of the consent calendar. Uh, Number one, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View authorizing and continuing virtual meetings of city council, committees, boards, and commissions pursuant to AB 361, and making required findings to be read in title only, further reading waived. 4.3, adopt a ordinance of the city of Mountain View, adding section 2.69.3, entitled Military Equipment Policy to the Mountain View City Code, in compliance with Assembly Bill 481. And to be read and further title, further, and to be read and title only for the reading wave. 4.4 adopt a resolution of the city council, supporting a plant based. Oh, oh, sorry, I'm sorry, you pulled that? Sorry, 4.6. adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, adopting a list of projects for funding to be allocated during fiscal year, 2022, 23 from Senate Bill one, the road repair and accountability act of 2017, to be read entitled only, further reading wait. Thank you very much.

[02:47:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye, Mayor Hicks.

[02:47:02] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, second that.

[02:47:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, I will ask the city clerks to begin the goal call.

[02:47:12] Unknown Speaker: Comes member shall alter?

[02:47:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:47:18] Unknown Speaker: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[02:47:19] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:47:20] Unknown Speaker: Council member Abby Hooker?

[02:47:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I...

[02:47:22] Unknown Speaker: Counts from reliever?

[02:47:24] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[02:47:25] Unknown Speaker: Council member Mattachek?

[02:47:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:47:28] Unknown Speaker: Aaron Ramirez?

[02:47:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:47:30] Unknown Speaker: Losing Carry 6 0? You very much.

[02:47:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, and I will now invite Audrey to the panel because that's what the agenda flow says. Um, I wanted to ask a couple of questions and depending on staff's response, suggest some additional direction after the questions, I'll go to public comment. Uh, so, uh, members of the public. Feel free to raise your hand if you'd like to speak on this item and I'll call you momentarily. Um, so 1st I support the motion or I support the, the resolution I support the program. Um, I think it's a great start. I do feel pretty strongly though about, um, in whatever way is palatable to staff to our city employees, um, prohibiting the use of public, uh, funding or, or public money on, um, animal based, uh, products. Uh, and I wanted to get a sense from staff of, for the municipal operations component of the program, to what extent are you already contemplating that, and if not, what type of direction would be appropriate, so we can make sure we can, you know, work with city employees, conduct surveys and get a sense of what options might be most palatable.

[02:48:46] Audrey Randberg: Thank you, Mayor, for that question, Audrey Randberg, assistant city manager, chief operating officer. Um, but to this point, we are not, at this point, we are not recommending uh, a prohibition of city funding, um, being used for, uh, the purchase of non-plant-based, um, diets and eating. Um, we have had only preliminary meetings with staff in a variety of the relevant areas. Um, you know, everything from our recreation and community services programs that serve food, um, to program participants or event attendees, to our human resources department that, um, put on a number of employee recognition and appreciation events at which food is served, and to, um, our purchasing department that, um, uh, implements whatever our guidelines and procedures are in our purchasing processes. And, um, the, the interest that we've heard so far from those, um, team meetings has been, um, that, uh, a really great start would be to raise awareness for employees around the health and environmental benefits of plant-based eating, um, and the options and making it easier and supporting employees in their choices, um, to increasingly choose plant-based, um, options rather than, um, than animal based options. Um, in terms of setting a target for reduction or elimination. We have not yet considered that and aren't proposing that, feeling that it is necessary to really understand what employees, interests and concerns might be, with that, and really having employees feel supported and empowered to make those choices, so that we don't have any unintended consequences around employees. Um, but, you know, attending appreciation events, maybe not feeling so appreciated or, um, feeling like their choices were being curtailed in ways that they hadn't yet come to understand or, um, buy into. So, um, we see it as a as a, um, a process. And, um, definitely having, um, a survey of our employees around what their current understanding is, what their interests and openness and potentially, um, concerns might be, um, so that we can set, um, targets that employees feel like they can work with us to achieve. Thank you.

[02:51:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. Any other questions from the council before I go to public comment? Council member Leaper.

[02:51:35] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I'm wondering, is it's currently constructed, would that, um, impact on the, uh, the senior lunches and, um, the, the meals on wheels or, I know a number of the neighborhood associations have, um, their, their ice cream socials that they get, um, grant money from the city. So would it, um, impact on all those uses and then, With those questions about, why is there suddenly a change?

[02:52:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'll come back to staff.

[02:52:17] Audrey Randberg: Um, thank you for that question, Council member Liever. That's really an assessment that we would need to do, and I would kind of say we'd have to follow the money. Where is it that city funds are being used to purchase, um, uh, food and beverages for whether it's employee events or community events or city programs and to really um, understand what the implications would be for the different stakeholders? Um, because that's also serving, we have not done. We did some surveying of the community at large and definitely know that there is a strong and, and, you know, very committed group of folks in the community as well as in community-based organizations who really believe in plant-based eating and are willing to work with us and help us towards that. But we haven't really done a more focused outreach to the kinds of stakeholders for whom this would be perhaps a change that they weren't really already thinking about and may not feel very welcome to them. And that would include things that we'd really have to assess of what would it mean for senior nutrition programs and for our, um, school, um, at, uh, early childhood and school age programs, our teen programs, um, our break rooms, our our funding for neighborhood, um, grants, as you mentioned, um, any kinds of meals that we might be funding for employees. Um, and, uh, we just haven't done that, that outreach yet. And I, and so I do expect that there would be um, reaction. I mean, uh, I've been in in local government long enough and know that these are the kinds of things that people tend to have really strong feelings about, um, on both sides, if you will. I'm not trying to say that these are sides. Um, and, um, and I do think it would come back to, to staff, to try to, to help walk people through that, and, you know, might come back to council also, if that were, I know, a policy direction, uh, that the council wishes to pursue.

[02:54:17] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And have we had conversations with the chamber yet about this because I noticed in the staff report, there was discussion of, um, let's have staff, um, assigned ratings to the restaurants in Mountain View of, you know, gold, silver, bronze, on, on how, um, how creative they are with plant-based, um, materials. And, and so would we, would we be having staff, um, go out and do that, or have we had conversations with the chamber about, would they help us to promote? Um, making these options available?

[02:55:03] Audrey Randberg: Yes, um, the chamber and the economic vitality staff as well as our sustainability staff have talked in a pretty preliminary way with the chamber of commerce and and they are eager to work with us. They see this, um, as a as a potential way to support restaurants, which is the way that we're seeing it and proposing it as well, that that it's supporting, um, people who already want to eat. Um, in a plant-based diet, find those options more easily, and making it easier for restaurants who want to do more than they're already doing to to, um, to do that. And, um, so we would absolutely work with the chamber more, um, you know, beyond what we've done in terms of our very preliminary conversation with them. And we also know, as I mentioned, that there are community-based organizations and residents of Mountain View who want to volunteer and help with that kind of outreach. And so we would expect to be able to partner and mobilize with those folks.

[02:56:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And I see that in when the, um, comments and questions come up that Mr. Peter Katz is here. And I'll be looking to see, um, how much of the load is the chamber itself willing to take on, how much of the staffing towards it, would the chamber be willing to take on? Um, and, uh, I think we all know that our funding is is limited in nature, um, this year, and we've made a big commitment to, um, other kinds of things, and I definitely support increasing our commitment to, um, the most needy. And so I'll be looking for, um, who's who exactly is going to carry the, the load. Um, so thank you.

[02:56:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Bye, Samara.

[02:57:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So my question is, um, is, I know that, I know that council allocated $30,000 for, uh, city, um, efforts towards plant-based eating, which, frankly, it seems like what we're getting, what I read in the staff report. seems like we're getting a pretty big bang for a buck. Um, but I'm wondering how you're thinking about this in terms of a multi-year effort, I, uh, I suppose that may be up to counsel, but I thought that, um, staff might have talked about that as well. Because it seems like this is something that could be phased in over, that might, that my, um, work out better, and, uh, if it, if it were rolled. I mean, the current, the currently recommended things in the staff report, but, uh, taking it further each year as people, I mean, frankly, the first thing I wanted to have more options available to people when they go at restaurants, and also to provide some leadership, um, I don't just want to say, well, people who are already vegan can continue being vegan. So to push it forward without, without turning people off, without making people angry, I guess, is the line I'm trying to walk. So I'm wondering, so my question is, do you envision this as a multi year effort if we give you $30,000 next year as well?

[02:58:35] Audrey Randberg: Um, I'm not sure I'm, uh, I'm ready to say that. I don't think we're far enough along in the program design to, um, uh, understand, uh, how it's going and what might be the the logical next steps and also how it fits in with our larging larger planning efforts around carbon neutrality and the target dates that we're setting for that. I think we're gonna have a, um, a lot of priorities just within sustainability and just within achieving our, um, our own, um, emissions, reduction targets for our community greenhouse gas inventory. Um, and so there's going to be some trade-offs there that I'm, I'm not sure that I could talk about the long term next steps of how to take plant-based eating further, but I think that's a very logical thing for us to look at and bring back to council, um, as a, as a part of the assessment of the, the program that we are proposing.

[02:59:38] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So I'm hearing that it's not a definite next step you've been thinking about, but that council could opt to do that depending on what comes out of this year. Okay, thank you.

[02:59:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other questions before I go to public comment? If not, uh, I will, uh, ask, uh, if any member of the public on the line would like to provide comment on this item, 4.4 plant-based eating resolution and program. If so, please click the race hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Um, let's go ahead and allocate, um, just because we're getting late one minute and 30 seconds. Uh the 1st speaker is Lisa Wade. Lisa, are you able to unmute yourself? We're not able to hear you. Sorry about that, now.

[03:00:41] Lisa Wade: Thank you so much for all you do for sustainability in Mountain View. I'm grateful for your efforts to promote plant-based eating as a powerful way to address climate change and other environmental issues. I'm with plant-based advocates and nonprofit group working to educate the public about the many benefits of plant-based eating, and we would also be willing to help the council in any way that we can. I really appreciate Vice Mayor Hicks's comments for a multi year project with more funding. As she said, that is would be a big bang for the bucks, and would be a very smart thing to do. New York City has a default vegan day in their schools once a week, where they provide vegan meals for all students, and if students want animal products, and they have to specifically request that. So that's one thing that you could consider doing. Since a plant based diet helps with so many things, not just greenhouse, gas emissions, but biodiversity, and reducing pollution, and the ability to use less land that you can then reforest, which can take carbon out of the air, and also provide more advantages for biodiversity, as was mentioned, treason, biodiversity, kind of go together. So if we can eat more plants, we can have more land to reforest and help our environment. So, I'd like to see Mountain View do more to promote plant based eating, and I really appreciate the efforts that you've already done so far. Thank you for listening.

[03:02:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mohan. Mohan, uh, Jonathan?

[03:02:25] Public Speaker: Yes, good evening, Mayor. Can you hear me?

[03:02:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[03:02:30] Mohan: Okay, great.

[03:02:31] Public Speaker: Nice to see you all. Good evening, city council, Mayor Ramirez. Thanks for taking my comments. Recent studies have found that rich countries need to reduce meat and dairy consumption by at least 75% to avoid a global ecological and food system collapse. 75%. It's an immense, almost unbelievable statistic, but it is true. Um, the fact is our food system is completely out of control. We now feed the majority of our crops to livestock rather than humans and livestock outnumber wild animals by at least 15 to one. In the US, farm animal waste outweighs human waste by at least a factor of 100. Um, so our, our food system drives not only climate change, but destroys rainforests, causes mass extinction, guzzles, most of our fresh water, glutes our rivers, empties the oceans, and is responsible for 1000000s of preventable human deaths each year. And the primary cause all goes back to animal-based foods, meat and dairy products. Now is the time to think big and act bigger. I know that changing people's diets and habits is not an easy task, but I believe for our children's sake, we have to try. Um, I do agree with Ms. Ramberg, we cannot force change upon people, but I think a lot can be accomplished through education and, um, offering the proper incentives. I do believe this is a gradual process that we need to commit to patient.

[03:03:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, Mohani, we're out of time. The next speaker is Karen Rubio.

[03:04:07] Karen Rubio: Hi, can you hear me?

[03:04:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[03:04:10] Karen Rubio: Great. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Karen Rubio. I'm an environmentalist, journalist, and co-founder of nonprofit plant-based advocates in Los Gatos, and I'm asking the council to take action to ensure a habitual planet for our children. By including education about plant-based diets into your programs. On March 31st, the Mercury News published my opinion piece entitled It's Time for California's to Talk About the Cow in the Room. In this article, I explain how 47% of California's water goes to meet and dairy production, and how the livestock industry plays a key role in climate change, as well as biodiversity loss pollution, and so many other problems we face today. Shifting to a plant based diet, reduces foods associated greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 73%, and cuts in half the water needed to produce our food. Therefore, any plan to achieve a sustainable environment must include education about plant-based diets. The IPCC report has outlined the dire consequences if we fail to address runaway global warming. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez, said of a recent IPCC report. It's code read for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening and the evidence is irrefutable.

[03:05:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Karen. I'm sorry, um, I know one minute, 30 seconds goes by pretty quickly, uh, but I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is Peter Cat.

[03:05:53] Peter Cat: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. This is Peter Cat, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce. First, I wanted to echo what assistant manager Ramberg said that the chamber is indeed engaged in these conversations, conversations, and committed to help our businesses move towards the goal of plant-based eating. Council member, Lieber, asked how much are we willing to do? Um, that's really kind of a hard question to answer as we're still in early conversation stages. But at the least, we will leverage our substantial communication vehicles with our restaurants, which include forums, include letters, block walks, the downtown business association has block captains, and so on. So we have a number of ways to really have meaningful conversations and work towards those goals. We also are committed towards sustainability in a broader sense, whether that be, you know, making sure that there are no plastic forks and things like that. in use. That's a longer term project as well. We do have to be cognizant that a lot of our businesses are still struggling. And so asking for any change with just a flip of a light switch is very, very hard. So we need to kind of ease into this and work through it. But we are committed to work together with the city, and do this in an organized fashion. Thank you very much.

[03:07:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Next speaker is Halla.

[03:07:20] Halla: Yes, good evening again. Mayor and city staff, city council. My name is Halla. Um, I wanted to commend the city and thank them for their effort and, uh, putting together, hopefully, a good program that will promote plant-based diet. I just wanted to mention that I was part of the uh, environmental sustainability task force, the 2nd one that gathered information in 2017, and we actually found that the greenhouse gas emissions from the non-planned based, non-planned based diet was uh, the uh, 3rd uh, cause, actually, to greenhouse gas emissions right after auto and um, fossil fuel used for heating systems. And so I think it's, it's really about time. That was approved, actually, I think, in 2018. The city did accept this recommendation, and so I'm really pleased to see that you are leading some concrete ways to implement this, and I hope it gets done sooner rather than later. Thank you very much.

[03:08:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Eman Gesavia.

[03:08:44] Eman Gesavia: Hello.

[03:08:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Hello, dear. Yes, we can.

[03:08:50] Eman Gesavia: Okay. Um, hi, I'm your mom. I'm a student at Santa Clara University and I just wanted to come on here and vocalize my support for more plant-based options. Um, As someone who understands the health impacts of eating a plant-based diet, as well as the environmental impacts, um, the factory farm industry, as it currently exists, enables uh, ableism, racism, sexism, uh, a lot of destructive isms that go on in our society or fueled in part in large part by the factory farm industry, um, and giving more plant-based alternatives for people here in the Bay Area, I think is really important. I also think that there should be a specific emphasis on getting these options to, uh, communities that are lower income, um, specifically because these are the communities that, in my opinion, need access to these, uh, resources, plant-based foods the most, um, as it is, uh, their health and well-being that is the responsibility of, um, this council. And yeah, I think this is, I think this is great. Um, and I hope that there is a wider and more equitable distribution of plant-based options to make it affordable uh, and accessible for people in all communities who want to uh, give this lifestyle a world. Thank you.

[03:10:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kayla Hardy.

[03:10:28] Kayla Hardy: Hi there, my name is Kayla Hardy. I'm a Mountain V resident. I just wanted to say thank you very much for this agenda item. I eat plant-based. I eat a plant-based diet and there are often not that many options. So I appreciate it from a climate change perspective, but also for just being inclusive for everyone's diet. And I was also wondering if we wanted to. Um, collaborate with the city or give feedback, what would the best way would be to do that? I saw that there was the, Sustainability, Mountain View Sustainability community volunteer group. I'm wondering if like that's the best way to get involved if the city wants feedback. I'm not sure what the best way is to give feedback for this other than right now. So if you have any suggestions for that, that'd be great. And thanks again. Very much.

[03:11:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, we will return to oh, uh, Christine Keller. Your next.

[03:11:36] Christine Keller: Good evening, council. I just want to thank you also for, um, your work on this item and, um, for both helping us to have it as, uh, um, additional healthy options, but also for the impact on, um, that it has on the climate crisis. So thank you so much.

[03:11:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much Okay, seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will return to the council for deliberation and action. Emotion is in order. Um, Council member Lieber.

[03:12:11] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I, I think that plant-based eating is incredibly important for its, its impact on the, the habitability of the, the planet and definitely our, our very survival. And, um, some good questions were raised earlier about the affordable housing, um, complex that we're going to be moving forward on, and, and how do we ensure that there isn't a, a fresh food, uh, desert, uh, surrounding, that new location for people to live. Um, right now for myself, I, I would like to, um, take this kind of slowly. And, um, have education and encouragement, um, be our investment in things. Um, I have to say that economically people in our community are, are not um, out of the very difficult place that they've been in for almost 2 years. And $30,000 is not a lot of money, but I will scrape the floor for nickels and dimes right now to put into keeping people in their homes. And not, um, having them be searching for a minivan to live in on our streets. And, um, I think that, um, this will, um, as, as a program is intimated at in our staff report. Um, It would take a lot of staffing. And um, just the press questions alone, I think would, would take a great deal of staffing. And I would like to see an outside organization, um, carry the load on that, and we've hit a, a couple good representatives come forward tonight from, um, plant-based eating, uh, associations, um, here in the South Bay. Um, I, I think that we have to, exercise control over our funding and staff time as an organization right now. And um, just, just dial it back a little bit and, and rely 1st on, uh, educational efforts. Uh, the chambers indicated that they have people who are very interested and, and I know that they have, they are recruiting for downtown ambassadors right now, that's a very good option. Um, I'd like to see us really highlight the, uh, the availability of, of, uh, fresh plant-based food that we have, uh, through the farmer's market and through some of the, the backyard produce sharing programs that we have right now. But, you know, uh, uh, after a lot of, um, reflection over the past year, uh, I really can't commit money to anything that that isn't about, you know, immediately keeping people in their homes right now. And, um, uh, Ms. Ramberg's presentation, you know, kind of alluded to some areas that I hadn't thought about in terms of this. about, um, you know, the need to get, um, uh, buy in and and an opportunity to give feedback, um, from our, uh, police and firefighters who are often, uh, required to, uh, eat duty meals, um, at work and stay at work for 3 or 4 days. Um, at a time. And I think there's just a lot here. It's, it's a very great importance environmentally. Um, but for me right now, the paramount thing is keeping people in their homes during this time. And, and thank goodness, we're gonna have some, some options, um, On that coming up in the future. Uh, all of the indications from the federal government are that we will not have the funding coming from the federal government, uh, that we did in the last year. And, um, Probably not from, uh, like we did this year from the state government either. Um, so I just, uh, I think that this is incredibly important. The education is the most important thing. Because, uh, in terms of moving the dial, it's what people do at home that probably matters. The most. And, um, So that's just where I'm at with this right now, Mayor. Thank you.

[03:17:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Metachek.

[03:17:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I'm excited about this program. Um, I think it's been a long time coming. Um, I know I had resisted doing a resolution until we had programs behind it, and we're there. So, um, I think this is great to move forward, um, as a lifelong vegetarian. Um, I actually have found that, um, I spend less money on food than my animal, um, that sounds bad. Then my friends who eat an animal. diet. Um, and so actually, I think this can help people in many different ways. It'd be great for the environment. So, I'll move the status recommendation, which includes adopting a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, supporting a plant-based eating program, to be read in title only, further reading waived. Thank you.

[03:18:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, Abby Koka.

[03:18:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I'm happy to 2nd the motion, and if I can just add a few comments, Thank you to staff for bringing this forward. Um, I do support the overall concepts. here. Um, but I do appreciate the conversation we've had and the, some of the questions. Um, so I think this is a, you know, good way to start off. I would definitely emphasize the education component. Um, what I noticed and this kind of ties into some of what was already discussed, but when we talk about city services and and offering food, um, in our, in the programs we have, and, and I would be curious to hear how this could affect our senior meal program. Um, I work, uh, I work, I volunteer, you know, on Tuesdays at the senior center with CSA's meal program, and it's interesting. I been there 2 years now, but whenever we have a vegetarian lunch day, our numbers drop. And so, yeah, it's kind of a joke. amongst his volunteers and the staff, but when that happens, but I just, you know, wonder if we just need to do more education to encourage folks, um, you know, to eat plant-based and and the benefits of it. I will say, um, I heard Mohan's presentation at Leadership Mountain View and, you know, that very compelling. I came home and said, all right, we need to do this. And, um, um, so I think, um, there's definitely a lot of ambassadors out there that I hope we can, um, work with. And my thought too is going forward. Um, you know, I'm happy to do this for a year, but, um, because there are community based organizations that seem to be doing this, perhaps would it be better for us to, you know, include CDBG, in our CDBG process or some kind of a grant program or grant instead, um, for a community based organization to actually conduct the efforts if staffing is a concern, which I know it is for our city now. So just something to think about moving forward if we can decide to continue this. But, um, I think it's worth moving forward with it and, um, we can definitely revisit it. down the road. Thank you.

[03:21:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: very much. Any other questions or comments? Um, I guess a concluding thought, um, I think most of us regularly see headlines about climate change and um, rapidly approaching tipping points, uh, points of no return. They're pretty bleak. Um, it's hard to read those and not feel some type, some amounts of existential dread. And I think, you know, what you respond with is either this is hyperbolic, or we're in serious jeopardy. Um, and if you don't think it's hyperbolic, and we are in serious jeopardy. Dramatic action will be necessary to get us back to a more sustainable, um, uh world. And I, I think the, the concern many of us feel in different ways is, like, we're not taking that type of dramatic action, at least not what, not in sort of the way, the manner that, uh, Mohan had shared in, uh, in his remarks earlier. And I feel like, though it's not going to solve the problem. Uh, prohibiting the use of public money on animal-based products is, uh, is a pretty significant move that I think could serve as as a model for other cities, taking out public investment in something is a, uh, that's a major, uh, market. And if you remove the public funding, then, um, that maybe gives an opportunity for, you know, mascent markets or alternative markets to have a shot. Um, I don't think education will go far enough fast enough. I'm one of those folks who eat a lot of animal based products because I think it's tasty, right? It's really hard for me to give it up. And I might not. be as reluctant, um, if uh, if the decision is made for me. I might I might rebel initially, you know, wow, I can't use, you know, taxpayer money to feed myself with, you know, a steak or something. That's terrible, but over time I'll get used to it, right? I can still using my own money purchase an animal based food product. Um, so I would like to explore that. I don't want to do it, um, against, um, you know, or impose it on staff. My intent is not to reduce employee morale or anything, but I'd love to have that conversation and see what options might be most palatable over time and start eliminating that. Um, that public investment and something that we know is causing serious damage to uh, to the environment. So I'll stop there. I'll support the uh motion on the floor. Um, if there are no other comments, then, um, I'll ask the city clerk to commence the roll call.

[03:23:47] City Clerk: Council member Medicare?

[03:23:48] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:23:49] City Clerk: Council member Abby Coco?

[03:23:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Can I

[03:23:51] City Clerk: cancel member labor?

[03:23:53] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Abstain.

[03:23:55] City Clerk: Counselor Marshall Walter?

[03:23:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:23:58] City Clerk: Nice Mayor Hicks?

[03:23:59] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:24:00] City Clerk: Mayor Mayors?

[03:24:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:24:03] City Clerk: Motion carries five.

[03:24:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. We will now move to item 5 oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item not on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, since we are, again, getting pretty late. Let's limit public come to one minute and 30 seconds. The 1st speaker is Tom Myers.

[03:24:49] Tom Myers: Uh, yes, good evening, Mayor Ramirez, city council and city staff. I'm Tom Myers, executive director of Community Services Agency, and I'm here tonight to send heartfelt thanks to the Mountain View Police Department. On Wednesday morning, April 27th, as I was getting ready to leave for work, I received a message unlike any I had ever received. It was a message that anyone would dread. It was from the chief who said that a situation had developed at CSA, and someone had barricaded themselves in our building. At the time, I had no idea whether the person was armed, whether there was a CSA staff member in the building as well, or how the situation would play out. When I arrived, the PD had the situation under control. CSA staff were sent to another location and staff leadership, stayed with the police command area. I was very proud of my team, and the way that they worked with the police department. But I was also very proud of Mountain New Police Department. As vehicle after vehicle drove up to the scene, familiar faces would emerge each time. I was so grateful that all these officers knew CSA, and knew us, and knew who we were at the scene. After several hours, the situation ended, not by force or speed, but with patience and with talking. And because they were patient, there was very little damage to the CSA building. So from everyone at CSA, thank you to the Mountain View Police Department, we value our partnership and making this a great city. Thank you.

[03:26:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Tom, and your sentiments are shared by the council. The next speaker is James Apple.

[03:26:31] James Apple: Thank you, may Ramirez. Thank you for the rest of the city council for your time tonight. My name is James Apfo. I'm a Mountain View resident and a government and community relations coordinator for Bloom Energy, a clean resilient energy company founded right here in Silicon Valley. Some wonderful conversation about sustainability tonight in the council. Last year, Bloom raised over a quarter million dollars for the Valley Medical Center Foundation, at our inaugural Stars and Strides Community Run, to support and celebrate Frontline Hospital and Healthcare workers, and recognition for their selfless service throughout the COVID-19 crisis. This year, we're building on our success, and we'd like to invite you to join us on July 2nd for 2nd annual Stars and Strides Community Run to raise $350,000 for the Valley Medical Center foundation with 2500 paying participants and 400 volunteers. Um, we'd love if you could register for yourself or and your family on Stars and Stridesrun.com. And for elected officials, we'd love if you would sign up under the California Service, uh, official 5K challenge. We have a wonderful opportunity to celebrate healthcare workers in our valley. So I hope to see you on July 2nd. Thank you.

[03:27:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Albert James.

[03:28:01] Albert James: Good evening, Mayor Ramirez and council members. Um, I just want to get something off my chest. It's not anything really weighty. Just next slide, please. Um, as you know, the amount of view logo was redesigned about a few months ago. I actually like the old logo. I thought it was very unique. The size, the shape, the colors, very understated. Now we have next slide, please. This logo, which has started to pop up here and there, including on the city's website. And it reminded me not so much as when I grew up, you know, I was grew up in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, that's my place. Things like Peter Max's artwork, uh, Mayor Pete, this is before the mayor's time. Next slide, please. And I've also seen this in decal forum on trucks around town and stuff like that. And that was all fine, you know, I can tell I agree with this. But then I saw this next flight, please. You know, I just happened to be surfing the web, but I saw this on Sunnyvale's website. This is for the Sunnyvale Downtown Association. It looks so familiar. I mean. So, you know, I'm just, just my opinion, everybody's entire opinion. I just throw that out, make people aware of what our logo looks like. Thank you.

[03:29:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You, Albert. The next speaker is Bruce England.

[03:29:17] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. So Mountain View is doing what's needed to comply with AV 361, but at some point that's going to end in California City's will have to be sure their meeting rooms can support hybrid meetings. Currently for our city, that's only council chambers. I want to ask that city hall conference rooms be equipped to handle hybrid meetings in preparation for an in-person meetings commence again. My understanding is that there will be supply that there are supply chain delays in play that could be preventing this from happening right away. But I'd like to see this city planned for these upgrades at the earliest opportunity in any case, or rather, in any case. Yeah. And before in-person advisory body meetings begin again. This, in order to ensure members of the community can continue to attend and comment remotely without interruption. Thanks.

[03:30:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: One minute was exceeded. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Christine Keller.

[03:30:11] Christine Keller: Good evening, counsel. I, um, I just heard the person speak about the logo and it's been on my mind, but not as pressing issue, but I definitely like the old logo better as well, especially the fact that there's 3 trees included, um, and it, um, seeing it shipped to one tree, especially after all the tree discussions we've had. Um, uh, didn't was not a good sign to me. Um, and um, the, the previous logo looks much better. So I just, when I heard that person share that, I wanted to chime in on that as well. Um, and obviously I'm an advocate for more trees. Um, in real life and in the logo. Thanks so much.

[03:30:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Well, now, move on to item 6 public hearing, uh, the only item is 6.one residential development at 555 West Middlefield Road. Would any council members like to make disclosures? Council membership, Walter.

[03:31:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I met with the developer and I visited the site.

[03:31:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[03:31:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, since the last time we talked about this, I've met with the applicant.

[03:31:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thanks. Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[03:31:35] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. I've visited the site now, uh, a number of times, and also, um, met with the applicant, the neighbors and other community members, uh, by Zoom.

[03:31:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Hicks.

[03:31:55] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I met with the applicant, the neighbors and visited the site.

[03:32:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Abi Coca.

[03:32:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I also met with the applicant, visited the site and met with neighbors since the last time. Thank you.

[03:32:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Uh, and I will disclose that I also met with the applicant. Uh, senior planner, Diana potentially, will present the item. feel free to begin when you're ready.

[03:32:35] Diana Pincholi: Good evening, counsel. and um, My name is Diana Pincholi, senior planner with the city's uh, planning division, the project in front of you tonight is a residential development at 555 Best Middlefield Road. A quick recap into a very long history of the project. It's a gatekeeper request authorized back in 2015, EPC and city council have reviewed the project at various times during 2017 and 2021 study sessions. Recently, uh, earlier this year, EPC reviewed the project at a public hearing in January, and recommended conditional approval to the city council, and city council reviewed the project at a public hearing on February 8, 2022. At the February 28th meet, February 8th meeting. City council certified the final EIR with a statement of overriding consideration and adopted the mitigation monitoring and recording program. And along with that, council also directed the applicant to explore the potential reduction in the project parking, required to save more heritage trees on site. And also directed staff to bring back a revised technical analysis for further cancel consideration. So the remainder of my presentation is going to be focused on very specific project revisions that have been made. In order to address the council direction from February 8th meeting. Based on the direction received, applicant has revised the project further to address council comments. Specific changes include reduced parking in block A, parking garage. Reconfigured parking layout in block C without changing the overall footprint. Revised landscape plans to preserve 7 additional existing trees on site. Voluntary offers to existing tenants and voluntary measures to further reduce construction dust and emissions. In summary, These revisions have resulted in preservation of 7 existing trees, which includes 6 heritage trees. It has resulted in a net loss of 44 parking spaces without losing any units that were proposed as part of the original proposal. The applicant has also proposed some voluntary offers to address issues raised by tenants at the city council meeting on February 8, 2022. These include health concerns related to elderly children and people with respiratory inlenses, waving lease, um, Waving resident lease termination fee, conducting an audit for all the windows in the existing residential buildings and making repairs as needed. Um, also offering temporary rent reduction during construction period and offering rent credit to purchase air filters. Here, staff would like to note that while air filters would reduce air quality impacts, this cannot be considered as a mitigation measures where buildings have operable windows. These voluntary offers have been incorporated as a project condition of approval. A little bit about the parking proposal revisions. The original proposal included cities, models parking standard compliant parking with 970 spaces. Due to the reduced size of the block a parking garage to save additional trees, 67 parking spaces have been removed from block a parking garage. These, some of these spaces, around 23 of them have been reconfigured under block C parking garage without changing the overall size of the structure. With these revisions, the parking reduction amounts to a net loss of 44 parking spaces, with a total of 926 parking spaces proposed with this revised proposal. A parking study was conducted by hexagon transpiration consultants who evaluated the revised parking for the project by comparing it with other similar projects in the area. The study found an average parking demand ratio of one space per unit. The study estimated the parking demand for the project site would be around 725 parking spaces at that ratio. And also concluded that as proposed with 926 parking spaces, the project will have enough and sufficient parking on site. Staff therefore recommends the revised parking proposal based on the results of this study. Following the February 8th city council meeting, the city has received additional input related to construction dust, tree removals and potential design revisions for the proposed project. A number of the concerns were also related to improvements work that was going on for the existing buildings. It has been going on for a number of years and it related to asbestos removal, tenant noticing, and other health concerns. Staff has worked with the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant is working with the Bay Area air quality management district on these asbestos removal and has hired qualified persons to carry out the work. They have also acquired all the required permits from the city as well as from back med. They have also incorporated and implemented, improved noticing procedures for earlier noticing of for to the tenants on site. They have also offered alternate arrangements, including use of vacant unit or hotel rooms on the day that the work is being done. In addition to that, city and the applicant also received alternate design input from Sierra Club, um, to save trees along highway 85 and between highway 85 and block C of the proposed development. These alternate design suggestions included removing of 24 units from block C, along with associated AT parking spaces in the underground parking garage. Based on our initial staff assessment, staff estimates that this would result in loss of 36 units and around 100 parking spaces from block C. Moving these units to block B was another idea in the proposal, staff notes that, you know, moving these to block B would increase the building height from 4 to 6 stories causing further massing impacts. Moving parking spaces under block B would result in additional excavation work that would require additional evaluation and assessment from an environmental impact assessment perspective. The revisions to the site design, including modification of unit placement, density allocation would require further assessment or reassessment of certain sections of the EIR. The applicant also reviewed the design recommendation with the members of the public and his design team, and will be addressing some of these issues as part of their presentation tonight. Staff also received comments about preserving additional trees between block C and highway 85. Applicant has looked at preservation strategies to see if additional trees can be preserved over the course of the project review process itself. As it stands right now, there are approximately 43 trees in this area. This includes majority of them are Brazilian peppers, California peppers, Alipo Pines. Majority of these trees are in poor condition and non-native species. Only 2 of the existing trees in this area are in fair condition and will be preserved on site. Additional trees along Highway 85 would be remaining, as is, because that is outside the project boundary, and they are not proposed to be removed, which adds a landscape buffer between Highway 85 and the block C buildings as proposed. These are some of the images that show the existing trees in the berm area, which is between block C and the sound wall of highway 85 that are proposed to be removed. The proposed planting plan, as because in the in the project, will replace 41 of the 43 trees with 15 transplanted trees, which are European olive trees transplanted from other portions of the site. It will include 60 plus new trees, including several 36 inch box trees, like coastlive oak trees, and California sycamore trees. As I mentioned earlier, 2 of the existing trees in this area with fair condition will be preserved on site. And these new landscaping will have grown a new planting to create a landscape buffer between Highway 85 with more native species included in the planting plan. Staff also received several resident suggestions and input on death control measures. The applicant is already required to comply with all the best management practices as required by the Bay Area air quality management district backmed, regarding the dust control per the environmental impact report. After certification of the EIR. By city council in February. Backman staff recently contacted the city with additional measures to consider further reduction of the potential dust and particular emission impacts generated by construction. Staff consulted with the backmut staff to revise these measures for implementation purposes, and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to them. These have been included as conditions of approval in the project. Resolutions attached to the city council report. Additionally, some public concerns were also related to increased traffic on Cypress Point Drive, related to parking relocation under block C, and some concerns about spillover parking to adjacent residential neighborhoods because of reduced parking provided by the project. It should be noted that the revised parking configuration under Block C was already reviewed as part of the project EIR and has been assessed for all the impacts and operational conditions as well. In accordance with sequel, a draft EIR was published in June 2021 and a final EIR was published in October 2021. The, at the February 8th, 2022, uh, city council meeting, council certified the final project EIR and adopted the required sequel findings, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. An addendum to the final EIR was prepared to evaluate the revised project and concluded that the revisions would not result in any new significant environment effects or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the 555 West Middlefield Road final EIR report. A project specific transportation technical study was also prepared to provide an update to the multimodal transportation analysis prepared for the original project. Additionally, while the new conditions that have been added to the product to the project resolution, they will further reduce the potential for destined particular emissions impact that could be generated by construction activities. They do not undermine any of the EIR's conclusions, and they do not, and the EIR is adequate as certified. Only minor changes have been made to the proposed project. which are appropriately considered in the addendum. As this new information does not change any of the significant conclusions of the EIR for the worse, or support a finding that a new or a different significant impact would result. Therefore, the addendum prepared by the city city, to consider and analyze the minor changes to the project, is the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review for the modified project. In summaries, staff recommends that the council consider the addendum to the EIR and approve the revised project and the associated tentative map on the slide for the revised project. Because the project as proposed is going to further the general plan goal to increase housing without displacing existing residents, provide a mix of ownership and rental housing that complies with the development standards. The project revisions addresses council direction that were provided at the February 8th meeting. Including preservation of existing trees, specifically tree number 179. The parking study also concludes that the adequate parking would be provided on site, and the proposed subdivision, which is attached, is consistent with the general plan designation and the requirements of the subdivision map act as well. With this concludes staff presentation, please note that the applicant is also present here tonight and has a brief presentation for city council. In addition to that, staff, along with our environmental consultant team, is present here tonight for any council questions. Thank you.

[03:46:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Diana, and for whatever it's worth, I think you're a real MVP. This is a big project and I think you've done a remarkable job carrying it and working with applicant counsel and the community to make it as best as it can possibly be. We will now hear uh, a presentation from Avalon Bay, by Joe Kerchover, uh, vice president of development.

[03:46:31] Joe Kirchoffer: All right, let me share my screen here. Um, can everyone can everyone see that? Yeah. All right. Um, thank you very much. My name's Joe Kirchoffer. with Avalon Bay Communities. Um, and thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. I'm here today asking for your approval of this project. Um, so that we can keep moving forward to provide this housing for the community mountain view. We discussed this project, obviously, 3 months ago, back in February, but I want to reiterate a few points. This is exactly the type of thoughtful, transit oriented infill development that the city of Mountain View has prioritized in all of your planning efforts. This project will make better use of underutilized areas on a site that's already zoned as residential. This space is now devoted to parking cars or mostly vacant parking spaces. And we're moving that underground, and when we use this space to provide new homes. This project provides 323 new homes, including 48 new affordable units. It's not easy to find space for this many homes in Mountain View. There are a limited number of parcels where a project like this is even possible. 111 of our homes will be matched for conversion to condos. And I'll remind you that 48 affordable units is the size of a good sized, 100% affordable housing development and not view. So this is a meaningful increase in the city's affordable housing stock, and it does not require any public subsidy. The project will also provide land for a new 1.3 acre public park. Usable new parkland at this size is also very rare in Mountain View development proposals. The project will also improve connectivity for pedestrians and bikes, both with a new pedestrian bike pathway within the site, and with improvements to Moffatt Boulevard that will facilitate non auto commute patterns on both bikes and transit. As we've discussed previously, one of the primary focuses of this project from the beginning has been not displacing any current rent controlled residence. Everyone that lives at this property can stay, and the project won't displace any housing, any businesses, or any retail space. Now, we've gone to great lengths throughout the process to ensure that the property is both safe and comfortable at each stage of the construction process. To that end, we've added some new conditions to the project's conditions of approval, to memorialize some of the items that came up at February hearing, such as, and Diana mentioned in audit of all the on site windows, to ensure they're in good working condition, rent credits for residents to buy air filters, and an offer to relocate sensitive households to another Avalon Bay property in the area. As you heard, staff has also reached out to Backmed, the Bay Area air quality management district, to obtain further suggestions on how the project can go above and beyond their required best practices for dust mitigation. These suggestions have been added as new project conditions. Number 74 and 75, By implementing these additional measures, our projects will be at the 4fronts of air quality management for residential construction in the Bay Area, and we will truly be going above and beyond measures on other comparable projects. Now, I encourage the council tonight to ask your air quality experts, who completed the EIR analysis about the meaning of the identified air quality impact. There have been many claims made about what this impact means for the health of residents and neighbors, and I encourage you to listen to the experts and base your conclusions on their factual input. Our project is not unique among Bay Area housing developments. The impact identified in our ER is common. The impact is due to airborne dust. It's not due to any toxic chemical or substance. And the impact is triggered because new back med regulations are much more stringent than either state or federal standards. Most jurisdictions, where this happens, they regularly explain, it's impossible for most projects to meet the new Bachmed standard. Mitigations are used to keep the impact as minimal as possible. And in our case, all levels are well below all applicable state and federal guidelines. But again, don't take my word for it. Please reach out. Please, please ask your, um, your air quality experts to opine. Now, we've also spoken extensively at prior hearings about all the ways this project has been designed to preserve the most important and most valuable trees on the site. Based on the council direction in February, we've proposed another change to the project to help make it even better in this regard. As staff explained, if the council is willing to reduce parking at the project by 44 spaces, we can save the three large redwood trees that were the subject of the last meetings debate, including tree 179. Now, it's rare that we can make such a significant change this late in the process without triggering changes to the ER analysis. But in this case, the circumstances align. We're not moving or enlarging any structures. And if the council believes this improves the project, we're happy to do it. As Diana said, we've also met with the Sierra Club multiple times in recent weeks to discuss another proposal that they put together since the February hearing, intended to save yet another area of existing trees on the property. Instead of redwoods, the trees in this area along Highway 85 are primarily invasive species. Our design has actually already preserved most of the native trees in this area on the north and south ends of this berm. And the habitat was found by the city's biologist to be of little ecological value. But we take community feedback very seriously. We've done that throughout the life of this project and repeatedly over the best seven years. As we've rearranged parking on the site. We've reduced the massing of buildings along Cypress Point Drive. We've shaped buildings around redwood trees, and we've added many other features to make sure the project is responsive to community input. So we went back to our design team with this new proposal and studied whether the Sierra Club proposal could be implemented. Part of it can, I'll go back to the slide. Um, the Sierra Club actually proposed something very similar to what we've submitted, um, to save Tree 179. And so that will be implemented if council deems it appropriate. Unfortunately, the proposal to save the berm area increases the size of building B on Moffat Boulevard significantly. Increases it to six stories. It adds many more cars to the basement parking lot. Um, and this is, this is inconsistent with seven years of feedback we've received from the city in the community about this building. It does violate density and height limits for this partial and for the project as a whole. And it would require a lengthy and costly new environmental review. And that last piece, the new environmental review is a delay that this project cannot endure. This project is the result of seven years of iterations and response to continuous community feedback. Over the years, some community members have newly engaged in the process, some others have left. Community priorities have shifted on some issues, and our project has tried to shift along with them. The result of this process, and all of the stakeholder feedback, is that we've improved the development by finding the right balance. We're saving the parts of the site that are most valuable to save, and we're building appropriate housing, where it fits on the site and where it fits within the scale and context of the surrounding community. In closing this project is a model, transit oriented, info development. It protects existing rent controlled homes, and the residents that live in them. And it adds new housing stock, including 48 affordable homes, with no city subsidy in an area that's designated for residential development. We respectfully ask the council to approve this development and add these much needed new homes to the Mountain View community. And with that, I'd like to thank you for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[03:53:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Does any member of the council have questions? Can we move the slide?

[03:53:54] Joe Kirchoffer: Oh, sure, sure. Um, here we go.

[03:54:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek.

[03:54:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. This might be for the applicant. Uh, I was wondering for the condos, what is the rough timing of, um, actually having those as condos and selling them? Were you planning on renting them for a while and then selling them or selling them right from the start?

[03:54:23] Joe Kirchoffer: Uh, sure, the current plan has been to build them as rentals, and then over time, potentially sell the building, um, and convert it to condos. Um, but again, you know, this is, we submitted this in 2015. So, you know, that, uh, we will continue to look at the at the condo market and see if that, uh, if conditions weren't going directly to condos when we build it.

[03:54:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks.

[03:54:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Vice Mayor Hicks.

[03:54:52] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. I have several questions that members of the public have asked via email over the past week that I wanted to ask the applicant. Um, the 1st is, um, residents have asked me. They say they think they're, they imagine there may be asbestos in the buildings to be demolished, and, um, they're wondering how they, what plans you might have to protect them from that asbestos during demolition.

[03:55:28] Joe Kirchoffer: Sure. I mean, I can start with that, but, uh, you know, city staff can answer this too. It's a standard process. So, um, we were assuming, uh, due to the age of the buildings that, um, that there is asbestos in the buildings that will be demolished. Um, that's also state law that we must assume that there's asbestos in the buildings, if they're of this certain age. Um, there are conditions in, um, I don't know, the EIR section, but, um, condition of approval number 72 lays out the process for testing for asbestos and for lead based paints in any building that will be demolished, um, and for abating that asbestos. So it's all, it's all in both the conditions and also in the EIR. I can look up the section. Um, it's, uh, so yes, that's the, that is the process. And it's based in state law and also California building code, and also, um, backmed regulation, so we'd have to follow all of those things.

[03:56:26] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. The question was, I guess, that people were asking is whether that had been thought through, and it sounds like, it's fairly standard. My second question is, there are members of a residents of Cypress Point that, um, you know, won't be able to take advantage of, uh, some of the other, uh, new project conditions like the air filter. I'm wondering whether you would, uh, whether you would, uh, be willing to provide them with, uh, other mitigations such as air filtration curtains that, uh, that are sold by various, uh, stores like IKEA something so that they feel safer during construction.

[03:57:11] Joe Kirchoffer: Sure. So, you know, this project's, like I just said, it was proposed a long time ago. Um, it it's been reduced. We've reduced the number of units. It's been made more costly in a number of ways. So we need to keep an eye on feasibility, and any additional added cost is something that may make this project actually infeasible to build. And you see that around the Bay Area, there are approved projects that can't actually move forward. Um, that said, I'm sure we can manage something like curtains, and if there's, you know, if there is something that the council feels is absolutely critical to the project, um, you know, we can try to do that. But again, I need to be honest and be wary that any additional cost or, or, you know, fee imposition on the project pushes it toward the point where we're not able to actually carry it out and build the housing.

[03:58:03] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, and then my last question is, there were some objections to the plastic turf in the dog park. Could that be changed to real turf?

[03:58:15] Joe Kirchoffer: Um, short answer is, yes, it can definitely be changed. So, the dog park area, um, actually, the the northern end of the berm, um, in the last design iteration, in late 2021, um, we preserve that area of the berm, and that's gonna be the sort of a small central dog park area, but the fence is gonna be wider than that. So that big sort of wild area in the berm is gonna be part of the dog run as well. So most of the dog run will be mulch and sort of natural material. But, um, so we found in, in, you know, in the dog parks, we, uh, we own and manage in other properties, um, grass doesn't really hold up just to the, you know, I won't, I won't make this graphic, but, you know, the amount of beating that they take from dogs, um, grass kind of turns into brown grass or mud pretty quickly. Turf holds up well. There are some other natural materials decompose cranite, some other things that can work, you know, some finer mulch. So, if there's a preference to avoid artificial turf, we are happy to use a different material.

[03:59:18] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, that's what I'd heard from members of the public. I'm sure they're gonna comment, and, um, and, uh, if if that's what a number of people want, maybe we can go in that direction. Thank you.

[03:59:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: For Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[03:59:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I have a question for staff. Um, Somewhere in the staff report or something that I've gotten a communication. So that there's, um, a number that community members can call at BackMed. Um, and I know that at our last go around with the applicant, the applicant agreed to post a 247 contact number for the construction manager. Are we able to require the applicant to post, uh, the back med, contact number as well?

[04:00:19] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, in short, council member labor, yes.

[04:00:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, I should add that to the notification. Thank you.

[04:00:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Council member Show, Walter.

[04:00:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I knew there's been a great deal of concern about the air quality issues associated with this project. And, um, consequently, uh, there's been consultation with backmed, uh, the Bay Area quality management district, which, um, is the, you know, the experts on that subject. And I understand that there are additional dust regulation measures to keep down the the small particulate levels, the P 2.5, which is the, you know, which is the, um, the, uh, pollutant of concern. So I just wanted you to explain, or staff, or the applicant, whichever is appropriate, what those additional, um, dust, uh, regulation, um, methodologies are, just in really plain English.

[04:01:32] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, council member, um, uh, Diana Pancholi can, um, um, list, um, the key ones, they are in the conditions of approval that are attached, um, to your packet today.

[04:01:53] Diana Pancholi: Thank you. So, This is condition number 74. You can actually divide these measures into 2 parts. One is requiring a side specific desk control plan. Um with the building permit requirements. And this would include things like, you know, designate an on-site construction team, monitor, to implement the desk control plan, water all the exposed surfaces at a minimum frequency of 2 times per day, and maybe more frequently whenever there are dust or wind conditions that warrant it. Install wind breaks, such as fences, just curtains, plastic traps, et cetera, on the windward sides, of actively disturbed areas of construction, and wind breaks should have at a maximum 50% porosity. What are all the exposed services to minimize the dust when the wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour. Um, you know, if the air quality index forecast exceeds 100 for a particulate of the project area and the reading exceeds 100, uh, then by, say, 10 AM. The the applicant will be required to prohibit the grading activities for that day. Minimize the excavated material and waste materials, which will be stored at the site and cover them with, you know, tarpoline in order to control the, uh, you know, spreading of the dust from from those um, materials. In addition to that, something like, you know, plant vegetative ground cover. Um, whenever there are some disturbed areas which are being, say, excavated and disturbed, you know, they will applicant will be required to plant vegetative ground cover so that, you know, and water them appropriately until the vegetation is established on them in order to reduce the amount of dust that can, you know, come out of it and can can would be spreading around. Another thing is, you know, when they are doing activities such as excavation or grading activities, they will be required to wash all the hall trucks which are carrying all the material, um, and the grading equipment as well, um, including, you know, their tires and stuff, they should be washed, uh, pretty frequently, treat the site accesses. You know, the area which is used by the hall trucks and the equipments to access the site, they should be covering them with, you know, from the paved area, 6 to 12 inches with compacted layers.

[04:04:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So really, what you're discussing. There's a very comprehensive plan to take care of this. The best way we know how to do it, right? And there's two major aspects that I want to bring to everybody's attention. One is, there's gonna be somebody on the site, every day, there's construction activity going on, whose job it is to say, Are we doing the desk control right? It's not gonna be somebody who comes once a week, or somebody who comes once a month, that somebody who's there all the time, right? That's my understanding. That, you know, that, I just want to share with anybody who's listening, that's a really big deal, because when you give somebody a job like that and say, This is your job, you have to do it, and if there's any problem, you go to that person to get it fixed, it's just much more likely to happen. And then, um, uh, Ms. Pancholi mentioned a just a laundry list of very, you know, understandable things that we all know make a difference about dust, washing down the area, planting covers on places that, you know, are not gonna be disrupted for a while, uh, putting in, um, dust bats, you know, that sort of thing. It just makes a big difference. So I wanted I wanted to talk to a little more about that, because I really think, um, this is a legitimate, uh, concern of people, this dust. We are at, um, uh, kind of the, uh, you know, we're at the, the, the trigger level in this area. And so it's very important for us to be wary and careful. And, um, so I just wanted to, you know, reiterate that we do have a really, um, comprehensive plan for taking care of this. And not only do we have a plan. We have somebody whose job it is on site every day to carry out that plan. I think that's very important. So that's that was really what I wanted to bring up, is my question. Thank you.

[04:06:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Lieber.

[04:06:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, thank you, Mayor. sorry to double dip, but this is a very complex and multi-part proposal that's before us. And I just want to, um, make sure with the applicant that my understanding is correct. And so, um, uh, individuals that are facing a health condition, um, would be able to state that, um, to the, the office there and would be able to break, break their lease, and, and so we have a very diverse population, mountain view. A lot of culturally competent providers. And so, we're not just talking about an MD, but we're talking about whoever the individual's healthcare practitioner is. can assist them in putting that documentation forward. And we won't have, we won't hear any funny business later about, they wouldn't take this because it's, it's, um, from my practitioner and not, uh, someone else. Is that correct,

[04:08:00] Joe Kirchofer: right? So let me take one step back. Any resident who has, um, an existing lease from before construction starts, will be able to break that lease without any penalty. That's not, um, that's not limited. If folks want to keep their lease, stay in an Avalon Bay apartment, um, we will move them to a different Avalon Bay property in the area. if they fall into one of those criteria. And, um, yes, our staff is not qualified, nor are we interested in trying to, uh, manage, you know, trying to understand people's, um, health information. We don't want to even own, like, have keep a copy of people's health information, because that's a privacy issue. So if someone brings us a, you know, a note from a medical professional of any kind, we will honor it.

[04:08:53] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[04:08:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Abi Koga.

[04:09:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Along those lines, um, I had asked about whether we could look at, um, offering the relocation to, um, tenants who are at a certain AMI are below certain AMI. I think I was looking at maybe, uh, 50, 60%. I'm just wondering, I didn't see that included. Was there an issue with offering that?

[04:09:30] Joe Kirchofer: This is just, again, you know, another thing that, you know, this is a, moving people to another part, like this is going to have a cost to the project is going to add complexity and add, um, add cost to the, to the process of getting ready for construction. Um, we also have a capacity, you know, there are only a certain number of homes we own in the Mountain View area. And so, if everyone at the property comes and says, We want to be relocated. I want to be here, and, you know, I want to be writing conditions and making promises to this council, but I know we can keep. And so if the number of folks on the property becomes too large, It may be something where we can't actually live up to it. Um, so, you know, I, I think if we, you know, this is seems tough to do at the diet, but if we remove one of those other groups and add in something like, you know, very low income, I think we could probably manage that. But if it becomes something that is a sizable percentage of the property, and we think a lot of people will actually want to exercise that, we may not actually be able to carry it out.

[04:10:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, and something that I just thought about, um, and going back to the air quality issue, um, since the PM 2.5 comes from construction, um, I was thinking, if some, a tenant decides to leave during the construction period, um, and maybe this is more for staff, but could we, uh, require that that unit stay vacant until construction is completed? to minimize the air quality effects?

[04:11:15] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member, I think we're probably gonna have to research it. It's not that clear. I'm gonna see if I can converse and get you a response, um, but, um, it's a question we haven't, um, looked at.

[04:11:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And I just thought about it like today, so I appreciate that. But, um, yeah, it was something that just came up and, like, think could, um, help in reducing the impacts.

[04:11:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, any other questions? Did have a couple that related to, um, what has been referred to as the Sierra Club alternative, the modifications to block C, um, uh, provided with the intent to preserve the trees over by 85. Um, and stuff covered this a little bit, but just to make certain I fully understand when, when, when I asked about this before, there were a number of city regulations, um, that, uh, even with the, um, uh, the reduction in unit count proposed by, in that alternative, that would still necessitate the removal of the trees and the burn. One of them is the fire access, for instance, um, can either staff or the applicant run through some of the other regulations that the applicant would be required to comply with. Um, that even with that unit count reduction, still would require uh, tree removals in that area. Um,

[04:13:05] Aarti Shrivastava: I believe the, the applicant might be best suited since he's looked at this with his design team. Um to respond to it.

[04:13:13] Joe Kirchofer: Sure. So, um, Mary Ramirez, I think the the, the most difficult one is fire access. Um, there is a requirement for fire truck access, which you can, I mean, it's pretty clear on the site plan. There's a fire truck lane that comes out there into the berm, in the proposed design. Um, there's also access to each window, um, that the fire department is going to need, um, at a certain, a certain dimension, a certain distance from the building, um, to place a ladder in case of emergencies. So that is difficult. There are emergency egress requirements from folks coming out of the building in an emergency. There are utilities connecting in the berm area, as well, that need a place to go. There's an electric transformer over there. Um, so there are a number of issues, um, with just sort of space. Um, and then there's also just the, the practical issue of drainage, and, you know, if it, if you have a berm falling back into a building, you need that water to go somewhere. So all of those things become more difficult, I think our design proposes some stormwater treatment in that area, that would have to go somewhere else. So, it's, um, you know, like I mentioned before, it's really a full redesign to get to, um, to get to a place where you could, um, scale back a building enough to meet all those requirements. And then some of them, you know, like I said, the fire department doesn't, they have already compromised on this project, it's way back in the prehistory back in 2016, 2017. We had previously had a road, uh, an emergency vehicle access all the way around the back of the building. Um, in response to feedback and saying we want that to be a wooded tree lined area. We want it to be a recreational space for residents and neighbors. Um, we worked with the, um, with the fire department to limit the amount of the, uh, EVA or emergency vehicle access lane to, um, to just the dimension that's shown in the plan. Um, you know, but that was already a compromise. So in order to remove that would be, you know, would be very, very difficult.

[04:15:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. Um, I remember you, you had shared a list and went through it with me pull up by, uh, and that was, that was helpful for me to understand. Um, and then another question to the applicant. Um, we've also gotten concerns from, um, residents in the area about, um, the uh, the addition of new, uh, parking spaces in the block C area. Um, when I asked you about that, you had said you were agnostic about whether you added in those 20 some odd spaces or not. So if the council were to say, where we don't want to replace some of the parking lost, uh, in block C. Do you have a preference one way or the other?

[04:16:11] Joe Kirchofer: No, this is a great question, and that's, um, that's right. This is, I mean, we were trying to be responsive and trying to, um, you know, trying to, trying to find the right balance between, you know, obviously there's been, um, a big outpouring to save those trees. We love the opportunity to save those trees, and it's been opened up by the opportunity to reduce the amount of spaces. Um, so that's great. You know, I know there are folks alongside this point, that are concerned about the number of cars being able to be parked on the property. So, you know, I understand that it's a balancing act, and, you know, I'd look to council, if you'd prefer to have fewer spaces there, we can certainly manage that. You know, we, you know, somewhere in the 1.25 range is probably, you know, if we could wave a magic wand. That's probably what we think the right number of spaces is. We could go below that. You know, we'd manage it a little bit differently. Um, you know, you know, obviously our proposal, uh, last time in February, was to be above that. Um, so we're comfortable either way. Um, and it's, you know, I would say it's up to you all what you think the right, uh, the right number is.

[04:17:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then one last question for staff, and we might need public works here. Um, when I uh, toured the property with uh, several of the presidents who live there um, a few months ago. Um, there were uh, visibility hazards and some other things pointed out to me. Uh, um, related to the road itself, and I'm wondering if as part of the, I forgot what we call it here. I think it's multimodal transportation analysis, MTA, um, if as part of that work staff, uh, have already evaluated potential safety improvements, like, you know, visibility hazards and that kind of thing, um, that could be addressed with the redevelopment of the property. I see. Don is joined. Yes, good evening,

[04:18:17] Don Cameron: Don Cameron Public Works director. Um, I'm not totally familiar with what may have been pointed out to you when you're reviewing things on site, but Obviously, if there are concerns about traffic safety issues in the public right away. We can have our traffic and city traffic, go out and evaluate the situation and see if there's any, um, any concerns there and any, um, steps that the city should be taking to address them. Uh, I think the 2nd part of your question, I was sort of in this transition phase when you question, so I may need, um, Diana to help respond to the 2nd part of the question, which is, in terms of what may be done as part of the development project? Is that what you were asking?

[04:19:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No idea.

[04:19:11] Diana Pancholi: Oh, go ahead. Sorry, mayor.

[04:19:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It's okay. Either way.

[04:19:17] Diana Pancholi: I think the, the, the, the question was oriented around what transportation analysis is done outside of Sequa, um, and improvements to the roadway that could be, uh, incorporated with the redevelopment. So for instance, you know, using visibility hazards as a, as an example, uh, the adult school driveway. I think was one of if memory serves, and maybe members of the public can remind me, uh, during public comment, but, you know, if you're, if you're coming out of there, if you're driving out of that area onto the roadway and you have vehicles parked very close to the driveway, it could be hard to see if there's oncoming traffic. So that's the, I think, a pretty, uh, simple example of, as part of the local transportation analysis that's done outside of sequel again. You can say, well, if we're anticipating some additional traffic, then it might make sense to paint the curve red here to improve visibility. Um, are those things that you've already evaluated or is that something that you'll look at down the road?

[04:20:21] Don Cameron: The, um, multiple transportation analysis may not get down to that level of detail of where a red curve should be installed, but our, we definitely, our city traffic engineer, does look at those situations for driveways, sightline concerns, And especially when it's raised to our attention, will do an evaluation and will add red curb as needed. to provide proper sight lines at driveways. And, and also, you know, if other issues are raised to our attention after the development is completed and we see the actual traffic patterns where additional red curb or signage or other measures are necessary, we will take them at that time.

[04:21:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fantastic. So, in other words, it might be helpful for members of the public or residents in the area to report to public works, you know, through S MB or some other means, um, any of these types of, um, you know, potential safety concerns, and then that way, you're, to respond.

[04:21:25] Don Cameron: That's right. And we certainly encourage the use of SMV, that is the most productive way to, uh, for us to hear about these concerns and for us to respond to them.

[04:21:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Those are all of my questions. Vice Mary Hicks.

[04:21:43] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I'm sorry, mayor, your questions, uh, triggered a couple more questions for me. So, um, one is, uh, the applicant said that sort of the sweet spot for parking. they, he thought was between one. or one.25 spaces per unit, I think, is what I heard. Can you tell me what that would be in terms of, um, 2 things? One total spaces, and then change from the currently proposed number of spaces.

[04:22:14] Joe Kirchofer: Uh, I'm gonna pull out my calculator. Um... Oh, thank... Go ahead, Diana.

[04:22:22] Diana Pancholi: Thank you. At one.2 parking ratio, it will be 870 spaces. Right now, what is being proposed is 926. And that would be, and that's at one.7 parking ratio. At one point. Okay. So, yeah, one. would be 906 spaces.

[04:22:44] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, so that was one question. And then the other sort of related. I did remember a member of the public had asked whether there could be speed humps put in on, uh, Cypress, as if there's more traffic, and I assume that there could be. And what would be the process for requesting that? Just to let the public know.

[04:23:10] Don Cameron: Thank you, Vice Mayor Hicks, for that question. The city has a neighborhood traffic management program whereby if residents are concerned about either speed or cut through traffic or other issues where they think traffic calming is required. They can follow that process to request, um, that this be studied. Now, the typical process would usually involve a petition coming in from residents, you know, asking that we do a traffic study to verify that these problems exist. If we do verify they exist, then we would have a community meeting, present different traffic calming measures, have it voted on through postcard surveys. However, we also have a 2nd process that we use, and this is when it's related to development approvals. And we've used this successfully with the development approval recently on Villa and on Linda Vista. This is where, if counsel so directs, uh, we can forego um, the petition process. And go straight to a postcard survey of all residents that would take access off Cypress Point Drive and ask them basically, um, are you interested in speed bumps? Pumps, excuse me. And then we follow the neighborhood traffic management program process for ensuring that we receive a minimum number of responses. A minimum number of affirmative votes. If that comes in, then the city would proceed with putting in speed hubs. After that, we have a one year evaluation process. And if they're successful and the residents like them, great. If they have concerns about them, would like them reconsidered, then we go through a process to evaluate them, and, um, have them reconsider it and bring it back to the council transportation committee. So, so basically, there is a process, we have used it before for development processes, that if there is significant concern, uh, we can go right to a postcard survey, uh, of all the residents to see if they would like, uh, speed humps added.

[04:25:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Very much. Any final questions? If not, we will turn to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Uh, somehow, somebody anticipated that there'd be a lot of public comment, and so we've allocated one minute and 30 seconds. First speaker is Umberto Nava.

[04:26:02] Umberto Nava: Good evening, council member, Major Luca Ramirez. My name is Umberto Nava, and I'm a restaurant in Santa Clara County. And although residential price are always a plus to fight the housing deficit. Put your welcome price like this when they have a labor standards in place. With local hiring and a friendship requirement that would keep economic benefits in the community of mountain view. And also require developers like Avalon Bay to provide healthcare to the construction workers and their families. In these projects, not to put the burden of healthcare, for these workers in the community, when they fall in public healthcare system. It was noted in the council report that the city does not have the ability to impose labor standards. I ask you then, to delay this vote and give the opportunity to the city of Mountain View to explore avenues to be able to have these labor standards, not only in these development, but in all coming developments, to ensure that all workers working in the city of month in view, are making livable wage and make a chance to live, and working in the city that works without having to commute in hours long drive. Development is native and make sure it's responsible development. Not only benefiting the few, but the whole community. Thank you for your time.

[04:27:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is David Levin.

[04:27:22] David Levin: Thank you very much for this opportunity. I am the HOA board president of Cypress Point Woods, a multifamily community of 88 voting households directly across the street. Our HOA board has repeatedly expressed its concern about increased traffic and density posed by Block C. Tonight, I urge you not to make an already bad project worse by adopting developer's recent project revisions. The revisions would allow developer to remove 66 parking spaces from block A and shift those spaces to block C, further taxing the narrow Cypress Point Drive cul-de-sac. The purpose of the addendum and project revisions just to save a few trees in the middle of developers project that are probably gonna die as a result of the extensive underground construction. While the trees are wonderful, the cost of preserving those trees, by increasing the parking, is of questionable value. Ironically, the city is preserving the wrong trees. The tree canopy along the highway 85 sound wall, the developer will clear cut is far more valuable. It's not too late for the city council to step up and create a master plan for the Moffatt corridor, and please don't make this project worse by reducing the parking and removing more cars to the narrow residential Cypress Point Drive. Thank you for this opportunity.

[04:28:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your comments. The next speaker is Christine Keller.

[04:28:56] Christine Keller: Good evening, counsel. Thank you so much for hearing our comments on this. I am completely against this project as it stands, um, and there's so many detrimental environmental impacts still as a part of this, and I hope you will vote no on the project tonight. Um, there's just too much too many issues. Number one, the trees. Um, there's still 51 heritage trees slated to be destroyed in this project, 7 of which are huge redwoods and blockade, that are um, still um, slated to be destroyed for pool showers and parking garage stairs, not for housing. Also, highway 85 mature protective tree buffers is slated to be destroyed. This is, these are our climate warriors and our sound buffers for our entire community. Also, Avalon proposes, um, dangerous air PM 2.5 for 7 years from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily where we can't open our windows. But yet this $34000000000 company doesn't want to pay for curtain air filters. It's just ridiculous. Um, also, the ER EIR states that there will be no asbestos on the testing on the buildings being demolished. Please do your research and not listen to Joe. Also, Avalon proposes um, dangerous, um, safety issues with traffic and biking on Cypress Point Drive. It's already dangerous with no bike lanes as it is. Um, as one Well, I see I'm running out of time. Thank you so much for voting no tonight.

[04:30:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kenneth Doe.

[04:30:33] Kayla Hurdy: Hi, um, you just unmuted me. I'm Kayla Hurdy. you want me to speak?

[04:30:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, sure, go ahead. My apologies

[04:30:41] Kayla Hurdy: Okay, hi, I'm Kayla Hurdy. I live at 555 West Millfield Road. I'm supportive of building where housing in Mountain View, and I appreciate our one for altering their plan to save 5 additional redwood trees. However, there are still significant issues with the design. One of my major concerns is the highway 85 tree bucker being cut down. It was not accurately portrayed tonight and the presentation shown. It is not a couple of leafless trees. This tree buffer protects the community from highway noise and pollution. It is not a good solution to cut it down and replace it with units right up against the highway. The chair of the Sierra Club, who happens to be an architect, proposed a new plan that moves 24 units facing the highway to move them towards Moffatt Boulevard, and also move some parking spaces from the end of Cypress Point Drive towards Moffatt Boulevard. This would prevent the tree buffer from being cut down and would also reduce density at the end at the end of a dead end street. Building a 435 underground parking garage at the end of a narrow and dead end street could be a safety issue. I hope the council strongly considers the Sierra Club's proposed design that saves the tree buffer and reduces traffic at the end of a dead end street. Thank you so much.

[04:32:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. My apologies against the execution. The next speaker is Kenneth Doe.

[04:32:15] Kenneth Doe: Can you hear me now?

[04:32:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:32:18] Kenneth Doe: Okay, good evening. My name is Kenneth Joe from the Carpenters Union local 9144. I live in Santa Clara County. I would like the board to approve Avalon's plan for greater density because it makes the property more accessible and benefits to people that want to live and work in Mountain View. However, before granting this approval, there needs to be a requirement for Avalon by requiring Avalon's contractors to provide labor standard on this project. The city helps improve community health by reducing the use of city and county public safety net program. Piring local contractors so they hire local workers to benefit our county. Hiring apprentices. So young men and women can attend school for training. Avalanche should not be permitted to save costs by cutting corners on labor, needed to properly build these new residents. Requiring union workers will ensure avalon contractors, pay fair wages, use experience, and well trained workers. This leads to higher quality workmanship, meeting building standards, and completing the project quickly. For all these reasons. The carpenters Union urges the city of Mountain View, adopt these labor standards as a requirement for Avalon Bay Metal field project. Thank you.

[04:33:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Next speaker is Celine.

[04:33:45] Celine: All right, counsel. When this project was 1st proposed, our president was Barack Obama, and we all thought Hillary Clinton would be our next president. It was a simpler time. Personally, I was in high school. Most of my friends hadn't been priced out of our community yet, but 7 years have passed, and the housing crisis got worse, and I've had to say goodbye to friend after friend. So who did this seven-year delay serve? It didn't serve our friends and family members who got priced out. And it didn't serve anyone who was forced into overcrowded housing or evicted. When you set up hurdle after hurdle for new housing, you are making new housing more expensive. When you make exaction after exaction of a project, you are making housing more expensive. This is all of this micromanagement, I understand is well intentioned, but it is hurting the community. And I genuinely think it's embarrassing. I mean, the city has no idea what it even wants. If it did, it would have articulated that clearly to the applicant half a decade ago, and this project would already be built. But because the city doesn't know what it wants, We've been giving them moving goal posts for the last 7 years. I mean, I'm surprised we asked for them to trade parking for trees. I support the trade, but I didn't know that's what the city felt like before. So, um, you know, with all this newbie opposition, you'd think they were proposing to build a nuclear power plant. It's just housing. All of you live in a home, all every home that was constructed, had dust, I don't understand why this is so complicated. Why can't we just say yes? Thank you.

[04:35:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Clayton, Hoyun, McClintock.

[04:35:29] Clayton Hoyun McClintock: Hello, can you hear me?

[04:35:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:35:33] Clayton Hoyun McClintock: Right. Hi, uh, city council members. Thanks for this opportunity to speak. Um, I'm a San Francisco resident, um, who has visited my friends and family in in the Mountain Dew area over many years. And I really appreciate uh, the, this proposal of creating more affordable housing. It's definitely something needed all around the Bay Area. However, I am concerned about the proposed development of removing, particularly the heritage trees and particularly the, I think the southern, uh, redwood heritage trees. Um, People have, uh, rightly so, addressed uh, environmental concerns and and, uh, physical health concerns. I want to, in this very short time, bring attention to mental health. Mental health is a growing concern nationwide, including in this area. Um, recent data have shown that the effects and symptoms of mental health have only increased over recent years, including loneliness, aggression, traumatic stress, suicide, et cetera. And there are many studies that show that connection to natural environment, have significant positive impact for mental health and well-being, particularly the amazing heritage redwood trees. And I hope they are safe in this project.

[04:37:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Eric Chan.

[04:37:16] Eric Chan: Can hear me?

[04:37:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:37:20] Eric Chan: Great. Um, my name is Eric Chen, and I'm a resident of 555 West Middlefield Road. Like many others who live in this apartment complex, I also have concerns with the recent designs presented by Avalon. These concerns include the loss of the tree buffer on Highway 85, due to the placement of new units right next to the highway, resulting in an increased in toxic airborne highway pollutants and noise for everyone in the community. The two pictures, including the slides of trees in the tree buffer area without leaves, is very misleading. I would encourage anyone to go there and see what it actually looks like. And you'll find that it looks a lot different than what's shown. And the traffic hazard and density at the end of Cypress Point Drive, a dead end street, due to building over 400 underground parking garages and over 200 units in that area. As mentioned, the slides, the chair of the Sierra Club, an architect, presenting a proposal to move units and parking from Block C, the Block B, that would address these concerns. Please consider the proposal. Well, I am in support of building new hosing in Mountain View. I think Avalon can design a well, can design a more well thought out housing project that doesn't significantly degrade the environment and the health and safety of everyone living in that area. To address these concerns would benefit everyone in the community and the environment we live in.

[04:38:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Elsa Lao.

[04:38:54] Elsa Lao: Hi city council. Um, can you hear me okay?

[04:38:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:39:03] Elsa Lao: Okay, great. Um, I couldn't tell on my end. Um, thank you so much for this time to speak. My name is Elsa Lao, and I'm a resident of 555 West Middlefield. I strongly believe that Avalon is unable to handle this infill project due to existing port practices. For example, tenants were recently forced to sign liability waivers and be locked in their units per day during long renovations and all the asbestos. This was not only unsafe, but it also violated fire code. Um, and Avalon has shown no interest in long-term maintenance of the urban forest, which also provides a lot of ecopsychological benefits, um, as an earlier speaker mentioned for the growing mental health epidemic that we're all facing. Um, I believe significant issues remain in avalance redesign, uh, including the loss of heritage redwoods, number 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, uh, The loss of highway 85 tree buffer, traffic hazards and density on a dead end street, and 7 years of unhealthy air above the PM 2.5 threshold. Pat, Lucas, and Sally, you know, if Mountain View's air is port baseline, it's really not okay to say, oh well, we'll just have to make the air worse. You, our representatives, to be invested in creative solutions for a better future because if not you, then who will. Um, the issue of low income housing.

[04:40:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, Elsa. You've exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is James Kousmont.

[04:40:37] James Kousmont: Good evening, counsel. My name is James Kuzmo. I've lived pretty much my whole life in the Willgate neighborhood, immediately near the project, and I wanted to express my strong support for this project moving forward as quickly as possible. Um, this project, as we noted, has been in the boot pipeline for a long time and the council member of Lieber's, um, comments earlier, housing is extremely urgent. Um, in our area and as a new project for lots of affordable housing near transit. Um, I look forward to seeing this project completed and see new people move into our neighborhood as soon as possible. Um, and I think it's, I do think it's outstanding that we've been able to trade, um, parking for trees, but I wish it could have happened, um, from the outset rather than being this last minute edition, and I hope that we can more proactively make that same trade-off going forwards. Um, and just to draw a connection with some other projects, um, on to mention, us a council member believers, concern about, for instance, transit past expense on the Evelyn project. This project for, as part of conditions of approval, item 55 will include transit passes for, um, some new residents, and that sort of thing will be outstanding for helping people to be able to get around without a car if they don't want to. And I look forward to seeing more of that going forwards.

[04:42:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker is David Meyer.

[04:42:11] David Meyer: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez, members of the Mountain View City Council. My name is David Meyer, and I represent Silicon Valley at home, which is an affordable housing advocacy organization that works all across Santa Clara County. Uh, we've endorsed this proposal, and we've spoken support of it at a number of council meetings, um, really believe that this is an opportunity for the city, known to you to prove that we can do infill development, that doesn't displace people, and actually creates more density in the center of the city, close to businesses and trans resources. We believe this is the exact type of development that Mountain View has sought to incentivize in a lot of its other broader work around housing and infill across the city. The project is creating over 300 new homes, including nearly 50 new deed restricted affordable homes. And if the city is going to meet its long-term climate goals, we need this type of dense info housing that's accessible to the downtown and helps us get cars off the road. You know, someone who used to live within walking and biking distance, the Caltrain station, the downtown, that proximity, let us, my family, access that all the time, unless actually remain in one car household. So we really urge to see a Mountain View to seize the opportunity to do infill development, right, and approve this proposal.

[04:43:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker is Bruce England.

[04:43:36] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. The 555 West Middlefield project has demonstrated a very costly, extremely long planning process. So we ask that you please support expedited entitlement and development at this time. We've tracked the project for a very long time, and we know the developers made impressive concessions to date. For example, those related to trees protection, air quality impacts, mitigation, reduced parking, and not requiring curtain residence to relocate. So we strongly urge approval tonight. Above all, we need the additional housing this project will provide. This said, we do encourage consideration for further changes that are reasonable. And lastly, NBCSP has an established position on supporting fair labor standards, and therefore due for this project as well.

[04:44:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Matt Reagan.

[04:44:34] Matt Regan: Good evening, Mayor Ramirez, council members, Matt Regan with the Bay Area Council. We represented by 300 of the region's largest employers. I think this is my 4th time over the last 7 years speaking in behalf of in favor of this project, and hopefully my last. Um, I was intrigued earlier by the conversation about climate change in the city's commitment to addressing that challenge. As we know as a region, as a state, 41% of our greenhouse gases come from people traveling long distances from their homes to their jobs. If you take a trip out to the central valley, to the city of Lathrop, the largest single family home development in California. 12,000 single family homes. There's a billboard on the freeway that says a short commute to Silicon Valley, if you buy here. Those are 12,000 homes that should be in Mountain View. They should be in Cupertino, they should be in San Jose, but they're not, because the communities here in our inner Bay Area have refused consistently to build sufficient housing for our growing population. We urge you, if you care about climate change. to approve this project, and many more like them and do it quickly. Because, as I say, the climate problem is not going away and it needs to be addressed quickly. You have a very, very large rena number ahead of you. I think it's 11,135. I was on the arena methodology committee. That number's not going to get smaller, if you disapprove projects. So we would urge you, please approve the project, do it quickly. It's a good project. It's not perfect, none are, but this is as good as you're going to get.

[04:46:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Denley Rafferty.

[04:46:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Denley, are you able to unmute yourself? We cannot hear you. All right, one more time. Here we go. Then we still cannot hear you. Okay, uh, we'll come back to you uh, in a little bit. Uh, and move to Celia Paymer.

[04:47:08] Celia Paymer: Hi. Um, so, uh, I'm gonna speak 1st as a representative of Green Spaces, Mountain View, and that is myself. Um, so as a representative of Green Space's Mountain View. We would like to give our support in approving the project. We don't feel it's a perfect project, but most of our issues have to do with city policies with the project is aligned with. We would prefer higher park space ratios and more heritage tree valuation. But again, this is a city policies issue that needs to be fixed at the city level. And overall, this project, um, is a more modern, more green, more biodiverse project than many we've seen, um, coming through. So we still support it, as it will reduce vehicle miles traveled. Um, And so we think overall it's a benefit to our green spaces in Mountain View. Um, as a private citizen, um, a personal representative of myself. I lived here for 15 years and I, similarly to one of the other speakers, have seen many friends leave. I joke that I root for the housing market to crash so that less of my friends would leave. I think what would be even better is if there was just enough housing for them. Um, so I do personally support the project as well. Thank you.

[04:48:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Let's return to Denley Rafferty.

[04:48:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Denley, we still can't hear you.

[04:48:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Are you able to unmute yourself, gently? The unmute button. Oh, we can hear you now. Hooray. Okay.

[04:48:59] Denley Rafferty: Mayor mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Danley Rafferty, and I live directly across the street from the, uh, Wow, there's such a... Echo. I oppose the 555 West Middlefield request by Avalon. There is a serious threat to air quality in the Black Sea area. at the end of my street. Where they will recover, remove the existing matter height, vegetation barrier. Approve approximately 51 heritage trees that right now provide a toxic barrier to the carcinogenic car and truck airborne. Emissions. Also, the building, um, 55, middle field, will cause a PM 2.5 from brake linings, entries for the next 2.3 deckades, until the replacement trees grow big enough to provide an effective and functional pollutant barrier to the one currently in place. We have proposed alternative designs to the Avalon developers, but they have been virtually ignored by Avalon.

[04:50:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Finley, and my apologies for the technical difficulties earlier. Next speaker is Kelsey Bain.

[04:50:44] Kelsey Bain: Hi, good evening, council members. My name is Kelsey Baines. I am a Mountain View resident. and psychologist. Um, and I strongly believe that housing is healthcare. So I'm very excited for this opportunity for the city to reduce GHGs and improve air quality by turning 100s of freeway commuters into our neighbors who can walk and bike to the things they need. And I really appreciate the recent changes, to take away excessive parking, and leave more trees. And I hope this can be a lesson for future developments. Um, I don't want to see any changes that would reduce the number of homes which have already been reduced for this project. Um, and I want to add that I live next to a construction site, um, but it's of a displacement project. The project removed heritage trees while demolishing rent controlled homes to build fewer townhomes. So I was alarmed by the last meeting where a council member said that maybe it would be better to just demolish the rent controlled housing and give tenants a buyout. Um, and I... Really hope the council members see the connection between the demolition of rent controlled housing, um, and the increase in homelessness, the increase in vehicle dwelling that we've seen, the most impactful intervention that you can do for homelessness is preventing it from happening in the 1st place. So keeping people in their homes, keeping these low cost options available is vital to addressing the issue of homelessness in our community. So thank you for your support. Thank you for listening and have a good evening.

[04:52:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Chang Yu.

[04:52:31] Chao Yu: Hi, can you hear me?

[04:52:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:52:34] Chao Yu: Yeah, so, my name is Chao Yu, that I lived in the director, does, a project street, does Cypress point drive? So, I, again, the, the, of this project, because the Cyprus point drive is not the highway. It's the narrow street. The space per 35 new unit is even smaller than the space per existing 400 unit. Especially a precant locate, try to locate the more unit at the end of the state. There is no internet to route from the end of the street. More you need more cars at the end of on those three, then we'll have the more chance to problem. Okay, can't keep saying, notice that problem, but there is no mediation method about the density and turkey. And then I like to also point out the one more issue, the impact of the construction and more density. Or pet, not only legend in the abalone community, but it's the resident to overdo, a policy side of the Cypress point drive. But I don't see any option or mitigation proper way for the resident outside of the abdomen. Thank you.

[04:53:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Annette Lynn.

[04:53:50] Annette Lynn: Hi, um, my name is Annette Lynn, and I'm a resident of Mountain View. I've lived at Cypress 5505 Cypress Point Drive for 10 years, and I'm calling in today to strongly support the approval of the resolutions to develop this. Um, this address tonight. Um, I am very sympathetic to the environmental labor and safety issues brought up by many of the other callers. Um, and I'm sure reasonable efforts will be taken, but it's been 7 years. Um, and I believe the developer has made impressive and exceptional efforts, um, and concessions um, to what the city's residents um, need. Um, and frankly, the addition of new housing, um, especially affordable housing, a new public park, and other community benefits, will make my neighborhood in Mountain View, a more attractive place to live and work from. Um, so please, uh, vote to adopt these resolutions and expedite, um, this development tonight. Thank you.

[04:54:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Tony.

[04:55:04] Tony Pajals: Good evening, Mayor. Vice mayor and council. I'm Tony Pajals, and I live at 505 Cypress Point Drive. Um, right now, I am opposed to Billy Moore rental units. I'm not opposed to the idea of building more affordable housing though. Um, But let me qualify what I mean by that. As a single father who raised 4 children in the area, trapped under the unyielding weight of high rents at Avalon and Prometheus properties, while trying to keep my kids in good schools, and still have a reasonable commute to my work, it bothers me to think that my children can't afford to buy a home here. Is Mountain View supposed to be a community where only wealthy tech workers can own a home. It was, I was only able to buy my condo at Cypress Point Drive, my 1st home 2 years ago, 7 years after my last child graduated from high school. I would like to see real solutions for helping people, not earning high tech salaries, also have an opportunity to put down roots and enjoy the pride of home ownership in their community. Finally, with respect to saving redwoods, while I do think we need to consider ways to increase density, I also implore the council to consider that this is one of the last truly unique, beautiful groves of this size of redwood trees in Silicon Valley, interspersed with residential housing. Um, just go to Google Maps and turn on satellite view to take a look at what I mean. Please don't allow the loss of any of these gorgeous trees just to create more expensive apartments that big companies own. Um, the same thing applies to the, uh, the gorgeous foliage along the berm. Thank you.

[04:56:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Peter Katz.

[04:56:46] Peter Katz: Can you hear me?

[04:56:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:56:50] Peter Katz: Great, thank you. Um, this is Peter Katz, EO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. New housing developments are critically needed to support mountain use prosperity and growth, especially ones that are responsible, intelligent, community focused. It's vital that large projects like this that need all requirements are provided a viable pathway to conclusion, with costly delays and changes minimized as much as possible. To go backwards and continue to impose new guidelines and restrictions will eventually make the project untenable. We will lose the very type of project that we, as a city, have said that we need, want, and plan for, one that meets regulations and requirements, those of the city, the county, and independent government agencies. One that does not displace any existing residents is transit friendly, and improves areas currently used just for parking. The requirements and the process for meeting them, be they health related, environmental, aesthetic, transportation oriented are all well documented, well considered, and have been well followed. To move forward, we often have to make hard calls and trade offs. But as noted, this is a model development project that aligns with the goals set forth by Mountain View, even though those goals and concerns have evolved over time. To meet our housing needs, we will need more projects like this, not fewer. That is the message we want to send to developers, government agencies, and the public, all of whom are demanding more intelligent, cost effective, and environmental.

[04:58:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Peter. The next speaker is Rory Lipkis.

[04:58:30] Rory Lipkis: Hi, can you hear me?

[04:58:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:58:35] Rory Lipkis: Okay, um, I live at the end of Cypress Point Drive, um, across from the proposed block C. And I'm a renter, not a homeowner, but I'm a little concerned that Evelyn doesn't seem willing to commit to any sort of voluntary programs or credits, et cetera, for us on right across the street, because we are, my neighbors and I are, um, significantly closer to this, where this construction will be than even many of the current Avalon, uh, residents in 555. And so the fact, and all our windows open up directly onto where this construction will be happening and sort of the, and highway 85 and all the clearing of trees that's happening there. So it's just, it's worrying and kind of upsetting that we won't be able to really have too much protection against this inevitable dust and air pollution. Thanks.

[04:59:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Allie Saperman.

[04:59:38] Allie Saperman: Good evening, Mayor and Mountain View, city council members. My name is Allie Saberman, and I'm here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition to speak in strong support of the 555 West Middlefield project. I've shared with the city council our formal letter of endorsement, as well as 546 letters of support from Mountain View residents, and members of pro housing organizations, such as Yimby Action, Mountain View Yimby, Housing Action Coalition, Silicon Valley at Home, and Silicon Valley Leadership Group. These many 100s of neighbors share our conviction that the 555 West Middlefield Project is worthy of the council support. There are a few fundamental reasons why this should be approved without delay. First, it will create 100s of new homes while still protecting current residents. This project is a model of excellent land use as it transforms 2 underutilized parking lots to add 323 new homes to an existing multifamily community of 402 homes. And all without displacing a single resident. Second, it will add critically needed below market rate homes. By the city's own estimates, it is on pace to destroy 127 of its rent control departments every year. Fortunately, the project will designate 48 of its new homes to affordable units. Finally, environmental concerns that have been raised have gone through extensive review process by experts, and unfortunately, Nimbis are using these concerns to hold back the project. I urge you tonight to vote and support. Thank you.

[05:01:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Vince Rocha.

[05:01:13] Vince Rocha: Good evening, mayor and council. This is Vince Rocha, vice president of Housing and Community Development with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, representing over 350 of the region's largest employers and higher educational institutions. What we believe is that we need more housing opportunity for everyone here in the Bay Area. And this project does exactly that. It's complex infill development that does have its challenges, but that infill development is what's going to help us meet our climate change goals. It's gonna help us meet our reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and also the project has affordable housing. So, you've heard many comments tonight in support of this project, and the many reasons why I encourage you to vote in support of this project. you.

[05:01:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is April.

[05:02:03] April Webster: Hi, my name is April Webster. I have been a resident of 505 Cypress Point Drive for over a decade. I strongly urge counsel to approve this project and expedite development. We need more opportunities like this sooner than later. As other others have pointed out. It's not perfect, but it's solid, and it will help us meet sustainability and active transportation goals. The location of the project can be better with the unit strategically, strategically located within a 5 minute walk or bike ride of downtown. Adding new housing at this location, can start to address the dire need we have for more workforce housing in the heart of our community. As it currently stands, The people who run our local economy, teachers, firefighters, people who run our staff or restaurants, et cetera, can't afford to live here. Um, and the businesses in our community of artists already started to feel the rub, um, I'm friends with a handful of restaurant managers on Castro, and they've all told me the same thing. They're finding it challenging to attract and retain a workforce, given the long distances that they and their employees must travel. This project, not only will it make it easier to recruit, but it will have the added benefit of seeing fewer cars on the road. Fewer carbon emissions, far less traffic, and ultimately better air quality. And I also love that underutilized parking lots are being used to enable this project. I think we need, in our neighborhoods, to have them be more resilient and vibrant, more people and less cars. Thanks.

[05:03:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Daniel Hulf.

[05:03:45] Daniel Hulf: All right, can you hear me?

[05:03:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:03:50] Daniel Hulf: All right. So, uh, I live in Mountain View. I work sort of near the project. I think more people should be able to do that. Uh, I just want to remind everyone, you know, the benefits of this project. There's over 300 new units, 49 of them are dedicated as affordable. That's something the city just gets for free. We don't have to do anything for those units. Uh, also a park. Uh, also want to say definitively, this project is a net environmental, good. Uh, that's just a fact. Um, just because it's way better land use than it was before any environmental group that opposes it is just uh, illegitimate. Um, we've also gotten a lot of concessions out of this. So we've gotten preservation of trees, removal parking, got accommodations for existing tenants. Those are all good modifications, but, uh, I think it's important that we're not like stringing this project along with successively more difficult hoops for the developer to jump through, uh, which not only take, uh, their time, but also our time and staff time, uh, to uh, try to consider. So especially when we have to go back and forth between all these different groups. It's like they all want different things. So it's been a long time coming. Let's not slow the project down, keep going. very much.

[05:05:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The next speaker is D.

[05:05:24] Diane: Hi, good evening, counsel. My name is D or Diane. I'm a psychologist and a resident at 555 West Middlefield. I am wholly against this project. Avalon Bay has demonstrated repeatedly that their priority is profit. And they actively disregard individual and public safety, so I urge you to vote no tonight. I could talk about, you know, the loss of the highway 85 tree buffer, but others have, you know, these trees are sound buffers and toxic pollutant protectors. I could talk about the 7 years of 12 hours a day, daily air quality danger, that is just a health disaster waiting to happen, but others have talked about that already. I just, I think it's insufficient to suggest that Avalon Bay will relocate people who have the privilege of obtaining an indiscriminate doctor's node. Everyone is at high risk when you pollute the air like this without offering the human beings living here at adequate protection. So I could talk about all of that at length, but I won't, because others have before. What I'd mostly like to do is point out some of the bizarre and irresponsible practices of Avalon Bay that residents have observed, including myself. From forcing residents to sign liability waivers during asbestos cleaning without informing them of the asbestos's existence, to their tendency to delete our postings on our community Facebook page when residents have shared zoom links to these city council meetings, as well as deleting our factual information that we post about health hazards posed to us by this construction. It is censorship. It is alarming, and it demonstrates their care for profit over public safety. And we deserve the dignity of information and ability to use our voices. So for all of those reasons, I urge you strongly to please vote no tonight. Thank you very much.

[05:07:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Elizabeth Munoz.

[05:07:20] Elizabeth Munoz: Hello, um, my name is Elizabeth Munoz, and I've been born and raised in Mountain View, um, have lived here my whole life. Wasn't sure if I was going to be able to afford to continue to live here, but here we are, and so, of course, I'm here. Fighting this project, mostly because I feel that I will not be able to live in 7 years of construction, dust, noise, and stress, I feel that we all deserve to live in a place of peacefulness, and I don't think that 7 years. I think that the project will go much longer than that because let's be realistic, we all know that there are always delays. I feel that they'll be cutting down a lot of necessary trees. Um, I feel that a lot of people will eventually be displaced as an effect of this project and I don't really see how Avalon Bay is continually working to reassure us. I haven't really been appraised of this project very often. As other people have mentioned, we've been censored. Um, There's just not a lot of transparency happening here, and I feel that they could do better. And I feel that a lot more is needed in order to move forward, especially considering that they're due to start in 2023, which doesn't give a lot of us a chance to relocate otherware or other places if we choose. So, thank you for your consideration. I appreciate it.

[05:08:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Hala.

[05:08:59] Hala: Yes. Thank you, mayor. Hello, council members and city staff. Um, there are 3 major problems with this project's latest design. The loss of tree buffer, this design will expose current and future residence on CPD toxic dust, from tires and brake linings, respiratory health hazards, from polluted air, and noise, light, and visual stresses. These risks have been well documented and published in scientific data, and they were brought up repeatedly by the Sierra Club representative and other community members. The 2nd one is exceeding PM 2.5 threshold, as set by the Bay Area quality management district. And frankly, relying on Avalon to, um, implement mitigation that will, uh, really minimize this effect, is very questionable as you have all heard from the, uh, 555 uh, middle field tenants. The 3rd one is traffic and parking at the end of CPD. It is a narrow, dead end street, substandard. So having, um, all these cars or parking spaces added to the end does not make sense. And actually, I would advocate for taking out these parking spaces, and if necessary, we can move them under block B. A fair compromise between the residents and Avalon can be achieved by saving the tree buffer, slightly reducing density, in block C and moving required parking towards Moffatt. Thank you for listening to the community.

[05:10:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Brian Shield.

[05:10:49] Brian Shields: Hello, good evening. My name is Brian Shields and I'm a field representative of Carpenter Carpenter's Local 405. I have been a member for 11 years, and in that time, I have been afforded the opportunity through prevailing wage, healthcare, local hire, and apprenticeship to buy my home, and have a baby, contribute to my community in ways that I've never imagined. The Union prize itself on apprenticeship, on cultivating craftspersons, who truly know and care about their trade. The contractors we work for are responsible to the clients, to their neighbors as well as the workforce. We have, can and will build everything from the Bay Bridge to the house down the street. Though Avalon Bay may put on pretty slideshows, conduct community meetings, and be the best snake oil salesmen around. They do do so by standing on the backs of good, honest, hard-working people that actually do the building. Avalon Bay will provide a drag racing strip to the bottom. where workers have to rely on subsidized food, healthcare and housing. I'll leave you with an ask. I ask that Mountain View adopt labor standards as a language that developers need to adhere by in future projects. Thank you.

[05:12:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[05:12:25] Kevin Ma: Evening, counsel, in July 2nd of 2015, when this was on our gatekeeper. John McAllis was mayor. Pat was vice mayor, Dan Ridge was city manager, and Danny Quinn was city attorney. So it's been a while since this has seen the light of day, at the very beginning, and instead, this project has been kind of thrown all over the place with council switching people, different preferences being made, nitpicks everywhere, such the point that we talked about moving units from one place to another, cannot work because council previously directed that they want, did not want tolerant heights. It's pretty obvious that this project has gone way over any reasonable amount of time to make any reasonable decision about this project, and really, we all understand this housing crisis does not dictate us making perfect because there's no perfect in the situation. We're kind of given the cars we dealt with and we need to move on from there. For all the concerns about mental health, as a person in their 20s, one of the greatest things in my mental health is just being able to say not the location. You can't understand the location. It rents so sky high that, you know, you move out. And even for those who are more higher up the employment chain. They usually move to other places. Like in the middle of the forest. is like Tracy, Modesto, the hills where, you know, they catch fire. And when those fires happen, the PM for everyone just sucks. So we really need to be building in places that are well planned and this is one of them. Thank you.

[05:13:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Daniel Shane.

[05:14:09] Daniel Shane: Hi, can you hear me?

[05:14:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:14:13] Daniel Shane: Alright, thanks. My name is Daniel Shane. I live at Cypress Point Woods, Townhouse. next to the proposed project site. We are for housing. We are for housing development. We're against this project design. The developer proposes to remove the tree's vegetation tree barrier system in Black Sea that extends above Caltran's sound wall between Highway 85 and our homes. This is the most significant long term threat to public health welfare in the environment. If this project moves forward. This public health threat was not addressed in the EIR. The residents requested numerous times for the developer and city staff to address the very serious potential health hazard and exposures to toxic air pollutants for years to come. We have submitted to EPC, city council, and Avalon Bay, several scientific studies reports, and fact sheets about the important health benefits of highway tree barrier system. The existing highway tree barrier system is a poster child from the most effective pollution barrier system. This existing highway system is was totally misrepresented by the photos, and the information, and the deceptions from the Avalon Bay. The resident, um, the barrier system, it meets all the criteria, according to EPA for the maturity, tree high density, thickness, no gaps, evergreen, and overlapping.

[05:15:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Daniel, I'm sorry, you exhausted your time. have to be fair to everybody.

[05:15:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Next speaker is Leona Chu.

[05:15:55] Leona Chu: Can you hear me?

[05:15:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[05:15:57] Leona Chu: I I want to say that I was shocked this evening. to see the photos of the trees that were said to be at the end of Avalon's property. Those stripped bare, ugly trees. I live on Cypress Point Drive. I've taken photographs of the trees at the end of Cypress Point Drive, and at the end of block C on Avalon's property. The photos you saw. Or at the end of Cypress Point Drive. They are not photos of the trees at the end of block C. And if you want to see that for yourself. I encourage you to go there tomorrow and walk and see. And I want to say emphatically, we need to save this tree buffer. If anything, we need to enhance it and protect the heritage trees. These trees are our lungs. They take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. They preserve the health of all the residents living on Avalon's property now and in the future, as well as those on Cypress Point Drive. The other thing is, we need to move 24 units, the ones closest to highway 85, so that no one gets to live.

[05:17:51] Sayonomura: Hello?

[05:17:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We can hear you. We can hear you. Okay.

[05:17:57] Sayonomura: Hi, hello, city council members. My name is Sayonomura. I'm a resident on Cypress Point Drive for 10 years, and I opposed this project. Abalone will still cut the tree buffer on highway 85. And the air quality PM 2.5 during construction for long time, 7 plus years, is too risky and too stressed for the residents and the high density. This will cause the traffic hazard on long, narrow dead end street. Cypress point will be congested, especially I worry about the emergency situation happens. Many police cars, and the ambulance, and the fire cars can block the narrow street. And then the photo we saw earlier, they are misleading. They are not all the trees like photo. Please check. And then I appreciate abalone is willing to change for the community. We are not against the housing development in mountain view, but no high density on this dead end street. Please make the right decision for healthy, safe environment, that residents are very stressed already. And the residents will have to suffer with polluted air for a long time. And I hope the city of mountain view stands for the residents and environment. Please, please help to protect our health and safety. Thank you very much.

[05:19:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Diane.

[05:20:00] Diane: Thank you. Um, when the, when the staff report, um, stated Avalon said that moving units from Block C would make the project infeasible, notice they use the word infeasible and not unfeasible. On a 14.5 parcel, with a 1.3 acre park, a dog park, a one story community building, an extended one story business center. There are many options to move, 24 units from right in front of the freeway. Freeway 85. Feasible means not convenient or easy. Does Apalon mean that they need a 30%, 40% margin on this project, and reducing it 1% is not convenient? Does Avalon mean Avalon one of the largest reeds in the United States, not have an environment, or social government policy, so they are not concerned with these principles, only concerned about their shareholders. Council members tonight, spoke about important heritage trees, biodiversity, people living on site with asbestos, which I thought was illegal. And the traffic, 70% of all Avalon traffic is parking at the end of a dead end street, there will be 599 bicycles, supposedly on the street, and hundreds of cars coming.

[05:21:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Diane. Next speaker is Gita Dev.

[05:21:53] Gita Dev: Hello, can you hear me now?

[05:21:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can. We can.

[05:21:58] Gita Dev: Thank you. Good evening, counsel, and Mayor Ramirez. This is Gita Dev, speaking for CR Club. The Sierra Club is actually very supportive of info housing. But designed to be respectful of nature. I believe everyone can recognize that the tree buffer was pathetically misrepresented. The trees along the freeway are an important part of the city's mature tree canopy, and part of a biodiversity corridor, connecting the bay to the hills. But I would like to turn our thoughts to an important concept alluded to several times earlier this evening, a growing movement supporting the importance and the rights of nature, recognizing these rights is important to us, to ensure we live in a healthy and clean environment, with a right to enjoy nature, while also granting nature, its own inalienable rights. This means recognizing that ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property that can be owned, destroyed, and damaged. Rather, liver, rivers, lakes, forests, are entities that have an independent and inalienable right to exist and flourish, and are living, breathing entities that live with us and support us. Instead, we are destroying our urban canopy, which is a valuable living, breathing entity. Which should not be scraped off and destroyed. Thank you.

[05:23:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, very much. The next speaker is Victoria Thai.

[05:23:43] Victoria Thai: Hi, can you hear me?

[05:23:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:23:46] Victoria Thai: Yeah, so I'm a current resident, a tenant on in Cypress Point Woods, and I would just like to say that I'm frankly appalled by all the calls to expedite this project at the expense of the health of current residents. Um, I've, having lived here for several years, I've actually met many of my neighbors who have been here for much longer on the order of decades. One of my neighbors has been here for 40 years, and they don't really have too many other options. And so to not provide any support for the people living in Cypress Point Woods and Cypress Point Lakes, to sort of move, to sort of move or, or at least, you know, protect themselves against the inevitable pollution, especially if their tree area is going to be removed, is unacceptable to me. And I find that most of my neighbors would agree with that. Thank you.

[05:24:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Bill Walsh.

[05:24:50] Bill Walsh: Hello, can you hear me?

[05:24:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:24:56] Bill Walsh: Uh, I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk. My name is Bill Walsh and I live at 339 Cypress Point Drive. I'd like to point out that most of the people supporting this project will not be affected by it. It's easy to support something when you're not being directly affected. On the other hand, most of the people affected by it are opposed. They think it is a very bad proposal that will seriously affect their quality of life, to add a few insignificant housing units to an already congested residential neighborhood. And it will affect the health and welfare of many people. People support good development. But they're opposed to this very bad proposal at this location. There are much better alternative proposals for this project. A vote, yes, is a vote for a bad proposal. It will generate negative, it will negatively affect people. A no vote is a vote for people. It will protect their health and welfare. Please vote no on this very bad proposal.

[05:26:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your time. The next speaker is... For mean, saseedo.

[05:26:17] Furman Salcito: Hi, can you hear me?

[05:26:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:26:22] Furman Salcito: Hi, my name is Furman Salcito, and I'm a resident of Senator Clara County, and I'm speaking on behalf of Carpenters Union Local 405. Our union represents 1000s of carpenters who live and work in Mountain View. For big projects like this one. Uh, developers should be required to invest in skilled and train a construction workforce, for committing to higher labor standards, and apprenticeship opportunities. The subway needs more trained construction workers that need to meet demand for the new housing, tech industry, expansion and major public infrastructure projects that are in the pipeline. Currently more than half of the construction trades, hustles in the mountain view qualify for affordable housing. Apprenticeship trained for to proven way to boost US construction workers, lifetime earnings, and this would enable, enable more of the workforce to remain in the region. Well, no, on this project.

[05:27:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. For your comments. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[05:27:34] Alex Brown: Mail, uh, project looks good. Let's do it.

[05:27:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The end of your comment. Thank you very much. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak. We will return to the council for deliberation and action. And I'll note that a motion to approve the item should also include reading the title of the resolutions which are included in the agenda flow. Um, I'm, I've already closed public comment. I'm sorry, those of you who have, uh, just jumped in. Um, uh, I'll, just as a, an aside, I know this is a challenging project, and I appreciate all of the members of the public who turned out to speak, and, um, you know, generally, uh, we're very respectful, and I, I really appreciate that just given how, um, uh, how much attention has been paid to the project, and, um, also wanted, uh, note that we have discussed this before. Um, I'm, of course, you know, want to allow every member of the council as much time as they need to deliberate, but, um, if this is, uh, not a new project, so, um, uh, I'll encourage us to be as uh, judicious with our time as we can be. Council member Lieber.

[05:28:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mira. I have a few questions for staff. In terms of the tree buffer along highway 85. Um, we were told somewhere in the process tonight that, um, some of the tree buffer does not belong to, uh, Avalon. And um, am I understanding that correctly?

[05:29:25] Unknown Speaker: Council member Lieber, um, the tree buffer that's outside the wall, along the freeway, is not on the property line and staff showed a picture of those trees. The trees that are with, on the inside of the wall, um, are within avalanche property and are proposed to be removed.

[05:29:44] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, so there are some trees that are outside of the wall. Are they, um, I can't remember the slide now. We've seen so many different things, but it seemed like I saw something that was sizeable.

[05:29:58] Unknown Speaker: Um, yeah, Diana can share the slide.

[05:30:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so are the trees that we're looking at here? Are they inside or outside?

[05:30:12] Unknown Speaker: These are, um, Diana, can you confirm, these are outside the wall on the freeway?

[05:30:18] Diana: Yeah, these are outside the wall. These are, just adjacent to the, to the Highway 85. And not in Avalons property.

[05:30:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: It's outside. Okay. And in terms of the, the 7 years. Um, my understanding is that the reason that it is taking 7 years is due to staging. And due to not displacing uh, the residents that are there. Um, So if it were done, um, all in one go, if there were not, people living on the site, my understanding is it would be like 18 months. But because of the desire to not displace people, um, if they don't wish to be is why it's 7 years. Am I understanding that correctly?

[05:31:14] Unknown Speaker: Um, Joe probably can respond to that. He's the applicant and can best respond to his project schedule.

[05:31:21] Joe: Uh, sure, I can, um, I'll pull up a slide. Um, So, um, this shows the anticipated schedule. This has been pushed back, um, by about a quarter, um, as we move from February now to May. Um, so, yes, the, the reason for the schedule, it, we will not be doing construction work on the entire partial, or, you know, the entire property, um, all at once, it will be phased. That phasing is, one, to avoid having construction work going on in every part of the property at once, which would be very difficult to, um, to manage to deal with, um, it also creates some parking headaches on the property. So we phase the parking so that everyone always will have a place to park. And this is, I mean, it's on the screen. So we would start, um, the part parcel preparation, which is required, um, before we start construction, um, we'd start that at the end of 2023. Um, and then each building would take, uh, building A is a little smaller, um, would take a little over a year, and then, um, the two subsequent buildings would be about two years each.

[05:32:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you. And, um, I'm trying to make sure that my understanding of the, um, of the air quality issues is is correct, that, um, Bay Area air quality has suggested, Additional mitigations and staff has worked with them and those have been adopted into what's before us. Now at this point. And so the, the 2.5 number, um, so that would be if someone stood, um, next to heavy machinery, for, and it was running for 8 hours and they stood there for the 8 hours. Um, ventilating directly off of the machinery. Am I understanding that?

[05:33:24] Unknown Speaker: Well, um, I will try to explain, and, you know, if you need, um, further explanation, we do have our air quality consultant and our environmental consultant. Um, as I understand it, um, it's, it's a conservative estimate, and sequel requires, um, us to, um, look at the most um, impacted areas. And those have been identified, and it does assume in the locations of the buildings that have been identified, there are 3 on the site, um, that, that, um, it is not enclosed, and the exposure is 24 seven. Um, for somebody who'd be standing outdoors in, in, in the location of where the building would be.

[05:34:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Um, and then lastly, um, in terms of the labor issue, uh, the last time that this was before us, we had discussion, um, about the labor issue. And we do have, um, a policy or a plan coming back to us in terms of, uh, local hire. Um, and and do we have time frames around that?

[05:34:52] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, Mayor Ramirez, a council member labor. So staff in the city manager's office is currently working on that project. And I believe it is anticipated to be brought to council before the end of the calendar year. I will need to ask our assistant city manager, um, Audrey Ramberg to confirm, uh, because she is, um, helping staff with this project. So she would just give, um, some insight into that time frame.

[05:35:21] Audrey Ramberg: Thank you, city manager, McCarthy. The city manager's offices working on a responsible construction ordinance as well as a wage theft ordinance, but I believe that the labor issues being raised by public speakers tonight would be covered under the community workforce agreement, which is a separate project and is scheduled to begin, um, uh, is under the leadership of the public works, uh, department. And, um, I'm recalling that that was scheduled to begin at the end of 2022. Um, or beginning of 2023. But if um, uh, if you would like further information on that, we could certainly get back to you with a more accurate timeline.

[05:36:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I would definitely love to hear further information. It's something that's their substantial interest in the community. And it's sort of part and parcel of what we do on a daily basis, because, um, uh, you know, as as we try to create affordable housing, as we try to put all kinds of financial patches on the community, and et cetera. Uh, I think that we need to have those, those pieces in place, and, and I'm really glad that it's finally moving forward, and, um, uh, it, sadly, it won't be in time for this project, but, um, I, I think we really need to stay appraised of what's happening, because I kind of want to make sure that it's on track, and that we keep a very, um, studious eye on everything that's happening there and the timing of it, because there are going to be other projects coming forward. And I'm gonna hold it to that right now.

[05:37:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Excuse me, can I just clarify one thing on the air quality response? And I just want to make sure because some of the public commenters made some comments along these lines. Um, if, if, uh, staff can confirm, the exposure 24/7 means the study assumes someone is standing outdoors 24/7, not that there would be impacts, there would be exposure 24/7. I just wanna make sure that's very clear.

[05:37:37] Unknown Speaker: Counsel, that is correct. It assumes that somebody's standing out there 24/7. It doesn't say that the exposure will be 24/7.

[05:37:49] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And if I just might ask a follow on question through the mayor, if I, if I may, um, would there be a reason? So, there wouldn't be a reason for a worker to be in that area 247, there wouldn't be a reason for a piece of machinery to be running 247, um, it's hard to imagine that a, another person who's not a worker would, have a reason to be in an active construction area interacting with heavy machinery. Um, And so am I understanding that correctly?

[05:38:32] Unknown Speaker: That is correct. We have construction a horse, um, and we don't allow construction 247. Or running of machinery, um, 247. We're just explaining, um, the assumptions that one has to make when, um, employing Backman's model. And again, you know, if there are detailed questions, there are, our air quality consultant can respond to some, the detailed questions.

[05:38:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, well, this is actually very helpful as I'm trying to understand the impact of the model because I don't think that there would ever be a reason, given that we restrict the construction hours to less than 24 hours, and, and people will not be working 24 hours, and, so therefore, machinery won't be running, and a person would not be ventilating off that machinery. Um, so that's, um, very helpful, and I'll hold it to that, mayor, and I'd be prepared to make a motion when the time is right.

[05:39:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Labor. I did want to turn 1st to city manager McCarthy.

[05:39:44] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. I would like to ask our public works director, Don Cameron, to clarify the project that we were just referring to, um, as our assistant city manager stated, the public works department is leading this, and the intention was to start this year, but I want to clarify what the parameters were around the project, um, right now as it is in the work plan.

[05:40:08] Don Cameron: Thank you, city manager. This is Don Cameron, Public Works director. What we've been talking about is the development of a community workforce agreement, and public works is taking the lead on that, and we are in the midst of putting together a work plan and approach to that, and hope to have something back to council, in the fall about how we would proceed with developing that. However, we need to clarify that what a community workforce agreement is a legal agreement between the city and the trades related to city projects. We cannot enter into agreements with the trades that are committing private development, private contractors to local hire and other community workforce type provisions. So, again, what we're working on is only related to city funded projects at this time. The responsible construction ordinance and the wage depth ordinance will apply to private construction, but it's not the same, that is not local hire provisions or anything like that.

[05:41:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, uh, Don, but a clarification. Council member show Walter.

[05:41:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, thank you. I'm going back to the air pollution. I, I, I seem to remember that when we discussed this, uh, was it 2 months ago, I guess, in February? Um, uh, the, uh, we asked questions about, I asked some questions and got answers about how long the, um, the PMT, um, accedents would be expected from them, from the equipment after it's turned off. And I don't remember the exact amount of time, but it's a fairly short time. So, um, could Steph confirm that with, for me, that basically, when the equipment is turned off, the, the, um, the numbers go down within the hour? Isn't that what we heard?

[05:42:20] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that's what we've been told when we discussed it with our air quality consultant. Again, there's no specific modeling, but yes.

[05:42:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Right, right. So it's very important to remember that modeling, from an engineering point of view, to be protective of public health is purposefully done, to be very, very conservative. And that's really different. And that's important, because we need to know, you know, I mean, we need to know what sort of is the worst case scenario. But then when you actually, um, look at the components of the model and compare how it relates to this situation at hand. Um, I think that, uh, it does paint a little different picture. And, um, and what we will see here is that these, these air quality numbers will go up, particularly when there's digging going on, that will probably be the worst thing. And then when that equipment is turned off, within an hour or so, it will be fine. I mean, the air quality will be back to ambient. You know, back to the... So, it's not gonna be 24/7. Uh, for one thing, they're not. don't think they're gonna work on weekends, right? So, it's gonna be five days a week. I mean, even during the time when they were doing excavating. It would be from, what, 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock at night? Isn't that correct?

[05:43:49] Unknown Speaker: I believe our construction hours allow work from 7 to 6.

[05:43:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Seven to six. Okay. So that's the worst case scenario would be seven to six for five days a week. And, um, uh, how long it would the excavation period go on, um, uh, Mr. Kirch offer?

[05:44:10] Joe: Uh, it would be a few months for each, uh, for each phase for each building, uh, you know, shorter, obviously, in the prep of the, you know, there is no excavation during the prep of the park parcel. Um, but then, say, two to three months, um, for the, for the deeper garage in building A, and then a little less than that in buildings B and C.

[05:44:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so that isn't to say that it's not a problem. But it isn't going to be a problem for, um, uh, you know, for seven years nonstop. Um, I certainly really do have a great deal of sympathy, however, for the inconvenience of having a construction project in your neighborhood. I know I live near El Camino Hospital, and that was rebuilt not too long ago, and it took a very long time. I think it was only five years, but it was... You know, it was a long time. That said, it's a big improvement for a community, and that's really... I mean, the idea with these impacts is that they're short term impacts for a long term gain. And, um, that's what I think is really important with this air quality. is that, yes, there is an impact, and we're going to work as hard as we can to mitigate it. But it's for a long term gain. Um, because, uh, having this infill development will allow people to live closer, which does reduce our regional vehicle miles traveled. And that is good for all of us. So, you know, it's a balance. It's a balancing act. I am ready to make emotion. Is that appropriate, mayor?

[05:46:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Emotion is in order. Um, if you want to make it now, that's your prerogative, we do have some speakers in the queue, though, up to you.

[05:46:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right. Okay, we're going with the speakers, I suppose.

[05:46:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council number, Abby Koga.

[05:46:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I just had a question, um, going back to the labor standards um issue. Since this was a gatekeeper project, um, we could have, or we have usually required community benefits, I believe, um, could we make labor, the labor standards as described a condition or a community benefit? Um,

[05:46:52] City Attorney Logan: Council member, I'll be Koga. community benefits are typically voluntarily offered by the applicant. So, um, it's fine if the applicant wants to respond to that and council can, um, fashion, um, emotion accordingly.

[05:47:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: With the gatekeeper, it's just like, um, when we did the public storage project, right, their offering was an extra land to get more affordable units. And, um, I mean, they offered that, but frankly, you know, I suggested that. So, um, can't we as council members say, well, this is what we would like as a community benefit? You mean condition the project? Yes.

[05:47:36] City Attorney Logan: Um, it's not been typically done, but it's something um, I'm gonna probably have to. Um, discuss very briefly and get back to you.

[05:47:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And I've asked this before, and I just haven't had a, like, in a, you know, what's maybe complicated, but, um, I have brought this up before and just haven't had a clear answer.

[05:47:59] City Attorney Logan: Um, let me let me get back to you on that.

[05:48:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? I want to share some quick thoughts. Um, let me, last, spoke about this project. I had shared my reasons for supporting it. And while I agree with, uh, council member show Walter and others that there are, um, impacts that we need to be sensitive to, the, uh, construction period is pretty lengthy, and if you live in the area, that's not going to be pleasant to contend with. I know because I live in the San Antonio shopping center area and we've had a lot of construction there. Uh, time, um, I was living, uh, in an apartment, um, with a window facing directly towards, um, the CSMA extension. Uh, which is a, uh, you know, a fairly modest project, uh, you know, relative to the apartment complexes that are going up nearby. Um, but during the pandemic and the shelter and place requirement. Um, it was a big pain to the neck, and I mostly had to keep my window closed. Um, which, you know, particularly during, uh, you know, the intense, you know, heat waves that we had at the time, um, was, was challenging. I didn't have air conditioning. I don't have, um, or didn't have a, a ceiling fan, so I, I, uh, full sensitivity to how, uh, impactful, uh, construction can be. And our job in part is to, the greatest extent possible, mitigate those impacts and then uh, identify uh, benefits to the community. And then my mind based on what our counsel and previous counsels have been asking for. The merits the merits of the project are very strong. The 15% inclusionary component, the 48 affordable homes, is pretty remarkable. Uh, we, I, I don't know if we've actually had, maybe one other project with the full 15% inclusion rate provided, um, you know, one. 3 acre park, um, and you know, we spoke earlier about the need for parks, and this is a, uh, a park deficient area. Um, that's something that would be very challenging to get, how land is very expensive and cobbling together, one. 3 acres is no trivial fee. Uh so getting that is a major benefit. Uh, the $2000000 in unrestricted or discretionary community benefit funds, which I hope we reinvest in this neighborhood. Um, you know, is a tremendous benefit as well. Um, all of those things are, are in my mind. Uh, important factors in evaluating the the merits of the project relative to the impacts. Um, 2 other things that I think are worth mentioning, though. One is the housing element. If we do not proceed with the project, we're going to have to find another place for 323 new homes, and that's going to be hard. Um, I don't think there really is, uh, a lot of opportunity in Mountain View outside of North Bay or in East Wisman, to put a project of this magnitude without some concerns expressed by the community that exists around it. Um, and it's, it's, it's the kind of project that I think we would prefer to see over the displacement projects that we've approved over the years, uh, a member of the public reference 1555 West Middlefield, project that demolished 116 apartments, many of which were occupied. Um, and also included the removal of 55 heritage trees, which is more than the number of heritage retreat, heritage trees removed by this project. Um, the housing element is going to be hard to contend with, and I think it's good to think about. If not here, you know, where, would we, where would we find a place, um, for a project like this that includes the benefits that it provides? But the thing that I think is, is the most compelling element to me, as I thought about this project over the past few months, is, our staff wouldn't bring to us a project that caused serious problems for the community. They wouldn't recommend for approval, projects that did not have great value to the community. Um, if, you know, no offense, Joe, but if folks in the area are very skeptical of Avalon, that's fine. I understand why. Um, you know, they don't have to believe what you're saying. But I think it's important that we trust our city employees who are technical experts, who have spent a great deal of time, evaluating the project, you know, working with the applicant, working with the community, working with other technical experts like the Bachmed staff to identify best practices and mitigations to make the project as minimally impactful as possible, and also to get as much value from the project as we possibly can get as a city. Um, and so I, you know. I'm trusting our staff on this one. I think you've done good work. Is it perfect? No, but I'm not sure there is a perfect project. Um, so those are the 3 things I'm looking at, um, and um, you know, would be open to other considerations and ideas as well. Um, I don't see any other hands in, uh, the queue, uh, emotion is in order, council member leaper.

[05:53:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I think is, is for, um, waiting for other input, we could, uh, begin to get started. And, um, So I'd like to move that we adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, approving a general plan amendment to add a new high low density residential land use designation and making related text amendments in an amendment to the general plan, land use map for the property located at 555 West Middlefield Road, from medium density residential to high low density residential, to be read in title only. For the reading waved. Second, that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, improving a planned community permit and development review permit to allow. A 323 unit addition to an existing 402 unit residential development, with 3 new subterranean garages, new amenity building, leasing office, and new one. 34 acre, public park, and a heritage tree removal permit to remove 51 heritage trees at 555 West Middlefield Road to be read entitled only for their reading waived. And 3rd that we adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, approving a vesting tentative map to create 3 lots with up to 111 condominium units at 555 West Middlefield Road, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Thank you very much.

[05:55:25] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Um, Let's aim for a 2nd 1st if that's okay, Council member Mattachek, Council member show, Walter. Did you want to 2nd the motion?

[05:55:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I would like to 2nd this motion. Um, and I, I, I'd, uh, I'd like to talk about why I'm 2nding this motion. First of all, I...

[05:55:44] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Before we do... Or you want... Councilman Lisa Chance?

[05:55:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sure, that's fine, too.

[05:55:49] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, yeah. I just needed the 2nd procedure relief, but council member Mattachek was in mind before you, and I'm sorry if I'm being presumptuous with council member Mattachek, and thinking that you weren't going to 2nd the motion, but, um, we'll go ahead and send.

[05:56:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Good assumption, I was not going to 2nd the motion. Um, but I agree with your comment about, um, all of the work that staff is put into this. Um, a great deal of work has gone into this project. And I know they've tried to make it the best project they could. And I appreciate that. Um, I wanna thank all the residents for staying engaged on this project. Um, I know you have lots of other things going on in your lives. And this just added more to plates that were already full. But thank you very much for hanging in there for so long on this project. I appreciate the alternative was that was developed by the Sierra Club. Um, but I also totally understand the challenges of trying to implement it. Um, there were some things that we didn't get a chance to talk about, um, that also post challenges. Um, the fact that the council that authorized this for Gatekeeper wanted some of the units to be ownership units, um, close challenges for doing the Sierra Club, uh, proposal. Um, I appreciate that, uh, more trees have been saved, um, but this is still a lot of trees that are proposed to be removed. And um, I have concerns about that. Um, you know, we really need to address this. Um, It happens a lot here. Um, I appreciate the additional conditions, um, of approval were um, added to address the air quality during construction. I think those were good ads. Um, but I do still have concerns about the impact of this very, very long construction period um, on not just the residents who live at this complex, but also the residents in the surrounding areas. Um, it's um, at least 7 long years of, um, Disruption. Um, and, um, during periods where there is excavation going on, um, uh, you know, well, you need to try to control it as best you can. You can, there will still be some dust. Um, But, you know, for me, as I've said before, this all comes down to the fact that, um, this proposed development is not in a change area. And I really don't think the previous council should have approved this for gatekeeper status. And the city does know what it wants. And that's based upon resident input, and that's how we created our current general plan, and that defines what we want in our city. And this project is asking for a change to that general plan, and to make significant changes in the neighborhood, that was not supposed to change. So even with the recent changes to this proposed development, um, I can't support this project. Thank you.

[05:59:18] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you for your remarks. Uh, and, uh, sorry, Council member, I, since I interrupted council number, show, Walter. We'll go to her, and then we'll come back to you, and then to, uh, counselor member. So tell us a membership, we'll through your next.

[05:59:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, um, I too would like to take a staff. Thank the staff, you've been working very hard on this for a long time. And, um, uh, I also appreciate the Sierra Club for coming forward with an idea. I think the truth is, when we put together, when alternatives are put together. Um, sometimes you can take a part of it, but you can't take all of it for one reason or another. And that was certainly the case in this instance. Um, we really do. Uh, we can't compromise the access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. It's just not, it's not something we can do. And so, um, uh, we weren't able to, uh, accommodate the entire alternative. It just wouldn't work. Which was unfortunate. But, but, that suggestion. Um, to save trees in the middle, and, um, reduce the parking, that the applicant was willing and able to do that. I think that's quite wonderful. And I'm really pleased. They are beautiful trees, and somebody said, Well, maybe, maybe the excavation will, um, uh, will upset those trees, and they won't make it, but... I don't know. I think maybe they'll know how to protect them, and they'll be fine. So that's what I'm, uh, banking on. Uh, but I think the thing that I just keep coming back to, uh, two things about this, this, um, complex, said, I'm really pleased with. One is that this is just such a great location, such a great walkable location. It's a five minute walk to downtown. Um, when we have the underpass under, um, Evelyn, that connection is going to be just so delightful for, um, these residents to use, these new residents to use, and, and also other people who live there now. And then, and so I think that that, that the walkability of this site, and, um, is, is just gonna make it, you know, a really pleasant place to live. And I also think the access to the Stevens Creek Tra The Stevens Creek Trail is a good way to get across El Camino. It's good way to get to the high school. I mean, it will be in just, I know, from living off of it, that it's just a great community connector, and it will serve a very, very useful purpose for people who want to live, you know, without a car. This will be one place where you can, you can genuinely live without a car. And, um, that's, you know, that's pretty rare, and most of America. And, um, but we know, from an environmental point of view, that being able to develop those places is, is a big public service. Um, so I'm really excited about that. And then the other thing about this project that I think is, is, um, is really wonderful is the lack of displacement. I was just extremely troubled, um, during 2015 and 16, when we listened for, when the council listened for to hundreds of people, talk about the horrors of being displaced, because rents had gone up, and the horrors of losing their friends, because they had to move out of town. Nobody has to move here. And these rent controlled apartments will remain rent control departments. And I think that that's just extremely valuable. So, um, with all that in mind, I'm really, um, a, uh, you know, I'm really in support of this project. And, um, I'm going to be glad to vote for it. Thank you very much.

[06:03:29] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Let's take a quick detour to City Attorney Log, if that's okay.

[06:03:35] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Mayor Hicks. Good evening, council members. I just wanted to respond to the question from council member Avocoga about whether or not we could impose, um, as a condition of approval, if I understood correctly, it would be a type of a local hire requirement or something to that effect. Um, I think that those types of policies imposing labor standards of that nature, like living wage or equal benefits, local hire, really need to be an adopted city policy that applies. you know, that is generally applicable and that are not applied on a case-by-case basis. Um, I would definitely want to look into this further before we impose such a condition. There are also nexus requirements that we would need to consider before we impose that condition. So, um, you know, I think tonight, um, we couldn't do that without further research.

[06:04:34] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you for um, looking into that question. Council member Abitoka.

[06:04:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, um, city attorney and, um, Mr. Vusteva, for, uh, responding to my question, um, uh, as much as I understand it, I, I, I guess, you know, I, I thought, this might be project, uh, a project, but if we're moving towards some kind of policies down the road, um, it could be the start of that, but, um, regardless, um, I do want to thank everyone involved in this project for a very long time, especially, um, our staff who have worked, I think, really, um, really hard to, um, try to make this project a good one. Um, I appreciate the developer too. Um, I think that, um, I appreciate the efforts and the, the, um, willingness to to make some changes and, um, especially on regards to the air quality, um, aspects. And, um, I guess, let me think the, uh, residents too. Um, seven, it is a long, it has been a long time in the making, um, and so I do appreciate um, the interest. I feel like the interest has grown over time. Um, and so I appreciate the, the, um, involvement of our community. Um, I did want to call out the air quality aspects because, um, as you know, as I've mentioned, um, I am on the Bay Area air quality management district. And after we saw this, uh, in February, I had asked my, um, air district staff about this uh, conflict, this issue. Um, and uh, our city staff uh, worked with them to come up with these extra mitigation measures. And I really appreciate that. Um, I think, you know, it's still, there's a lot of gray area to all of this, and the science is not completely, um, solid, I'd say. Um, or it's, it's hard to measure, I think, is really more the challenges we have here. Um, But I think, um, one, I think it's better to be conservative than not because, unlike what I've, I think I heard earlier. Um, you know, PM 2.5 is toxic. It is a public health concern. It does cause health issues, um, including lung cancer. So, I don't want to, um, you know, take this lightly, and I guess I am a bit concerned that folks are taking this a little more lightly than I would expect. Um, you know, perhaps it's because I'm immersed in this right now. And we're working on care communities, lower income communities in the Bay Area, really focused on East Oakland, Richmond, areas where there are neighborhoods around the refineries. Um, but there are real, there are real health aspects, health, um, just, issues, um, where, you know, cancer is, there's a higher rate of cancer within a half a mile of a refinery compared to outside of that perimeter. So, um, you know, I do take this very seriously. And so I'm glad that we were able to come up with extra mitigations. Um, I hope that we can continue to work on this, to codify these mitigations and and find, um, you know, perhaps more solutions. Um, and I went, I've gone back to the air district staff again. Um, You know, after seeing the, the, um, the, the staff report and ask them to continue to work work on this because we probably will see other projects like this in front of us. And I really do not believe it's acceptable for, and for, to be expected for a council to continue to vote for overriding considerations on an ER. It just makes me, it just makes me question what the point of the whole process is. if we're just gonna keep overriding them. And, you know, as much as I hear the comments, well, this is not any different from any other project. Um, and yes, the big issue is that we are a non-attainment district in the Bay Area. But, you know, if we continue to just override the EIR, continue to allow this to happen, there is a cumulative effect, and it is going to get worse. So I think we really need to address this head on. Um, regardless of that, as much as I appreciate the improvements that have been made, um, I think I ultimately go back to similar to Council member Madachek's comments, this was not, um, you know, it was a gatekeeper, 7 years ago. Um, and, um, frankly, if you ask me, it should have never been approved at the gatekeeper level because as mentioned, you know, there's a reason why we have a general plan. And if anything, we could have, you know, looked, put this in the Moffat precise planning area, um, and precise planned it first. Um, I wasn't on council at that time. So, of course, you know, I had no say in that. But I guess my point is that I believe that from the beginning, this could have been done better. And even with the project, I've heard I heard public comments of, you know, street folks saying, well, you should decide what you want. And I actually did tell the applicant from the very beginning, when I 1st met with them in 2017, I think there are issues with the proposal, you know, I support density. I've supported it all along. Um, But, you know, I had suggested you put the density over on the middle field side. But I was told, you know, that's not feasible, this and that. And, um, I guess I question feasibility. That's all subjective, if you ask me. Yes, I'm sure there's a bottom line, but, you know, on this project, especially, there's no land cost here because the land was owned and they're simply adding units to land that is already owned. So I would think there's more flexibility. I think we've seen that in some of the mitigations, but it really makes me, you know, I just believe that from the very beginning, I had said, this is what I think needs to be done, to make it a quality project that will succeed and that can be supported by the neighborhood. And it just wasn't, you know, I was on the losing side of votes or just wasn't, folks didn't follow my suggestions. So here we are. And my, you know, my, it's interesting because I think about all the projects we've had. And I haven't seen this much, um, neighborhood interest since, um, the Madeira project in front of the train station about 10 over 10 years ago. Um, but even with that, I feel that over time the neighborhood, um, the neighbors were, you know, starting to buy into it. And of course, there'll always be opposition, but in this situation, I feel it's been the opposite where there's been more opposition. And so I guess I really might question, um, you know, how much, yeah, how much more could we have listened to the community? Or could we have listened to the community earlier on? Um, so in light of that, that's my, you know, my baseline reason that where I can't support this, you know, I could have supported a different project, maybe even a higher, a higher density project, if the density is in the right place. Um, as far as displacement and, um, you know, redevelopment, um, It's interesting. I think this, this has been a good case example where, um, you know, there are some underlying conflicts that we have to address, is displacement more important than public health. Um, you know, should we have, I think, we should have relocated folks. Um, We could have done a, you know, different, maybe better, maybe even more units on this project. Um, and it just, you know, want to want to highlight that there's, it seems to be this assumption that rent controlled units mean low income tenants, but that's really not the case for in all cases. And even in this case, it was maybe 20% that would qualify for low income. My concern is, you know, and I know people have lived through construction, and I've said this before, but I have lived through 4 years of construction. About 100 feet from me. And you can close the windows, you can do all that, but I will say it is miserable when you have to do that from 7 AM to 6 PM every single day. And that's what I had to do. And just expect, you know, people to not go outside. It's just not realistic. I had to get outside, get even just to get the mail. So, um, that's what I'm really concerned about is, you know, on paper. This might all look great, but the reality of it is not so great. And I think we just have to be realistic of it. I believe that a lot of these folks will, you know, start out there, but after 6 months, a year, 2 years, they're probably going to move on out because it's going to be miserable. And so shouldn't we have been able to relocate them with, you know, a trail of financial assistance, then frankly, letting them, you know, do it on their own. So, I think we really have to look at each, each project case by case, and figure out what the real priorities there are and what the real issues there are, and not just make these blanket statements of, you know, this, this isn't displacement, so it's good or displacement is bad. I think we really have to look at each issue, each project case by case. Um, I will say too, in terms of vehicle minus travel, that's another issue. There's no guarantee that everybody who lives here is going to work in Mountain View. And, um, You know, the internalization rate, for North Bay Shore, was calculated at 27%. So that's less than a third. So, it really brings into question how much, how much BMT is gonna be reduced. And if you ask me, if there was a comment about the folks living in Lathrop, you know, I work on transportation, because ultimately, I believe that that is just as important as building housing. If you had clean transportation, high speed rail, Caltrane electrification, you could afford to live a little further away and not worry about GHD emissions. So, I think there's a lot, this is a lot more complex than people are trying to make this out to be. It's not about being a envy or an envy. Um, I think we really have to look at each case case by case. And in this situation, um, you know, I think I could have supported a different project. I think there were ways to make it better, um, and it just didn't happen. So unfortunately, I will not be able to support it. Thanks.

[06:16:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Mayor Hicks.

[06:16:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I will be supporting this project. I, um, I won't, uh, say at length the reasons why, because many of them have already been stated, but, um, I just wanted to say I really appreciate the Sierra Club proposal. I wish it was proposed two or three years ago, instead of right now, because I would have probably enjoyed supporting that it had been at that time. I think it's... But what I do appreciate, I think it's time to put protection of, um, more creative ways of pre protecting heritage trees and tree buffers early on in the process, not, uh, not at the very end. Um, and, uh, and then I also wanted to thank staff, particularly for a lot of the, um, the last minute or last week, um, continuing to work on air quality mitigations. I thought that was really important, and I agree with people who say that we need to codify them in the remainder of our projects. Um, and I, lastly, I guess I'll say I still support doing a Moffat precise plan so that we can fit each of these, because I think there are a lot of other sites on Moffat that are, that, uh, people are eyeing for development, and I think we have to fit them carefully into the neighborhood. So, um, so I'm looking over my notes, I believe, those are all my comments. Thank you.

[06:18:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And assistant city manager, Shravastava, I see your hand up.

[06:18:07] Assistant City Manager Shravastava: Yes, we just wanted to make sure that, um, if a motion was to be made, and that all four listed on the staff report were, um, highlighted. So, I think one was missed for the addendum. That may be because it's not in the agenda flow. Um, can you put it up on the screen? Or, uh, count on reliever, do you have it in? Okay, Diana can also share on, if cancer my believer has it. That's fine. Uh, well, I'll have you tell me if it's sufficient that we approve the addendum to the 555 West Middlefield. Final environmental impact report together with the EIR certified by resolution number 18643 in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act.

[06:18:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, thank you. Yes. Okay. Okay, good. We have all components for the most.

[06:19:05] Unknown Speaker: I'm happy to 2nd that.

[06:19:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Anticipated me. Council member Leaper, did you want to?

[06:19:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, I'd love to, um, make a few comments, um, given the number of hours that I've worried and thought about this, and, Um, this is going to require a sacrifice from the people who live there. Um, I've lived next to a construction site. It was actually in an Avalon development, where there was a building dug next door with a very large basement, and, um, it was not, uh, a pleasant process. And so I don't take this on lightly. Um, I would never, um, be in, in support of this if I thought that there would be a public health impact. But I think that the, um, most important thing about moving this development forward is that it is in Mountain View. It's not in the Coyote Valley. Uh, it's not in the farmland of the coastal zone. It's not out in Modesto. It's mostly not going to require people to, uh, sit with their cars or trucks idling in traffic, uh, for long periods of time. And there is no clean air measure that I will not support. I've spent most of my political life working on very impactful, actual, real world, clean air measures, um, and worked very, very, very hard for them. Uh, I think that this will provide an opportunity for our community. We talk a lot about the missing middle housing, and there is the possibility of condos in the future, in terms of this development. But I don't take it lightly, and I don't take it as no impact at all, uh, for the people who live there, or the people who live, uh, nearby. I, I strongly and specifically wish that we had been able to, uh, the, uh, the labor factors in this. Um, I'm glad that we were able to expedite those this year, put those back on track. Uh, I wish that that had um, happened sooner. I do think that we'll be able to get to the point where, uh, we can be among the first cities to apply those to both our own developments, into, uh, private developments, if we work hard on them. And, uh, so I stand very ready to work hard on those labor protections, to work hard on any clean air, uh, protections, uh, throughout town, throughout the state. Um, but this is something that we can do. And while it will have an impact on the quality of life for people in that area. I think it is a net positive for our city. And it's something that multiple councils have worked on for a very, very long time. Um, and I really, uh, applaud our city staff who have worked on this, um, who have hung in there for the, the long time, uh, you know, the title MVP has, uh, been thrown around. I think they're definitely the OGs now that they've survived years of this. And, um, I just think that it's, uh, it's time to move this particular, uh, project forward. And I do believe that it will deliver an environmental benefit for our city and really be a net positive. Um, it's also, I think, going to be a positive example for other cities in our region. There is nothing magical about some of the most valuable land in the world being taken up by parking sheds, uh, for cars, and I think that we've got to be more uh, forward thinking than that. and preserve our green belt areas, and concentrate housing jobs and services, in an area where it makes sense, and it's efficient and environmentally conscious for them to be. And that's why I'm in support of this project. Thank you, Mayor.

[06:23:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Any questions? Or comments. We have emotions from council member labor, seconded by council member show alter, but the staff recommendation. There are no additional questions or comments, then I'll ask the city clerk to begin the roll call.

[06:24:15] Unknown Speaker: Council member Lieber?

[06:24:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[06:24:17] Unknown Speaker: Counselor Rachel Walter?

[06:24:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:24:20] Unknown Speaker: Council member Ali Coca?

[06:24:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey.

[06:24:22] Unknown Speaker: Transformer Metachek?

[06:24:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[06:24:27] Unknown Speaker: Nice Mayor Hicks?

[06:24:29] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[06:24:30] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Ramirez?

[06:24:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Motion carry support you? Thank you very much. Um, we, uh, do have the, Council staff, committee reports. I'll go ahead and move to continue the meeting past 10 o'clock in case anybody has anything they would like to report. For a 2nd.

[06:24:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Medichak? Tell your hand up.

[06:25:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I saw, um, Council member of my coke his hand, so I took mine down.

[06:25:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, sorry, I missed that. So, um, captain member Abi Koga? Was that a 2nd? Oh, fantastic. Okay, thank you. Um, and I think we'll need a roll call vote for that as well.

[06:25:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Yeah.

[06:25:23] Unknown Speaker: Council member Abbe Coca?

[06:25:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I can't remember

[06:25:26] Unknown Speaker: Lieber.

[06:25:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[06:25:28] Unknown Speaker: Council member Manachek?

[06:25:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[06:25:31] Unknown Speaker: Council member Sean Walter?

[06:25:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes?

[06:25:33] Unknown Speaker: By Flair Hicks?

[06:25:34] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: No, um. No?

[06:25:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Nothing carries type one. Thank you. All right, item 7 council staff committee reports. Council membership, Walter.

[06:25:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I would just like to report that we had a very short council neighborhoods committee meeting to okay the grants, uh, that will be forwarded as part of our, um, budget. And, um, we had, uh, I think 17 neighborhood associations, um, put in applications for grants. So, uh, I think that, that, you know, they, they produce a lot of, um, great activities in the community that, that build good feelings between neighbors. And then I'd just also like to announce that there will be a regular, uh, council neighborhoods meeting for the grant sullivan neighborhood this Thursday. And, um, uh, it's, uh, you know, it's always something that makes me really proud to watch the staff. answer just the incredible array of questions that come forward. So, if you'd like to stay, if you'd like to take part in that, it's going to be this Thursday. Thanks.

[06:26:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, I'll be okay.

[06:26:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. We had a council youth services committee meeting where we, uh, approved the new, um, yak members for the next year, and I believe that should be coming to council for final approval. Um, I think many of us attended the Luna Vista apartments opening um, on Friday, which was exciting, other than the um, earful I got about parking. Um, I also toured the county jail. And that was really interesting. It was to be able to see the, well, something happened too. Um, to see that operation and how it, it, um, interfaces with our, our police department operations. So if you ever have a chance to, I highly recommend the tour. Um, as we also, um, as many of you were there. Um, we were able to host uh, our congresswoman Anna issue as well as Congressman Zofgren and about 15 female elected officials from the area, um, for a press conference on the expected uh, Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. And finally, I wanted to, um, talk a little bit. I'm sorry, I know it's late, but I think this is important to mention, and I'll try to follow up with some more written information. But as I've mentioned, I serve on the Bay Area housing finance authority as a part of MTC and at our last meeting last week. We approved, um, a budget, uh, Bafa's received uh, $20000000 from the state as a seed money to begin this, um, this, uh, this effort. And, um, the focus is on 5 uh, pilot projects that, um, center around actually tenant protections, um, more affordable housing production, um, doing an inventory of housing, affordable housing to make it more accessible for folks. And so there's 5 projects in the works. And so we budgeted funds for staff to start those projects. And then the final piece is, um, to begin to move forward on a, um, regional um, ballot measure. Um, expectation would be that it would be on the ballot in 2024. And so we budgeted $5000000 to start that effort. And I just wanted to, um, highlight that and bring that to everyone's attention because I know I've heard some talk about whether the city should be going out for some kind of revenue measure for housing. Um, I just, you know, it's difficult to pass 2 similar measures on the same ballot. Um, and I think that we should probably look at, um, the, what the regional measure, um, and see if, um, it would be more prudent for us to join in that effort because I, I know that they will need Santa Clara County's support if they, they want to pass something Bay Area wide. So, um, I'm happy to provide more else and I can send links to the information. I've mentioned it to staff. Um, But as we talk more about affordable housing and how to fund it, um, I just want folks to be aware that this other um, effort is underway at the regional level. Thank you.

[06:30:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And when you do get that information, please do send it because I had no idea and I'd love to learn more. Counsel member, Matt, check.

[06:30:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, we had a council transportation committee meeting, and at that meeting, we received 2 reports. One on safe routes to schools, the entire program, what's been done in the past and what staff is thinking of in the future. Um, and also we received a report on vision 0 and local road safety plan. And I don't think I can do those justice tonight. Um, there's a lot of information there. Um, I'd suggest folks go to the city's website and check out the material. Um, under the council transportation committee. Um, the most recent meeting, which I think it was last week. Thanks.

[06:31:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions, comments, or reports? Not, we'll move to item 8, close session report. City Attorney Logan. Do you have a closed session report?

[06:31:35] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I think you mayor Ramirez? No, I do not have a close session report this evening.

[06:31:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. We will now adjourn the meeting. Um, actually, I, this room, I, I had forgotten, a council member, Abi Poca had requested that we adjourn the meeting uh, in, uh, honor of, uh, secretary and congressman Norm Medetta. I don't think that requires a vote. Um, correct me if I'm wrong, staff, but, uh, council member Abi Koga, did you want to speak to this a little bit?

[06:32:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I, given the late hour, I, I, I, I don't think I need to say much, but uh, as mentioned, um, Congressman, Secretary Norman, I was, um, definitely an icon and, um, a little game changer leader of our, our, um, community in our nation, and, um, unfortunately, um, he passed away um, last week, and we wished, um, we send our deepest condolences to the Minetta family. But thank you for adjourning this meeting in his memory. He will be remembered for, I think, for many, many generations to come.

[06:32:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you for recommending that we do so. Um, the meeting is adjourned at 1128 p.m. See you on May 24th, 2022. Here, everyone. Night.

• ← Previous
• Next →