August 30, 2022 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:02:52] City Clerk: 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.letchestar.com, youtube.com forward 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 forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. City clerk will take attendance by roll call. Council member Abbe Coca?

[00:03:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[00:03:44] City Clerk: Council member, can I?

[00:03:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here,

[00:03:47] City Clerk: council member labor.

[00:03:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[00:03:49] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek,

[00:03:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here,

[00:03:51] City Clerk: Council member, Walter.

[00:03:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here,

[00:03:54] City Clerk: mirror mirrors.

[00:03:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:03:57] City Clerk: Yeah, about quorum with vice mayor, uh, Hicks, absent.

[00:04:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. He will now move on to item 3.one Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Spanish translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreter.

[00:04:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think we lost her. Give her a minute to reconnect. Okay.

[00:04:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, well, I'm, uh, not seen their sheets.

[00:05:17] Unknown Speaker: Then, Benidos a lacecion esta noche, vamos hablar de. Plan esto tejico, de vivinda accessibles, que ocupa traducion, por favor, vaya, al lobulo abajo, que disinterpretacioni selecione el Español, muchas gracias.

[00:05:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Purpose of the study session is to receive input from the city council on staff's recommended strategies to address anticipated affordable housing needs for the next 5 years. Housing and neighborhoods manager Michaela Hellman Tincher will present the item.

[00:05:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I may need some assistance in promoting everyone to.

[00:06:00] Michaela Hellman Tincher: Up to analyst. Good evening, council members. I'll pull up my slideshow if that's if now is the right time.

[00:06:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, please, whenever you're ready.

[00:06:25] Michaela Hellman Tincher: Excellent. Well, good evening everyone. and thanks for having us tonight. I'll be sharing our affordable housing strategic plan with you this evening. Sorry, let me just, uh, just one thing on my screen here. There we are. The purpose of this um, study session is to receive council feedback on recommended strategies to address anticipated affordable housing needs for 2022 to 2027. And this strategic plan that we'll be going through tonight represents areas that we think we'd like some special focus on from council, either due to observe gaps or new information. It's not representative of all of the work that we're doing in the city housing division. Before we begin, I'd like to share some background from our last study session on this topic, which was in 2017. When council directed staff to work on increasing affordable housing for a large range of affordable housing needs, which you can see listed here in this table. The key takeaway is that since 2017, the city has made significant progress on the goals of the council set, as you can see here on the right hand side of the table. That said, as the city continues to grow as a job center, and increasing demand for housing will place further strain on the city's housing stock and we expect housing costs to continue to increase. The city's affordable housing efforts will continue to be an important piece of maintaining our local workforce, preventing or relieving overcrowding for low-income households, and preventing homelessness. And we can expect that without, um, intervention, our current market will not produce enough households for low income families, people with disabilities, larger families, and seniors. that's much of what we'll delve into today. Before we go into our strategic plan, I'll share that staff was guided by the following documents, which are required, um, for us, which require us to have certain priorities in the city. The 1st document was the proposed housing element that council has reviewed and submitted, as well as our regional housing need allocation goals for Mountain View for the coming years, which are listed here. We were also guided by our federal funding consolidated plan, which we've submitted a few years ago to the federal government. As well as the council's strategic priorities, which guides our work. This slide shows some of what's described in the staff report, which is that the city has a large variety of housing options for people with different housing needs. We have housing for people who are middle income, households are earned between 30% and 80% of the area meeting income, and households who are experiencing homelessness or who earn less than 30% of the area median income. Um, and we see that there are several programs here. Ownership housing below market rate housing, 100% affordable housing, developments, and permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, and units for people who have acutely low income. But what we can share, and these are the gaps that we'll be discussing this evening, is that there are still needs for each of these areas, namely, there are not enough ownership units for middle income households to meet the need. Second, Our typical affordable housing developments do not have enough large family units to meet the need. And in fact, the majority of our affordable housing is studio or one bedroom. And 3rd that there are very few units in the city for formerly homeless individuals or households earning less than 30% AMI. So while the city does have a pipeline of over 100 units for these households. We know that there is about 6000 households in the city that earn less than 30% AMI. And we also know that the vast majority of safe parking clients meet that same criteria. So we need to, uh, find ways to address those gaps. To help address that, those gaps in some of the other ones we've described, The strategic plan has 4 strategies. which we'll go through tonight. And I'll go through them one by one in a moment. Most of the actions associated with these strategies have been previously discussed with council as part of the housing element. So in tonight's conversation, I will focus on areas that we haven't yet had much time to discuss with counsel. So the 1st strategy is to develop a funding strategy for affordable housing to significantly increase our resources to achieve our housing pipeline. To go further, I'd like to take a moment to share our current projections about our affordable housing funds. As you can see here, the city has approximately $1000000 available in affordable housing funds, almost entirely paid for by fees, and non-inclusive of our federal funding resources. About 50000000 of these funds have been already designated to approved projects, as you can see here. Leaving about 50000000 available. Staff project about 54000000 in new fees over the next 5 years, which includes 34000000 from projected from known projects, plus an additional $10000000 a year, estimated for years 4 and 5 of the projection. And that leaves us with about $105000000 for our pipeline over the next 5 years. looking ahead to how we might spend those funds. There are 4 projects that have submitted, uh, what we call NoFA applications that the staff are reviewing and anticipate bringing to council this year. Those 4 projects, plus the charities housing site at Evelyn are estimated to need about 67000000 in city funds to be successful, which anticipates a city subsidy somewhat lower than that of the past to account for other opportunities to leverage funds that we've uncovered for these projects. In addition, there are 6 sites that the city anticipates owning in the next 5 years, all of which we will work with developers on to turn into affordable housing. One of those is the VTA Evelyn site. And the remaining 5 are the precise plan land dedication sites. We also anticipate that these development of these sites will involve a city a funding gap that will require some city fans. And right now we're estimating that at 105 million. That means we need about 172 million. to develop these units into the pipeline, which leaves a $66000000 gap. And as you'll see, the 1st strategy that we're exploring contains several actions aimed at filling that gap, and this is where we'd love council direction. So our 1st strategy has a lot of items that we've already discussed with council, and in fact, all of the section B strategies were discussed as part of the housing element, so I won't delve into that, and those mostly revolve around finding increased revenue sources. But there are 2 I'd like to highlight. which we haven't had a chance to discuss. The 1st is pausing the no application process or reprioritizing, um, the no application to prioritize city-owned sites. Staff made this recommendation to account for the need to make funds available for the current pipeline that we foresee. The 2nd is prioritizing city needs in our NoFA projects to try to get more units for households earning less than 30% AMI. And this is one of those strategies that aims to address the gaps I discussed earlier tonight. Our 2nd strategy is to implement our city's middle income strategy. Much of this has already been discussed with council previously, so I will just note 2 key points here. The 1st is that the city is currently increasing its rental and ownership pipeline for middle income units via the city's inclusionary below market rate program. which is a cost-effective way to build these units, that are otherwise very difficult to subsidize. The 2nd is that staff are continuing to look for creative ownership opportunities for middle income households, mostly through down payment assistance, condo mapping for small projects, and then looking into creative community ownership opportunities. Our 3rd strategy is to reduce known barriers to accessing housing. The 1st action, the in-person housing and eviction health center, relates to making sure that households can apply for housing help, regardless of language access, technological access, or any other access barriers, and this project builds on the very significant success of the eviction prevention clinic's health earlier this year. The 2nd involves working with property owners of both market rate and affordable units, to make sure that they don't require social security numbers on their applications when they legally don't have to. Um, which usually there is no legal reason for them to have to require this in most cases. And this can create an otherwise unnecessary barrier for undocumented households. So we'd like to remove that as much as possible. The last batch of actions relates to making sure that displaced tenants can truly exercise and take advantage of replacement units, either by preventing them from being permanently displaced and helping them secure temporary places to stay. Allowing tenants to become homeowners when rentals are replaced with deed restricted affordable condos, and looking into options for households who may have the right to purchase an affordable condo, but for whom homeownership is just not an option. Finally, the last strategy relates to the city's displacement response strategy. The 1st chunk of these were discussed during the housing element, um, and we are currently studying the community option to purchase tenant or tenant opposition to purchase, um, and community land trust, and we're also pursuing acquisition preservation options. And then the last piece, bringing a replacement requirements ordinance to counsel is planned as part of our 2023 study session on displacement response later for this spring. Just to state again, all of these strategies were developed based on the priorities set forth by and in order of the housing element in rena goals, CDBG and home consolidated plan, and the council's strategic priorities. In a moment, I will turn this back over to you to ask 2 key questions. First, does counsel agree with our proposed actions. And does counsel have any feedback or direction on addressing the needs that we discussed and the proposed actions. Before I go, I'll just share that the next steps are for us to implement strategies as discussed by counsel and to return in 2023 to discuss displacement response further with counsel. Thank you very much, and I'll turn it back over to council.

[00:17:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Michaela, for the presentation, uh, since this is a study session, we'll 1st take public comment and then return to the council for questions, uh, and for deliberation. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. See how many speakers there are. Um, let's go ahead and allocate 2 minutes and we'll start with Ray Branson.

[00:18:24] Ray Branson: Good evening, mayor, council members, Ray Branson, chief operating officer with Destination Home. I'd like to begin tonight by commending staff and city council for the incredible work that's been accomplished by this city since 2017. Um, You've led the community and the region, in the development of both affordable, deeply affordable, and supportive housing. As noted by staff, over 501 units of affordable housing have been constructed since the study session with another 448, including 200 units of supportive housing for our most vulnerable residents. This type of leadership is an inspiration to other cities. is pushing, um, pushing folks forward, and staff's ability to really correlate. Um, the precarious nature of being unhoused with being at that extremely low income level and bringing that data forward is is critical to the work that you're going to be doing. I'd like to call specific attention to action one A2, um, in the new 2023 strategic plan that prioritizes city needs and no for projects, particularly units for households earning less than 30% AMI. This extremely low income household group is incredibly vulnerable, um, by putting together the smart plan that utilizes city resources as well as a partnership through an MOA with the county of Santa Clara. You're going to be able to create housing that helps the residents who need support and services the most. Destinational is proud to be a partner with the city. We've provided you capacity building funds in the past, and we look forward to supporting these very, very critical projects in the days ahead. Thank you again for your leadership and support.

[00:20:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Ray. And next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[00:20:27] Tim McKenzie: Hi, all, Tim McKenzie, he him pronouns. Um, I want to thank staff and council for looking into this, um, and for all the work that has already been done on affordable housing. Um, Also, just want to mention about, basically, since I've lived in Mountain View, I have consistently seen, uh, affordable housing, rent controlled apartments being torn down for luxury developments, which was stopped by SB 330. And my understanding is that that state bill will sunset, um, and I'd love to see a local ordinance, um, in the future, where, uh, at the Mountain View municipal level of, uh, continuing even after the state bill sunsets, of having the protections so that we don't lose affordable housing anymore. I look forward to the deliberations and the plans you'll be making to make sure that housing in Mountain View is affordable to everyone, no matter what their income, not just wealthy people. So thank you very much.

[00:21:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Tim. The next speaker is Edie Keating.

[00:21:41] Edie Keating: Hi. I wanted to add my support for the idea of prioritizing funds towards the very lowest income levels, the 30% AMI or lower income levels. And I also, um, appreciated the, uh, clarity in the staff report that, uh, BMR rental units, um, for middle income, can some, it depends on market conditions, can sometimes, uh, be not that different. than market conditions. So I appreciated that for market rents. So I appreciated that being acknowledged and, uh, you know, not sure quite where the action item is there. Um, you know, I'm happy for our current BMR ordinance, uh, requiring the 65% average. Um, And Thank you. I look forward to hearing your comments and also to the 2023 study session on displacement option, anti-displacement options. Thank you.

[00:22:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Edie. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[00:22:55] Alex Brown: L, uh, as the future neighbor of one of the affordable housing projects that uh, has already gotten some funding, uh, I don't envy or need to prioritize the funds, uh, is a hard choice to see which people get help 1st and which ones have to wait to be able to get housing. Uh, but I am really glad to have people like you doing this, making these hard choices and doing the work to try to get people into homes. So thank you.

[00:23:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[00:23:33] Kevin Ma: Evening, counsel, my name is Kevin Ma, I'll be representing the League of Women voters today. In our letter, we mentioned that we were wondering that this is, this process is perhaps a little bit redundant with the housing element, given that many of the actions are in the housing element that was just submitted a few months, the last 2 months ago. So, perhaps we went on to schedule this in perhaps four year intervals to meet the housing element, and it's a midpoint. As for the actions in the plan given today, we support the mall, especially support the Social Security number alternatives, because we have heard that has been a barrier potentially in the past, as well as the right of our 1st refusal, since we have certain cases where sometimes SB330 did not give enough guidance about how to deal with situations such as, where do people stay? during demolition and rebuilding. Um, on 3AI, one, the housing health center. We would like to, perhaps, include some language regarding right to counsel or some form of stronger legal assistance. For 4B1, the local replacement requirements, we would like to see a faster timeline. It has been brought up multiple times in the housing government process that many people want to see it done, and putting it to a 2023 study session seems a little bit distant, or a little bit too vague at this point. And at this plan, should be not considered disconnected from other plans, such as the housing element and its emphasis on housing production, because as we talk about how we're using funding on those that mean it most, we probably don't want to think about sedizing those making median income at this moment. Thank you.

[00:25:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Emily Ann Ramos.

[00:25:16] Emily Anne Ramos: Can you hear me?

[00:25:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Ah, great.

[00:25:20] Emily Anne Ramos: Um, hi, Emily Anne Ramos with Silicon Valley at home. We are affordable, a housing advocacy organization committed to creating a Silicon Valley where everyone has access to housing they can afford. We want to command city staff and this council for prioritizing and creating a strategic plan for affordable housing. Mountain View has many more jobs and it has housing people can afford, and the resulting pressure on the housing affordability while a regional problem impacts Mountain View residents who struggle the most to remain in this community. communities of color, low wages, essential workers, public employees. The hardship is both very focused and experience by many. Mountain View has been a leader on creating policies and plans, making real commitments to produce affordable housing, supporting affordable housing projects, planning for significant affordable housing in major plan areas like North Bay Shore and East Wizman. Following through on those commitments is a challenge, even for the good actors. Maybe especially for the good actors. This takes deliberate planning, recognizing the need for additional resources, and protecting renters from displacement. We look forward to its continued leadership as it develops innovative affordable housing preservation strategies. We are proud to work with the city on many of these priorities and related strategies, including the anti-displacement policy and the zoning reforms that will come before you. We are particularly proud to have recently begun a two-year partnership with the city to tackle many of these issues through the partnerships, the base, future two-year grant. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for your leadership.

[00:26:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Mary and Ed.

[00:26:56] Mary Hotter: Hello, can you hear me?

[00:26:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[00:27:02] Mary Hotter: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. This is Mary Hotter. I have a couple of questions for the city generally and the council. One is, how many naturally affordable units have been removed from the city of Mountain View over the last 15 years and how many affordable units have been added? In other words, what is our net number? Did the city consider the fact that the carbon footprint of building new is 90% higher than rehabbing buildings? This is per the Center for Tall Buildings in Chicago's academic analysis. Would the city consider using public funds to rehabilitate existing naturally affordable housing without having to buy it if the owner were willing to maintain naturally affordable housing for a long contract period over, say, many years, much like federal funds are used to rehab section 8 housing. Would the city consider incentivizing owners of existing other types of properties that could be converted to affordable housing, with a property tax break, and funds to do the conversion in exchange for a multi-year contract, maintaining affordable rents. And lastly, would the city consider capping affordable rents on a square footage price as well as the total rent price. I ask this because apodments can be shoehorned into affordable pricing and claimed to be affordable and yet they are fairly unaffordable by square foot price. They don't allow anyone but an individual to stay in the property often because of the small size. So, in other words, a 200 square foot apartment that's $2000 could still qualify as affordable at 60% of average median income, and yet $10 a square foot is a luxury price. I think you need to consider affordable housing rates on both a per square footage price and a total rent price. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak.

[00:29:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak, we'll return to the council for questions and deliberations. So we'll take questions 1st and then, um, uh, I have a proposal for how to, uh, start the deliberation. Are there any questions from the council? Vice Mayor Hicks.

[00:29:23] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And I wanted to thank staff for such a comprehensive and clear report. I do have a couple of questions. One is uh, how the condo mapping is working. Um, I know that in terms that's one of the strategies for producing, um, middle income ownership housing. And I'm wondering whether how much it's producing, whether it's been going along enough for us to know, and how we could track that, if it's too early in the game, to know, and whether we need any additional mechanisms or triggers to make sure that once an owner has condo mapped their property, they're actually turned into condos and not kept us rentals long term. So that whole realm of making sure that that particular policy produces what we want, I'd like a little clarity on.

[00:30:22] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member Hicks, I could respond. Our teacher Vostva, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director. Um, we haven't started that project yet. Our plan is to begin that once the, um, housing element is adopted and it's on our, it's on our plan. We have a number of projects staff we'll be working on. But we thank you for providing this information because it will help us. Target the condom mapping strategy to exactly what the council wishes to see. Um, and we can bring options for council to review, um, and once we begin the project.

[00:31:04] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Yeah, I'd love to I'd love to make sure that it does, that we're putting the pieces in place that actually make it produce what we want, and not that it's, um, you know, that they're mapped, and that they're no results. So I'd love to hear some sort of dashboard or way reporting back to make sure that that's actually happening. Then another question. This is a displacement policy question. Um, do you have any comments on the way replacement units under SB 330 and the state density bonus are overlapping instead of additive. Is there... Can you think of any, is that a concern to you? Um, and do you have any ways of, if, if so, um, do you have in mind any ways to kind of repair that or make it work better?

[00:31:57] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, council member, um, I could respond. Um, again, we, who, it's very clear by state, per state law, that the requirements for all three state density bonus, SB 330, and BMR requirements, um, are not additive, they can all be counted towards all three requirements, as long as the unit meets the most restrictive requirements. Um, this is state law. Um, and I we did ask why it ended up being this way. And we're told that in the deliberations, the state, um, um, legislators um, were concerned about um, the impacts and the financial impacts of housing. And they did not want to see housing production stopped. Um, and so they, they, they were trying to balance all these issues. And and that's the reason why we ended up where we were. Um, so this isn't what the city is requiring. This is a state requirement. I guess the reason I'm asking is if we were to do, uh, like a local SB 330 like ordinance or anything else along those lines, um, would you, would you be concerned about the fact that they're overlapping? Would you want to duplicate that, or do you kind of agree with the way the state was leaning, that anything more would, um, would prohibit housing production? Um, I think we haven't yet started tackling that, um, but we will be asking these questions, um, but based on the state's, um, you know, determination of BMR, we don't see a city SB330 style requirement being any different, and maybe Wayne can answer a little bit more about how other cities that are look, that might have some replacement requirements have these issues, but, um, I think overall, uh, We plan to tackle a lot of these questions and bring some of the responses and issues back to you in March. I know there were some concerns about us. Um, uh, not, uh, expediting the displacement response, but we actually are in the process of reviewing a lot of this. Um, and bringing it to you in the spring.

[00:34:14] Wayne Chan: And just to add, Wayne Chan, assistant community development director, part of our analysis will be looking at what SP 330 may not cover that the city may wish to incorporate as part of local requirements. Um, and then one of the key framework pieces that we'll be looking at is under the state's Ellis Act, um, uh, provision, which allows cities that have rent stabilization programs to enact uh, provisions that, um, cities that don't have such a program may not be able to do. So we will be really taking a look at, um, addressing our rent stabilized housing stock in terms of the, um, displacement response, especially because that has been the majority of the redevelopment projects over the last few years. So, um, we will be looking at, um, that Ellis Act Ordinance framework, uh, as well as part of our analysis and what options we may have, and the council may wish to consider.

[00:35:08] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. That, that, so you are, you're aware, you're looking at it, and we'll hear more in the, in the near future. Thank you. I have one last question, which is, um, in terms of the um, the 100% affordable housing that is upcoming. In particular, the Google properties in North Bay Shore. I'm wondering whether some of the, I understand that they're not gonna do them immediately, 'cause they, their offices there right now, but with the, uh, abundance of remote work. I'm wondering whether we could get those, whether there would be a way of interacting with them and getting those a little sooner, um, by, you know, if they're all, I can just name a number, but if all the offices are 50% full, maybe some of them could become 100% full, and we could get those properties moving forward a little earlier. Have there been any discussions like that?

[00:36:07] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member, we have been talking to Google about early delivery of as many sites as possible. Um, they've actually included, um, the 1st phase of the BMR sites, um, in the 1st phase of their project, which actually is not residential. The 1st phase of their project in North Bay Shore is, is, um, you know, building the office that has to be removed on all the sites into, into one area so they can start sort of demoing and building residential. So in North Bay Shore, um, building back the existing square footage was is their 1st phase. The 2nd phase will be then clearing the sites and building residential on the cleared sites. Um, but we are getting on many of the BMR units, uh, BMR sites in that 1st phase. Um, Are you asking if we could expedite the delivery of even those or?

[00:37:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I'm just wondering with, originally, I heard that the obstacle was that they needed to build new offices before vacating the old offices and then building the affordable housing there. Since there's so much remote and hybrid work, I'm wondering whether they could vacate the offices earlier, and whether we could move that up at all, whether conditions have changed at all, and whether there's been any discussion around that.

[00:37:34] Aarti Shrivastava: Oh, we have discussed it a little bit. Um, I think the world of return to work is a, is a quickly shifting issue, and companies are looking at, Oh, now we need everybody back, or maybe we don't, and, you know, they're not changing the strategy at this point, because I don't think they know what it's gonna be in the long run. They feel more comfortable with the one they have. Um, and so, uh, at this point, they are not inclined to make any changes to the delivery, just because the landscape is very fluid right now about the return to work.

[00:38:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I would encourage bringing it out at every opportunity.

[00:38:17] Aarti Shrivastava: We sure will.

[00:38:19] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Those are my questions. Thank you.

[00:38:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Council member, I'll be.

[00:38:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'll start with just a, maybe a response to the vice mayor's last question about the Google Project. Um, could this be a negotiation point in our development agreements with them?

[00:38:47] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, we actually are working with them. Um, absolutely. We're working with them to try to get early delivery of as many sites as possible, so the ones, um, that they can clear out prior to their building, um, you know, building all the office back. So, um, certainly we're working on that.

[00:39:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: It's just thinking, you know, I think they asked for 20 years and maybe we should be looking at condensing that timeline, at least, you know, from our position, negotiating it.

[00:39:20] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, from that perspective.

[00:39:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So just a thought. Um, and and then going back to Vice Mayor's other comment about SB 330. So, um, yeah, from the way I read it, it sounds like, um, we're not getting more units, it's just now we have 3 different criteria and you can pick which one to use and the highest one. is the one that is used. Is that is simplified as a definition of how it's being.

[00:39:51] Wayne Chan: Yeah, it all depends on the situation on the ground, right? So, for example, if a project required 20 BMR units, but now requires 24 replacement units because there were 24 existing units. We would now require the higher of the two. So SP 330 has helped in that regard, where before we couldn't require the replacement. The only issue is those 24 units now apply to all 3 programs. Um, so it's better. Um, but because, because now we can sort of cross off, um, the list on all 3 of these items, um, where before we didn't have the ability to require replacements.

[00:40:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, yes. I mean, my sense is that, um, you know, with SV 330, it doesn't really help us get more units, um, because my sense is that given that, like, the number of units they have to, um, add to make that, um, pencil out, um, are 15% inclusionary will probably be, in most cases, the highest, uh, requirement. In most cases, but we're seeing some instances where the SPT 30s starting to trump and still projects are coming forward. But by and large, um, a lot of our bro home projects, example, um, have, we don't have those anymore, because they're no longer feasible because of SB 330. Right. Okay, um, so then, and my sense is that, um, you know, the reason why you mentioned the legislature didn't make it, um, cumulative is just, at some point in time, it doesn't write pencil out, like a pencil out for the developers. So, I'm wondering if, um, if we do a local, um, SB 330 light, um, ordinance. Um, when we max, like there'll be a max out percentage in my sense is it's probably in the 20% range because we've had this conversation when we were doing North Bay Shore and, you know, I wanted 25% out there and was told by the housing, even the housing advocates, that we couldn't go above 20%. So is that still the, is that your sense of where this will end up going?

[00:42:16] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think if we continue and we, this is part of what we might want to study and bring back to you, but our sense is, um, based on what we're seeing today. At some point, the replacement requirements make projects infeasible. And the flip side is we are now retaining some of the CSFRA units that were being torn down. So, there is sort of a mixed benefit there.

[00:42:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, Right. Yes, right. If they don't get torn down to for Right, right. Great. Um, so going staying on the state legislation, um, issue, uh, I know I traded emails with staff and I appreciate staff at advocacy on AV 2011, uh, the Wicks bill, about, um, the, and there are number of pieces to it, but we, I, I noticed, and I've been talking to our Sunnyvale Mayor about it too. The concern that, um, that could actually lower our, um, the, the percentage of BMR units that we could, um, require. Um, I'm not sure where the, I heard the bill pass the state, state Senate, but in light of that, do we need to look at, um, would we possibly need to look at revising our inclusionaries, um, requirement? I think the issue was that they have specific categories of extremely low income, very low income, low income, like units, percentage in each category, and we don't have that, I think. And so that would actually potentially reduce the number of units or the percentage of units we could require. So, are we anticipating or, and do we have that like on our radar that we might have to revise our.

[00:44:03] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I, I know the city manager probably has more information, but I can, I can tell you that, um, um, um, we did ask our, our, our legal council helps us with housing, um, and is also involved, um, about this, and, and he said that it was very deliberate on the state's part to say that if rental units include certain very low and low unit types, then you could say, And it amounts to about 13% project, then you can subtract 15% from a city's requirement. So, um, so the state was very deliberate about that. But anything above that, I think, can be met based on our understanding of the, of the law as it stands.

[00:44:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So if our inclusionary zoning is 15%. Um, so then if they meet the, the 8 time 8 plus 5%, I guess, in those different categories and come up to 13%, are you saying that they don't have to do 15%?

[00:45:13] Aarti Shrivastava: That's right. That's, that's how it, it stands. And there wasn't an inclination at the state level to change that because they were targeting lower affordability levels than most 15% inclusionary ordinances. And I think we confirmed that with ours. And so they wanted to make sure that there was a benefit to doing that as opposed to having a higher affordable.

[00:45:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Well, I mean, I think we've always wanted more units too. So that's a, that's kind of counterprotective too, our current, um, ordinance. Um, Regarding the commercial linkage fee. Um, I know in the past when we've looked at changing fees, um, we've always had to grandfather in certain projects, and I'm interested in how we could potentially minimize that if we, if we choose to move forward with a, I think we're going to, I'm assuming we're going to have to do a new nexus study. Um, but given that time lag, I mean, I forget what other fees we, it was some kind of impact fee that we were putting on. And while we were studying it, we had to, you know, let the projects that were already in the pipeline, some of them move without the new fees and we lost a lot from that. I guess my question is, how can we minimize that loss?

[00:46:41] Aarti Shrivastava: Thank you for the question. So you are correct. We would have to do an updated next study, and as part of that evaluation, we could take the council input and do an evaluation in terms of a grandfathering provision. Um, that is fair for the projects and the pipeline, but also um, evaluating the, uh, a way to uh, maximize a new fee. And so we will include that as part of an evaluation and should come back to council. It would include a recommendation on grandfathering.

[00:47:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Is it possible to maybe not allow like full, you know, full grandfathering, but like an incremental or based on where the project is, you know, different tiers of fees so that we don't lose, you know, lose. 100% of the new fee amount.

[00:47:33] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, I think we might have to hear back from, from, you know, our outreach to see how we can sort of balance that out because, um, if projects don't move forward, then we don't get the fees. On the other hand, we also want to want to maximize our ability to, you know, have it apply to the newer projects. And we've always tried to thread that needle, so we're able to get a balance of the tube. Um, so I think we've done that before and we can bring some options for the council to consider.

[00:48:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, and I would contend that if we don't, you know, have as much. I'm going to say office, commercial expansion, especially office, then it lowers our need for more housing, you know, our housing need. So not necessarily a negative on that part. I know we have we might have differing opinions on that. But, um, I just wanted to go back to, um, I'm pretty sorry for the many questions that came up during public comment too, but the tax benefits for market projects. I think we talked about that. I know at, um, MTC and I can't remember it off the top of my head, but I know, Wayne, you know about this, that we passed something where we are allowing, um, some tax benefit, property tax benefits, um, for conversions of market rate, um, developments to, uh, affordable. And could you, yeah, elaborate on that just for the benefit of the public.

[00:49:07] Wayne Chan: Sure, there have been, uh, joint powers, um, authorities that have been formed in recent years. And, um, one of them is Cal CHA, another one is CSCDA. And we have had the opportunity to evaluate a couple of projects, one under each program. And basically, uh, the entities do is, um, identify acquisition opportunities, um, as you were saying, they're not deed restricted. And then as part of the process, um, an acquisition would occur by the entities, they would issue bonds, and, um, acquire the sites, and, uh, besides the bonds, one of the main ways in which these projects are financed without any, uh, locals, uh, subsidy contributions is a property tax exemption. Um, so the bond financing, combined with the property tax exemptions are the way that they try to find the properties, indeed restrict them to moderate income, um, uh, rates or below. Um, so that's sort of a general picture of these JPA programs.

[00:50:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much. You can explain that way more than better than I could. Um, and then my final question is, um, when we, someone mentioned the housing element, and maybe some of this is duplicative, but my concern when we were doing the housing element was actually, um, you know, what our commitment would be if we included these items and the housing element, um, reason being that I think there are some items that, as we do more research, um, may not really pan out for, uh, Mountain View, my for other cities, but not us. Um, so I guess it'll, you know, it might depend on how we worded it in the housing element, but, um, I, I, did we say explore these items or we, yeah, versus, you know, saying we're going to do these items. And I will say too that I'm a little hesitant, including even exploring because I've noticed at the regional level. Um, sometimes exploring means we're gonna do it, and that's what the, the, the, the regional bodies um, start to interpret it to be. So, um, yeah, I just wanted to clarify that or if you can clarify what our real commitment is with the housing element.

[00:51:28] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member, I'll just preface this by saying we have the same concerns because ACD is requiring us to be more and more assertive in our language. It's not enough for them to say, oh, we'll study this and it may not happen, right? And that's why as staff, we had, we had mentioned this to the council that if a city says they will do this in the housing element, then they will be required to do it, or we're going to have to, have to answer in some way, um, or have, um, an out of compliance, right? Um, element. We have used the word explore. We're waiting for HTD to respond to our draft. We haven't yet had a meeting scheduled because they're waiting to finish reading our draft before they schedule a meeting with us and we'll know more about it at that time. So we might recommend some changes, um, way or the other. But we will have to make sure we discuss this with ATD and have, um, some, um, acknowledgement that it's okay with them because, um, in the end, we want, um, uh, uh, a housing element that is uh, endorsed by them.

[00:52:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Maybe divorced by them. I just don't want us to go down, um, I'll pick like the Copa Topa item. Um, I've heard some concerns at the regional level about those programs that they may not work for everybody. So if it doesn't work for Mountain View. Can we take it out? Is the question? It sounds like we have a 2nd shot at the housing element? Um, to do that? Is that?

[00:53:05] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think if ATD said, you have to do this, then we might kind of push back and say, what we want to do is connect the dots sometimes and make sure that there is a pipeline to whether it's technical access or, you know, the city is may not. Be be doing the program themselves, but we have a way to connect people. So we're looking for different ways to make it happen without having the city be doing every single thing. I think that's the intent because we don't have enough staff to run a bunch of programs at this point. Yeah. Great. Thank you. That's it. Thanks, mirror.

[00:53:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Let's remember, come in.

[00:53:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, I just have a couple quick questions. So, um, you know, there's been a lot of discussions within the public comment and by colleagues about SB 330. My understanding is that it was extended. Is that right? If staff could maybe share the latest, that would be helpful.

[00:54:14] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, has been recently extended to sunset in 2030.

[00:54:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I think as we're kind of talking about the different strategies. I think, what have we been or how have we been tracking the different housing legislation bills and how they might play into the strategy? So I know, um, council member, Abbe Coca, um, brought up the Wicksville. I think we're going to see over the next, what is it, 2 days that the governor has left to sign. Um, and then we prepare for the next legislative session. I mean, what are the things maybe that staff would like us to be thinking about that's coming down the legislative pipeline as we're talking about, maybe filling gaps or um, things that could be helpful.

[00:55:01] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think we have been tracking the bills thanks to um, uh, the help of the CMO's office and then, um, we also connect with um, our, our, um, city attorney's office team and our legal consultant helps us with housing issues specifically. So that's been working rather well. We're a lot more coordinated now in our responses. Um, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong way, and I think if there's one major wish list, staff had, it would be um, a funding source. For for the items that we want to fund. Um, and for the regional body, and I think Bafa is a great example of it, to reward cities that are either burned with a lot of the housing requirements. And also cities that are performing well, you know, to have some kind of criteria that recognizes those. So that's our big wish list. And we have the same issues on transportation as well. And it's good that MTC is doing this because. If they're expecting a lot of housing to be built, we want the support in terms of transit. So those are the those are the major items. And I don't know, Wayne, if you have any other. Um,

[00:56:18] Wayne Chan: Agree, at the, at the end of the day, Bunning is the most important piece, um, to accomplishing all the local city goals, including mountain views, which includes new production, acquisition preservation, and other efforts that we want to undertake. And I think you're right, um, because we are tracking the regional measure through Bapa. Um, and that will go through a valid initiative process. And if it passes, um, we we are tracking that closely and want to be able to work with folks on an expenditure plan because the, uh, legislation that enables BAFA, AB 1467, which, um, it really is dressing the 3 Ps, production, preservation, and protection, aligns with many of the items that we're discussing, and so that will be a great opportunity should have passed.

[00:57:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, That's it. Thanks.

[00:57:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show. Uh, council number, you're still muted.

[00:57:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: How's that? Is that better?

[00:57:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great.

[00:57:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right. Like Ellen, I have 2 questions. Um, the 1st one. It is really about the timing of developing funding strategies. I understand from the report that it's an ongoing process, and that certainly makes sense because, um, there's so many things, um, that beat into it that are changing all the time. But in terms of having in, you know, as a staff, in terms of having in your mind, when will you have a sort of a funding plan that you feel is really, um, uh, what you need and what do you need to get there? And so I wondered, um, if you could talk about that a little bit.

[00:58:16] Michaela Hellman Tincher: Yes.

[00:58:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Oh, go ahead, mate.

[00:58:19] Wayne Chen: Sorry, Michaela, I can take a first crack, and then, um, hand it off to you, Michaela. One of the big pieces that we are working on is our breakthrough grant, and that is a two-year process, and our breakthrough grant includes developing an affordable housing funding strategy. So it's very much in alignment with what we were talking about. And we have, um, some, uh, goals for the 2 year process, which would include, um, discussions with potential partners, uh, whether, uh, uh, the private sector or philanthropy, um, as well as with public sector partners. We've already begun initial conversations with certain folks. And so we've already started that process, and we're hoping that within the 2 year time frame, we would be able to, uh, produce one or maybe more MOU type agreements like what we have with the county. Uh, that time period would allow us to queue up our land dedication site, because we do project enough funding to work through our NoFA pipeline, uh, um, uh, after this study session based on council's input, uh, we anticipate that we would, uh, shortly begin, uh, an update of the commercial linkage fee, Nexus study, and take that through process within the two-year time frame. Um, so we we do envision that. The partnership approach will be something we will have to monitor because we can't necessarily plan out how those discussions will go, but we do hope that we could have some progress in the next 2 years. Let me pause there and see if Michaela has anything to add.

[00:59:57] Michaela Hellman Tincher: No, that's that's exactly right. You'll see the timing section next to the, the strategy one B, um, area is all in the short term, which we consider one to 2 years. So I'm hopeful that 2 years from now, all those different pieces will begin to line up, as Wayne described.

[01:00:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Great. Okay, well, of course, if there's anything that the council can do to assist with that, you should call on us. We will, um, We will do whatever we can to help. And then the other question I have is a little more technical. I was um, talking to, um, uh, a constituent who knows a lot about affordable housing and asking about advocacy. And one of the things that was, he brought up was, um, the idea that, you know, there's a, there's a cat for tax credits, and it's, um, divvied up by state. And California, apparently in California, we use all of our tax credits. There aren't any extra ones floating around. But, um, uh, there are stakes that don't. And so advocating for, uh, the ability to move um, tax credits that aren't being utilized from out from states. that aren't being utilized to states that need them, is something that apparently has, um, in the past, has had some bipartisan support. So that might be something... So, I just wonder, is that something you're going to be advocating for? And if not, I hope maybe we can add it to the list. We would be happy to add this to the list and potentially connect with our legislative advocacy firm as well as our affordable housing consultants to assist us with Nova projects who have a lot of familiarity with this very technical component. In addition to the federal program, The state also does issue its own state tax credit program. So that's another potential area that, um, we can add to the list. It is not necessarily every year, that the state does its own tax credit program, but when it does, it supplements the federal program that we are all well aware of of our projects. Yeah. Well, I know, um, for my brief service on the ALDA, um, housing board that, um, those tax credits are, are just very, very valuable ways to fund, um, affordable housing, so anything we can do to advocate, um, to, uh, move that money around under the cap, or, or I also think, increase the cap. It's a, you know, is a good idea. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions.

[01:02:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member believer.

[01:02:41] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I'm so appreciative of staff's efforts on this. It's very high level of work that's being done and a huge amount of work. So, thank you so much for that. I'm really proud of our council for having the appetite to get more housing in Mountain View and to move forward on these questions. Um, 2 things that I wanted to ask about. When we talk about the premapping, uh, condo mapping of rental units, what kind of, um, planning, do we need to put into place for a future condo conversion? Um, in terms of, uh, getting our residents, uh, ready to be able to take advantage of that, um, you know, versus displacement.

[01:03:43] Michaela Hellman Tincher: Thanks, council member, Lieber. I can add a couple pieces that we've put into our below market rate agreements. Um, essentially, you know, for the properties that are anticipating doing a condo conversion from rental to condo, we do put in place that, you know, at the time of the conversion, the developer will have to follow all the laws that are in place at the time. So, for example, if SB 330 were in place, they would have to follow all the rules relating to um, 1st rite of refusal for the tenants that are being displaced. Um, if they are low income tenants in this case because it wouldn't be, um, they wouldn't be rent controlled units. So they would be in place for low income tenants. And in that case, we have some of our, you know, existing, our trail is exists for this. There's some existing opportunities for those tenants. But we are also exploring getting some outside funds to help those tenants to perhaps afford to buy an affordable condo when they return. And also looking to partner with developers to, you know, is there a temporary place for those tenants to go in the meantime. So those are 2 areas where we're trying to bridge that gap, so that people can take advantage of that opportunity when those arise.

[01:04:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Right. And I think an issue that sometimes comes up, um, in our area is, uh, for um, individuals who can afford to purchase through putting together a lot of different puzzle pieces. Um, but then, may not have the money for, um, a large, uh, large maintenance expense that accrues to, for example, an HOA, uh, way down the road, and so would be faced with the loss of their unit. And so, if I could put a bug in your ear about having a fund, um, for that kind of thing. Um, I think that would be very helpful. Um, the other issue that I wanted to raise is uh, preservation of our mobile home parks. And what can we be doing now or in the next couple years to, uh, prepare, uh, in case there is a sale of a park in the future. And, um, wanting to, um, help residents in coming together to, uh, do a buyout or community organizations to, uh, buy a park.

[01:06:16] Wayne Chen: Thanks for the question, regarding the last aspect of your question, per council input on the housing element. And through the breakthrough gram process. We will be studying these opportunity to purchase act programs. Um, they they go by a couple of different, um, names and types. One of them is a community opportunity to purchase act, which is typically geared towards nonprofit developers, being able to have an opportunity to bid on sites. Um, but the other type of program is called Topa. It's the tenant opportunity to purchase act, and we will be studying the potential applicability of Copa Topa for both apartments, but also for mobile home parks per council input. So that addresses your, I think your, your tenant question. The sale mobile home parks is typically regulated and governed by the state mobile home residency laws and so we would really be looking to that provision in terms of requirements and procedures that need to be followed if there were a sale. But if there were a Copa Tupa program. And if it did apply to mobile home parks, then that, that would be something we'd certainly be evaluating and then bringing back to council for, um, bringing information and then getting, uh, the council input on, um, potential direction or next steps.

[01:07:43] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, great. And I know that there are some people in, in, uh, the attendees box who, um, do have the, the networks out there to communicate with, uh, our residents that are in the parks, and I, um, just want to assure them that it's something that we are thinking about, um, for the, for the future, and we're not gonna let that out of our site at any point in time. So thank you so much for that information.

[01:08:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions? If not, then, uh, what I am, uh, Vice Mayor Hicks, did you have a question?

[01:08:28] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I just had a question about a follow-up question on council member Abbott Koga's comment on my question. Which is whether the, uh, idea of pushing forward the 100% affordable housing, the Google sites, and, um, you know, all the related, the development agreement, that whole bundle of issues, whether that, uh... how that also interacts with the, the question of pausing the NOFA, um, you know, I, I, just am wondering whether staff had had, since there were several of those questions, whether staff had any follow up comments on, given those two sets of questions, whether there was anything they would, you would suggest doing any differently.

[01:09:20] Wayne Chen: Thanks, council member, um, I don't have anything that would change in that regard. We still have the pipeline that we have. If it grew, we would adjust our finding goals, but it wouldn't change much else there.

[01:09:36] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so you still have the same suggestion regarding pausing the no foot process. Okay, thank you.

[01:09:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'm going to recommend that we treat this list as something like a consent calendar. Uh, so what I'll ask is for members of the council to raise their hand and then uh, share which ones they would like removed, uh, for discussion. Uh, and then if there's anything, uh, not on the list that we ought to uh, consider adding. Um, and then that way, we can go through them one by one, and then I will be able to better assess whether there's majority support for removing an item, modifying an item, um, adding an item, uh, and then we can, uh, sort of dispense with the balance, um, without discussion. Um, that I, I think that might, it must, uh, there are other ideas that, that feels like the best way to make sure we can gauge whether there's majority support for, for, uh, the totality of the strategy. Um, and then the housing element items, we can certainly discuss, but I think we do have to keep in mind that all of them are already in the housing element draft and after we receive the comment letter from HCD. Uh we'll have another opportunity and a future study session too. Um make modifications to those items. Uh, so, uh, unless there's strong objection. Um, that's the process in Williams proposed. Uh, council member shelter.

[01:11:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well, I, I think your suggestion is just fine, but I would like to put the 1st thing on the list to discuss the concept of a pause. Um, I, I, I'd like to, um, for us to, um, flesh out a little more what we mean by pause versus change in priorities. So I'd like that to be discussed. Thank you.

[01:11:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Medachek.

[01:11:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I didn't have any questions, so I didn't ask any at that time. Um, I had a great discussion with staff yesterday. Had the opportunity to ask a lot of questions and got a lot of answers. Um, but I, I do want to add a few comments that are just general. Um, and I'll do that now. Um, 1st I want to thanks staff for that great staff report. I mentioned this when we got together. I wanted to do it publicly because I so appreciated the charts. I can't tell you how much I appreciated those. Um, I keep on asking for summary charts and it was in that report. So thank you for that. It was great. Um, You know, in general, I actually agree with all of Steph's recommendations. I don't feel the need to go through all of these in great detail. Um, because I appreciate staff's, um, Thought and um, consideration of these and putting it in the uh, proposal. Um, I guess my biggest concern is and I think I voiced this when we talked about the housing element. Um, I would have preferred to not put so much in the housing element because I am concerned that we're not going to be able to implement these and that's mostly because of funding. And, um, stuff, uh, we had a good discussion about funding. Um, and while I know they're looking at every single opportunity for additional funding, I think it's still going to be challenging, and I would hate for HCD to, um, sort of ding us on this because we couldn't find the funding to do something. Um, that is definitely my biggest concern. And I don't think the city should be, um, going into the housing business. I think we should be leveraging partners, um, and other opportunities for other folks to do the housing, and we help find the funding and put people together. Um, But, you know, I can say I I appreciate um, the items staff put in there and I'm supportive of them. Thanks.

[01:13:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And uh, since, uh, I guess in addition to identifying specific items that, um, you know, an individual council member would like to provide comments on, if there are general comments, uh, please feel free to use this opportunity to share them as well. Council number, I'll be coached.

[01:14:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, I, I guess, um, I was trying to figure out what list we're gonna go through and um, if it's a summary table in the staff report. It's a lot. Okay. Um, I, I guess I, I don't have a, I mean, I have a few items that I wanted to point out, but overall, I agree with council member Mattachek, number one, I want to thank staff for all their your hard work. This great staff report. I had a really great briefing with staff this morning. We did a super deep dive and got into the weeds and geeked out on affordable housing. So I feel very comfortable with a lot of the items that are suggested, but I guess I just had some comments on a few items. So could I make that now or do you want me to actually pull the items?

[01:14:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Just pull the items. If you have general comments. I think that's okay. I think, um, the intent in in pulling it is if you wanted to, you know, substantially modify something or remove it from the list to make sure that there's majority support. But if you have just about, uh, the concept, then I think this is fine. Um,

[01:15:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: okay, well, so let me throw one out and see which, which, which side this falls on, on falls on. So, um, the funding, funding piece. Um, I think it's the 1st item, action item. I support, um, supporting, and you've heard me say this. I supports us supporting the regional funding measure that, um, Bafa, Bay Area Housing Financing Authority is putting, is moving forward on. I'm on that committee, as you know. Um, we've moved from quarterly meetings to monthly meetings. We're really targeting 2024 to do this. I know our staff and Wayne is and already have been talking to the office staff. So that's my, um, hope is that we can continue to engage and help shape the measure, um, from what it's sounding like right now would be a bond measure, and for Santa Clara County, $12000000 for San Jose alone, and 1200000000 for all the other city, small city, the 14 cities. Calculating that out, I think, if I did my math, right? That would be about 800, um, 8000000 or 800 million. I can't remember where the zeros go, but it's like substantial amount, probably more, I think, more than what we could generate with a local measure. And so that was the piece was I actually would like to remove exploring a local measure at this point in time. I just want to, you know, like limit the staff work being done on something like that and let's just put in. I know at the regional level. They're asking us, you know, all the cities to support the regional measure. So I don't want to do anything that would contradict that. So I don't know where that would fall, but that would be my 1st point.

[01:17:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think the tricky element of that particular proposal is that's already in the housing element draft. So, uh, we can talk about it here, but I think the, and I'll, I'll ask maybe staff the question formally. If we wanted to modify that housing element program, would this be the time to do it or should we wait until the next housing element study session after we've received the HCD comment letter?

[01:17:30] Wayne Chen: Well, this would be the time to do it because, um, we don't have a study session planned, we are planning to bring back the draft housing element for council. In December.

[01:17:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So given, um, that, uh, recommendation from staff, uh, council member Abby Koka, do you, is there, is that, um, that would be strategy, one B, 2? Uh, one B, um, sorry, I lost it. Uh. Hey, 16. Oh, what is that one? Oh, no, I have. Sorry.

[01:18:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I think you're right, Mayor. It's one B, two? Uh, that's, uh, support a regional ballot measure and considering a local measure in the house, that's, that's the, um, the action that would like us to,

[01:18:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: okay. So I'll go ahead and write that down. One, be to, uh, and then were there any others that you would like, um, to informally pull from, uh, from the list, for individual discussion.

[01:18:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, okay. Well, so for B, what is this, strategy to B, middle income households? Um, I've mentioned this. I'd like to add a concept, um, of a down payment, equity share assistance program. Um, I've talked about this many years. Um, I know that I know the focus has been on lower income AMI, um, uh, levels and I, you know, support that, but, um, we do need to do. I think we just need to do more for the middle income community. We've talked about it, but, um, you know, the numbers are we just haven't done much. And, um, you know, more and more as I learn about what rents are for the, like the newer apartments. Um, you know, if you can afford those rents, I think you can afford a mortgage. Um, but the real challenge for now versus when I bought 25 years ago is the down payment requirement of 20%. And I think we can, you know, we can, for like $150,000, a door on an affordable housing unit. Um, we could, you know, potentially provide $150,000 down payment assistance to a person, family couple, and, you know, help them purchase a home, which to me at the end of the day is the most security you can have when you own your own home. So that would be an addition. Um, So, I guess, add that to the list.

[01:20:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great.

[01:20:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, and then the other real item, um, is BMR owner. So BMR ownership, on the other hand, um, I mentioned this to staff. This happened before, I think, most of everyone's time here, and the only one who was there, but we at during the recession of 2009, 2010, we actually had a BMR ownership unit over on Rock Street. And the price of that unit was actually higher than the market prices for a similar unit. So it ended up, the city had to buy that unit from the owner, because the owner couldn't sell it, given all the restrictions. So I have some real concerns with BMR ownership as a result of that situation. Um, you know, things have changed, but as we look at, um, the, you know, yeah, look at BMR ownership, I really want us to look at that because, um, and, you know, look at the fluctuations based on the market, um, because I don't want us to be in the situation that we have to buy BMR units back from people. And as someone said, I don't want us to be in the housing industry. Like, that's not our job. So, that's one thing I would take out. Maybe, I don't know if it's taking out, but just kind of flagging.

[01:21:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, maybe, uh, like, well, I think, I think it might be helpful to, uh, decide whether we do want to remove that or, or not, so that would be too, A, one, support BMR rental.

[01:22:07] Wayne Chen: No, uh, that's a program. It's it's not really apologies. It's not really listed as a specific program. It's part of our existing BMR program.

[01:22:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so, um, maybe did did you want to introduce that concept for discussion or just note that concern for now?

[01:22:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I I guess I would just like to do prioritize it. I think we have and that to me, like, this list is great. Um, you know, in a perfect world where we have like 10 more, 10 times more staff, we could probably do it all, but given our, um, limitations, like I just don't see this as a priority. Um, so I know there's been some work done in this area, but I just want to, you know, kind of flag the situation that happened that was, you know, negative impact. Um, so it's not as big a priority for me, I guess I'd say.

[01:23:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, that's helpful. It sounds like maybe because it's not on the list now, that's something that we can consider when we review, uh, the inclusionary uh, housing ordinance. I think that's scheduled next year if I'm not mistaken.

[01:23:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. That's great. Thank you. That's it.

[01:23:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Thank you. Council member to May.

[01:23:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks, Mayor. Um, so I'll just answer, I think, the 2 questions. I just have comments, nothing I want to pull. So um, I do agree with the staff's recommendations. I want to echo the thanks. I thought it was really clearly written staff report. I loved the thorough analysis after 5 years. I think my suggestion would be that we do this routinely. Um, as a council because I think things are ever changing and as we're seeing more legislation at the state, um, and hopefully opportunities to uh, get more funding, partner for more funding. Um, I think this is an important conversation to continue. So I just want to say that. I think what I appreciated most was the timing element where, um, there was the me, the action with the timing, in terms of what's immediate, what's more long term, um, we often get, I think, uh, as feedback that there's a nebulous timeline. Um, sometimes when counsel makes decisions and I think this brings some clarity to something that can genuinely be, um, uh, usually opaque. Um, my 2 um, the 2 strategies of most interest to me, just for, um, staff to note are the implementation of the middle income strategy as well as the displacement program. Um, you know, I think some of the, the comments, um, I'd really like to highlight for strategy 2 B 3, the ability for partnerships, you know, I think while some of these um, programs are of interest, you know, they can be administrative heavy. And so doing partnerships with nonprofits or others, um, who are more well versed in, um, you know, co-ops, community own ownership, I think would be the way to go, and I want to continue seeing that and learning more, and hopefully, um, when this comes back to council, we can get a fuller picture there. Um, I appreciate the comments about a down, um, uh, payment program. I think that's something that we have looked at for our city employees and it makes sense for us to be looking at for our residents as well. Interest, you know, I don't know if that needs a formal addition to, um, the strategy item, but it is of interest to me because, um, it's about the down payment plus the property tax twice a year, right? And so what people can pay, the, um, uh, the monthly mortgage, just that large percentage, uh, those chunks of of funding, it can be difficult. Um, and then, um, for the displacement for strategy for, um, you know, for item one with the COPA Topa community land trust options, I'm also interested to, to hear if there are, there's anything else out there. Um, you know, I know that these are items that we've talked about as a canceled before, but, um, as many jurisdictions across the state are trying to be creative. Um, should staff learn more about different programs that are out there or different partnerships. I know that the state has been tried to jumpstart different pilots. I'd be interested in, hearing more. And then in terms of the 2nd question on feedback and direction, on some of the needs. I'm interested in how, um, our affordable housing strategic plan, our housing element, as well as our R3 update, I'll talk to each other. I think we are working on all 3 of these different plans in tandem, and there is overlap, there's different. I would say levers that we can use. Um, and for example, for, you know, middle income strategy too. One of the things I'm most interested in is a variety of housing product type. Um, which I know is is most likely on the R3 side, but it's about, um, you know, what we're doing here with affordable housing strategy as well as R3 and I think that can hit an overall goal, uh, as well as, you know, displacement, which I mentioned is of high interest to me. So, um, I'm hoping that we're thinking of them, and I've mentioned this before, as puzzle pieces for the overall housing crisis that we're in versus things that aren't talking to each other, and I know that there's staff overlap on many of them. Um, but I would love to to be able to, um, find ways to couch those other plans, uh, in the communications as we're talking about these items. So we're not discussing that in silos. Thanks, Mayor.

[01:28:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and I completely agree on that last point, especially. So, hopefully, as each of these items come back, better understanding the relationship between them, uh, would be helpful for the council by Snare Hicks.

[01:28:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I agree with that set of comments as well, and it allows me to shorten mine. Um, so, so just in the, um, well, 1st I want to, uh, as other people have said, thanks staff for a very comprehensive and thoughtful, uh, staff report, you know, it helped me out a lot and, um, and was, you know, engaging and fun to read and fun to talk to you about. Um, in addition to that, um, I'm thinking in the, um, interest of time, I'm thinking that it seems like many, maybe all of us are agreeing with, um, with everything that staff has, has laid out with a few tweaks, um, I'm not going to pull any particular programs, or, um, the only thing I might add is, is, at some point, coming up with a dashboard for making report packs kind of easy and visible. Uh, you know, job housing balance, and then, uh, units produced at different income levels, um, units lost. Some rubric like that. So kind of like our COVID dash for it. I would love to be able to see something at all times, so we know where we're at. Um, maybe I shouldn't have compared it to the COVID dashboard. In addition to, um, I guess the, the other thing that I'm interested in, several people have mentioned it is the, the Copatopa, uh, um, programs. Uh, I think this is something that that both the, um, oh, uh, whole set of, um, well, housing justice people and mobile home people involved in those mobile home park people involved in those two communities have brought up to me as very important to them. So, I just wanted to note that someone told me they would be here tonight, but I don't see them, commenting. But, um, so I don't want those, to be seen, is too difficult to do, although my understanding is that when Cocoa and land trusts are done, they usually are done by non profits and partners. So they're not usually taken on by a city itself. Uh, I agree we don't want to be in the housing business. And when I worked with land trust in the past, with the city of Berkeley and the city of Oakland, it was a, it was a nonprofit that did it as a separate item as a part of our housing strategy. Neither of those cities themselves did it. So with that, I would say that I, you know, I endorsed the staff report, and the recommendations made. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, so, uh,

[01:31:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Echoine, I think, uh, what council member Matachek started with, uh, very similarly, I really appreciate the staff, uh, report and presentation and also really like the, the summary table. It is very helpful just to help organize thought and uh, uh, like everyone else. I think of the strategy broadly is very good. Uh, so what, what we'll start with then is there, there are 3 items for consideration separately. Uh, 2 uh, items on the strategy or in the strategy that, that we may uh, modify or remove, and then a new item for consideration. So, um, one point, 8.one and one point, B.2 and then the down payment equity share program will consider separately. But 1st let's take a quick straw pull on everything else in the strategy. And it sounds like everything, everyone is supportive of everything else, but just to be certain, raise hands, one, two, three, 4 size, so that, the balance of the strategy has unanimous support. So thank you, Steph. We'll start with one. 8.one council member show alter. I think you had suggested that we pulled us.

[01:32:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I wanted to talk about the pause and what the pause really means. I mean, clearly, if we look out, we're gonna run out of money, some money, or we could run out of money. I hope that what, um, uh, council member Abakoga is telling us about is gonna come through, that, that could really, um, make all the difference. But, um, I'm concerned about, uh, sending out the message that we're pausing, um, as, uh, as being, um, equating with, we're stopping. And, um, I don't want that. I, I, I, one of the things that I think has led to our success has been that we've been pretty innovative. And, um, I, clearly, our priority now should be for our, um, our city, uh, our city controlled sites. And for those, but, but at the same time, I feel like if some developer or some nonprofit comes forward and says, Well, we've been able to buy this piece of property in Mountain View, and, and here's the amount of money we need, and it's, it's, um, it's within our, um, you know, it's with in our ability to do. I want to be able to consider that. So that's what I'm concerned about. And, um, uh, so to me, it's, it's, it's, it's the definition of what pause is. And, and, and for me, is it, is it just a change in priorities? I want to check in with everybody about that, you know, that they agree with that, that it's basically a change in priorities? It's not that we're really stopping or we wouldn't consider something if it fit in. It's that it's a change in priority, that we're saying now that it won't just be a first come, first serve process. It will be um, uh, it will be more, um, you know, there will be more specific criteria. So, yes, Wayne. Well what do you think about that?

[01:34:40] Wayne Chen: Yes, appreciate the question. I think a helpful way to look at this is that the city has an affordable housing lending program. And underneath that program is a NoFA program. And there's also this RFQRP program. And the way we've articulated a staff report is, because of the funding, and because we do know we have, we anticipate having sites coming to the city is, as you're saying, maybe, we prioritizing the efforts, maybe away from future NOFA, um, funding applications, at least for the time being, and then really funneling the funds to the other part of the affordable program, which is the RFQRP program. Now, Council, if you wish to say, well, Keep both open, but figure out how to move the projects forward as expeditiously as possible, we could, we could fold that in with the caveat that. Certain projects may may take longer or we may need to work on managing the pipeline of the, um, dedication sites as we get more funding if we, Continue to allow no funny applications to come in, then of course, that would just increase the amount of funding that we would want to block in through a partnership or, um, try to access if the BAFA funds, um, are passing it goes through. So, I think just to summarize, uh, reprioritizing is probably a good way of talking about it, but if council has input about how we could continue to parallel track both programs. We, we can, we can pull that in and it may mean, um, a greater enhancement for of figuring out a bigger gap amount and then also working with the projects to figure out, which projects can actually queue forward, um, depending on when they're ready and when we actually receive the sites.

[01:36:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, that appeals to me. Um, I, but I think that there should be a clear priority that, um, uh, the, um, the city, uh, controlled sites are number one and they, you know, they are, and and we should certainly be communicating clearly to the, um, you know, to the affordable housing community that there has been a change. I mean, obviously, we're gonna need to do that anyway, 'cause there is a change, whether we pause it or we change the priorities. I mean, however we couch that, that's a big change, so we'll need to be, um, uh, communicating that. And, um, we have a good track record of doing that. Oh, I want to stop and say, I think I was the only one who didn't say thank you so far for this great staff report and the great work. And also, um, you know, for me personally, this has been something I really ran on, uh, on all of my campaigns, was improving affordable housing. So, hearing these numbers and seeing these put forward, um, is really just wonderful. I mean, obviously, we could argue that it's not enough, but, um, we've made great progress, and we are considered leaders, and, and, you know, I, I, um, I brag about the staff all the time when I run into other council members from other cities, and I, I'm pretty sure the other council members do too. And, um, you, you, um, you all just, uh, um, really do a wonderful job. It's very much appreciated. But anyway, so this idea of the pause and the priorities. That's that's one thing I'm concerned about. And then the other thing is, I would like us to, to take a, um, uh, to get an update annually on where we are in this, in this process, because, um, we know that sometimes the, um, you know, the, the planning processes that we think are going to give us these properties in a certain time, sometimes they take a little longer, perhaps some of them, we can make, go a little faster. You know, there will be shifting. And we also know there will be shifting of the money available. And so I would like there to be an annual, um, check in, um, of what the, the money is available, sort of how that relates to our priorities and our pause. Um, I'd like to hear what my other um, council members think. Thank you.

[01:39:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: um, move 1st to assistant city manager of Shvastava.

[01:39:29] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think a lot of what we, I was thinking about what has already been said, but, um, you know, as we were talking internally among staff, um, it occurred to us that, um, a typical nova process involves a developer going and negotiating a site sale. And sometimes then coming to the city to say, I now need to rezone the site. Instead, we're suggesting they work with the city on our site, instead of going and trying to purchase it from someone else. So we don't necessarily see this as a loss for nonprofits, but more of an opportunity to say, you don't have to worry about going and buying these sites because we've got these, right? And so really, that was our goal when we said, we want to prioritize our city sites, because we don't need to go through all these site negotiations and sale negotiations, and then come to the city because we've got our own sites, and you can work with us instead. So we don't see this as a loss for developers, but an opportunity.

[01:40:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So why would you describe that as a pause instead of a change in priorities?

[01:40:42] Aarti Shrivastava: And that's that's very much so. A typical nova process involves, I have bought. I have an agreement to buy the site. I'm gonna have to do all this stuff. I need this money. Instead, we do our RFP process and say, we're now gonna, we would prefer you work with us on our sides. You know, and those have priority over you going and buying sites from someone else. So we can reword that. It would basically be shifting now to focus on city sites versus sites that are owned by somebody else that they have to go negotiate for.

[01:41:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I like that. Thank you. Thank you, Council member Abi Koka.

[01:41:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Marion. Thank you, RT for that explanation. Um, that, that's been my thought too. In the past, we didn't have land. We had money, and that's why we started the NoFA process. It was actually council member Jack Siegel. We were collecting money, and, you know, affordable housing funds, and not using it. And, you know, he said, well, if it's sitting in the bank, you, it ends up getting depreciating. So let's use it. And that's why we started the Nova process. But now we're flip, I think we have land and not maybe not as much money. So I would like to get the land, you know, used utilized as quickly as possible. So, that I think it's just maybe flipping the prioritization. Um, but my hope too is that, you know, I've always heard from affordable housing developers that land costs are, um, you know, big chunk of it the most, and maybe that's changed more recently, but, um, my hope, okay, artist shaking your head. So given that land, costs are the, the highest part, and also just difficult to acquire land now that we have land that we can use. My hope is that that'll lower the cost of production. Um, and also, if we contribute the land, could we possibly not have to contribute as much funding? So, I think it's worth a pause just so we can look at all this and analyze it and study it more closely. Um, so, you know, the pause is on just the whole nofa process, but not pausing our affordable housing program, I guess, is how I look at it. Thank you.

[01:43:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Assistant city manager, you still have your hand up? Did you want to? Just check. Council member lever.

[01:43:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I'm very supportive of this and of giving the staff the the flexibility to work with the development community in this space, and they are very, um, experience community, who know the the ins and outs, and I think that that they will respond to us saying we'd like to deepen our efforts in working with the land that we already have. And, um, you know, I mostly experience this with my environmental add-on, where, um, sometimes the churn of going through these processes just takes over. And it's it's, uh, this is a much more sophisticated approach to it. And so I'm, I'm very happy to, uh, to see this, and I think it'll, um, bear fruit in terms of, uh, the affordable housing that we need, uh, sooner. So I'm, I'm very supportive of giving staff the, the flexibility and, um, I know that they are going to do a very good job at having conversations within the, the development community that they would need to. Thank you.

[01:44:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I've got a quick comment on this one. So I, if we're characterizing it as a change in priority, I think I can support that. But one of the concerns I have is, if we, for instance, once we receive our letter from HCD, and um, they provide some direction on, for instance, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and we're required to identify additional sites for low income housing, um, in areas outside of North Bay Shore and East Wisman, um, then we may be put in a situation where we have sites identified for low income housing, but no means for them to sec uh city funding. Um, and I think that presents a big problem for us because then we will not be able to meet our, uh, mandate under, you know, the state law, to, uh, to affirmatively further their housing and and comply with, um, with what we're presenting in our housing element. Uh, so I do at least want to leave a pathway for those sites that we put in our house, you know, and sites inventory for, uh, for, you know, low income housing, some pathway for them to be able to participate in the snow foot process. Um, I don't know if you need direction for, for that here, um, but I think it would be good to clarify. Is, uh, is the council majority comfortable with the staff recommendation as presented, or was there a, uh, an interest in re-characterizing it, more as a reprioritization, uh, to support city owned properties? and reduce prioritization on private property. I feel like those those are pretty different. Um, uh, you know, compared to just a hard pause. Uh, staff, is that what you're proposing or are you thinking of it as a hard pause? What kind of input would be helpful from us right now?

[01:46:37] Wayne Chen: I think it would be helpful if council could provide input. If the priority is the RFQRP land dedication sites. But if along the way, a developer approaches the city and says, hey, I've secured a site where I want to secure a site, Could, could the city work with us to figure something out, if the, if the direction is to place them in the queue when we'll figure it out or if we were to respond with, we're only focusing on the city sites at the moment. And staff can work with with with both paths with either path.

[01:47:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, so, uh, assistant city manager.

[01:47:21] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I do want to reiterate what Wayne said, but one of the things we were asking counsel for is, this might be an example of a situation where the city is trying to affirmatively for the fair housing, and that might be a criteria for us to say, okay, we want projects like this that can help us because our sites may not meet those criteria, right? That's a, that's a clearer case of achieving a city goal, because one of the, one of the things we were planning to do anyway, is to set criteria. Um, not just for local projects, but also for developers who want city sites, to to discuss, this is what the city is trying to achieve on our sites, this kind of program. We can do that through the RFP. But if the council wishes to prioritize, for example, this particular issue, then we could then open up the NoFA process, if an opportunity came along, um, to affirmatively for the fair housing. If we find that our sites can't. And these are limited circumstances, and it gives a little more, I think, um, it helps us get our arms around the issue because otherwise we're juggling a bunch of projects that are not even ready. Um, but have just submitted applications. We're playing to streamline some of it, but I think it allows us to craft a policy that, um, is less frustrating for everybody. Thank you. I'm the member of Matachek.

[01:49:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, um, I appreciate council member Showwells for bringing up the terminology used. Um, I'm actually okay if we want to say, um, prioritize RFP, RFQ, where we own the land projects. Um, and that does imply that, you know, we don't have enough resources to do everything. So those are the ones that are going to get prioritized, and the others are going to have to wait. But I also hear the other comments about, you know, if HCD comes back with something and we need to do something different. Okay? Um, and also if we have additional resources, more funding, then maybe we could do more, but we'd probably need more staff as well to support all that additional funding in all the projects. So, could we do kind of uh, and I hate to, I usually don't like this, but uh, sort of for now, and then a later, when we have additional information or direction from the state or more money. So for now, I feel like we are, I feel comfortable saying we're prioritizing the ones where we own the land, um, because we do want to take advantage of that fabulous opportunity. Um, and the others are more challenging potentially. So for now, that's what we focus on. And then if things change. Absolutely. Let's revisit this and see if we want to change things. That would be my suggestion.

[01:50:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Um, I like that is, uh, and staff, any, before I take a straw, pull, staff, is there any clarity you would like? Um, Or is, is, uh, council member, council member, met a tax recommendation? Fairly clear.

[01:50:39] Aarti Shrivastava: Maybe it would be helpful for us to save it back and make sure that we have it and then we can, um, I'll be very clear. Uh, so in terms of prioritizing, um, the city sites, for the moment, if there is a project, uh, a developer comes in and says they they may be looking at a site, would it be supported, we would say that for the time being, we will be prioritizing the city sites. Um, and we will revisit this, uh, maybe sometime in in the 5 years. Um, but before now, for now, we will be focusing on getting our existing pipeline through that has been included in the staff report, and then next working on our city sites.

[01:51:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member at a check, is that a fair representation of your recommendation?

[01:51:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I think that's for now. I guess I'd make it more explicit that there are some things that, um, might change in the future, and then we might revisit, uh, things, but I'd make that clear because I don't want to give them a hard, you know, go away for 5 years.

[01:51:55] Aarti Shrivastava: If I may characterize it, um, it would be prioritizing city sites for now. Um, the 2nd priority would be working on any ACD based AFFH sites. And the 3rd would be if funding is available. And and we have the staffing, we can follow up on other projects. Does that make sense? In order of priority?

[01:52:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And I just wanted to re-underline one thing that Wayne mentioned, just for clarity sake, which is that we do have these, um, 5 existing projects in our pipeline that are not on city owned sites, um, that we would be continuing to forward as well. Okay. Thank you. Council member show alter?

[01:52:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I guess my my only comment would be that, um, I don't think we, we, we will want to wait 5 years to reconsider this. I would assume that we will reconsider this several times in the following five years. And I just want to make sure that that's clear. As circumstances change. I'm not sure we need to give an increment of time, where that will happen, or we can rely on staff to say, circumstances have changed enough, so we should, we could consider it, but, um, uh, I think 5 years is a really long time for this, with all the things that are churning, and we expect to, um, come to pass in the next 5 years. I think the circumstances could change quite a bit. So I, I, that would be my only comment.

[01:53:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Uh, so if there are no other comments, then, let's take a straw, uh, poll on council member Metachek's recommendation as, uh, paraphrased or reflected by, uh, assistant city manager of Shravostva. Raise hands for now, 123 for that is unanimously supported. Fantastic. Thank you. Uh, so now we'll move on to one point B .2. Which is the, uh, action to support a regional ballot measure and consider a local measure. I think council member that was your uh suggestion to consider.

[01:54:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: If I could just clarify too, I, I do support the, um, the impact fee, the revisiting the impact fee. So, I was just thinking like a local ballot measure is something that we can, and, you know, I can, I can use what we, we just did earlier, um, and say, you know, we can revisit it maybe in 2025 after we know what the outcome of the regional measure is, but for now, let's just take it off the table. because um, I just, yeah, I don't want to confuse anybody, frankly. And I also don't want to send the message, you know, to the regional folks that we're doing something that could potentially conflict with what's happening at the regional level.

[01:55:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Michaela, did you want to speak to this?

[01:55:17] Michaela Hellman Tincher: Yes, thanks. I just, um, while we were chatting, I looked up what the exact languages in the um, housing element, since this may be direction to address that as well. And there's one piece where it says support regional funding measure to support affordable housing. So that's one of the actions in the housing element, and then the other action relating to this says develop local revenue ballot measure to fund affordable housing. If a regional measure is not implemented. So that's the language that you would be working with if you want to change any of that.

[01:55:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, if that's, I didn't, I'm sorry, I didn't read that. I don't know if it was in the staff report, but if that's how it's worded, then I'm actually okay with that. I just don't want us to be doing both, but parallel.

[01:56:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So maybe then what we would recommend is that the language in the proposed strategy reflects the language that's currently in the draft house, how's it going?

[01:56:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, any other comments before we take us drop hold? Okay, we'll just raise hands, so the strategy reflects the housing element language, and that is supported unanimously. Thank you. Uh, and then Council member, council member, Abby, okay. I think you also had recommended the down team and equity share program, um if you wanted to speak more to that.

[01:56:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. So, um, yes, so, um, my hope was that, you know, we could do a pilot program similar to the one we have for our employees and, um, although I think the different piece is this equity share idea. So, um, you know, the idea is that the funding would be revolving. So we would provide the down payment assistance, but at this time of sale of that unit, if there is appreciation and there's more than the cost that the city would share in that profit. Um, and, um, I know this is, it's, I know, you know, I think we focused on lower income AMI categories, then I think we should continue to do that. But, um, I guess I'm looking for, you know, something else, something new, something, um, different and, uh, as mentioned, you know, I think the challenge really is this down payment, um, piece. And, um, and for the, uh, when I was looking at the affordable housing units that we've been developing, and I think the staff, um, analysis of $150,000 a unit of city subsidy, my thought was, well, that could actually be enough of a down payment assistance to help, you know, quite a few middle income folks to purchase their own home. And it might be a condo. It might be a townhome, but the idea is to just help them get into, um, the market. And so, um, you know, I appreciate that we have 15, as I think, you know, 15 middle income MyMR units right now. That's more than what we had 10 years ago, but, you know, I'd like to see more like 50. And, um, if it, the cost of building affordable units is so, is so high now and there's just not a lot of funding available for building for middle income. Um, I just thought this was a different approach, um, that, you know, I'd like to try for a few years as a pilot to see if, could we set aside, let's say, $1000000 or, or some amount of money to just see if this would be, um, useful to, to, to middle income folks to be able to purchase. So that's the idea. Thanks.

[01:59:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Uh, assistant city manager, did you want to speak to this before you go to the council comment?

[01:59:07] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I, I, um, it certainly is intriguing and we're happy to do some research. Um, I think some of the criteria we'll be looking for, um, council member Abi Koga is to see, um, what kind of income levels could be supported because, um, true middle income may not, May not meet our BMR, at least the funding sources that we have, right? But we could certainly explore it. Um, the equity share is intriguing, but could potentially be very difficult to administer. So we might want to check and see. What kind of, what cities do this kind of work or what agencies do this kind of work? Um, because I could see that becoming, it's certainly innovative. Um, and to see, you know, can we find, connect people to agencies that do this kind of work. And can the city just do grant loans, because that might be easier? But, but I just wanted to say we, we could explore and come back with some recommendations. And maybe that's a better way to, uh, couch the, if, if well, a policy has to be added. Maybe

[02:00:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: if I get respond to that. Yes, thank you, um, Artie. I, uh, I, I would appreciate some more analysis and research on this, though what I, um, you know, there's definitely programs like, and I don't know the details, but like landed, which I believe has worked with the, um, high school district to help teachers be able to purchase. I don't know if that would apply to cities. So, you know, if we could look at programs like that, that's great. There are existing programs. You know, I know the housing trust has one, but the challenge, as you mentioned, is that our, the prices of our homes don't qualify under their AMI restrictions. So the 120% is the max for a lot of these programs and our homes just, you know, are more expensive than that. And so, um, That was my concern or interest was, can we help the folks in the 120 to 150 range, similar to what we've done with BMR rentals? Or, you know, we may have to go higher. And I know that's a really hard sell to the public. I heard someone public comment saying they don't need help, but the reality is, is that they do. And so that's why I, you know, I think we need to go beyond what's there. And, um, I think I remember asking staff to research this before. But I know we're restricted in the funding, the sources of funding, but I believe, I think if it was like our own impact fees, like the commercial linkage fee, and maybe inclusionary, um, funds, that we have more flexibility on how we use that. within the city. So, If you could do more research, and that's what I'm asking, I guess, today is there, is there support? Would there be support from my colleagues to do a little bit more research to see if this might be a viable option?

[02:02:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Council member.

[02:02:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, so I guess, um, when I had my discussion with staff, we did talk about, um, loans for down payments, but we were mostly talking about, uh, partners providing the funds. Um, we didn't talk about the limitations in terms of the, um, amount or the income level or anything like that, but I would feel more comfortable having partners do this than the city. Um, I'm not sure I really want the city to get into this business. Um, but I also, uh, wonder, um, if staff, you know, I feel like, I've kind of resisted all along adding projects to staff's plate. Uh, and so I worry about adding this one. Um, Especially given all the work that has to be done on the housing element. I think I prefer to just stick to looking at the partnerships that might be available to do this rather than the city providing the funding, because that was already in staff's list, if I, I'm reading it correctly. I see a head nod. Thanks.

[02:03:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member of Libber.

[02:03:24] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, thank you, Mayor. I'd be very interested in looking at the partnerships in this area and I think it could, um, help us to fulfill some of our, uh, equity and inclusion, uh, goals. Um, I, I would be most comfortable with developing a little more information. Um, and that could either come from council members ourselves or, um, from staff doing what, a one hour, um, look at it. Um, I wouldn't be comfortable with just committing to a project, and no information, essentially, but, um, I am very interested, and, um, So I'd like to see what the possibilities are and see how it slots into our burgeoning, uh, work plan, which, um, is very voluminous, and... And growing.

[02:04:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Bye, Sn H.

[02:04:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I just agree with where the direction this is trending. I would prefer to do this, not ourselves, but through partnerships and explore, I think, for putting another full-blown program on our on our menu. That's it. Thanks.

[02:04:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? So I think, um, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think the recommendation would be to add an item under 2 dot B, uh, for staff to explore or do some research on, uh, creating a down payment equity share program, uh, into, uh, see what type of, uh, partnerships or, uh, private interest, we might be able to find to help implement that program. Is that a fair a characterization? Council member, I be

[02:05:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: okay.

[02:05:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Any, no, if there are no comments, oh, council member Madachek?

[02:05:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So sorry, um, I feel like exploring partnerships, at least in my discussion with staff, to do this was already there in, um, strategy to be one, seek funds to support homeownership, and that was in the housing element. So I thought that was it, except this, I think what council member Abbe Coco was saying, is the city would play a bigger role versus partners playing the role. So do we are you suggesting, mayor, that we add another one for the city? Doing this?

[02:06:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, I want to make sure I'm simply reflecting the recommendations made by members of the council. So maybe, uh, well, uh, Councilman Robbie Kokan may be declarify 1st and then we'll go to the assistant city manager.

[02:06:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks, sweetheart. So, um, definitely the preference would be too, partner. Um, I, I, there probably is some opportunity there, but my sense is that there will be some city involvement needed. So, um, I guess at this point in time. I just don't know. I mean, I could do the research as some believers suggested, but, um, you know, I could use the help of expertise of staff. And so my request at this point would just be to explore what the options are in this area of middle income home ownership and, you know, the city's involvement, um, in those options and come back to us with, um, with, uh, uh, menu of, of options for us to consider.

[02:07:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Assistant city manager?

[02:07:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Thank you. Um, so I just want to confirm this with Wayne and Michaela, but, um, I, you know, we have, we already have, um, an item in there that talks about looking at homeownership opportunities, and maybe that could be modified to research funding sources and partnerships instead of adding another item. Would that work, Wayne and Michaela, or?

[02:07:40] Wayne Chen: Certainly.

[02:07:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Go ahead, Miguel.

[02:07:43] Michaela Hellman Tincher: Certainly that would. And one of the main parts of that would be to explore those partnerships. We have identified a couple of funding sources already that we plan to apply for. Um, uh, to support this work, but, um, You know, they are limited. And so to the extent that there's more interest in going beyond what those funding sources can provide. We can, you know, share what we've learned about those funding sources with council.

[02:08:07] Wayne Chen: And I was just, I was going to say that the item was intended to cover, um, sort of this broad concept and whenever we're evaluating any kind of potential program where involving if and what a city role might be. So that's part of it, but if it helps to, um, clarify that in the item, we, we can do that, but it was the intent, um, of, of the item as written.

[02:08:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, are you comfortable with, um, modifying the existing action then to include exploration of this program?

[02:08:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay,

[02:08:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: any other comments or questions in the council? Not, let's go ahead and do a straw full, um, modified the, the existing program to include this concept. 123456 so that's unanimously supported. Uh, thank you. Are there any anything else that you would like us to provide input on or clarify?

[02:09:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Look like it, any final thoughts or questions from the council? If not, then, uh, we'll conclude this item. Thank you, uh, Wayne and Michaela and RT for, um, this working for walking us through it. Um, one item down, 15 to go. You can tell I'm doing a great job cheering this meeting because we're only 37 minutes late. So let's go ahead and take um, a break and uh, come back at, uh, 12 minutes okay. come back at 720. Is that okay with everyone? It will return at 720 um, uh, for the regular session. Thank you.

[02:08:01] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the special meeting of the city council of August 30, 2022. I will now reread the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953 E 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 in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting lives may do so at mountain view.legistar.com, youtube.com, forward slash mountain view gov, and on uh, 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 forward 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 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. City clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[02:23:08] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Koga?

[02:23:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[02:23:10] City Clerk: Council member Kame,

[02:23:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: here,

[02:23:12] City Clerk: Council member Labor?

[02:23:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[02:23:14] City Clerk: Can also member Mattachek?

[02:23:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[02:23:17] City Clerk: Sounds a membership, Wilter.

[02:23:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here?

[02:23:19] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks? Mayor Amirez?

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

[02:23:24] City Clerk: You have a corn?

[02:23:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you. Well, now move on to our presentation. Please note this is a presentation only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation item. Uh, this is item 3.one, R N Wine Festival, weekend proclamation. We are happy to be joined this evening by Peter Katz, president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce to accept this proclamation. Proclamation reads. Whereas the Mountain View Art and Wine Festival started in 1971 in downtown Mountain View to attract crowds to a struggling commercial center, the 1st year festival garnered 4040 artists, and whereas the weekend following Labor Day, has been a long-standing tradition reserved for bringing local artists, merchants, and craft vendors to downtown Mountain View. The weekend festival now brings in over 200,000 people from across the Bay Area and hosts more than 500 vendors. And, whereas, the weekend festival highlights 100s of small, independent merchants and artists and brings attention to our public services and organizations, such as police and fire, the library, and local nonprofits, increase a joyful and unified community. And whereas the Mountain View Art and Wine Festival, has been voted at Silicon Valley's best, best festival consistently since 2004, and whereas the year 2022 marks the golden anniversary of the Art and Wine Festival, produced by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, 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 weekends after Labor Day as Art and Wine Festival weekend. Congratulations. right. Peter, would you like to say a few words?

[02:25:13] Peter Katz: Wow, thank you, Mayor Ramirez and city council. The Chamber of Commerce is so proud to serve Mountain View with beloved and unique events as well as hosts the board of programs that bring our community together, boost our economy, and help show the world that Mountain View truly is the best place to live, work, and play. Um, you know, that old adage, uh, it takes a village is certainly true for the Art and Wine Festival. So, on behalf of our small but mighty team at the Chamber, Kira Pasco, Katie Hawk, Jesse Cupp, Brian Kaczinski, and Leslie King, our artisans, our vendors, our performing artists, our nonprofits, our contractors, our partners, our sponsors, the city of Mountain View. And, of course, the hundreds of amazing volunteers. Thank you for your support of this wonderful milestone. And remember, it's not too late to volunteer and be a part of our success. So we hope to see everyone on the 10th, the 11th, celebrate together, and thank you in person.

[02:26:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you so much, Peter. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? If not, then I will say, thank you very much for joining us this evening, Peter, to accept the proclamation, and we're all looking forward to participating, uh, in the Art and Wine Festival coming out. Thank you for helping organize it for, uh, you know, these past several decades. And with that, uh, we will now take public comment for the presentation item. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation item listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, let's go ahead and allocate 2 minutes. So, uh, keep in mind, uh, members of the public, this is for, uh, the present, this is public comment on the presentation for the proclamation, uh, related to the art and wine festival. You do not wish to speak about the proclamation, uh, regarding the art and wine festival, um, then please lower your hand. Alice's S 21. With the speaker, uh, with the Zoom username Alice's S 21 like to speak regarding the presentation. So please unmute yourself. Uh, well, uh, it looks like uh, that may not be the case, so we'll go ahead and uh, Move on to 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? Uh, Council member Lieber.

[02:28:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, thank you, mayor. Uh, if it's in order at this time, I just wanted to speak to one of the items, uh, but not pull it.

[02:28:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sure, go ahead.

[02:28:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, I just wanted to, um, comment on uh, item 4.6, the biodiversity strategy. And I was really delighted to see the response that we had from the San Francisco estuary Institute. The Estuary Institute is really one of the treasures of the Bay Area in terms of environmental policy. And, um, even though I'm usually the person that's uh, saying, let's cut all the costs. I think that, um, the reality is is that this is going to, um, be a very good, uh, investment on our part. And I, I really wholeheartedly, appreciate all the different elements of, um, what's proposed that are listed in the staff reports. So, um, my kudos to staff that have gotten us this far on the, uh, the biodiversity strategy, and I'm really looking forward to the work on, on behalf of the estuarians too. Thank you.

[02:29:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member to May.

[02:29:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, well, I like to also comment on item 4.6, didn't want to pull it, but, um, you know, I think, uh, one I want to say that I'm glad that the city council prioritized our environment and our biodiversity as one of our council goals. I'm really impressed by what staff put forward in this report. And I know that we've had community groups like our, um, um, Santa Clara County Audubon Society. We got a great email I thought from Green Spaces, MV, which highlighted a couple different things for us to do, just wanted to, um, note those comments and and say those are things that I'm also interested in and hopeful that we can, um, support. Um, I think that, you know, there was comments about like an educational component. Um, as well. And so just wanted to note that, but excited to see it on our agenda and moving forward. I know a lot of people are really interested and it's exciting to be able to move forward on our council goal priorities. Um, Thanks.

[02:30:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Sounds membership, Walter.

[02:30:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I'm just gonna add to the chorus here. and say, um, I've worked with SFBI uh, several times over the years, and it's always been a delight. They um, they really know their stuff. And, um, they're very, very organized and, um, just take, uh, you know, they, they are one of those people, those groups that seem to be able to, you know, take sort of, uh, to think globally and act locally. And, um, With environmental issues, that's, you know, that's so very important. So I'm really glad to hear that they're going to be part of this. And then I also just want to, um, thank the public works department for all the work they're doing on, um, sort of behind the scenes on things like replacing water mains. Um, That sort of work is very, very important for, um, maintaining, um, the good, clean water for all of us to use. So, thanks to public works for those items.

[02:31:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Council member committee, you still have your hand up? Did you want to?

[02:31:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No worries.

[02:31:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye snare hit.

[02:32:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I'm gonna chime in on the biodiversity strategy as well. Uh, I, I think that this could be, uh, you know, a council item might want to, to highlight it since it's on the, the consent calendar, and just say that I'm, you know, I'm glad that we, we've put this in our work plan. I'm glad that the San Francisco Estuary Institute is working on it, and this is one of the things that makes Mountain View a great place to live for the people, the kind of results of the biodiversity strategy, for the people who live here, but also for the plants and small creatures who live here, and there are many of them that knock on my back door, mostly opossums. But, um, but, yeah, so I do want to, I do want to highlight that and make sure that everybody knows that we're doing it. Thank you.

[02:32:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and I also look forward to participating in that enthusiastic, unanimous vote in support of the biodiversity strategy. Are there any questions or comments before I go to uh public comment? If not, then would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. And we'll go ahead and allocate 2 minutes. Uh, the 1st speaker is Shawnee Kleinhouse.

[02:33:30] Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening, Mayor Ramirez and council members. I'm Shani Kleinhaus, and by my advocate for Santa Clara Valley, Audubon Society. Audubon applauds the city of Mountain View for prioritizing a biodiversity, strategy, and we support item. The item and the consultant that you have, selected there, as said, excellent. Um, His strategy has the potential to eventually revolutionize the urban design of our communities and integrate nature and biodiversity into our human landscapes. There are many actions the city can take, and should take immediately to enrich mountain view biological fabric, and some are already advancing. But this plan will be groundbreaking in its scope. Other communities have yet to embark on a comprehensive biodiversity overlay approach for a city, and mountain view is on the cutting edge, but then what's new about that? So earlier during the study session, council member Abikoga mentioned former council member Jack Siegel. And I also think of council member Laura Messias. And Renee Bryant and others who served in the past or continued to serve the community. And I'm sure that they're as proud of you today as I am. Thank you. I look forward to participating in the public outreach.

[02:34:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Shani. The next speaker is Radhika. Ecott.

[02:35:13] Radhika Tekas: Hi. Uh, thank you, mayor and council members. I am Radhika Tekas. I am the board president of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plan Society. And I also want to say that I fully support, you know, the biodiversity plan to hire the San Francisco Estuary Institute. To provide a professional biodiversity strategy and project plan. You know, we feel that this is now a critical need for actually all our Bay Area cities, and I'm really, very pleased that the city of Mountain View recognizes the importance of native plans in our ecosystem. And is following this path in this hour of need. I would also like to point out that CNPS has tons of resources, you know, we have street tree plans and urban tree plans that we are very happy to share with your parks and recreation staff or, you know, any council member who wants to take a look at these. And we really look forward to the public outreach components of the plan and hope to contribute to that. So thank you very much.

[02:36:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you, Vadica. The next speaker is Bruce England.

[02:36:26] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. Oh, I'm going to be short. I'm speaking for Green Spaces Mountain View. We sent a letter today, and uh, thank you to Council member, for, um, mentioning that, and I hope that you'll all read it, and I hope staff will read it, of course. Anyway, there's a lot of details in there. I'm not gonna repeat them here. And I also attached an earlier letter to PRC on the same topic. So a lot of good details in there that I hope you will look at. The work that's going to be undertaken looks like it's going to be extensive and it's going to be a game changer for Mountain View, and this is all great. And the other organizations that have spoken so far, Green Spaces Mountain View works with them. Very strong partnership across all these organizations. So we're looking forward to the process as it moves forward. And we also encourage anybody in the public who wants to work with us to look us up and contact us and join in the work. Thank you.

[02:37:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Celia Tamer.

[02:37:30] Celia Tamer: Hello, can you hear me?

[02:37:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:37:34] Celia Tamer: Okay. Um, so, again, I also am a representative of Green Space's Mountain Views, who have our letter. Um, so I'm excited you kind of referenced those letters. Um, and we're really excited for this future work and participating. Um, one thing I realized we didn't have in the letter, um, that I would like to see added is, um, an estimate for funding required to be successful. Um, so we all know that, you know, money makes things happen. Um, and so I didn't see in the plan, any sort of estimate for a request for funding so that all of the things that they develop, we can actually do. Um, so that would probably be a good addition. Thank you.

[02:38:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[02:38:18] Alex Brown: Well, I too, uh, I'm excited to participate in the public outreach. You know, I love nature and our animal friends, especially the possums. Awesomes are great. They're they're cute. They hiss. They, uh, they're immune to Lyme disease, they eat ticks. Ah, it's the best. Thank you.

[02:38:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Mary Gadio.

[02:38:47] Mary Gadio: Hi, thank you, city council. I'm very excited about the biodiversity strategy. Years ago, uh, quite a while ago, the San Jose Mercury News, um, had an architecture critic, if anybody remembers that. And I just remember reading a column one time where he talked about how important it was for, um, our area to develop a sense of architecture that's distinctive and gives a sense of place. And that comment really stuck with me. And, um, I'm excited about the biodiversity strategy because our California plants and the plants that are local to, especially to our region are very distinctive and beautiful. And I think that, um, a native plant-based biodiversity strategy is going to create a very distinctive sense of place for our city of mountain view and make it really unique. Um, will no longer look like, you know, cities in the Midwest or the South or someplace else, but will look like our own sense of place, and it will give us a real, a real feeling of just, just being here, and very excited to hear it. Thank you.

[02:39:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Upshot.

[02:40:02] Akshan: Um, can you hear me? All right.

[02:40:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:40:06] Akshan: All right. Good evening, good evening. My name is Akshan and I am a high school student. We are all well acquainted with the current plastic pollution crisis. Plastic bags are usually burned, buried or washed away, thereby polluting our spear, soil, and water. To tackle this problem. I have started sustainable Sundays, a small individual effort to raise awareness regarding this issue. For this, I stand alone outside the farmer's market with posters to raise awareness about reducing plastic use. In order to persuade and influence consumers to choose sustainable alternatives. Last Sunday, I distributed reusable handmade cloth bags for free. Through my efforts, I hope that people take action and support Mountain View 0 waste program, which aims to divert 90% of waste away from landfills by 2030, thereby making Mountain View a sustainable and climate resilient city. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions in this regard. Thank you for your time.

[02:41:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Being know other members of the public wishing to speak, we will return to the council. Uh, and I'll note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to items 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Council member Abby Koko.

[02:41:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. There are no other hands, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the consent calendar, including, here we go, item 4.2, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View authorizing temporary closure of parking lot 12 from 7.30 a.m. through 230 p.m. during Sunday 49ers home games at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara for fiscal years 2022 through 23 and 2023 through 24 for use by the California Farmers Market Association to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Item 4.3 adopt a resolution of intention of the city. Council of the city of Mountain View to vacate public easements at 870 East El Camino Real, to be read entitled only for the reading waived attachment went to the council report and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for September 27, 2022. 4.4 adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, fixing the employer contribution at an equal amount for employees and annuance under the public employees Medical and Hospital Care Act, with respect to a recognized employee organization, group 001 safety dash fire, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, fixing the employer contribution, at an equal amount for employees and annuants under the public employees Medical and Hospital Care Act, with respect to To recognized employee organization, group 002 safety dash police to be read entitled only for their reading waived. Item 4.5, adopted resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, amending resolution number 18693, which authorized the city manager, or designated amend the memorandum of understanding between the service employees, international union, local 521, and the city for the period of July 1st, 2022 through June 30, 2024, to correct an error in the provision governing equity adjustments to be read entitled only for the reading waived. And that is um. Thank you.

[02:43:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Medichek.

[02:43:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yep, thanks for reading all that. I'll 2nd it.

[02:43:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions or comments? If not, then I'll ask the city clerk to commence the roll call vote.

[02:43:47] City Clerk: Council member Abby Koka?

[02:43:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[02:43:50] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek?

[02:43:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[02:43:52] City Clerk: council member Kamei.

[02:43:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:43:55] City Clerk: Council member Lieber?

[02:43:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[02:43:57] City Clerk: Council member show Walter?

[02:43:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:43:59] City Clerk: Nice Mayor Hicks.

[02:44:00] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:44:01] City Clerk: Mayor Meritz?

[02:44:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:44:03] City Clerk: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:44:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. 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 session. 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 screen. Time displayed on the screen. First speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[02:44:45] Tim McKenzie: Hi, all, Tim McKenzie, he him pronounced Montaloma neighborhood. Um, one thing, welcome back from summer. It's great to see everyone. Um, uh, one thing that happened over the summer that I'm certain everyone is aware of, uh, was a wonderful presentation by the human relations committee on the history of housing in Mountain View, and the housing element came up a fair amount during the study session. Um, I would just like to officially say, uh, in some sort of council proceedings that, uh, I'd love to see the, that, uh, human relations commission project included in the housing element as the draft gets updated and finalized and when it comes back to council. Um, and one other item I'd like to mention, uh, the public safety advisor board, when considering the work plan, had thought about adding depolicing traffic enforcement as a potential item, but did not include it. But as we saw over the summer, an officer was shot during a traffic stop. Thank goodness, he was fine. Uh, the, uh, the person that did the shooting was captured in a manhunt uh, the next day. So everything worked out well, but I think it really highlights, um, how important for public safety for both the public and for our officers who are out there, uh, putting themselves on the line, that, uh, depolicing traffic enforcement is something that we really should consider in Mountain View. And, uh, the material conditions and circumstances have changed now that there has been something a little bit closer to home, and I wanted, maybe that would change people's consideration. So I wanted to, um, put that on the radar as a as a potential thing for council to ask P SAB to look into since they haven't been, haven't met through the summer and been able to consider it. Um, but about depolicing traffic enforcement. Thanks a lot.

[02:46:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Albert.

[02:46:52] Albert Jean: Oh, thank you. Hi, Albert Jean. I have my timer going too. Good evening, Mayor Ramirez and Council member, this next slide, please. First, I would like to thank the city for following my suggestion and transplanting a Redwood tree at San Veron Park instead of letting PGAD cut it down or in order to build their gas regulator station. It looks great, and I think it only took a one warning to move it. My main reason for speaking to you tonight is to show you a couple examples of why quality matters when it comes to building the future of Mountain View. This was brought home to me by some places I saw this summer. Next slide, please. We're all familiar with 100 Moffat. Thanks to Google Street View. We can see what it used to look like. Obviously, the tree canopy took a big hit, but won't the trees plant it eventually make up for it? Well, what I did realize that it's already been 5 years since those trees were planted next slide, please. Here are before and after pictures that I took personally. At this rate, how many more years will it take people for this sidewalk is shaded? Next slide, please. I took this picture when I was in Japan last month. It's a rooftop garden in a mixed-use complex of stores, offices, and housing. It opened just 2 years ago. Just 2 years. They didn't want to wait 10 to 15 years for the trees to mature and instead transport in mature trees. I've seen whole parks in Japan. They are forested in this way. Sure it's more expensive, but what is the value of providing a pleasant experience for the people you want to use the facility. Next slide, please. On a different note, I recently learned of a dog park in Santa Clara, which was highly regarded. And when I went there, I was impressed by how well designed it was. It has synthetic turf, easy to clean, multiple bags, dispensers, lots of shade and vegetation, even a cleaning area, a water hose, if your dog gets dirty. I'm running out of time. It's a popular place even on weekday tech slide, please. This is the dog park at Pyramid Park, soon to be open, and it's just filled with wood chips. is not the kind of place I would take my dog to. And yeah, I think it needs a lot of improvements. Next slide, please? I'm running out of time. So my point is quality really matters. quality of building, quality parks, quality of life. We really want to build a great place to live in Mountain View. Thank you.

[02:49:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Albert. The next speaker is Bruce England.

[02:49:08] Bruce England: Thank you mayor. Um, Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. Uh, kudos to Albert for that slide deck. I'd sure like to see some of the, um, slides related to trees, so I will ask him for that and the rest of it too, the dog park stuff. Um, I wanted to bring up, and this is going to piggyback a bit on what Tim McKenzie said, but, um, you're going to be looking at the work plans for all the advisory bodies shortly, and something that I would really like to see and and virtually all of them, if not all of them, um, is legislative priority input. I think that as you come up with legislative priorities from a city council perspective, you should have that input from the advisory bodies. The 2 that I'm thinking of in particular are PCAB and BPAC, but I think that all of them could provide some kind of input of not only for funding opportunities that they might be able to take advantage of. Thank you.

[02:50:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Julia.

[02:50:14] Julia: Hello, thank you for my call here. Um, I don't know the agenda, but I'm here to talk about tree. Please save the tree. Do not cut down the tree. The one in old, um, uh, Wells Fargo building, parking lot. Please save the tree. That is our tree. Um, I don't know the agenda. I'm here to talk about the trees. And also...

[02:50:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: If you're speaking about 90 Castro, that's the office project, the old Wells Fargo, that's the last item on the agenda. Oh. Oh.

[02:50:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We've got one item, uh, before the office project. So if you would like to come back, at that time to speak about the tree, that that would be the appropriate opportunity.

[02:51:01] Julia: I would, for future, I wish there's agenda, some schedule on the screen so I could see it right now. I can't see anything, so I'm sorry, I don't know. So I'm guess I'm raising my hand. Sorry.

[02:51:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Don't worries at all.

[02:51:14] Julia: Okay, I come back.

[02:51:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, see no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will turn now to uh, the 1st of 2 public hearings.

[02:51:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: This is item 6. introduce ordinances to add responsible construction and wage theft to the city code. Uh, assistant to the city manager, Christina Gilmore will present the item. If somebody could help me elevate Christina to the panel.

[02:52:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: There you are. Somebody else, yeah. Okay. Is there anyone else that we need to bring into panel?

[02:52:22] City Clerk: Mayor, is Nicole Wright? Is out there if she could be promoted to a panelist, that would be great.

[02:52:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And Christina, whenever you are ready, feel free to begin the presentation.

[02:52:43] Christina Gilmore: Great, I'll just share my screen. You think being mayor and council, Christina Gilmore, assistant to the city manager. The purpose of this item is to introduce ordinances to add a responsible construction ordinance and a wage that's ordinance. The purpose and approach for the development of the responsible construction and wage that ordinances are to help ensure accountability and compliance with existing state wage and hour laws, enhance protect the protection of workers' rights, and support this city's existing minimum wage ordinance. Staff has conducted extensive outreach and research and assessed a range of considerations in order to develop ordinances that will most effectively accomplish this purpose. A study session was held in October 2021 to provide direction on the development of the responsible construction in which the ordinances. Revisions that were incorporated into the proposed ordinances following council direction from the study session are as follows. Exemption of businesses with no employees from the wage left ordinance requirements. Staff has included this exemption in the proposed wage theft ordinance. Incorporate stronger consequences for non-compliance with the responsible construction ordinance. Staff has revised the ordinance to include terms to propose that a certificate of occupancy may be withheld for the failure to submit the paid transparency certification form, or if the city has sustained a complaint of a wage theft judgment that is unpaid and not secured by a surety bond or similar security instrument. Exploration of other methods to strengthen enforcement. That recommends and enforcement be conducted on a complaint basis as proposed during the 20 October 2021 study session. Including of additional acknowledgements and attestations in the responsible construction ordinance. The existing building permit review and issuance process already confirms that owners, contractors, and subcontractors have the adequate workers' compensation insurance coverage and have maintained their contractor or subcontractor licensing. Consequently, this does not need to be included in the responsible construction ordinance. For unpaid payroll taxes, staff is not aware of an effective way for the city to ascertain that an owner, contractor, or subcontractor, has not paid payroll taxes as this information is not included in claims made to the state's DLSE. For this reason, the city would not have a means for pursuing compliance and staff does not recommend including these items in the responsible construction ordinance. exploration of options to expand protections for day laborers. Staff proposes to conduct, a comprehensive education outreach campaign, to explain which theft is, and how to comply with which wage and hour laws. The outreach campaign would also provide information and referral services for anyone who was a victim of wage theft. In addition, the proposed responsible construction ordinance includes an acknowledgement that day laborers employed as employees are similarly subject to the state's waging hour laws. Contractors working in mountain view are required to obtain a business license. Therefore, any day labor, day laborers, hired as employees, by these contractors, would be protected by the proposed states, imposed cities, wage that ordinance. Staff also recommends maintaining a project threshold of 15,000 square feet in the responsible construction ordinance. This will provide protection to the projects that employ the largest number of workers and keeps mountain views, proposed refundful construction ordinance consistent with similar ordinances adopted by the city of Milpitas in 2021 and the city of Sunnyvale in 2022. The key components for the responsible construction ordinance are for to apply to projects that are over 15,000 square feet. Commercial and residential projects, new construction, significant additions and modifications. It would exempt projects that are already covered by prevailing wage requirements, and would apply to the owner, contractor, and subcontractors over $100,000 for one% of construction value. A pay acknowledgment form would be acquired at the beginning of the building project as a condition of the building permit. Notices should be posted of employee rights at each of the project sites. And it pay transparency certification at the end of the project as a condition of occupancy. That a test that the business does not have any unpaid wage theft judgments. A certificate of occupancy may be withheld for failure to submit a form or a sustain complaint of an unpage wedge theft judgment. The complaints will be complaint driven, and the complaint must be received before issuance of certificate of occupancy. An owner can appeal or cure any any violation through the payment through paying the judgment or posting a bond. The responsible construction ordinance will be administered by the building division with support from the city manager's office and the city attorney's office for managing claims and appeals. The key components were the wage theft ordinance. Will be the businesses that are required to have a business license will be required to, uh, apply for or to submit, um, the wage step ordinance attestation. It'll exempt business owners without employees. And the affidavit will be submitted with the business license, attesting that the business has complied with labor law judgments. A failure to submit an affidavit or submitting a false affidavit may subject, may be subject to administrative penalties or criminal penalties as an infraction. The complaint process will be also be complaint driven. The ordinance will be administered by FazD. Following the introduction of the responsible construction in which that ordinances, staff will return to the city council on September 13 for ordinance adoption with an effective date of January 1st, 2023. This will provide time for staff to develop the required forms needed for the business license and the building permit processes. And to include the wage step ordinance requirements in the business license renewal mailings which are sent in the fall. During the months leading up to the January 2023 effective date, Staff will also develop materials and conduct community outreach and engagement to promote awareness of the new ordinances and encourage compliance. The outreach plan includes developing flyer for projects to post job sites, developing flyers and cards in multiple languages, summarizing workers' rights, for the distribution to day laborers through community-based organizations. Conducting resonant outreach through the city's communication channels, and developing a page in the city's website with information about wage theft, the city's ordinances, FAQs, and links to state, county and community resources. The slide just is a summary of the recommendation that isn't contained in the staff report. And this concludes the presentation, staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[03:00:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Christina, for the presentation. Any questions from the council? If none? Oh, Vice Mary Hicks.

[03:00:40] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I do have one question. We got a letter from the wave theft. This, uh, council got a letter from the Wage Theft Coalition, the Day Workers Center, and a variety of others, asking that we protect day workers a little more by telling all residents that they, a bunch of things, pay minimum, have to pay minimum wage, or more, um, have to give breaks and lunch. Uh, but also that they have to, uh, issue a 28, 10.5 notice and play workers' compensation. Uh, things that are, I think, would be a little, um, perplexing to somebody trying to hire a day worker, at least if I did it for the first time, it would perplex me. I'm wondering if I did, because I was perplexed, I did, uh, phone Maria Maraquin from the Day Workers Center and asked her, you know, if she, how she might simplify that. Um, and, uh, she said that her concern, really, was that, that we offer a little more protection, a little more, that, a little more protection for day workers, and that it could be located. There's, in the letter, it says, which nonprofits would you locate this additional protection act? She agreed that it's really just the day workers center that people come to to hire day workers, not other nonprofits. Um, and that she, uh, felt they just needed a little more than was currently in the ordinance to make sure, you know, maybe something in plain English, not quite the, you know, naming forms like the 28, 10.5. Um, and so I was wondering if staff had any suggestions on how we might offer a little more protection to day workers, to day workers, but in plain English, and, um, you know, not be off putting or confusing to people who would be hiring them. Do you have any suggestions along those lines?

[03:02:43] Christina: Well, staff has definitely been working with the Day Worker Center, as well as members of the Wage Theft Coalition, to develop both of these ordinances, and we have appreciated their input, um, to the development of these ordinances, as far as, um, Prote- additional information for hiring day workers, we have discussed with the, uh, Day Worker Center, as well as with the Wage Theft Coalition, about collaborating with them, to develop flyers and outreach that can be mailed to every household in Mountain View. And our intention would be that that would be in very plain English so that people could understand. Um, you know, what protections day workers, day laborers have under the existing ordinances as well as under existing state wage and hour laws. So we are happy to collaborate with them to develop information and flyers that would be in plain English that would, um, be less confusing for, for anyone who received it. And we will, as in addition to that, will be developing, um, a website and FAQs and other outreach materials that will go out with our, um, billing, um, excuse me, with go out with our business license, renewal process that clearly outlines the, the 2 ordinances, and how people can comply, as well as how anyone who might be experiencing, which death or has experienced wage theft, the resources available to them for, um, for reporting that.

[03:04:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, that answers your question. I think that covers it. Thank you.

[03:04:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member commit.

[03:04:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. And apologies. I forgot to ask this during my council briefing, but, um, you know, should these ordinances go forward sometimes in the implementation or the administrative processes? We kind of learn things, and what is the best way, I guess, or how do we 1st see, um, being able to take that input? You know, I think the vice mayor brought up some some feedback that we received. It sounds like we're going to be implementing it, but as these go forward with the start date of January 2023. Um, I think for those, you know, attending and listening, um, how might they be able to submit feedback, would it just go directly to the city manager's office and we can take their feedback into account and do any kind of ordinance cleanup, should we need to?

[03:05:10] Christina: Certainly, they can contact um, city manager's office with any feedback they have about both of the ordinances.

[03:05:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Just wanted to tie that up. Appreciate it Thanks, Mayor.

[03:05:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member show, Walter.

[03:05:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Following up on what council member, um, Kame said, I was wondering if we wanted to have, um, some sort of a report brought back in maybe 12 months after implementation or 15 months after implementation or a couple years, whatever people staff thinks is appropriate to say how this is working. Um, and what, you know, what number of complaints there've been and how they've been, you know, a little bit about how, just how it's working and how it's been resolved, and are there any, um, any needs for, uh, amending the ordinance? Um, I, I really like to build that into our direction today.

[03:06:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Was there a desire for staff to respond? Well,

[03:06:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I guess so. I guess what how do they think that should work? You know, coming back to us with a, um, I, uh, Just a report on how it's working.

[03:06:29] Christina: Apologies, um, Council member Michelle Walter. I was picking notes. Um, Yeah, we certainly are, um, we can certainly bring this back at a future date and I can consult with, um, the city attorney's office and the city manager for one that would be inappropriate timing, but I think, you know, 12 or 15 month time range would most likely be. a reasonable date. And I would also say that depending on what you find, you know, it might be that we just need a memo. It might not need to be agendized, but, you know, that would be something that, you know, you would want to consider, um, what's the best, um, methodology.

[03:07:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Council member Lieber.

[03:07:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I'm very pleased to see this finally coming forward. It's it's been a long time coming and this has been a major issue in our community. And I just want to make sure in terms of, uh, the the day labor questions that were raised that, um, we're giving, um, useful, uh, appropriate information to homeowners. Uh, that won't have uh, a dampening effect on, um, day labors in, in our community, um, being able to get jobs, in particular, on the question of of workers comp. And after how many hours workers comp kicks in as a necessity. And I'm very eager that the outreach materials be very clear. And, um, very succinct and in plain language, um, so that there aren't any misunderstandings that would lead to, um, a, uh, uh, misunderstanding about what the responsibilities are and, um, individuals not being, um, wishing to engage with the day labor center. Um, so I just want to make sure that we all have the same understanding in in regards to that. Thank you.

[03:08:56] Christina: Its noted. Thank you.

[03:09:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions? Not, uh, we'll 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. Timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, and due to the number of speakers. Uh let's allocate one minute and 30 seconds. Uh, the 1st speaker is Ryan Jones.

[03:09:35] Ryan Jones: Hello? My name is Ryan Jones and I am a journey person with UA Local 393. Thank you for your time and your attention to these very important issues that have a lasting impact on our local community and the economy related to responsible construction. Over the years, construction projects have increased in the Bay Area, yet we are experiencing record high level of exploitation, less skilled and trained local workforce, building these projects. And the refusal to pay a living wage. We all know that minimum wage is not livable wage in the Bay Area. Wing steps and responsible construction ordinances are an issue on both private and public works projects. Today, when we take action as a community to fight against these unlawful practices, we must talk about private and public works, projects, as one. Today, I ask you to support the local workforce that protects workers, the community, and our future of private and public work projects. Please put people over profit. Please stop workers from being exploited. Any protection that is passed should include private and public work projects. Thank you. Thank you for your time today, and we hope that the city of Mountain View will join UA Locals 393 and passing ordinances that include public work protections. Thank you.

[03:11:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is M. Sandoval.

[03:11:15] Ruth Silver Tobe: It's really Ruth Silver Tobe, I'm on my legal assistance computer because it's the only one that's working at today at the law center. I'm at the legal clinic. Um, so, um, I did want to point out that the material for the day workers is going to be extremely simple. There's lots of stuff that the national day worker organization has put out. We can show it to the council. There's no going to be no problem there. Also, we need a 2nd ordinance that, that involves the city of Mahu. We need an ordinance. That, um, that has to, that involves public works and all contractors with the city. Sunnyvale has it, no, Petus, has it. Morgan Hill has it. Santa Clara County has it, so we need a phase 2 that deals with that. Otherwise, He's to a direct staff, to draft a wage step policy regarding contractors with the city of Mountain View, and including all contractors, including public works. Um, thank you very much for your work on this.

[03:12:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Ruth. The next speaker is Ruth.

[03:12:39] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. Um, Bruce England Wisman Station Drive. I'll just be short. I just want to voice support for the, uh, what's intended through this, and tonight you had the discussion about affordable housing. So this, um, this discussion here is very timely. Making a living in Mound View is a major challenge in meeting expenses, especially if you're making lower amounts of money, say minimum wage or something like that. Um, I support, uh, the, uh, the day how, including the day workers and the work that is being done through this and also the public projects. And I also wanted to mention the big 3 asks by the trades, in particular, the carpenters where they want support for apprenticeship programs, for healthcare and other benefits, and for some kind of a local hire requirement. One thing that, um, those of us who care about environmental sustainability want is reduced, vehicle miles traveled, and if workers need to come from far distances, which they do, that just means more VMT. So this is a good move for everybody to make these corrections. Thank you.

[03:13:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[03:13:56] Tim McKenzie: I, uh, I just want to voice support for wage theft ordinance, wage theft, outweighs property theft by, uh, property crime more generally, uh, by several folds. Um, so attacking and that's uh, something that is diminishing, uh, income from, from the workers, really. I'll say it's good to hear the working with the day worker center. Um, I say listen to the wage theft coalition. They've been working on this for years. So what, uh, previous speaker said about the need for a a, another ordinance. I guess I will defer to her expertise, but I would say listen to them as well. And it's great to see this happening. So thanks.

[03:14:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Harvey McKeon.

[03:14:58] Harvey McKeon: Hi, thank you very much. I'm Mahogan. I'm here from Carpenters Union local 405 speaking in support of the proposed ordinances. California workers have long suffered due to an epidemic of wage theft, not just in construction, but in other industries too, but in terms of construction, Mountain View has itself been the site of construction projects that are, that have frankly been economic crime scenes. And so these organ ordinances are much welcomed. In January of this year, the State Labour Commissioner found that a contractor in Mountain View cheated multiple workers out of wages while constructing in the city. And ultimately, such wage theft damages, individuals, families, communities, and regions. And data has shown that around half of all construction worker families are enrolled in safety net programs, public cost in excess of 3 billion. So when employers steal wages, they defund and defraud not only the work of themselves, but also government programs, including workers' comps, social security, and Medicare, and as a labor union, these are the types of practices that are everything we stand against. And so we applaud the city's responsible and construction wage theft ordinances in question. We look forward to their passage. We look forward to observing their enforcement and their efficacy.

[03:16:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Thank you, Harvey. The next speaker is Forrest Peterson.

[03:16:35] Forrest Peterson: Thank you, honorable mayor, city council. I want to reiterate the comments there made by Dr. Tim McKenzie. I think those were very knowledgeable and well spoken. So the statements I want to make is on public works and repeat offenders. I have been researching wage theft in the construction industry at Stanford Engineering with the Center for Integrated Facilities Engineering for, I think, the past 6 years now. And in that time, One of the things that is very clear is that public works is where the greatest motivation is for theft. I think as the members of the plumbers union can attest, uh, when their wages are $115 an hour, if you can sneak in workers at $20 an hour, which I have seen happen, uh, the contractor walks away with that chunk of money, uh, then leaving a burden on the city for uh, public services, for the the welfare of that workers' children, uh, healthcare, uh, food, housing because you can't live off $20 an hour and people are really uh, trick into this. You know, you can be told, you can work less, and then you work your way up, but you never work your way up. So I think that's why it's important to focus on that public works aspect and then repeat offenders. This is a business model. People do it over and over in the data set. I frequently see those frequent flyers who have violations with different government agencies at different levels, that agencies aren't.

[03:18:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Forrest. I'm sorry that you've exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everyone. Uh, the next speaker is Salwina, Opiso, Mondino.

[03:18:24] Felina Piso Mundina: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council and staff. My name is Felina Piso Mundina. I am a member of the Wage Staff Coalition, as well as of the Filipino Association of Workers and Immigrants, or Powis. I am here to urge the city to adopt the 2 ordinances, the responsible construction ordinance, and wage staff ordinance, and for the council, to direct staff, to return with a wage staff policy relating to contracts to the city of Mountain View, as what other speakers have already said, that includes all contracts, including public works and covers and paid judgments and repeat offenders, as well as in consultation with Dave Worker Center, of Mountain View, provide more information on the specific outer and education, they intend to conduct, um, including, um, sending letters to all property owners in the city, informing them of their legal wage and our obligations, including prohibition, I guess retaliation, and the names of specific locations where the city will be providing information to day workers and the methods. Thank you so much for all that you do.

[03:19:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Paulina. The next speaker is Brian Pors.

[03:19:42] Brian Pors: Hi, good evening, mayor and council. My name is Brian Pors, and I'm a business agent with UA local 393 Plumber's Pipefitters and HVAC, CR service technicians. We represent over 3000 members in Santa Clara and San Benito County. Uh, really appreciate your time and attention to these important issues that have lasting impacts impacts on our local community. Uh, construction projects have increased in the Bay Area. Uh, yet we are still experiencing record levels of exploitation. Wage theft and responsible construction ordinances are an issue on both the private and public works projects. Today, when we take action as a community to fight against these unlawful practices, we have to talk about public works and private projects alike. As one and equally. Today, I bring my concerns, and those on behalf of my fellow 3000 members, families, and our future generations. As many of you know, what we do today builds our future for tomorrow. Today, developers and builders who refuse to pay the prevailing wage, are building projects that are exploiting workers from out of the area, state and country, all the while profiting while pushing the middle class out of the area. Teachers, healthcare providers and construction workers are being pushed out of here daily. Bad actors not using skilled in trade and labor could also result in major environmental health and safety harm, and it also defeats our workforce workforce development pre-apprenticeship program. Therefore, I ask that we address wage.

[03:21:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Brian. I'm sorry. It's exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is Jose Cabrera.

[03:21:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Jose Cabrera? Are you able to unmute yourself?

[03:21:45] Unknown Speaker: Who are the next speaker?

[03:21:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, let's, uh, go ahead then to, um, Jose will, will come back to you, uh, and turn to, um, Luis Auerhunt.

[03:22:11] Luis Auerhunt: Thank you, mayor and council members. This is our home with working partnership. And I want to thank the city of Mountain 2. for their consideration. I've worked on this more than for your long-standing leadership in an hour. From being the leader in setting minimum wage, now taking the next step to make sure that that minimum wage is a way to fit their own or actually what workers are getting. Um, this is a hugely important step, both the way to that, that was possible. As you've heard, H theft is alarmingly widespread crime, and it's also a racial justice, a gender justice issue. Wage theft has committed overwhelmingly in industries and occupations that are predominantly done by full of color by immigrants, by women of color. And construction in particular, wage staff, targeting workers of color and immigrants, is widespread enough that it's become a major source of pay and equity. Latino construction workers in San Jose, right next door, bring home 38% less pay in white construction work. Part of that is stupid wage then. So this these 2 ordinances will be a big step in the right direction. Um, I also strongly support the community outreach both to the ordinances and the day laborers. Would suggest also contacting the county office of labor standards enforcement to see if they might be able to assist with that outreach. Thank you.

[03:23:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, Council member Abi Koka, I see your hand, and I, so, do you, is this a clarifying question from a speaker, that you're speaking?

[03:23:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, let me do a quick check in because I, I, I remember doing this before and I was cited for allowing, um, additional time for a speaker,

[03:24:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: so let me 1st quickly ask the city attorney, is this okay?

[03:24:08] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, I was on the area. Um, can I have a little clarification, like, wow, are we gonna give? A lot of time or do you just want to ask the questions? I mean,

[03:24:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I think we do need to be there and make sure that, you know, everyone is getting into full amount of time. That's time. I'll just ask, I'll just ask the question to staff and see if staff can answer.

[03:24:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks

[03:24:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, the next speaker is Corey, uh, Kevedo.

[03:24:46] Corey Coveto: Hello, my name is Corey Coveto, and I'm a journeyman plumber with local 393. Thank you for your time and attention to this very important issues. I will have last impacts in our local community in an economy related to weight steps. Over the years, construction projects have increased in the Bay Area. Yeah, we are experiencing record high levels of exploitation, less skilled and trade local workforce, building these projects, and the refusal to pay living wage. Wedge that to responsible construction ordinances are an issue of both private and public works projects. Today, when we take action as a community to fight against these Alappo practices, we must talk about private and public works projects as one. Developers and contractors claim that they are unable to pencil out a project with local preventing wage rates. They want to pay minimum wages, or barely above the minimum, above the minimum which we know a person is unable to live in this area, for those wages, and promotes exploitation of workers, through this misclassification, the workers, and using unskilled worker for who have not been trained to install life, dependent systems such as water, air, and heat. These developers and contractors are pocketing profit from the working class pockets, who ask that you stand with us to say no to those who support workers, and do not let them have a free passage to it. To do it in Mountain View. Any protection that is passed should include public works for projects. Thank you for your time today, and we hope that the city of Mountain View will join UA local today and 3 and passing these ordinances that include public works projects, protections. Thank you for your time.

[03:26:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Corey. The next speaker is Erica Valentine.

[03:26:29] Erica Valentine: Hi, my name is Erica Valentine. I am a political director for UA local training. We represent over 3100 plumbers, pipesitters, team fitters, HDHR technicians in Santa Clara San Benito County. First, thank you for your time and attention to the future of our construction industry and community of Mountain View. The next 10 years of Mountain View has numerous projects and commercial and residential projects that the entire world will be watching and witnessing the leadership of Mountain View. The profit on these projects make it right for bad actors to put profit over people in our community. Today is our day to set a leadership model for all of the world to speak and send a message. Attain a livable prevailing wage is responsible. It's pretty exportation to the cornerstone of the values of the community. Furthermore, I asked any protection task to include public works. Today is our day to leave. Thank you for your time.

[03:27:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The next speaker is Kevin Moss.

[03:27:36] Kevin Moss: Evening again, Council, he does this again, representing the Laker Women voters. The league has a position that people have the right to an income and our services sufficient to meet their basic needs. As such, we support the staff recommendation, and are thankful for staff for conducting extensive outreach to propose such a systematic, codified process. That is generally acceptable for all the various stakeholders in the process to address the main issue of labor law violations and the city amount of view. Thank you.

[03:28:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Kevin. Seeing no other, uh, public speakers in the queue will turn to the council, uh, and I'll note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinances and resolution attached to the report. Council member Abby Hoka.

[03:28:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor, um, and thank you to staff, um, for bringing this forward and for all your work hard work on this. Um, it has been a long time in coming, and since we passed the increase in the minimum wage, um, this came right after, and I think I 1st brought it up in 20 when I came back to council in 2017. So here we are 5 years later, um, you know, frankly, to be honest, the council at that time didn't make it a priority and it took this council to make it a priority. So I thank my colleagues here for doing that. But, um, the question I wanted to ask uh, to, um, Ms. our him, it maybe staff can respond. Um, I guess I had assumed that with a responsible bitter requirement on public works project that included um, issues like wage theft, um, is that not the case? And yes, and I mean, I'll say that I do agree that I think that, you know, we have to walk to talk ourselves first. So, um, we should be including public works, public projects, um, if we're going to ask the private community to do this. But if you can maybe elaborate or explain what we actually have in place with the responsible, bitter, um, requirement that would help to start the conversation.

[03:29:55] Dawn Cameron: Good evening, Dawn Cameron, Public Works director, thank you for that question, Council member Abby Coca. Um, so yes, for our construction bidding projects, we require, and we include in the contract, that they must comply with all federal, state, and local requirements. That is fully enforceable under our contract, and they would be in breach of contract if we found out they did not. They are also required to create prevailing wage, to register with the Department of Industrial Resources, DIR, and to certified payroll forms. Now we go a little bit further than just say, submit it to the DIR. We do have a labor compliance officer. And when our contractors submit invoices. It does go to our labor compliance officer. They check to confirm, has the contractor filed the DIR forms. Uh, they will do a spot check, uh, of the certified payroll against the DIR general prevailing wage determination to see if the wages that they're seeing equal what the prevailing wages should be. So that we already do have some requirements in place to ensure to the extent that we are able to ensure prevailing wage is being provided for our construction contracts.

[03:31:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So then do you know, um, and this is what I wanted to ask the public member was, like, what more they're asking us to add or include to our existing policies? So, 1st off, this is fairly new request that we received, and I believe, Ms. Gilmore will confirm that as well, that it was only the last week. That we were in last week or 2 that we're hearing interest in asking us to look at these other policies some other cities have adopted. Now, these policies currently apply to general city contracts, and they specifically exclude public works, contracts and prevailing wage contracts. One of the things we, as staff did. I had help from our purchasing manager in finance, was contact those other cities about these policies. And one of the things that we've heard from the other cities is that these policies, and they're kind of like a model policy, they're pretty identical in wording. They have been finding that they are difficult to enforce and administer, and they're not certain they've been that effective. And in fact, they need, they are looking at reworking them. The one city that is looking, including public works contract, is part of this policy, is San Jose, and San Jose staff has acknowledged they've already put in a lot of time to try to figure out how could it be actually effective, enforceable, and what it would require in terms of staffing resources. Uh, one of the things we, as staff are willing to do is watch San Jose's efforts, uh, because they're already putting a lot of time and attention to this, but they've already acknowledged to us that, um, It could take a lot of effort. And so that's where we're at right now. Um, I think part of the issue, what we heard, and I think you heard in writing, is there are concerns about the DIRs, uh, staffing resources, and how well that they're checking on all of this. But just saying, in that case, the city should just adopt its own ordinances and policies without us doing due research and confirming, could we actually do something that's more effective and what resources that would require? is, it would be of concern to us tonight. No, thank you. So the DIR is the department of Department of Industrial Relations with the state. Okay. And then there's the county, um, Office of Labor standards. And from the staff report, it looks like we've been talking with them, but some of their information is outdated as well on wage theft item. And so, I guess, I, you know, I, I want to be mindful of staff resources, but, um, I guess that's where I'm thinking, you know, can we look to the county, should we be advocating at the state, um, and also can we, you know, potentially partner with San Jose to, um, come up with a, a, uh, ordinance, uh, enforceable, um, ordinance. And then if we wanted to do that, what do we need to do this evening?

[03:34:42] Dawn Cameron: Well, at this point, as staff, what we're suggesting is that, um, If this is something the sit council would really like, uh, staff to research, explore, it would have to be considered as part of the overall council work plan and looking at in terms of priorities. Um, which is something you'll be discussing um, in early in 2023. In the meantime, we have no problem at staff monitoring what San Jose's doing checking in with San Jose staff, see what we can learn from them since they're already doing the heavy lift in terms of what it may take. to have an effective ordinance.

[03:35:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Um, I mean, I've been to support, um, staff recommendation this evening, but it would be interested in, um, future follow-up, but I'd see another hand, so I'll wait to hear from my colleagues. Thank you.

[03:35:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you I'm a number believer.

[03:35:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you mayor. Uh, I have several questions. Well, I'll start with just a statement. I'm very interested in seeing something come back to us at goal setting. And I would be more than willing to take other projects uh, off of the list. Uh, to be able to have a more robust, um, uh, enforcement mechanism in in Mountain View. And I'm, I'm wondering with the, um, the various things that were discussed in terms of, uh, looking at wage records, um, once a contract is is awarded and it's, uh, it's, it's moving ahead. Um, is there anything that we do on the front end? that, um, at the time when we're looking at responses to an RFP, uh, or an RFQ of, um, asking if an entity has unmet, uh, wage orders against them. Uh, on the front end before we, uh,

[03:36:56] Unknown Speaker: while we're in the bidding process, we do have our labor compliance officer at pre-bid meetings, providing contractors with checklists of their requirements to make sure that they're fully aware, and when they submit their bid, they're basically submitting that checklist and saying, yes, we're aware of all of our, their responsibilities to comply with all the labor laws. I also know, they're not specifically asked at this point, do you have any, um, judgments or anything? against you, that type of thing. However, I will also note that if you pass the wage theft ordinance tonight, which is linked to a business license where they have to submit the affidavit, We require all vendors and contractors doing work for the city. To have a business license. So by doing so, they have to be able to pull a business license and demonstrate it to us or they do not get the contract from us, and they will be then submitting that affidavit that is required to have a business license.

[03:38:03] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So would they be able to have a business license in Mountain View? Um, if, if they had been, you know, a super bottom feeder for the past 3 years and and hit all kinds of judgments against them. Would they still be able to, you know, get that business license because their offenses had taken place in San Jose or another jurisdiction?

[03:38:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I would like to ask a city attorney.

[03:38:31] Nicole Wright: Thank you. Could we say? So, um, yes, so, so what's proposed in the ordinance is that the business license, well, a form would be submitted, would need to be submitted in conjunction with the business license process. However, if they, um, either fail to submit a form or submit, what we come to learn afterwards is a form that had false information, they, um, submitted an affidavit that indicated they did not have any unpaid or unsatisfied way to theft judgments, but actually did. We would be pursuing that through enforcement means of either administrative penalties or um, potentially, uh, criminal, uh, penalties as an infraction. So the business license would still, um, be issued, but were utilizing that process for obtaining the affidavit, and it would be evaluating the enforcement of, like I said, either a non-summittal or a false submittal, um, through admin penalties or criminal penalties.

[03:39:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So then every year or every 2 years, however long the license lasts for, they would have to attest that they don't have any unmet judgment.

[03:39:41] Nicole Wright: Correct. It would be an annual. Either upon the 1st issuance and then with each renewal.

[03:39:47] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Correct?

[03:39:48] Nicole Wright: Annually.

[03:39:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, super. And then, um, on the, The complaint basis. Who is eligible to make a complaint? Is it just the the aggrieved worker or, um, someone who's a citizen journalist, um, who likes to hang out at the courthouse and look around at things. Can they submit a complaint?

[03:40:18] Nicole Wright: So, um, I think looking at each of the ordinances, there might be a different process. So for under the responsible construction ordinance under the complaint process set forth in the ordinance, it would be an employee, um, or the holder of a judgment, so someone who was awarded a court order or judgment that has not yet been satisfied or paid, would be able to submit the complaint, and there's required documentation to accompany that complaint. Um, for the wage theft ordinance, um, the ordinance itself doesn't specify, um, you know, we don't have a formal complaint, um, as part of that ordinance, so I think like other city ordinances, if, you know, a complaint were submitted or something was submitted to the city, um, indicating that there was reason to believe that, uh, let's say a false affidavit for wage theft was submitted. That's something that we would review and consider consistent with how we would treat other potential violations of our city code.

[03:41:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And, um, my reason for asking is, you know, going back to like the 1990s and probably earlier, um, we've had various law students from Stanford, et cetera. Um, Coming to Mountain View and working with large numbers of workers here. Um, that work for a few entities, and that are by and large, um, uh, undocumented immigrant workers, um, And they've been subject to wage theft, and so I could envision a lot of circumstances where, uh, particular worker or even a group of workers, um, would be reticent to go to city hall and, and engage in a process that they're not really, you know, familiar with or or have, um, a good feeling about interfacing with government. So, would the complaint process also cover, like, could their legal representatives, File, file something on their behalf or how would that work?

[03:42:38] Nicole Wright: But the responsible construction ordinance. I don't see a reason why a legal representative acting on behalf of an employee couldn't file the complaint. Um, I would just note that, you know, through that complaint process. It's already, um, it was already a claim that was submitted to the state, right through the DLSE, the Department of, uh, labor standards enforcement. I hope I got that right, but through the state, basically, to make a determination on whether or not the claim that was submitted. Um, you know, uh, was valid and made an award. So there was already a process that was undertaken, and what would be submitted to the city as part of our complaint process under the responsible construction ordinance is a copy of that, of the final outcome of that. So the final order or judgment.

[03:43:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Yeah, I just like to see, um, you know, individuals who aren't maybe, you know, part of the process at different times. Um, you know, have a fair shot at getting justice and and warning the community about the bad actors, um, that are out there. So I'd like to, kind of, uh, you know, cast a wider net in terms of, um, who's able to make those complaints, you know, uh, on a legitimate basis, of course. Thank you.

[03:44:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Um, Council member, is it okay if I go to Council member, Mattachak, 1st just delete, everyone adjourn? Oh, you're you're okay with? Okay, so council member Meta Tech Deferst, so we'll go to council member Abi Coco first.

[03:44:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and I was actually hoping to make a motion. I did have one other question before we do that. Um, I, I, um, I know that we have the C, the community workforce agreement item also, uh, one of our, um, priorities coming to us at some point, hopefully soon. Um, so I'm, uh, I guess my suggestion was, um, uh, I would ask staff to, you know, do the outreach that you've been doing a good job on and, um, definitely reach out to our building and trades folks, especially to hear what, um, the concerns are, um, with our current public works. um, requirements. And, um, you know, perhaps through the CWA um, process, we can, enhance, um, any, um, areas that we we need to just strengthen, um, our wage theft policies, or anti-wage theft policies around public projects. And so, um, I don't know if I need to add that to the motion, but, um, I'm happy to do that if needed, staff, do you need that in the motion or, um, are you clear?

[03:45:40] Unknown Speaker: No, we don't need it in the motion and we were planning to do that, the outreach you mentioned as part of the community workforce agreement.

[03:45:49] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. I think many of us support the idea of, you know, our own projects being under the same, same requirements. So, um, just if we can roll it into the CWA process, I think that might be the fastest way to do that. So with that, then I would like to make a motion to introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, adding article 3 responsible construction to chapter 42 of the Mountain View City code to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and set a 2nd rating for September 13, 2022, and introduce an ordinance to the city of Mountain View, adding article 4, wage theft to chapter 42 of the Mountain View City code, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, instead of 2nd reading for September 13, 2022.

[03:46:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. Council member, Matt, check.

[03:46:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just check a couple comments. Uh, I want to thank council member Abi Kova for keeping this one at the forefront, um, and keeping it on the work plan. Um, and I appreciate my colleagues uh, supporting it. I know this wasn't an easy or small project, so I want to thank staff for everything you did on this one. Um, it, it, it was a challenging one. I would say. Um, but we're here and I'm happy about that and I'm happy to 2nd the motion. Thank you.

[03:47:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you. And, uh, ditto. I'm really glad to see this, uh, finally come to fruition. I remember, uh, the council prioritizing it in June 2019, uh, thinking, uh, you know, other cities have done this. This is uh not new work. Um, and it's unfortunate the pandemic gotten away and shifted our priorities pretty radically, but I'm very grateful for the work that you've done and finally, uh, and happy to see it finally, uh, uh, get to the finish line. So I see the vice mayor is rejoining us. Vice mayor. Um, there is a motion, uh, on the floor for, uh, the staff recommendation and we are just about to take a vote. Um, are there any questions or comments from, uh, Council, uh, Nicole, did you want to speak to the motion?

[03:48:00] Nicole Wright: Sorry, Mayor, if I may, I believe, though, of the staff recommendation, just items one and 2 are read in for the 2 ordinances and not the adoption of the resolution. And maybe I misheard that, but I just wanted to confirm that that was part of, intended to be part of the motion as well.

[03:48:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I'm sorry, it was on the next page that didn't flip over too. So, I, it would include the adoption of the resolution of the city council, the city, and that would be amending the city of Mountain View Master fee scheduled to be read in title only for the reading waived. Thank you.

[03:48:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And it looks like the second year is good with that. Um, Vice Bear Heck, did you have a question or comment?

[03:48:38] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, my comment is, I'm sorry, my computer is not doing well tonight. I'm sorry, I dropped off, and my question is, uh, I, or maybe it's a comment. I assume that these are, uh, without modifications, or are there modifications, I should know about that happened while I was off.

[03:49:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Motion is just the staff recommendation.

[03:49:04] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

[03:49:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. If there are no other questions or comments, then we'll start the roll call. Council member Abby Coca?

[03:49:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I Council member Mattachek?

[03:49:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes. Council member Kamei?

[03:49:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Council member Lieber.

[03:49:24] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi. Council member Shelter?

[03:49:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes? Vice Mayor Hicks?

[03:49:29] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah. Mayor Ramirez?

[03:49:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Motion carries unanimously. Fantastic. Thank you everybody. Uh, we will now move to item 6.2 mixed use development at 590 Castro Street, and we'll start with some surprise announcements. Uh, Vice Mayor Hicks. you have an announcement to make.

[03:49:55] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I do have an announcement. I'm recusing myself from item 6.2 because my personal residence is located in close proximity to the project site.

[03:50:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. And Council member Abi Toka, do you have an announcement to make?

[03:50:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you. I have the same announcement that I will be recusing myself from this item due to my personal residence being located in close proximity to the project site.

[03:50:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you and good night. Take care. Um, Would everyone like a 5 minute break before we enter this item or should we power through it?

[03:50:34] Unknown Speaker: Five minute break.

[03:50:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thumbs up. Oh, okay. Well, I'm down with a 5 minute break too. Sorry. So we'll, we'll, uh, we'll just proceed then, uh, with the staff report. Uh, principal planner, uh, Diana Pincholi will present the item.

[03:50:58] Diana Pancholi: Thank you, mayor, and members of the council. My name is Diana Pancholi, principal planner. With the city's planning division, and the item in front of you tonight is a commercial mixed use development in cities downtown at 590 Castro Street. Um The .97 acre project site is located northwest of Castro Street and Church Street, immediately south of the city hall and adjacent to Mountain View Chamber of Commerce and the Pioneer Park. The existing site is currently developed with a single story vacant commercial building with a associated surface parking lot. The site is also surrounded with similar mixed use office and commercial developments. The project site is located in area I of the downtown precise plan. And specifically in the Civic Center block. The precise plan envisions a multi-story building at the site with setbacks from the Pioneer Park. And it has been actually identified as the only redevelopment opportunity site in Area I. The precise pan also prescribes various permitted and provisional uses in the precise plan and specifically for this project site. It should be noted that an office use on the upper floors is an permitted use for the precise plan. And residential use is actually a provisional use and only allowed on the open stories in this area of the precise plan. It should be noted that the original project scope, which included a provisional use permit request to allow some ground for office use, has been modified. In July 2022, the applicant resubmitted a revised project replacing the ground floor office use with retail use, which removed the requirement for a provisional use permit. Additionally, staff did for the review and determine that the downtown precise plan allows for mixed use development with reduced parking to be considered if supported by a parking study and does not require a separate provisional use from it. This parking study and the reduced parking proposal is to be reviewed as part of the development approval process at a public hearing. This is consistent with the previously approved mixed-use development projects in downtown that have requested reduced parking. And therefore, the project description has been modified to remove the provisional use permit aspect of the project. The applicant's abroad organization is proposing to demolish the existing vacant, a commercial building, and redevelop the site with a 4 story, mixed use commercial building over 2 stories of underground parking garage. The precise plan is very prescriptive and in large part dictates the site plan development. Specifically, it requires a minimum 50 foot wide landscape connection between Castro Street and Pioneer Park. It also requires that the proposed new buildings have to be closer to the street frontages. In addition to that, it requires the driveway access and the back of the house operation should be located away from the screen strantages. The driveway location in turn also ensures access to the existing chamber of commerce building adjacent to it. So the resulting site plan that has been developed for the project is in conformance with all these requirements that I just described, which are from the precise plan. There are existing 19 trees on the project site and this includes 9 heritage trees. Majority of the trees are located in the surface parking lot. Remaining trees are along the street frontages and are the street trees. As I mentioned earlier, the precise plan is very prescriptive and dictates the site design for buildings. As I discussed in the previous section. And this configuration of the site plan design makes it very challenging to preserve the existing trees on site, which were planted for an older parking lot configuration. As a result, the project proposes to remove 9 heritage trees and requires a heritage tree permit. 10 additional non-heritage trees are also being proposed to be removed. The propulsory removals were reviewed by the city arborists and the applicant's arborists team as well for their ability to be transplanted. Elsewhere off site, but they were determined to be not fit for transplanting due to their size, the height, and the location. In order to ensure that the newly planted trees as part of the project will achieve higher canopy coverage, the applicant is actually proposing to plant 54 new trees, and it will be planted at a Replanting ratio of 2.8 is to one replacement ratio, which is above and beyond the city's standard practice of 2 is to one for heritage trees. And one is to one replacement ratio for non-heritage trees. The resulting tree removal and the planting plan carefully considers the implementation of the vision of the downtown precise plan, and meets the city code requirements and practices, and incorporates native planting and dotron web planting as well. Staff therefore recommends the proposed renewal and replacement plans. The proposed building design has an architectural style with a mix of traditional and contemporary building material to relate to its neighboring context. Specifically, the Castro Ensure Street intersection, the entry design has a special emphasis on the corner entry, and step backs at the upper floors. The design also emphasizes the ground for retail tenant spaces along this Castro Street and Church Street frontages. The project is proposing 2 levels of underground parking garage. As per the downtown precise plan parking requirements, the proposed users will require 314 spaces. The precise plan also prescribed allows for consideration of reduced parking, with justification from a parking study for mixed-use development. In line with that, the applicant is proposing 255 spaces, which is a 19% parking reduction for this proposed project. The proposed reduction is supported by a parking analysis, which was conducted by hexagon transportation consultant, Inc. which concluded that the, uh, you know, proposed parking will be adequate for the type of uses that are proposed at this site. This was based on, you know, aspects such as proximity to transit, the mix of uses and the shared parking possibilities, data from other similar projects in the area. It should also be noted that the applicant is also proposing a robust TDM program, which is going to achieve an aims to achieve 20% trip production. The applicant is also has also included in the project proposal and attendant assess parking program for to serve to, you know, retail users, office users and visitors during the hours of operation. And this reduced parking that they're proposing on site is consistent with the city's VMT policy. Project also includes various voluntary offers from the applicant, which have been described in detail in the staff report, but in a quick summary, this includes relocation of the city's trash enclosure, extension of landscape plaza along the city's easement at the back of the project. Reconfiguration of public parking adjacent to the Pioneer Park, and shared parking for public during off hours and weekends. And as I mentioned earlier, the applicant has gone above and beyond to plant additional trees as part of the project landscape design and will include larger sized trees, including, you know, up to 18 trees, which will be 48 to 36 inch box trees above the 24 inch box standard requirement. That's per for the sequel analysis. Uh, the project is found to be uh, categorically examples went to section 15332 info development project of the sequel guidelines. As per cities, VMT screening criteria, the project has is expected to have a less than significant impact on VMT. A multimodal transportation analysis was also conducted for the project, which concluded less than significant impacts on the transportation system with the implementation of the transportation demand management program. Through various meetings and community input sources, City has received additional comments on the project. Primarily focusing on the proposed office used at this location. Parking impacts to the neighborhood, proposed free removal impacts and office use on the graph for creating inactive spaces. This has been discussed extensively in the staff report. But in a quick summary, the proposed office use is an allowed use on upper floors and as for the precise plan and journal plan as well. The downtron precise plan allows for consideration of reduced parking in mixed-use project. It's supported by a parking study. The applicant's proposal of the tree removals is above and beyond the city's standard practice and includes native and John Torrent planting. And as I described earlier, the project proposal has been revised and does not include any more, um, of ground for office space and removing the provisional use permit aspect. In terms of the previous reviews, the project applicant conducted a community meeting in October 2021 to see community input and all the property owners and tenants in 750 foot radius were notified of this particular meeting. The project was also reviewed at various occasions by the development review committee and finally received a conditional approval. Uh, in October 2021. Project was also reviewed for by the Parks and Recommission in terms of reviewing the replacement parking, encroachment into the pioneer park, and a possible removal of a heritage street, and the Parks and Recommission recommended approval to the council in June 2021. Following that, the zoning administrator and the subdivision committee reviewed the project at a public hearing in February 2022 and recommended approval to the city council based on conditions of a pool included in the project and the map resolutions. It should be noted for clarity that this project was scheduled for city council meetings earlier this year in April and May, but it was continued both at that time. In summary, staff would just like to reiterate, you know, the project is consistent with the general plan. It meets the downtown precise plan, land use and side design requirement. The reduced parking, supported by the parking study, is per the downtown precise plan parking policy, and it meets the city's VMT policy as well. The applicant's voluntary features, including shared public parking and extension of the landscape plaza is a significant improvement in addition to the project and to the neighborhood. And proposed the parcel map is also compliant with the subdivision map app. This concludes staff presentations, staff recommends approval of the planned community permit, the development review permit, the heritage history removal permit, and the preliminary parcel map as for the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Staff is available for any council questions. Please note the applicant is also present here tonight and has a brief presentation for counsel. Thank you.

[04:02:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Diana, and before we turn to the council for questions, I'll ask if there are any disclosures that need to be made, I'll disclose that I did speak with the applicant prior to the meeting. Council member Metachek.

[04:03:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I have had meetings with the applicant. I've had informal conversations with residents, and I have been by the site many, many times.

[04:03:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[04:03:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I, um, did meet with Mr. Tersini. Uh, once over Zoom, and have had numerous contacts from, uh, neighbors of the, the proposed project.

[04:03:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council membership.

[04:03:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I too met with uh Sobrado. about this project and have heard from many constituents about it.

[04:03:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member can may.

[04:03:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I'd like to disclose that I met with the applicant, the residents and visited the site.

[04:03:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. And actually, before we turn to the council for questions, we will now have a presentation from the applicant, uh, represented by, uh, Rob Trussini, uh, from the Sobrano organization, Ted Forth, and, uh, Arista, uh, Jusis from KSH Architects and Nick Samuelson from the, uh, Gizardo partnership. Whenever you are ready.

[04:05:05] Rob Tersini: Everyone see my screen?

[04:05:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, yes.

[04:05:09] Rob Tersini: Okay, thanks.

[04:05:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, if somebody is speaking, I, I don't believe we can hear you. I think Rob is trying to.

[04:06:01] Rob Tersini: Hi, all, can you hear me? Yeah. Sorry about that. I don't know what happened. Did you hear anything or do you want me to start over real quick?

[04:06:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You'll have to start over.

[04:06:10] Rob Tersini: Okay, I'm sorry about that. I did not know what happened. Okay, I'll be I'll be brief. Good evening, mayor and city council. My name is Rob Tersini, and I'm the vice president of development at the Sorado Organization. We are very excited to be here with our project tonight and want to give us special thanks to city staff for all their hard work over the years to help us get to where we are today. I'd like to take a minute to introduce the team I have with me tonight, who all on their own right, have strong experience with development in Mountain View, and we'll be helping present the project. Uh, my colleague, Jeff Sobrado, Sobrado, uh, with the support organization, Ted Courth and Amanda Borden, with Courth and Siri Heggy, the architects, Nick Samuelsson with the Gizardo partnership, the landscape architect, Nictario Speteo, uh, with Kieran Wright, the civil engineers, Gary Black with Hexagon, uh, our transportation consultant, and finally, Tamsin Plume, who was our land use council. With that, I'd want to turn over to Ted and Nick, and they'll walk you through the project.

[04:07:09] Ted Korth: Thank you I'm Ted Corth. Good evening. So here's a view of the intersection of Church Street in Castro Street. Our site is the upper left-hand corner. You can see where it says existing one office, one story office building, uh, with a surface parking lot, and the buildings that the other 3 intersections are all 4 story mixed use buildings, and the proposed project that we're presenting is also a 4 story mixed use building. Again, we're our side is the upper left hand corner, and then the other buildings on the other 3 corners are shown on this page as well. Next place. So the Mountain View precise plan, as Diana explained, has very prescriptive requirements. Our project complies with all of the design guidelines, including uses, building coverage, open space, parking requirements, and the service areas and access to them from the various streets. You can see our sites in yellow on that site plant. Next place. So we comply with the height, we comply with the massing requirements. Massing requirements include providing that open space that is shown at the top of the site there going left, right from Castro to Pioneer Park and vice versa. That's being developed as a Paseo as part of this project design. But, the ground level facade and roof treatment have all been designed per the plants. Uh, and we've set the 4th story back and the building on all 4 sides, uh, to lessen the impact of the project as well. All the windows are recessed, the windows are highly, windows are highly detailed. Awnings and deep overhangs are provided at the ground floor to activate the ground floor, for the pedestrian experience, the site access we've achieved as well. So we are compliant in terms of what's requested. Next, please. So this is the cycle that Diana showed. Uh, the ground floor has various bays, about 30 foot bays, that are breaking the scale of the project down to be consistent with the adjoining context. They're activated bays on every floor, um, around a perimeter, there are base, uh, opening out to the baseo, opening out to Castro, opening out to Church Street, with a unique corner at the corner of Church in Castro. I will let Nick Samuelsson speak now about the landscape. Nick.

[04:09:39] Nick Samuelson: All right, thanks. Yeah, so the, the, open space, we're mainly gonna focus on the Paseo here, was following the city design guidelines where you have an open space in the middle with walkways on both sides leading out to Pioneer Park. Now, we use that scheme to kind of create a series of rooms. So you start with a urban plaza that fronts onto Castro Street and that transitions into a series of different rooms that get more informal as you move back towards Pioneer Park. And part of that, we're putting an extensive canopy, the canopy that surrounds our site. Um, We can't use the footprint of the building for that canopy, but we're actually going to exceed the amount of canopy that's on the entire current site, a little bit when these trees are all filled in. So it's a pretty extensive canopy. That's part of why we're able to exceed the tree vitigation numbers, just with the amount of large native trees and large canopy trees that we be putting in around here. Um, And we did look at the, as was noted, um, trying to move some of those trees, and, as was noted by Diana, There's several issues. The species is challenging for that. Their root masses are all intertwined, so it's a really large root mass that, um, the logistics of trying to get that out and not disrupt utilities and everything around site. wasn't feasible. Um, so as you go through there, you can see in these series of ruins out in the urban plaza, we have a lot of movable furniture and picks furniture, it provides a lot of flexibility, a lot of different seating opportunities and activity spaces, you go back through there with wooden bench seating, terrace decks that can work as a stage, and back to like a yoga lawn area as you move your way back through the site. And get a next slide. The next slide showing some of those areas. So like an aerial view of that yoga. Plaza space with some seeding stones. Number 2 is showing the connection, the pioneer park.

[04:11:45] Unknown Speaker: That's if you're walking from Pioneer Park. The 3rd one shows the Urban Plaza, where we have a sculptural lighting element that's kind of a focal point in there and a water wall in the back and acts as a buffer to the ramp, the city of Plaza garage. Um, the last one, good one to highlight, just the front of you'd see from Castle Street, it's really open and inviting, um, encouraging everyone. to come into the space right there. I think that's.

[04:12:18] Ted Korth: So here's a view from the corner. A couple of the key moves that were made in designing the building, one was to recognize the scale and the height of city hall so that the 1st 3 floors of our proposed building, the cornice line aligns with city hall, the 4th floor is setback on all 4 sides, uh, to allow outdoor space, but to also lessen, um, make a lighter cap to this building, and it terraces down towards Pioneer Park. We've used, proposed to use really nice artisan brick, with a variety of texture and color, so it's rich and warm and character. The ground floor is all activated with bays, with recessed windows, uh, exposed columns, clear glass, there is a canopy located above the 1st floor that wraps all the way from one end of the building, all the way around. It changes in width and height as you, as you go around the edge of the building, but you could on a rainy day, walk from one or right, one end all the way around to the other without, um, being exposed to rain, or you provide shadows, shadows well on a hot day. Windows are recessed. Uh, the, uh, cornice line is articulated with an interesting profile, and uh, we used all clear glass for the entire building. The Sobrano organization asked us to design this as a sustainable project, so we've used very high performance glass, that provides works for cooling and prevents heating. We've used high mechanical or high efficiency mechanical electrical plumbing systems. There will be solar panels on the roof of the mechanical enclosure as well. And all of the water, rainwater that lands in a site will be treated and go through bios whales before it enters the, um, the storm sewer system, which is a big, uh, upgrade from current asphalt parking lot and how it, how it enters the storm sewer. Next, please. This is a view from church showing how the building terraces down towards Pioneer Park. Uh, we wanted to show you this view. These are the existing trees. Maybe we were going to hide a few just to show you the rest of the building. The rest of you could move up. So this shows, it shows the terrace at the 3rd floor and I terrace up the 4th floor. The 4th floor terrace is deeper than the one beneath it, the 2 story brick base goes up to clad, the 1st and 2nd floors. There are canopies again on this side of the building as well to show where the parking entrance is. There's a glass corner, the corner of this, uh, sidewalk, and church and that sidewalk that leads the pedestrian from that corner all the way through to the Seo to the far left on the project. So it's a real activated, interesting ground floor. Next place. Materials again. The brick, the 2nd one from the left is the example of the brick that we're proposing. That's a building on the far left and Redwood City that we designed that uses a similar brick that's just a very nice material welcoming material. There are shadow boxes in areas where the glass is not transparent, so it still has depth. There's a little bit of precast concrete, the base of each column, about 15 inches tall, and then all the glass is clear, to provide a lot of visibility in and out of the building. Next please. So, this is a view entering from the Paseo, a glass corner, accents that as a special place of the site. You can see the terraces of the 4th floor. You can see the recessed windows, the retail bays that are also wrapping around the entire 3 sides of the building here, the Paseo, Church Street, and Castro Street. Next place. And here's a view from the Paseo, with Nick's garden, and planting, and the ground floor expression, and the upper floor expression, showing all the depth of the facade, custom light fixtures, and canopies of varying depths, to provide character and interest and activity for people. Next, please. And then here's a view of the corner. So, we've, we think this would be a really great addition to the street in this neighborhood, and it promotes a lot of activity and should, should be good for promoting the retail activity as well. Nice materials, nice detailing, feel like it's contexturally correct for this site, and it respects the neighbors and respects the neighborhood. Thank you. And then Robert.

[04:16:53] Robert: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, thanks. I know we're running a bit long, so I'll be brief here. With the exhibit that's up on the screen right now, I just wanted to take a brief moment and highlight the community benefit, some of which staff touched on that we're proposing as a part of our project. Um, uh, the public parking, you know, we're willing to provide public access to the 1st level, the parking garage, um, after after business hours and on the weekends. Um, there's, uh, some chamber parking stalls that are, uh, on city owned land, um, that are currently non-compliant, uh, and exclusively serve the chamber building. So as a part of the project, we're proposing to improve and realign these dolls to make them usable, including all the ADA access required to get to the chamber building. We're also improving the park edge, which is shown in green and pink there on the left side. Uh, the Paseo uh, area over city land. There's an existing area of land between the property we own and Pioneer Park that is owned and controlled by the city, and we're proposing to improve that, consistent with our Poseo improvements and maintain that area as a part of our project, which is highlighted in the darker blue purple there on the upper left. Uh, City Hall trash. There are existing trash enclosures that are deep in the site, um, adjacent to the city hall building, uh, and we're proposing to, uh, remove those and move them over to, um, and consolidate with the existing trash area near the performing arts center. Um, and finally, as staff mentioned, we are offering a more aggressive TDM plan. I believe the requirement in downtown is 8%, um, and we're targeting a 20% for production. With that, I want to thank you all for the time this evening, and both myself and the team are here and available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[04:18:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for the presentation. Are there any questions from the council? And if we can go ahead and um stop the screen share, that would be helpful. Thank you very much, Council member Liever.

[04:18:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, yes, I'm, I'm wondering if staff for the applicant can show us on the site map where the, uh, existing very large, um, uh, trees are on Church Street. The redwood trees that are on church street are.

[04:19:20] Unknown Speaker: I can certainly do that.

[04:19:35] Unknown Speaker: Sorry. So those are primarily located in this area. Which is the closer to the driveway access, number 2223 and 24. Um, those are the large redwood trees. And I believe,

[04:19:55] Councilmember Sally Lieber: yeah, I think those are the 3 large trees. Okay. Um, so if the applicant wasn't proposing the picnicking area with the fake grass, um, then we would be able to save those trees. Is that correct?

[04:20:16] Unknown Speaker: They're still in a very close proximity to the underground parking garage. So those trees would be impacted because of the underground parking garage.

[04:20:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And then a question for the applicant, um, staff mentioned that, um, people were living within 750 feet of the site, um, came to a community meeting. Um, who exactly was noticed and how many people showed up? Diana, do you have the number? I think it's in the staff report. Um,

[04:20:55] Diana: so I don't have a specific number in this Apple board, but the 750 foot radius. The addresses for the notification is actually provided by the city staff. And the applicant is just supposed to mail it to them. I think. I don't remember the exact number, but it was very few people who attended the meeting. Um, but the noticing uh, requirements were followed as were the city's uh, standard noticing requirements. That was provided by staff.

[04:21:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so I'm wondering from the applicant was the neighborhood association or any organizations within Mountain View engaged, as far as people who didn't live in the park or at the library or inside City Hall.

[04:21:46] Robert: Uh, not proactively, um, Council member Lieber, but I will mention that a couple uh, residents did reach out uh, with the noticing signs on site. They been on site for almost a year now, so I had a few people reach out through that.

[04:21:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And, uh, a question for staff, um, this is, uh, this is sort of the 1st um, council meeting on this, um, on this project. That's that's been held other than, um, closed sessions and in private negotiations and, um, So would we normally with a prominent corner? Uh, like this would we normally want to sunshine the process in some way? Um, Or is it just not part of what we do?

[04:22:39] Unknown Speaker: Half of them reliever. I could answer that. Um, you're right. There were some closed sessions earlier to discuss other iterations of the project. Um, and that might have led to a different kind of project that would have required additional approvals, potentially um, a change to the Florida area ratio of the project. And with a project of that type, we absolutely would have had study sessions. We call those gatekeeper projects and they would, we would have had a study session for those. The applicant changed, um, uh, you know, their their proposal to a conforming project that conformed to all parts of the downtown precise plan, and typically with projects that conform. The process that we follow is, um, we have DRC meetings where the neighborhood may go. We have the ZA and the subdivision committee meetings, we ask the applicant to have a neighborhood meeting, and then we typically bring those to council. Um, and we don't have study sessions on conforming projects. And so we followed the typical procedures for a project of this type.

[04:23:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And um, so the, uh, the design review, um, process and et cetera, would have also been noticed in a pretty restrictive way, it would have been within 750 feet.. So, uh, okay. And did the epican at any time request a study session on this? To to sunshine and to the community?

[04:24:24] Unknown Speaker: No, typically staff determines whether a study session is required, and it is based on applicant requests, and if the requests are unusual or they don't conform with the precise plan, we certainly would want to schedule study sessions to get the council direction on it. Uh,

[04:24:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: in this case. Any applicant could say, you know, I'm proposing to build on Castro Street, and um, in the civic block, uh, next to a well-used public park, uh, where children are crossing a driveway to get to the library, and I'd really like to do a study session. But was there any communication like that?

[04:25:08] Unknown Speaker: There wasn't. But I just wanted to confirm that typically we do staff makes that determination. And there are times when an applicant may not wish to have one, but staff would certainly determine that we need additional council direction because, um, you know, there might be more than one way to go on a project or it might be a, a gatekeeper project that requires specific council direction. In this case, no, the applicant did not request a study session.

[04:25:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Um, In looking at the, um, in our heritage tree removal, criteria. Um, this doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria. Is that a problem?

[04:26:00] Unknown Speaker: Um, are you, are you talking about the findings, Councilman, the labor, for um, pre removal? If you could give us a few minutes, we could pull those up and go over them.

[04:26:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: You want me to share the screen? Yes,

[04:26:41] Unknown Speaker: we could, um, are, are you pulling up the code or um, I, I was, I was planning to read them, uh, cancel memory labor, would you perform?

[04:26:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Whatever way you'd like to do it. I'm looking at them right now. Yes, if you could give me one minute. Sure.

[04:27:29] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So I am reading from the criteria for removal, which is section 32.35. Um, and um, the resolution does contain the findings. Um, So the determination on the application has to be based on the minimum of one of the criteria being met. Um, we looked at the condition of the tree, obviously, which was not an issue. The necessity of the removal of the heritage tree in order to construct improvements in or allow reasonable and conforming use of the property, when compared to other similarly situated properties. So we felt it meant that those criteria, which are very often used with similar office projects. Um, And then we had um, other, um, balancing criteria, which may be used. So we felt that um, criteria number two. Um was the one that was met in this case. Uh, in addition, they also followed um, our city practice on replacement trees, including the native planting. So,

[04:28:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: um, allow reasonable and conforming use of the property. So there's no way that you could place a driveway, uh, elsewhere or, um, do anything to, um, retain establish trees that are part of the visual landscape of the downtown.

[04:29:10] Unknown Speaker: Um, You know, we we do, I think we've, we've tried to describe the site planning process, the fact that, um, the precise plan is quite prescriptive, and you can see it's the effect of the precise plan on all 4 corners, um, of the intersection. At church. You could see how the buildings come close to the street. We try to activate the street, the driveways are moved away from the intersections, um, and in this case, a slightly unusual piece because this is right adjacent to city hall actually required a landscape plaza between city hall and the proposed new building. Um, and and that did not leave, um, many options to, um, locate the building.

[04:30:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[04:30:01] Unknown Speaker: Sure.

[04:30:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member met a check.

[04:30:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I do have a few questions. Um, I want to start with um, attachment one. Uh, on page 26 but let's see, it's PDF page 32. And it is regarding um, condition. I think it's 187 item 5, the work hours. And it says downtown work hours are 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 130 p.m. to 4 p.m. unless otherwise approved by the public works director. So I had sent in a question about that, asking, um, why were the downtown work hours different than um, other work hours in the city. Um, And, and I'm thinking, did, did I misunderstand that condition? Um, because the answer back was they're the same. So I'm wondering. Are, you know, was I not clear on my question or do those hours apply to something else or can you help me sort that out?

[04:31:12] Unknown Speaker: We can do that. We're just looking for the condition. 187.

[04:31:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: It's, um, PDF page 32 of Attachment one, but that's actually page 26, I believe of the document.

[04:31:27] Unknown Speaker: Yep. And it's item 5 toward the bottom. If you could get us, give us a minute, we will respond and we could take other questions in the meantime.

[04:31:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, let's see. Another question I have is. Um, The Parking uh, at this project is uh, very dependent on having uh, an attendant there. To help folks use the tandem parking as well as the parking that I would characterize as being in the aisles. Um, and I'm wondering, do we have any other developments in Mountain View where the parking is configured in this way?

[04:32:39] Unknown Speaker: I think I'll, that's another one. I think we might need a little time. I'm not, I'm not personally familiar with many, many projects that have tandem parking, but I do recall, um, there are a few, um, recent ones that we might have done. Diana, do you know?

[04:32:56] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I think I, you know, I remember we do have some with tandem parking, but I couldn't think of any that had then parking in the aisles, um, where you would then need an attendant to be able to move. Those vehicles or the tandem vehicles. We do have the projects which have reduced parking, mixed use projects with reduced parking in downtown. But I'm not aware of, um, any other developer actually offering a similar attendant assist, um, parking, uh, program.

[04:33:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um maybe this question is for the applicant. Did you consider other options such as um, puzzle lifts? Uh,

[04:33:39] Robert: thanks. Council member Matachek. We did consider a few different design options, but we felt based on our own experience that tenants actually prefer attendant assists versus the puzzle lifts because there's some time associated with getting your car out when it's in a puzzle lift or a stacker system. versus uh, just having a traditional ballet, um, help retrieve your car.

[04:34:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So that kind of surprises me that answer, because I feel like I often wait for the valet to get my car. Um, so it feels like you're waiting anyway is, are there, um, how many attendants would there be? at any point in time, or would it vary? It would vary depending on the time. So the typical setup is you'll have 2 to 3 attendance, during the peak rush hour in the morning, and then you'll have one or 2 attendance during the middle of the day. Um, and then again rises up to 2 or 3 in the evenings when when people are vacating the building. Okay.

[04:34:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, uh, say, Cork, if you can please add John, um, our public list director. Don is going to help us with the uh, addressing the question regarding the construction, um, hours.

[04:35:07] Don Cameron: Good evening, mayor and council members, Don Cameron Public Works director. I believe I'm being asked to help respond to uh, Council member Matachek's question related to condition 187, which is the construction management plan. The construction management plan is all about the traffic control, detour plans, truck route, construction, and it affects the right away. So these hours you see here, we do tend to limit the hours that they're impacting the public right away in the downtown. So that's why you see these particular hours, you even see that break between 1130 a.m. and 130 p.m. is that's because we're having a downtown lunch rush, and we do not want these offsite, we do not want offsite construction activities impacting the rest of the operations of downtown during that period. Okay, so can I, um, make sure I understand this.

[04:36:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, the traditional construction hours applied to, um, people who might be working on building the buildings, um, who were there doing framing or something. Um, but these hours applied to when you can cross the public right of way or interrupt the public right of way. Is that correct?

[04:36:28] Don Cameron: That is correct. Okay. How are you impacting it, which is why it's under the discretion of the public works director as opposed to the building department.

[04:36:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Got it. Thank you very much. Um. See here. Um, I know that we've had some issues with, um, parking spilling over into the neighborhood, um, at the building across the street. Um, and people not necessarily using the underground parking, Um, this might be a question for our city attorney. Um, can we condition? Um, that people who drive vehicles to this building are required to park in the underground parking and not in other locations.

[04:37:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Sorry, it took me a 2nd to unmute. Um, I need you to give me a 2nd to consider that question. Um, we do a little bit of research and can I get back to you on that question?

[04:37:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm sorry. I feel like, you know, I should have sent in some of these ahead of time, but, uh, you know, a lot of this, I was thinking about it last minute. Trying to figure out how to address what I consider to be a parking issue.

[04:37:46] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And council member magic, if I could interrupt, I just wanted to add in some information on that particular topic. Condition number 49 B, which is a transportation demand management program. Staff has specifically added a section in there. Um, Which says that, you know, um, the applicant is required to regularly communicate and actively encourage all office and retail tenant employees to park in the on-site garage and not on street during business hours and um, also provide contact information of a, like a specific person who can respond to any complaints that are received for on-site parking by their employees. This was a specific modification which was done. to our standard conditions, particularly for this project after receiving public concerns and input on it.

[04:38:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. Um, I guess I still have the question. Can we condition it? And how would we enforce it? Um, which I think might be a challenge. So I'm wondering how we might do that. Um, let's see. Also, um, condition 14 is referring to rooftop decks. And I was just wondering, do we actually need to clarify that to say we're actually referring to the terraces? on the 3rd floor and the 4th floor because there is no rooftop deck? Because I assume we have the same restrictions on those terraces as we would, the rooftop decks, no amplified music, um, the hours that they're available. So do we need to clarify that just so there's no misunderstanding?

[04:39:31] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Counsel whatever matter check. I think that would be a good idea and we could make that change to the condition.

[04:39:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. Also, when I met with the applicant, um, we were talking about ground floor uses, and I do want to thank you for, um, having now all the ground floor uses commercial, um, versus the last version of this we saw. So thank you for that. Um, we talked about maybe nonprofits and, um, the more I got to thinking about that, I got to thinking that most nonprofits that I'm aware of, you know, it's a lot of, um, they have a lot of offices. So what, what would be an example? of an active um, use that a, a nonprofit might have. Or maybe you've talked to some and you're thinking, 0 yeah, that's an active use. Do you have any examples? That might be from the applicant.

[04:40:29] Rob Tersini: Yeah, I'm happy to feel that. Are you speaking about just active users in general or specifically nonprofit actively? Specifically nonprofits? Um, yeah, so, uh, I think, I think to start, we're probably gonna focus on, on, on traditional retailers, but if we do go down the nonprofit path, we have had a couple of conversations with groups that are, um, one in particular is a bike, uh, coffee shop combo, and they're looking to have a location up the peninsula. They have warm location down in San Jose. Um, But obviously it's a little early to get too far in those conversations, but that would be something that would be community facing and obviously a retail type use that would work well, uh, in the location.

[04:41:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Um, looks like the city attorney has her hand raised. Perhaps she's got an answer to my question.

[04:41:26] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I, yes. So, After consulting with Sandy Lee in my office, we spoke back and forth and there's a couple of issues that would need a much deeper dive. At this point, I don't think that you could add as a condition for a couple of reasons. One, We've got public streets and people are allowed to park on them. So prohibiting, I don't know quite how you would prohibit, you know, just a person with a car for parking on the street. And then as you raise the issue of enforcement with regard to, you know, how would we even go about enforcing, um, you know, someone who works in the building, but has, you know, elected to park on the street, um, that day. So there's 2 issues that would, I think, really are prohibitive of adding that type of condition at this time without a lot of research to even find out if it would be legal. to prevent a member of the public from parking on the street. Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Um.

[04:42:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Let's see. I guess those are all the questions I have for now. Thank you.

[04:42:36] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No problem.

[04:42:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member.

[04:42:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm, uh, help me to understand. Um, the Epkin said that he's offering the parking to, you know, is free parking for individuals to come. And assuming there would be people that would come to these offices and et cetera. And as I read things, there's already 20% less parking than is needed for the people who work there. And and so the thought is that there would be transportation, demand reduction, um, so people would bring bicycles. Um, and then other people would take the 22 bus on El Camino. Um, So how would this all fit together with, um... You know, if there's, if there's 20% less spaces that are needed, and, and others are free to come and park there, and there's nothing really to stop people from parking on a, a city street. Help me understand how all this fits together. Is it, is it plausible that people who work in these offices would take the the 22 bus?

[04:44:14] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Rob, I don't know if you want me to jump in here, but I think I understand the question. Um, I think just one point of clarification is that the um, the public parking is provided outside of office hours. So, um, it's not in addition to the office parking reduction, um, it's a, it's a separate, separate use. Um, and then also with the TDM plan, I do believe, yes, the The idea is that, um, we're encouraging the office users, um, and potentially the retail employees to be using public transportation, then there's different other, uh, various amenities as part of the TDM that reduces the parking that is needed.

[04:44:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So then the people that work there, they would have a little card or a window sticker or something to say that they work there. And Then they could go in the garage during the business hours. I'm not sure, Rob, if you guys have defined that process yet, but it's probably similar to what you have done elsewhere. Yeah, exactly.

[04:45:14] Rob Tersini: It would be, um, we haven't fully, fully figured that out yet. Um, Council member Liber, but it would probably be a key card access, which is what we use across the street. Um, so you would have the gate or the gate arm down um, during business hours and then it would open up uh, after business hours and on weekends, so the public had um, unfeathered access to the garage. Um, and then to answer the question on the, um, the employees in the building, uh, yes, we'd expect them to use public transportation and primarily Caltrain. Um, we do see a Caltrain line being utilized pretty well, um, in downtown, including for tenants in our building and actually Sobrado employees because we are across the street. So, um, and we would provide or the tenant would provide, um, Caltrain passes and bus passes to their employees as a part of the TDM plan.

[04:46:03] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so at the building across the street, the, the retail in it just consists of the bank, if I'm correct with that. So it's, is it just the bank that's across the street?

[04:46:20] Rob Tersini: That is correct, yes.

[04:46:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so then the bank and then whoever comes to, uh, to the soprano offices. And then at the proposed project, there's there's multiple ground floor uses that you're showing us. And Then there's going to be offices, multiple offices above. And so none of the people who come to visit those sites would be able to park on site. And 20% of the people that work on site would not have a parking space on site. And am I understanding that? Pretty correctly.

[04:47:07] Unknown Speaker: Council number Liber, if I may explain a few things. We try to put a number of these items together. Um, when a parking study is done. Um, it considers, um, the uses, um, office, the ground floor uses, um, typical visitors who may come and go, and so that office use encompasses the needs of that office use, it also the ground floor uses the study encompasses the needs for patrons to come and go. Um, you know, use the retail or use the restaurant. Uh, in addition to that, um, it also looks at the TDM program that's put together by the applicant. And we do this citywide at varying levels. Um, and on El Camino and our precise plan. So this is standard operations. Um, and the applicant is expected to put a list of options that can bring them to that 20% reduction, and examples of those would be giving them passes, uh, for Caltrain, giving them passes for ETA, having a TDM coordinator on site who can work with them, um, and also look at the parking and make sure, as you saw on condition number 49. The TDM coordinator and the parking coordinator will be the point person to ensure that people park in the garage because we heard that was an issue and as council member Mattachek asked, we asked ourselves the question, to what extent can we put in a condition that goes to the maximum extent to make sure that there is somebody taking care of people parking in the garage? So when we put all that together, we come up with the number. And in this case, the 255 spaces that are being provided, um, actually slightly exceed the requirement. And that is why we're recommending this project.

[04:49:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So it exceeds the requirement, but it's also 20% less than the people that will be on the site. And nobody who comes as a visitor to use the businesses will have the card key. So so they wouldn't be able to get into the garage. My thinking of this.

[04:49:27] Rob Tersini: RP, I can help answer. So we do have a parking management plan for this. So the 1st level of the garage is publicly accessible. During business hours, it will be restricted for the retail visitors, so it would be most likely time allocated, so one to 2 hour parking limits. Uh, if we run into an issue where people are abusing that, then our property management team would step in and and actively enforce that. But we typically feel that people do abide by those rules. To get to P2 level of the garage, there will be a gate arm that, um, is key card accessed for the employees. Does that does that help?

[04:50:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think so. I think so. Um, and, um, Yeah, I just, uh, I, I take the 22 bus occasionally. And, um, just to check out the quality and and all those good things and, um, I, uh, I have to say that I don't notice a whole lot of people that are, are tech workers that, are on the, the El Camino bus, um, But, yeah, I, I think that the, the bank is, is obviously across the street, that's, it's lower intensity. Um, you know, they don't allow a large number of, um, folks in there, you have to have an appointment in most cases now. And, um, To me, like having been on council now at 2 different times in the recent history. I, um, I've seen a lot of, um, TDMs and traffic, uh, traffic coaches and, um, a lot of, uh, uh, clipper cards come and go. And, um, I think from, from my perspective, none of it really passes the giggle test. Um, but I am just trying to understand it and, and how this would be so much different. So thank you for that explanation.

[04:51:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member to May.

[04:51:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, thanks, Mayor. Um, I have. Quite a few different questions, but, um, especially given the questions that my colleagues ask, but I think that I'll go this direction first. So, um, I, my understanding, um, is that the heritage, this is for staff, um, the heritage trees that exist on the property near the driveway on church, currently do not, um, you know, qualify to be saved. Is this something? And I know that there's been public comment about perhaps updating, um, uh, city policies that we can do more heritage tree preservation. Did, does staff feel like this is something that could be part of, you know, I know we're looking at the parks and open space, master plan. Um, I know that the trees have come up quite a bit as we've been looking at development throughout the city and would just appreciate, um, some direction from staff on where we might be able to insert the conversation to talk a little bit more about this topic. Um,

[04:52:58] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member can may. Thank you for asking that question. Yes, it is one of our goals. We consider the biodiversity strategy, a 3 prong strategy, um, that would apply to, um, you know, city parks, um, city projects and streets and also private development. And so I think the goal is to move the city in the same direction. Um, as we review, um, what is happening all over the city in the same way. Um, and we might be able to create options for people to do to, um, save trees and and maybe build differently, right? Because each site is different. That's one example. Um, at this point, our, um, we, we think that the, the strategy will help us come, come up with some options that the council can look at for, um, for trees, and we kind of see the landscaping and trees on private property being taken together, um, as, as one item, um, in the ordinance ultimately.

[04:54:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And when, and, you know, I know we have public attending the meeting too. When might we be able to talk about that or that come back to council for input? Um,

[04:54:20] Aarti Shrivastava: I, um, have to say, I don't, off the top of my head, um, have the, have the schedule, um, but the goal is to create the strategy, and then move right into the implementation, which would then be, um, you know, what are the rules for private development, how she would be looking at city projects, and then how should our parks look when we're landscaping up parks and looking at coal. So, um, it would be it would be the next step after the biodiversity strategy is adopted.

[04:54:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Okay. Okay, and then, um, a question for the applicant. I know that there's been much discussion and there's been, maybe you can share the efforts that you made in terms of looking into preserving the trees, um, and you can share a little bit of, like, kind of how you made the decision, the landscaping and, um, I think that'd be helpful.

[04:55:16] Rob Tersini: Uh, thank you, counselor, I recommend. Um, yeah, so we we did do, um, a lot of exploration into those 3 trees in particular, um, especially after we we received some public comment on saving the trees, um, and and what we could do about that. And we had both our arborists, look into the survival rate of the trees and the health of the trees and what we could do about relocating or translating them. Um, and then we had a tree moving uh, reputable tree moving service, look into it as well. And the arborists position was that the 3 trees are very, very close together and they share a root ball system. Uh, and if we were to remove uh, or try to move the trees, we would have to kill 2 and we'd only be able to really move one. Um, and that one tree survival rate would be very, very low, uh, if not, it would eventually die, was his, um, uh, recommendation. Uh, we did parallel to that have a tree moving service that we recently used on our project in, uh, pair, uh, up in North Bay Shore, which was a very large, uh, oak tree. And we had them take a look at these 3 trees. And even if we were to try to move one, there wasn't enough room on the site to get down low enough. There's a ramping system you have to create to go down below the root ball and set it on a massive flatbed. Um, and unfortunately, there wasn't enough room without tearing up a significant area of the park or church treat, um, in order to do that. Um, and those were the letters, I believe, were shared with the city, and I, um, believe the city arbors reviewed, uh, as well, as well, and had the same conclusion.

[04:56:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And then I, you know, I think in terms of like the replacement trees, there's been a discussion of the type of, um, variety of those replacement trees, maybe you could also share a little bit. I think there's been quite a bit of community feedback on, you know, native trees. Um, maybe you could talk a little bit about that as well for the applicant.

[04:57:17] Rob Tersini: Yeah, thank you. I'll actually have Nick, if you don't mind, helping respond to that.

[04:57:22] Nick Samuelson: Yeah, so on our tradisposition plan of showing that, you know, the different trees are removing what's intended as the actual mitigation trees, and anything that was a native heritage tree is being replaced with 2 native trees at least, and on top of that, we have additional native trees. A few of the heritage trees that are being removed or non-native too. Some of the larger replacement trees that we're doing, like the jacarandas out at the front are replacing London plane trees that fall under the designation. Um, but, you know, so there, yeah, the trees that you know just does the designation, but we're far above that requirement, and we have a large focus on the native trees through the park area.

[04:58:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Um, and then I know that there's been a bit of discussion about, um, deciding to do the 20% parking reduction. So this is a question for the applicant. Perhaps you can talk us through, um, your your thought process. I mean, I think that, you know, I read the hexagon study and I know that as a, as a state, we've moved from, you know, levels of service to BMAT and we're seeing bills and the legislature that are reducing parking minimums. That was related to affordable housing, but I know that there's discussion happening there. So, um, you know, kind of given the community feedback, you know that the city is also looking at a downtown parking strategy. We've been discussing that for several years and lost parking at lot 12. Um, So perhaps you can can share a little bit about that. Um, That'd be helpful.

[04:59:10] Rob Tersini: Yeah, yeah, happy to. Thank you, council member. Um, and I do have, um, Gary Black with Hexagon on, if maybe we can nominate him, uh, just in case I need to get a little more technical and it'll be on my expertise, but, um, uh, we, we did, uh, take the opportunity to, to look at various, uh, precise plans in Mountain View that have, uh, a parking, uh, maximum, but not a minimum, uh, in North Bay Shore and East Wisman in particular. We have a couple projects that we're working on there, and thought that if that's the vision for the future of Mountain View in those areas, it makes sense that in the most transit oriented location, and being in downtown, it would make sense to do that there. We're much more comfortable with the low parking ratio in downtown than we would be in a more suburban office park location. Um, I will say that, you know, we obviously utilized our building across the street as a bellwether, uh, and also used, um, a handful of other projects, uh, in similar locations, uh, up and down the peninsula, located within a half mile of Caltrain, um, and found that uh, the parking requirement, uh, was actually less than what, uh, what we would be providing here at two, uh, 155 stalls. I think we're targeting one. 9 or 2.one per 1000 based on that study. Um, I will say that uh, parallel to the, uh, not wanting to overbuild the parking. We also have a pretty strong sustainable initiative in our office. Ted alluded to that briefly. We have committed to building the project out of mass timber, so it would be all wood construction versus concrete or steel. And as a part of that initiative, We're trying to reduce the amount of concrete that we put into our projects. And the below grade parking is obviously made out of all concrete. And it's a pretty big carbon has a pretty big carbon footprint. So we're reducing it by roughly 33% by not building a 3rd level of parking that we feel is unnecessary. Um, the way the parking is designed with the attendant assist and, um, uh, Council member Magic, just to help answer the question on the staffers, too, there is a valet requirement to operate the staffers, so it is a little more efficient to do a traditional valet system. But that the intent is to be dynamic. So if we have a larger, denser user, like a high-tech firm, obviously we would utilize all 255 stalls. Uh, but if it's a lower intensity use, uh, such as a law firm, um, then we probably wouldn't need all 255 and we could adjust the amount of stalls based on on what the demands are for the building. Um, but I would suggest that we wouldn't uh, wouldn't ever offer uh, building a project and and consider spending this amount of money without providing uh, enough parking to to, to fulfill the tenant requirements. The 1st question we always get from a tenant is how much parking are we were offering. So, um, Hopefully that helps and looks like Gary's on too. So if we want to go through the parking study, we can we can do that as well.

[05:02:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I mean, I think, uh, given the the community concerns, some of the questions that were asked prior to mine, are, is the, would you, as the applicant, be prepared to provide more parking on site, or,

[05:02:24] Rob Tersini: Um, we wouldn't be able to do that without adding uh, the 3rd level parking, which, um, which we're not, um, willing to do. But, um, in order to address the other comments, um, that that we did here previously, we would be willing to, um, adjust the the condition regarding the parking and put a little bit stronger language for us to enforce, um, the parking in the building within our tenants, the tenants that we control. Obviously, we can enforce, um, a retail visitor to not park in a public parking spot outside, but, uh, we could work on lease language there and, um, we do have a draft of of that type of condition if that's of interest.

[05:03:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. Has there been any discussion with the city as we've been looking at our downtown parking strategy for, um, You, uh, I think the project across the street, which you have, um, has parking. I mean, has there been thought process to redirecting people back into your other building or to create wavefindings so that your tenants will know that they can park theirs? Should that just be an issue? I mean, despite the TDM measures.

[05:03:50] Rob Tersini: That's a good question. Unfortunately, we have to keep the project separate, although that parking is underutilized. All those stalls are currently leased up. Obviously, some to our employees, but we do have a couple other tenants in the building and those leases have the parking allocated to them. So we wouldn't be able to, to redirect over there.

[05:04:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Got it. Thank you. All right. Um, and then this question um, was for staff. I think the uniqueness of this project was the no, well, one of the aspects is the noticing radius that it was, you know, adjacent to, uh, city hall and it only had the 750 foot radius. You know, there's been discussion about expanding the noticing radius to a 1000 feet or more. Can you, um, let me know, how we might be able to address expanding the notification radius and what council might need to do to to have that happen?

[05:04:50] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, Council member Commade, thanks for asking that question. I think we're asking ourselves this question in most instances. 750 covers a rather large area. In this case, um, there was considerable amount of property that was either a park or it was city hall. And maybe we can look at, in those instances, if we could, um, you know, define the boundaries differently and extend beyond, and extend beyond it. But, um, we'll take that internally and, um, make a proposal to the city manager to see how we can move forward when there are projects that are adjacent to other city owned property, for example, right? That's rather large, but that 750 feet may not cover the typical radius, it will cover from those projects. So I think in those instances, we might be able to take the, the radius beyond, say, Pioneer Park, or city hall, since, um, where the neighbors here.

[05:05:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks, Mayor. those are my questions.

[05:05:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Council membership, Walter.

[05:06:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi, minor primarily follow-up questions from other things that people have said, um, uh, I, uh, I wanted to talk a little bit about the tree replacement. I thought I heard 2.8 to one for the whole project. Is that right? What is the replacement for the whole project?

[05:06:23] Diana Pancholi: 54 trees are being planted. The replacement ratio is 2.8 is to one. The required replacement as per the standard city practices was only 28 trees. They are planting 26 additional trees above and beyond the typical.

[05:06:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And um, Diana, how does that, how will that change the long-term canopy?

[05:06:48] Diana Pancholi: So when, you know, Currently, the project side primarily has a surface parking lot in just one single story building. So there are a lot of surface parking lot trees, which contribute to around. Um, I think 23% can be covers, I've printed it in the sample for it. And with this additional tree planting. With the new project, um, majority of the project site will be covered with the with the, uh, proposed building. But the applicant will be planting these trees, a lot of them will be 48 and 36 inch blocks, and it will be able to meet the 3 canopy coverage actually exceeded. Right now the tree canopy coverage is 25% and with the proposed tree planting, it will be 26% at maturity.

[05:07:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And so given that it actually covers a very smaller point, the canopy where it's open space is going to be a lot greater.

[05:07:48] Diana Pancholi: Yes.

[05:07:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. That's what I wanted to ascertain. Then the other thing I wanted to talk about is you mentioned the size of the boxes of the trees that are used. You know, earlier this evening, Albert Jean showed us some pictures of, um, uh, you know, of trees that really don't look like they've grown very much in the last few years, and sort of, they started out small. So can you talk to us a little bit about, you know, these relative sized trees? I mean, 24 boxes are pretty big. That's what 24 and 48. I thought I saw listed. Those are pretty big trees, right?

[05:08:25] Diana Pancholi: Yeah, so usually our standard practice and requirement is 24 inch box trees as the replacement trees, but in this case, the applicant is proposing around 12, 48 inch box trees, and 636 inch box trees as replacement. So those trees will definitely have larger canopy right at the time of planting itself.

[05:08:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. I think that's, you know, that's, that's important for our community. I mean, we're all feeling the need for shade, and that shade is going to be um, available um, really early in this project. It's not gonna be something we're gonna, you know, our grandchildren are gonna see. It's gonna be there, right? We get there. Okay. And then, then I also wanted to talk, to ask a question about the valet parking. You know, there, we talk a lot about parking requirements. And I think many times, we don't talk about the psychology of using, um, underground parking lots. And frankly, a lot of people think, at night, underground parking lots are kind of scary. And so they avoid them. And, um, so I was wondering if the where the utilization of valets, um, having attendance there all the time. Um, Is there some, um, information that shows that that produces a better sense of security? And consequently, people would use these more. Do we know that? Or...

[05:10:08] Diana Pancholi: I don't think we have, um, looked into that particular aspect or did much research on that, but I think one thing that I would like to clarify is that, uh, the ballet parking program is available during the daytime for during the business hours. So Rob, you can correct me if I'm stating anything. incorrectly here. And uh, shared public parking in the underground parking garage is going to be available at the at the 1st underground parking level, the P1 level. Um, So. Yeah, it's limited to just the 1st level of it. But we do not have any further research on how, um,

[05:10:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, will there be an attendant associated with that? In the off hours? Yes. No. That's not currently being proposed. Okay. All right, that won't be proposed. All right. Um,

[05:11:06] Rob: I, I'm happy to, if you don't mind, council member show, Walter. Um, We do have a security plan for the garage where tenants can have a security escort go down to the garage because we did find that in other projects. People were weary about going underground at night. Um, and so at 599 Castro across the street. We have a security guard throughout the night, um, that roams the garage, but also is available to escort uh, employees if they they end up working late. into the evening, and we propose the same on this project.

[05:11:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, good. Right. And then, um, I guess my other question is, besides the retail, um, that is in this building that's about to be built, where do you think the people who are going to use this parking are going to be going in downtown? That's for you, Rob. Oh,

[05:12:06] Rob: okay. Thank you. You're suggesting the public parking? Yeah. Yeah, I would, I mean, I actually would think it'd be very well utilized during events in downtown if there's an event at the performing arts center. Um, I could see the parking could utilize there, uh, or a larger event at the city hall. Um, yeah, before we worked across the street when I'd have to come to city hall. There would be sometimes a challenge finding parking there, so I'd imagine that would be a good opportunity to park next door at 590 Castro. Or the art and wine festival for the chamber. I know that, um, Peter Katz has reached out a few times and they do utilize our parking lot today, and I would imagine that they would use it, um, for for the events that they have, uh, at the park.

[05:12:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right, thank you. Yep Thank very much.

[05:12:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Matachek.

[05:12:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks, a couple more questions. Um. When it comes to TDM programs. Um, do we have any data? That shows how effective they are? Um, you know, I know employers have to monitor their own, but does any of that information come to the city and do we know how effective they really are?

[05:13:30] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member Matachek, I was just talking to staff about this as well as Dawn. One of our goals is, um, to create a TDM ordinance that allows us to track some of this. We've just started approving applications that are going to, once they're built, going to have to submit annual reports to the city. And at that time, we'll be able to track it better. But I know from my personal experience with some of the larger office projects. Um, they are a lifeline to the business because, um, typically they're trying to discourage people from driving for a variety of reasons. And if you have a good TDM coordinator and a program, Uh, they can be very effective, which is why our ordinance will require those essential elements, and until that time, we now have conditions that incorporate those elements, including the TDM coordinator, um, and we also ask a professional to review the program to make sure that the list of options is actually going to be, um, meaningful. So, um, in in a few years, as people start submitting the annual reports, we'll have better information.

[05:14:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So just scanning this, um, attachment one again. Um, we are requiring TDM reporting to the city. In the conditions here, right? I think I see that.

[05:15:01] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, all of our new projects are starting to require those. We just don't have the annual reports due yet because the projects are not yet built and operating. Okay.

[05:15:13] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may add on just a little bit, if you don't mind. The other important thing is we have, in the last year, hired the TDM analyst, so we now have a staff person whose responsibility is to ensure that all these reports are submitted, to analyze the data that comes in. He's already been very actively. He's reported out to me. Um, the list of projects that have already been built that are due to submit reports and he's going to be reaching out to all of them soon to say, okay, I want to start seeing them. This is what they need to look like. So I just want to add in that the city is taking efforts that will be prepared to really take in these reports, analyze them, and, and, and confirm that the, they are meeting their conditions of approval.

[05:16:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Um, and I apologize. I'm multitasking here a little bit, reading these conditions over and over and over, searching for things. So I might have missed this, but um, I did hear that, um, there would be a point person, if there are issues with parking, not in the parking lot. Um, like on city streets that people could say, hey, I think, you know, there are some, um, people who work in that building that are parking on the street. Um, is there a designated, like, parking manager for this project? I'm not sure I see that in the conditions. I see the TDM stuff, but.

[05:16:46] Aarti Shrivastava: I believe condition 49. Is that the one, Diana, that actually requires, um, we've identified, um, I believe the TDM manager to also be the point person for the parking. That's correct.

[05:17:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, and so they, are they going to monitor it or just take complaints?

[05:17:13] Diana Pancholi: So, um, Their job is to regularly communicate and actively encourage office and retail tenant employees to park in the on-site garage. And not on street during business hours and serve as the contact person to respond to and resolve complaints about the on street parking. Um, we felt that this would best capture, um, the intent of, um, what we heard as complaints for the project across the street.

[05:17:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So is there a way to, um, I feel like I'm looking for a plan B. Is there a way to strengthen that? Um, with uh, more active monitoring. And maybe the city attorney, I can't find her, there she is. Um, You know, can you think of a way to strengthen that that we could do?

[05:18:09] Jennifer Logue: Yeah, I was wondering if, you know, I heard, um, I think it was wrong. Did you mention that you might have some language that might address some of the parking issues. I was wondering if you could share that with the council and see if that I heard you mention it earlier.

[05:18:24] Rob: Yeah. Yeah, thank you, Council member, Matt, check and Jennifer. Um, yeah, we do have draft language and, um, if you don't mind, I can just read out, uh, what that might say. So, the parking management plan. We'll also address measures to maximize the project's office tenants and visitors to park in the parking structure and not the surrounding public streets. If the city manager or his or her design, Designee determines this goal is not being met, and there are persistent, documented, persistent parking issues caused by the project, the applicant would include education, enforceable lease terms, designated contact for parking related complaints, and similar additional on-site parking management measures to encourage on-site parking. I know that was a lot, so I'm happy to go through it again, Lisa, or come from a map check. But I think the idea is that it might be a little bit stronger for the enforcement and requiring our intentants to park in the building. So, um,

[05:19:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I definitely heard, um, a section about, um, that you could work with your tenants and require it, but the city can't require it. Is that what I heard? Like to park in the building. That's correct. I think that's how we would propose at this point, the draft of that language.

[05:19:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. Let's see. Um, we haven't done public input yet, have we? Um, okay, so I'll hold the rest till after that. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[05:20:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'm a numberly bird.

[05:20:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just had a couple questions about the driveway. Um, if we could take a look at the, uh, the site map, possibly again. So, um, traffic in and out of the building would, um, come through the same driveway. And there would be a pullover area for trucks that are serving the building, am I thinking about that correctly? That is correct. Okay. And um, then, across Church Street, uh, roughly is the driveway to, um, the office building that has the Bellanger in it. And right before you get to that driveway is place that they pull over um, technology buses. Um, there. So people will come in and out, and they'll, um, turn right and turn left. And after 3 o'clock, um, there are a lot of school kids who walk along Church Street towards the library. Um, this diagram shows that there's there's plantings that would screen part of the view of drivers. And so how will all these inputs and outputs, uh, work together? And um, will there be something that would no longer allow people to turn, uh, turn east or, um, How would this work? And how many trucks can, um, be either alongside the building or in the space that's the park right now.

[05:22:19] Diana Pancholi: So a lot of these details would be figured out and reviewed thoroughly during the building permit process as we will look into the details of the construction management plan. Um, in, if I need to, you know, if I can speak regarding the comment regarding planting at the corner, um, of the driveway entrance from Church Street, those are to screen the utilities, but that, those are not going to be taller landscaping, that is going to be intercepting the, it's not the visibility triangle, because that is a kind of requirement, actually. So we know about that. And even in that, seeking. Sorry about that. So I, I'm, I don't have, uh, necessarily a specific answer, a number of trucks will be able to be, uh, parking alongside and what's the turning, pool and plants for trucks at this time, but that will be reviewed as a standard practice doing the building review process. Living permit review process.

[05:23:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So how tall are the utility boxes that would be there? Rob, do you remember that? Or have it handy? Uh,

[05:23:33] Rob: I, you know, I don't, but if we could give a minute and nominate Nictario's Mateo, um, I believe he is on and he can help answer that question.

[05:23:43] Nictario Mateo: So I did receive a response from our, um, the project engineer on this from the city side, and you mentioned that it's going to be under 36 inch. That's correct.

[05:23:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. So, just, um, most kids that are old enough to walk along there would be between 3 and 4 feet tall. So, um, she would kind of depend on that, that they can fend for themselves and run across 2 lanes of traffic. Um, is there, like, if it gets down to the nitty gritty, and, um, You know, you have to make some kind of plan for things as you're commissioning the building and et cetera. Um... And how many cars go into the garage? So, What's the number of spaces, roughly?

[05:24:43] Rob: 255.

[05:24:44] Councilmember Sally Lieber: 255 spaces. So 255 go in, presumably 255 come out unless somebody's living at work. And, um, So, uh, yeah, that's kind of a, that's kind of a puzzle for me is, is how that will all come together and the folks who come out and want to turn left. are gonna within a few feet, be directly into another driveway. Um, that also has a similar number of spaces, that are ground floor, ground spaces, but also a very extensive underground, um, parking, uh, parking deck, um, down there. So what's, what's the plan B if it doesn't look like those pieces will fit together gracefully and, and maybe kids aren't going to be good enough at, at running across 2 lanes of traffic and, And all.

[05:25:52] Diana Pancholi: So if I may, um, speak. As I mentioned earlier, we did look at the multimodal transportation analysis of the project. Some of these aspects, you know, where the driveway locations are considered, the turning lanes are considered and what the project's impact with the 255 spaces and the expected trip generations. What is that gonna do to the transpiration system, um, you know, that exists there right now. With the MTA study, we found that it's not going to have significant impact. And that is a study done by technical export. So, Staff is going to depend on those results, and at the same time, be very careful and reviewing the construction management plan, which comes in during the construction phase as well.

[05:26:43] Rob: And if needed is, the app can prepare to put a crossing guard there from 3 to 6. Uh, Council member Livery, um, If there becomes an issue, uh, I think we'd be open to that. I will say we have 300 and don't quote me on the exact number, but 360 stalls across the street. Um, and so far we haven't run into any issues over there. But if there was an issue and a challenge, we would absolutely be open to that.

[05:27:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, I think for me, the difference with across the street is that, that's not part of, um, The direct access to the library where so many kids are going, fewer kids go to St. Joseph's Church right after school. And more kids go to the library. Um, So it's not really like a direct, um, thing, but so you wouldn't have a problem with us putting it in the conditions that, um, if we determine that we need a crossing guard there, um, during certain hours of the day that, um, that, that you would be prepared to pay for that.

[05:28:03] Rob Tersini: Yeah, I mean, I think it would depend on what the hurdle would be to require that. I will say that I do think that more kids and parents would be walking through the Paseo to get to the library versus along the street edge that would be my idea. We also are removing There are 2 driveways there today on that church street side. One's obviously roped off because Wells Fargo building is not occupied. Um, but we will be removing that 2nd driveway. So it'll be a better condition than that than is there today.

[05:28:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And the driveways that are there right now that have been there, uh... Is one is in and one is out. Is that the situation?

[05:28:47] Rob Tersini: I think I remember that they're pretty wide driveways.

[05:28:51] Rob: They function, they used to function both ways, and in fact, there was actually a 3rd driveway out on Castro Street that we removed. a few years back when we took over the site. But yeah, they were they were kind of both in out driveways.

[05:29:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so for staff, um, how can we just give ourselves downside protection and so that we're not responsible for, um, the pedestrian traffic along there. How would we put that into any conditions? that they're willing to pay for the crossing guard. That that wouldn't be our responsibility.

[05:29:36] Diana Pancholi: Um, thank you. I think we're all thinking about it a little bit, and, you know, I do want to acknowledge that the, when the building plans come in, they are also reviewed by our traffic engineering section, and, you know, turning that site, sight lines are maintained. And even after operations, that buildings occupied and things and traffic is out there. You know, if we become aware of issues, our traffic engineering team then takes a look at the situation and see what more can be done in terms of what the city does in terms of red curve, other aspects of it. Now just kind of thinking off the cuff here, they've got a TDM coordinator on site, for instance. So, it could be, um, possible maybe to work something in here about, should there be determined that there is a high pedestrian demand, uh, pet crossings of their driveway at their peak period of use? That, um, that their TDM program coordinator would need to work with the city to come up with, uh, potential solutions to ensure the safe crossing of those pedestrians while they are seeing peak driveway demand. Um, right now the TDM is, you know, typical on one of these sites. Everybody doesn't come and go at the same time. Your driveway use is generally pretty well spread out. So we don't typically see, you know, just a stack of cars all leaving at one time. But, you know, again, thinking a little bit off the cuff. I'm open to if RT has other suggestions, but, you know, something could, could potentially be added in the TDM coordinator side of, uh, working with the city for solutions, should, should there be an ongoing issue of high pedestrian demand crossing the driveway at their peak driveway use times?

[05:31:39] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so that would not be at our expense. That, that would not be something that we would need to pick up the tab for.

[05:31:48] Diana Pancholi: Correct. We would clarify that the applicant would be responsible for putting in those measures.

[05:31:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, we could say, including, but not limited to crossing guards or.

[05:32:03] Rob Tersini: We would we would be open to that.

[05:32:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, We can always continue asking questions, but I think it would be good to seek public input. Um, it is getting late. So, uh, Let me read the language here. 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, um, and due to the number of speakers, um, let's set the timer to one minute and 30 seconds. Uh, the 1st speaker is, uh, La Mervalum, Psi.

[05:32:53] Silja Paymer: Yes, hello. Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. Thank you, council members, and thank you, representatives of, um, of the company, Serrano. Sorry, it's late. Um, I, um, really, I really appreciate what the council members brought up as far as the questions. I thought they were really, really helpful because it answered a lot of questions that I had. So I don't really have a question. All I have to say is, A slight story. So I'm gonna kind of change this and be as quick as possible. When I was a kid. My parents took me to this building that had a tree. growing out of the middle of it. For the rest of my life, no other building could ever measure up to. Now, I've been to some amazing buildings have been all over the country and to other places in the world. And I sense my childhood have never forgotten that. And the only question I have for, uh, Serverado is, I know you guys appreciate sustainability by diversity, clean air, flourishing community, and crime reduction. Is there a way? that you can alter the architecture that will allow you to incorporate these heritage trees into your building and perhaps set, you know, a new vision for Mountain View. I don't know if there are any major buildings downtown that have that. So that's all they have to say.

[05:34:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. very much. The next speaker is Ruth. Ruth, with a last name beginning with the letter P.

[05:34:46] Ruth P.: Can you hear me now?

[05:34:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, you can.

[05:34:50] Ruth P.: Okay. All right. Yes. Well, um, I've been listening to this with great interest. And I would still like to speak to the trees about the trees. I want to speak about many other things, but I, there is not enough time. So, the idea of replacing heritage trees, that at this point, in climate change and heating, et cetera. Trees that are actually the part of the urban forest, of the park and that have the inconvenience, uh, of being located inside the plot line of the building that you are proposing. Nonetheless, Those trees are at this point in history. One of the few things that can possibly mitigate the projected, um, increase in temperature, which, every day, uh, appears to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger till this whole area outside, maybe, uh, live.

[05:36:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Ruth. I'm sorry, you've exhausted your time, and I have to be fair to everybody.

[05:36:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And the next speaker is Celia Hamer.

[05:36:39] Celia Hamer: Hello, um. So, um, one thing I want to say is, uh, last time this was supposed to come up, um, a, um, what's it called? Uh, The property on, um, sorry, it's gotten very late. Um, a property over in the industrial area in Terabella was, um, approved for being residential, even though it was nowhere near a park, school, or grocery store. This is a location that's next to, in quarter mile, has 2 parks. It's across from the library, has a walkable grocery store, a public pool, and it's 3 quarters of a mile from 2 different schools. This is a place that should have residential. We shouldn't be approving industrial lots for residential. We should be improving park side lots for residential. Also, I wanted to double check. I think it was brought up that parking would also be for retail employees. I wanted to confirm that, because they're often the ones that need the longer term parking, and if they don't have parking, they go to the residential areas. Um, finally, when you asked for the arborist on feedback on how to support the trees, um, in moving them, did you ask them for how to change your building design to keep them alive? So it would be nice if you considered the arborist input when doing the design from the beginning instead of coming to them at the end. And that's my comments.

[05:38:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. Next speaker is Bruce England.

[05:38:09] Bruce England: Thank you mayor. I'm going to try to squeeze in as much as I can. Bruce England speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We submitted an earlier comment letter ahead of your April 12th meeting on this, and we ask that you take that into account during your deliberations. Sure you remember every word of it. Um, But I will make these points. This project represents a significant departure from what exists at the corner of Church in Castro today. Since the start of the project, we wanted it to wait for phase 2 of the downtown precise plan update. We can't help but wonder if it wouldn't have been allowed had that update occurred first. The large billing proposes inconsistent with the existing flow between Castro and Church Streets, Pioneer Park, Library, not to mention the performing Arts Center, Plaza, just beyond there. We should remember that this area of downtown has a strong family focus that must be maintained. We don't agree that this fits a human scaled building. Um, design. The project adds office space we don't really need, which will serve to further exacerbate our existing jobs housing and balance. And that said, there are specific elements that concern us that I won't be able to go into. The sidewalk on Church Street is too narrow and should be widened, um, to be consistent with the increased building size. And the trees, that's a big problem too. I won't go into detail on that due to lack of time.

[05:39:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, I'm going to uh, take a guess. and assume that Arcox 2 is Robert Cox. to our next speak.

[05:39:43] Robert Cox: Got that right. I'm Robert Cox, and I'm speaking as a member of the steering committee of Livable Mountain View. As has been noted, there are several majestic redwoods near the edge of this project site, which share our neighborhood and deserve to be saved. It is a shame that saving these trees was not made a priority, even though our group and other community groups have lobbied repeatedly for their retention. One need only look at the large redwoods across Church Street, to see that in the recent past, Mountain View considered preserving majestic heritage trees a city priority, have our values changed. These trees are our allies in the fight against climate change. Let's add saving these trees, a condition for approval of this project. And let's change our downtown precisely to require preserving more heritage trees by maintaining a percentage of the existing mature tree canopy on every new project.

[05:40:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Luis Katz.

[05:40:54] Luis Katz: Thank you very much, mayor and council. Um, I've heard the staff say several times that the precise plan is very prescriptive and this plan conforms to the precise plan, but I'd like to turn your attention to page 102 of the precise plan. And I don't find the language that says that this building must go to the edge of Church Street, which is, in essence, creates this size of the building, such that the trees have to be destroyed, to accommodate the building and the parking. Page 102 of the precise plan says, for the civic center block, ensure the streets are spatially well-defined, all development fronting on Castro Street must be built to the back of the sidewalk. Then Eagle Square, which is where the, um, Park Place is, all development fronting Castro Street must be built to the back of the sidewalk. And so, Park Place, which was built in 1989, does not go to the sidewalk on church. It goes into an L shape. That's why they preserved the trees. So I'm completely puzzled as to why the staff has approved a building that goes to the edge of Church Street, claiming that that's what the precise plane requires, as many people have said, a smaller building will require, uh, will allow a smaller garage, less tenants, and we can preserve the trees. And I think that's what the precise plan asks for, uniformity on Castro on Castro Street, not on Church Street.

[05:42:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Leslie Friedman.

[05:42:35] Leslie Friedman: Hello. Thank you. Preserving the trees is a public health question. The trees filter, protect, particulate matter from our polluted air, especially during the fire season, which is now a lot longer than a couple of months. Particulate matter kills humans, through inhalation of toxics that are too tiny to be seen, but tiny enough to be captured in your lungs. This leads to serious disease and shorten life expectancy. Shade provided by the trees is our... at our enemy... our protection against our enemy ozone. Ozone is created by our greatly increased heat. It likes to come close to the ground, especially when there is concrete, car exhaust and toxic chemicals. Ozone can kill. The shade created by mature trees disrupts the ozone and protects human life. Saving heritage trees is not just about something pretty, though we need whatever beauty we can find. As city leaders, members of the council are expected to look out for the protection of Mountain View residents. I'm sorry to point this out, but you do need to decide if your job is to protect us or to help Sobrado's bottom line.

[05:43:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Albert.

[05:44:05] Albert: Hi, thanks. I wasn't actually planning to talk, but since I'm listening to this, I just measured that rooftop garden that I showed earlier in Japan. It's just a little bit larger than the plaza in this case. So imagine if that plaza looked like that rooftop garden, after just 2 years. Um, according to the report, though, fool cannot be won't be reached for 15 years. I'd also like to mention that redwood trees are not your standard deciduous trees are much taller than they are wide. So even though they may have a somewhat smaller canopy, which is always measured from looking directly from above, their actual shadow they cast is much, much greater. And in terms of the actual tonnage of foliage is much bigger than most situous trees. I am happy to see that they are planning to use 3 inch and four. I mean 3 foot and 4 foot box trees. That's what I've seen used a lot at Google and Microsoft. That will go a long ways towards establishing the canopy as fast as possible, and I'm really happy to see that.

[05:45:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Peter Cat.

[05:45:13] Peter Katz: There we go Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. This is Peter Katz, president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of Sporado's plans for Development of 590 Castro Street. This project has traveled a long journey to get to this point. There have been passionate discussions, including design, use, construction practices, trees, green space, and parking, especially where certain aspects were viewed as outside of compliance guidelines. There have even been lovely in hearing comments from the public voicing concern about the chamber, as it literally impacts our doorstep. Thank you for that. Please be assured that we have been actively engaged in conversations for quite a while. and remain emphatic in our support of the project. The concerns raised are valid and important. That is why we have clear guidelines and requirements in city codes and ordinances. If a project is out of compliance, it rightly should be questioned. And the process works. Significant revisions have been made, and as of this hearing, the project is now in full compliance with city requirements. It is consistent with the vision of the general plan, the downtown precise plan, the downtown parking strategy. It has been recommended for approval by the zoning administrator. The subdivision committee, the city staff, and their latest council report. So how is it that a project can pass all these milestones and not be put forward? If you follow the rules, you should be allowed to proceed. We urge the city council to support city staff's recommendation for approval.

[05:46:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker is Julia.

[05:46:52] Julia: Uh, yes, I'm here to say, please save the tree. There are sort of our trees, and please do not cut down so you can put a big project up there. Even the famous architect, Frank Roy Wright. He never kill any tree in his project. So, please, mayor and council, please feed us with us in some, listen to the big, gigantic, rich, powerful contractors. I think that is wrong. Thank you.

[05:47:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Julia, and thank you for your patience. Thank you.

[05:47:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I know it's a long public comment. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[05:47:36] Alex Brown: Hey, Rob. Good to see you. Ted, friend, buddy. You can't get me all excited about new brick construction, only to eventually break my heart with a slide that reveals that so-called brick is just mostly plastic, EIFS clouding with brick pattern stamped, orange dyed stucco. It's not fair. I know, I know seismic safety and all that, but that's what steel skeletons are for. You can make it happen. I believe in you. And I'm not sure if you could do the same racing with mass timber. I'm getting off track. Uh, I'm glad to see this land used for pretty much anything other than a parking lot or the hospital Wells Fargo building. I do wish that you'd gone taller. The marginal cost, both for materials and embodied carbon decreased the scale. It also means you have more room and versatility to let the building live more lives without requiring redevelopment to increase the density. You can even fit in some residential uses. A tall building means you can increase the setbacks and get wider sidewalks and larger corner sight lines. Dream bigger. Rob and Diana probably know what I'll say here, but the building could be more aesthetically interesting. It's better than a lot of the developments that have come before council, but why not add some more like blobular or dendritic organic aspects and features? Make the building look more like a tree? I don't know if you noticed. People love trees. Personally, I just dislike rectangles. Uh, by the way, is there going to be a secret tunnel connecting City Hall underground parking? Because that would be so cool. Uh, please double check that all the glasses bird safe. I'd rather not be showered with gore and feathers while relaxing on the bench in the Paseo.

[05:48:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Tony Rapp.

[05:49:08] Tony Rapp: Thank you. I'll keep it short. I just wanted to say I'd like to support preserving the trees, especially the ones that are adjacent to the park.

[05:49:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is

[05:49:23] Public Speaker: Hello. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, city council staff. Um, yes, I would like to add my voice for saving the trees. The redwood mature heritage trees at the edge of the property. Um, I was actually present at the DRC meeting last October, 2021 and gave that input, and I believe one of the architects that was present at the meeting gave the same input. These trees are very important to the health. And the sustainability of the community. Um, one thing that city staff and uh, I heard a few city council members ignored by, um, the fact that uh, there will be replacements, uh, 2.8, I think the ratio was of new trees to the existing trees. But that statement really is, is, has a lot of holes in it because the new trees will take many, many years, you know, 20 years or so, to give the same benefits or perhaps even more because those redwood trees are much older than that. To get the same benefits. Uh, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, uh, cooling effects, uh, the beauty and the aesthetics of uh, walking around downtown, the walkability, those will all be really, uh, lost for many years. And that's not really a good solution. Please change the design and save these trees.

[05:50:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. The next the next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[05:51:06] Tim McKenzie: Hi, Al, uh, with the Jobs housing imbalance, it seems that building more office space without having housing. is maybe not the best way to go. So I would love to see some residential aspects. if we're gonna, if we're gonna have this building. Also, um, for possible nonprofits, maybe there could be some sort of nonprofit dedicated towards building community land trusts or affordable housing, uh, that, so that the city itself would not have to get into the housing business, but we could have local trusted partners that would be able to make sure that there is affordable housing for people in the city of Mountain View, and we don't become an exclusive place for the rich. Yeah, thanks.

[05:52:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Marine Blando.

[05:52:06] Marine Blando: Thank you very much. Um, let's look at the premise of this. I started the call at five. The city is lacking affordable housing, and what are we looking at doing here, putting in more office space. We've just been through a once in a lifetime pandemic. Working habits are changing completely. We don't even know that we need more office space in Mountain View. Google may be subletting for all we know. So the premise is of this space. And let's look at what they're trying to do. We keep talking about perking and valet and squeezing things in. They're trying to put too much on a small space. That's the whole problem here. Um, Mountain View should be clear that these heritage trees are a priority. This space is a basically open space. It should not have another. Oh, let's match the other 4 story buildings on that corner. The corner's already. The intersection's already looking awful. We put another 4 story building. It's going to look even worse. I would, I'm actually shocked and dismayed that this proposal has even gotten this bar. Can't something like this be killed at city staff? It's completely inappropriate. I encourage the city to think of La Jolla. We should put something in there that's a beautiful walkable space that will make people walk in that part of Casco Street.

[05:53:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Marie. Next speaker is Daniel.

[05:53:49] Daniel: All right, can you hear me?

[05:53:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:53:53] Daniel: All right. Um, so I don't have a huge opinion on this other than, it looks like pretty decent land use to have a big commercial space in downtown with some retail. This checks most of the boxes, I think most of the things that I'm a little frustrated about this development, uh, have to do with city requirements. So, I think it's building, even though there's a parking reduction, I think there's way too much parking for something that's right between a Cal train station and a, uh, very high quality bus line, and I think if the city is doing its job, right? This parking lot is going to be mostly empty, uh, when it's built. Uh, hopefully we end up doing our job, right? Uh, and then the other thing is just, it's up against the, the 4 the 4 story height requirement and, uh, you know, you could be getting a lot more use out of it being taller. It's in the middle of town. We have stuff that's taller, really close to it. I don't see why that's a requirement. Um, so, you know, it's not like I'm super excited about this stuff, but it does generate a property tax revenue and it's a good central location for this sort of thing. So, that's my comment.

[05:55:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mary.

[05:55:25] Mary Hodter: Yes, thank you. This is Mary Hodter. Thank you for allowing you to speak. Can you hear me? Okay. Um, so I wanted to say, 1st of all, that I very much support saving the 3 redwoods. I think the building should be redesigned. I don't think that the city should have ever traded the lease of the back alleyway or driveway to Sobrado, without requiring that those trees be saved. It's really, really unfortunate that that wasn't leveraged. I also want to tie something together. Just prior to the pandemic in February 2020. I, on a daily basis, had office workers from 605 Castro, uh, walking from right in front of our house, where they parked. More than 750 feet over to their offices and I would, I would say to them as I was taking out the trash or whatever. What office do you work in? they would say, oh, we work at Cora. So office workers are willing to walk 750 feet plus to, um, park in front of our house, but we can't get notices for meetings more than 750 feet. Um, my understanding um, from folks in the neighborhood who did attend that meeting is that 5 people were there. That was the community meeting, and no neighborhood notice was done. So, um, I think we have something very wrong here when, um, the neighborhood isn't given notice about community meetings and we only hold one.

[05:57:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Mary. I'm sorry, you've exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everyone. And Julie, I see you put your hand back up, but similarly, I can only allow members of the public to speak once. Um, seen no other members of the public wishing to speak. Uh, we will return to the council, uh, for deliberation. And I'll note that a motion to approve, the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to the report. Council member lever.

[05:57:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I won't be making a motion of support. Um, unfortunately, I, I, do feel very strongly that what has been proposed for us and put before us is, is not a good development, and it is not beneficial for, uh, our, our community, and I'm sad to have to note that, um, But, uh, I need to be loyal to my constituents. I've been in Mountain View for over 25 years, I think, almost 30 years. And, um, I, I just have to take a stab at, at representing the future of our community and the constituents that, uh, we have here that we've been elected by, not the money, but the constituents, uh, who have voted for us. So, I'd like to go ahead and move to reject staff's recommendation, and to direct staff, to prepare a motion for council adoption at the next meeting, denying the project based on the following findings. And in terms of the, um, planned, uh, community, uh, permit, um, the, uh, proposed uses and development are detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience and welfare. Uh, the proposed project, uh, does not promote or support a well-designed development that is harmonious with existing and planned development in the surrounding area. Um, in terms of the, uh, development review permit, um, the, uh, architectural design of structures, uh, are not compatible with uh, the surrounding area, the location and configuration of structures, parking, uh, landscape and access, are inappropriately, uh, integrated and incompatible with, um, surrounding development, including public streets, and sidewalks, and other public property. Um, in terms of the, uh, also under the, uh, development review permit, um, the design and layout of the proposed project, uh, will, uh, counteract a well designed vehicular and pedestrian access circulation and parking. Um, under the heritage tree removal, uh, permit, the condition of the trees, relative to the lifespan of it. Um, particular species, disease, infestation, general health, damage, public nuisance, danger of falling, uh, proximity to, uh, existing or other proposed structures and, uh, any interference with utility services indicate that that condition is is not met and in fact is counter, uh, to a plausible heritage tree removal. um process. Um, second, uh, the necessity of the removal of the heritage tree, um, does not exist, um, and is not in order to construct improvements or allow reasonable and conforming use of the property, uh, when compared to other similarly situated properties. Um, The uh, nature and quality of the trees is a heritage tree, including its maturity, aesthetic quality, such as its canopy, its shade and structure. It's majestic stature, and its visual impact on the neighborhood suggests that it should not be removed. Um, So for those, for those findings and those, those reasons, I am making my motion.

[06:02:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Anything else, council member, labor, before I seek? A 2nd?

[06:02:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think that's sufficient.

[06:02:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fair enough. Um, is there, uh, in order to, just the motion we will need a 2nd? Is there a 2nd for the motion? It does not appear to be a 2nd for the motion. So the motion dies for lack of a 2nd. Um, would any other member of the council like to speak or ask a question or make a motion? Council member show Walter.

[06:03:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, um. I would like to, uh, go ahead and make a motion, I guess after a few comments. Um, this, uh, this development has been, um, under consideration for, At least 4 years, maybe 5 years. Um, uh, I remember conversations, um, uh, in my previous term about how this development would be done. And, um, uh, there was always the, uh, the the question of whether or not we should be doing residential here, but that's not what the precise plan says, and we, um, we were not, um, able to make a change in the precise plan. And so, um, uh, the applicant has come forward with a with a building that is compliant to our precise plan requirements. Um, And he's, and they've done that. Um, by talking a great deal to the city, and certainly to the chamber of commerce. And, um, uh, apparently not as much to some of the neighboring community members as, um, they would have liked. And that is very unfortunate. I would really like to see, in the future, we do give some more thought to who are people who live within the influence of a project instead of just what the distance is. But there's some really... I mean, this is, you know, this is, I think this is actually a beautiful building that's being proposed. I certainly like the idea that there are extra trees. I think it's very sad that, um, the redwood trees on the edge need to be removed, but I do think that a great deal of effort has been made to find out whether they could be saved or not. And sometimes the answer for doing things like moving trees is just, no, it won't work. Those trees will die, and nobody wants the trees to die. So, um, I think that that's, you know, that is sort of the sad part of this. Um, I really like the idea that it will now all be retail on the 1st floor, that will activate that corner, which is something we all think is very important. And, um, then the paseo. That paseo is going to be a very nice amenity for the community.

[06:05:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: It's going to connect Castro Street and pioneer park, much, much better than has currently been done. And so I think that will be, you know, a big amenity. So, stating all of those things. I would like to move the staff recommendation to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving a planned community permit, and development review permit, to construct a new 4 story, 105, 246 square foot, mixed use commercial building, with 2 levels of underground parking, including reduced parking, from 314 to 255 spaces, parents to tree removal permit to remove 9 heritage trees, and finding the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to sequel guidelines. Section 15332 infel development projects, at 590 Castro Street, to be read entitled only, further reading waived, attachment one to the council report. Two, adopt a resolution of the city of council and city of Mountain View, approving a preliminary parcel map, to combine 5 lots into one lot, and finding the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to sequel guidelines, section 15332 Infill Development Projects, at 590 Caster Street, to be read entitled only, further reading waived, attachment 2 to the council report. Thank you.

[06:07:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Is there a 2nd in a motion, uh, council member Mattachek?

[06:07:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I wasn't necessarily going to 2nd it. I had some questions. Do you want me to wait?

[06:07:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, yes, just because I think we should probably get the, if you have the motion on the floor in order to start the discussion. Is there a 2nd?

[06:07:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Not, I'll go ahead and 2nd the motion.

[06:07:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, council member had a check.

[06:07:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, so I want to go back to the potential, um, additional condition regarding, um, an agreement between Sobrado and their tenants about parking in the underground parking. And, you know, just like I, we were talking about it, it would be hard for the city to enforce something like that, just in general. So, How would it really be enforced? And what would be the potential ramifications of um, violating that? How would that potentially work? And I'm not sure who could answer that.

[06:08:36] Aarti Shrivastava: I'll take a stab at it, council member Mattachek, um, I think we're going to have to work with somebody on the applicant side of the property owner side to make sure that there is a person who's designated. Um, so it starts with the lease. And if the language says that the tenants will have to sign leases. that acknowledge that they will have to park in the garage. We have somebody who's who's helping to enforce it on their side to make sure that there are no violations or at least heavy encouragement. If there are violations and are reported, then we work with the coordinator. Um, I guess, I guess we could enforce the conditions, we've had to do that in the past, and, you know, we've had to work on enforcing conditions in a number of ways with people, um, and use, use that particular ability to do that. Um, Other than that, I can't think of anything, but this, this would be the, Approach.

[06:09:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, um, thank you. Um, I can't really say this is one of my favorite proposed developments in the city. Um, But I do get, um, as others have said that it is consistent with the downtown precise plan, um, which is unfortunate. Um, it's unfortunately, we didn't have a chance to change the downtown precise plan, um, to update it for what we, now, would say, um, is our vision for the downtown area. Um, I do appreciate, as I said earlier, the change to make the ground floor all commercial, um, so that it is active on all sides. Um, it had been active in the past in the building that's there. And so I don't see why that can't be repeated. So I appreciate that change. Um. I'm I'm definitely not happy about the removal of the trees. We've certainly heard a lot about that tonight. Um, I appreciate that it was uh, looked at on how to save those trees. And I still wish we could find a way to do that. But it sounds like that's not going to be possible. Um, which is really, really frustrating. Like I said, I think, you know, we, we might have done something different had we had an opportunity to update the downtown precise plan. Um, I do have, you know, I feel like now I'm getting down to, uh, details that, um, you know, in the whole scheme of things are very minor details, but I think they would help, uh, make the project, uh, a little bit more consistent with the look and feel of downtown. Um, and I have talked to the applicant about this as well as um, some folks at, uh, on staff. And, um, First, um, I, Want to make sure that the lighting in the plaza is, um, pleasing and consistent with a nice, um, atmosphere downtown. Um, I, you know, am not looking for sparkly lights that remind me of, um, I don't know, a different city. Uh, I feel like it has to be warm and inviting. Um, and so, um, I would propose a condition, Uh, for the applicant to work with staff. to modify the plaza lighting in terms of the color, and um, not necessarily the location because there's, there are pole lights, there are, there's lighting like underneath the, um, planters in the seating area. And there are a couple other lights. I didn't so much mind the fixtures, it was the colors. So I think we need to make sure that, um, those are pleasing and have a nice atmosphere downtown. So that would be um, a condition that they would continue to work with uh, city staff on that.

[06:12:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Madachek. We take these one at a time just so, um, I were able to accurately capture your recommendations.

[06:13:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yep, so maybe...

[06:13:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay.

[06:13:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, but just really quickly checking with, with, with staff, does that need to be a condition for approval?

[06:13:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And then I have to check with the maker of the motion, if that's an amenable modification. And then do we also need to get the consent of the, um, the applicant? Uh, to see if they're willing to accept these modifications voluntarily? So, I think those are the 3 steps. So maybe, um, Archie or.

[06:13:32] Aarti Shrivastava: I could respond. Yes, we would like to add that as a condition. Uh, we don't believe this is a cost prohibitive requirement. And so, I don't believe the applicant would object to it or has to be asked. It's just the color of the lighting. So it would just be the bulbs to make it more warm and inviting as opposed to having bluish or purplish lights. Um, which sometimes, I guess that's what council member Mattachek was getting at.

[06:14:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, yeah. Can't say those pink lights looked great.

[06:14:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. Council member Shelter, are you comfortable with that? modification.

[06:14:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's fine with me.

[06:14:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and me too. Uh, Council member Mattachek.

[06:14:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yep, so a 2nd one would be, um, I thought the bike racks could be a little bit a little less industrial and more interesting, um, without, uh, having an impact on, you know, the functionality of them, which is just safely secure your bike. Um, so I would propose that the applicant work was staffed to refine the bike racks, uh, to be less industrial and more artistic, um, without negatively impacting their basic functionality.

[06:14:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's fine with me.

[06:14:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, we previously talked about clarifying for condition 14 that, um, it's not the rooftop deck, but it is the terraces or the deck, whatever you want to call it, on the 3rd and 4th floor, um, that the conditions that were listed as applying to the rooftop deck actually apply to those terraces. And um, probably the the biggest one for me is, um, the centerpiece in the plaza. Um, I would, you know, I know this doesn't fall under the purview of the visual arts committee, because it's private art, not public art. But um, I do feel like it could be improved upon. Um, it looks, uh, you know, we have a lot of art throughout the city that is something on the top of like a column or a pole. And I think it could be something other than that. Um, something that, um, is interesting and engaging and um, is different than other art we have throughout the city. And I would, uh, recommend that we have the applicant continue to work with staff to, um, find some artwork that is, um, as I said, more, um, interesting and artistic and isn't something on a pole. Um, when I met with the applicant, I was showing them some things that I thought were really nice. Um, I'm not the expert, um, but I'm sure we can come up with something that is better than, um, I think what is being proposed. And, um, and then, uh, the other condition, um, that we talked about, and I don't have all the wording, um, the applicant Reddit. Um, I would propose that that be incorporated as well regarding the parking. If I may read that, um, just for clarification, uh, the parking management plan will also address measures, and this is 16 B, to maximize the project's office tenants, guests and visitors will park in the parking structure, not on the surrounding public streets. If, um, the city manager or his or her designee,

[06:17:23] Aarti Shrivastava: and we can replace that, Don and I will talk, uh, between the 2 of us, we could we could name the community development director and or the public works director instead. Uh, determine this goal is not being met and there are documented and persistent parking issues in the downtown area that are related to the project's office uses. The applicant will cooperate with the city to encourage the project's office tenants, guests, and visitors to park in the parking structure, and not on the surrounding public streets, including education and forcible lease terms, on-site parking management, and enforcement. A designated contact for parking related complaints or similar additional on-site parking management measures to encourage on-site parking.

[06:18:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So you could see that, um, typed up on a slide. So I would propose we include that. I, let's see, now I can't see everybody. To see if the maker of the motion, uh, and the secondary are okay with that. But now I can't. Um, Okay, um, Shoot. Oh, I know. I had one more question. Um, the, and actually this was part of the public comments. Um, the parking for retail, is that for the employees of the retail as well as the customers of the retail? Um,

[06:18:59] Rob Tersini: our understanding is that the parking and Diana confirmed us, the parking study reviewed the parking needs for all the uses, including employees and customers.

[06:19:14] Diana Pancholi: So the, uh, actually, the parking study done by hexagon uh, reviewed it for the office parking spaces only. But um, the parking standards that are in place in the downtown precise plan, which is the city standards. It includes, um, it considers for both the employees and the, um, retail visitors or the customers as well.

[06:19:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, is the whoever the tenants are in the retail, are they also, um, subject to a TDM?

[06:19:48] Diana Pancholi: Yes.

[06:19:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, okay. Thank you.

[06:19:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Libber, is it okay? Uh, council number command. I take a turn and then we'll come back for a 2nd round. Um, thank you. A council member come in?

[06:20:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, thanks, Mayor. Um, so I, I have a couple, uh, comments as well. So I, uh, I feel torn about this project as well. I think that, We as a, as a city, as a council, set forward, a general plan, precise plans to let people know our, our vision and to create some predictability. However, uh, things change over time and, Um, this is why we're looking at revising our downtown precise plan. Um, because we'll get form compliant projects that are no longer, I think, the fit for where the city and the community are going and it leads to, I think, frustration for council frustration for our residents. And the, I think that led to a lot of the questions that, that we asked. So, you know, I think in terms of appealing to colleagues and to staff, you know, I think that there are things that we can do. One of them and I was, um, heartened to hear is, you know, we tonight adopted our biodiversity, uh, plan on consent as part of that, as a follow-up staff seem to answer me that we can look at our heritage tree. Um, ordinance and how we'd like that to go forward. I think that we really need to make a concerted effort to prioritize this as we're looking at developments all across our city. And so I think as much as we can expedite that review, I think the better for our city and the better for our residents who continue to ask us to prioritize this, and yet we seem to be in situations where our hands are tied. So, um, really like to do that. Another thing that I think that the city can do is the issue of the noticing. If we've learned anything over the course of the pandemic, it's that we need to be proactive as much as possible and there's no such thing as overcommunication, you know, we need to. And so, I think expanding the radius and doing direct outreach to our neighborhood associations, the more the better, particularly as we're seeing projects that are gonna affect different communities of our city. So I think those are things that I would like to see, and those are steps that the city and the council can take, given the feedback that we've been, that we heard tonight and the feedback we have been hearing. Um, but given that we have the downtown precise plan that we have, I feel like, uh, Yeah, I appreciate council member amount of tech suggestions as we're trying to, to, to do the best with what we can. And pulling those levers where we can. So some additional things. I'll be supporting the, the, uh, conditions that council member Matachek mentioned, and I know that the motion maker and the 2nder also will be supporting those. But for the ground floor, I, the city is looking at an economic vitality strategy, as well as a small business action plan. Given that the chamber is, you know, adjacent to this property, I'd really like to be able to find ways where we can work on making sure that we have local businesses, making sure that, uh, We are implementing the results of our economic vitality strategy into this area. I think we constantly get, um, feedback that we would love to see. What we see on the 10200, 300 blocks of Castro expand beyond there. So, um, I'd really like to to use these 2 city plans as ways to make sure that we're activating. And I liked the idea of looking at a variety of different tenants, whether it could be potential childcare or whether it's nonprofit space. I think there's a lot of different ways that we can go to make this a true community asset and community benefit. The only other thing that I'd like to add is the transportation demand management program says that reporting needs to be annual, I think given the feedback, given the reduction in parking and given the additional condition, um, that was proposed. I wonder if we can get something that's, quarterly or something that's, uh, can give counsel a fuller picture of how the TDM program may be working. And I ask this because perhaps other projects will come forward wanting to do a reduction, a parking reduction.

[06:25:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I really want us to be able to be tracking those metrics. Um, as we're, as we're seeing applicants do that. So um, that would be a request. I don't think that needs to be a condition. But I do think at least a quarterly report on how the TDM program is working on the site makes complete sense given given the feedback and given the situation related to parking. Um, and then kind of just the overall comment would be, you know, I'm hopeful too, that this can be a relationship builder between the applicant and residence. I think our residents have really great ideas in terms of articulation of how to activate the ground floor, um, landscaping, um, and ways to bring greater, um, biodiversity to the area. So I think I hope too that this can be an opportunity for the applicant to continue to communicate with residents, seek their feedback. Um, uh, so that this can be a community asset. So that's that's all I have. I don't think any of those require anything additional, mayor, um, but kind of turn to you and staff. Those are suggestions, I would hope.

[06:26:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. And maybe a quick check in with staff. Were there any were any of those recommendations? Um, anything that would need to be included in the conditions or, uh, or not?

[06:26:32] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, I, I believe we're already going to be follow up, following up on the noticing, it wouldn't be a condition for the project, but something for us to take back, um, for future projects. Um, regarding um, the quarterly reports on the TDM program, um, and and Don can corroborate this, we typically require, um, a certain period of time to show that it's working. And typically we try to do it over the year. I know a year is used very much, um, very often as a metric, but I haven't heard of orderly reports because I think it can change season to season, right, Don?

[06:27:14] Unknown Speaker: Yes, your travel patterns can change from season to season, vacation period, and so on. Quarterly is a lot, um, because there's a lot involved with counting and and so on. I have seen situations, could consider twice a year for the 1st 2 years, for instance, I've seen situations like that. And where you say, okay, we've done it for 2 years. They're meeting the requirements, the TDM requirements. Now they can go to annual reports. So that that could be one possibility. Uh, uh...

[06:27:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Are you comfortable with that?

[06:27:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm comfortable with that. I mean, I appreciate that and I just, I think, uh, any, any data is better than no data. So. appreciate it.

[06:28:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Thank you. I'll take a quick turn and start, um, by, uh, reiterate, reiterating some good points made by council numbers, Madashak, and commit. Uh, the council is not oblivious uh, to the consternation that we've heard uh, from the community. And we're constrained by rules and regulations that were approved. Many, many years ago. And while we have in our work plans, um, an item to update the downtown precise plan, we haven't been able to complete that update prior to, uh, reviewing this application. Um, and I think it may be fair to walk through at least at a high level. you know, why couldn't we simply make findings to justify denial. And the answer to that question is, the findings have to be based on substantial evidence in the public record. Um, we can't simply state that, you know, the project doesn't conform or that, um, you know, the heritage tree, uh, removal permit, uh, doesn't meet the stated right, uh, stated criteria. We have to provide evidence to substantiate that. And if we don't, then, uh, there is a legal risk, and there's a probability that a court would find that our findings are not substantiated. And then we would likely be required to approve the project. And in my opinion, one of the things we would risk is, if the court were to order us to approve the project, we may not get the voluntarily provided public access to the 1st floor of parking. So there's a voluntarily provided community benefit, um, that would probably be lost if we were not able to substantiate, um, the, the findings that we would provide in a denial. Um, and it's very difficult to make those findings because we have in the public record the findings that staff prepared, which support approval of the project. Um, and it's no easy feat for a council, um, to on the fly, uh, produce findings and evidence that contradict the findings that have already been made by professional staff. Um, so that's, I think, why the council is constrained and why, um, we're, uh, we have the motion that we do on the floor. You know, that it is no easy thing to to make findings to justify denial. Um, but I think having said that, I think what is pretty clear is, we all agree that the downtown precise plan. Um, appears to be producing outcomes not supported by the community. And therefore, I think we're all committed to uh, reviewing the downtown precise plans to help, um, uh, shape the, the evolution of downtown in a way that conforms more to the expectations uh, of our residents. Um, so, uh, I think that is, uh, sort of the status of, of, you know, this discussion, um, council member labor, uh, any, anything you'd like to add.

[06:31:20] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, thank you, mayor. Obviously, I won't be supporting the motion. Uh, I think it's really regrettable so many of the different elements that have come together in this. Um, the fact that, uh, there has not been a widely noticed, um, public hearing, uh, before the, the one that's presented to us uh, tonight. And, um, the fact that I, I think we're all pretty much in agreement in, in knowing that our downtown precise plan is, is not what it should be. Um, it's, it's very difficult to, um, you know, kind of play catch up when, uh, the transparency that we expect has has not been there. And, um, I think that we really owe it to our constituents to change our noticing rules. Um, to ensure that we're, we're each accountable for not allowing, um, meetings to take place in negotiations to take place outside of the, uh, the public view, which was the case for a number of years, uh, with this property. And I just, um, I'm really appreciative of the work that's been, um, put into, uh, the motion, but I I can't, um, personally support it, because I don't think it's the right thing for our community. And, um, I recognize that it's difficult when it's, uh, um, a repeat player in the community. Um, Uh, when there are certain factors, uh, out there. Um, but I think that this really makes it incumbent on all of us to, uh, to do the necessary cleanup work and to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Um, because this is basically semi-permanent at this corner. Um, it's, it's not going to change in the foreseeable future. Um, and uh, this is, uh, not something that's supported by the community. Um, at large. So I appreciate the commitment from the council members to, uh, go back and and run clean up on this situation so that we can, uh, really ensure that this doesn't unfold in this uh, same way again.

[06:34:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Uh, Don, go ahead.

[06:34:17] Unknown Speaker: Uh, thinking back on the last, um, discussion we just had about TDM reporting. If you do want us to put in the requirement that, for the 1st 2 years, they're going to report every 6 months, and then may go to an annual report if they're meeting the trip reduction targets, that really does need to be part of the motion, because it changes the condition of approval.

[06:34:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, and a question for staff, I know sometimes we do need to seek the voluntary compliance of the applicant, in this case, is the incremental cost pretty trivial, or should we invite the applicant to see if they're amenable to that change? I would, I would say

[06:35:06] Unknown Speaker: the former.

[06:35:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And I don't see anyone raising their hand in the, uh, public, in the audience from, uh, the applicant team, so, uh, council member Shelter, are you comfortable with that modification?

[06:35:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes that's fine.

[06:35:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and I'm comfortable with that as well. Thank you, Don, for the clarification. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, then, uh, oh, council members show Walter, I'm sorry.

[06:35:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I, I just wanted to add, uh, comments about, um, the trees. Um, Council member Kame talked a lot about how in the biodiversity plan, we are, um, going to be reconsidering the heritage tree ordinance, and that's true. And that's really important, because on so many projects in the last year, what people have gotten just incredibly upset about is the trees. And I think that here we are in this 20 year mega drought. And we're all watching trees and properties. I mean, I know I've lost five trees in my backyard, um, due to um, an infestation that's related to the drought. And we've just all seen lots of trees go. And we know how important trees are to, um, uh, you know, to our community and, um, for climate change protection and, um, just the beauty of our community. So we know that that's really important. So another thing I just wanted to mention is, is, um, how important it is that not only do we consider the downtown precise plan, but, uh, revisiting the heritage tree plan and how we can encourage our canopy, um, increase our canopy. I mean, those are those are signals we have heard from our community loud and clear. And, um, they're very important. So I, you know, I hope nobody takes away from this discussion that, um, we didn't, we didn't hear that. We have heard that. It's just that in this situation, um, uh, a great deal of care has been taken to, um, uh, see if these particular trees could be saved, and, and unfortunately, they can't. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to go forward with an important, um, redo of the heritage tree ordinance and, um, a way to a system to increase our canopy even faster than we'd planned.

[06:37:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So, that's, let's have the vote.

[06:38:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. There are no other questions or comments, then I'll ask the city clerk to, uh, conduct the book.

[06:38:12] Unknown Speaker: Council member show Walter?

[06:38:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:38:14] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Ramirez.

[06:38:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[06:38:18] Unknown Speaker: Council member, can I?

[06:38:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[06:38:20] Unknown Speaker: Council member Lieber?

[06:38:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No.

[06:38:23] Unknown Speaker: Council member Mattachek?

[06:38:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[06:38:26] Unknown Speaker: Motion carries 41.

[06:38:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, I appreciate the members of the uh, public for uh, remaining with us so late uh, to provide their comment. Uh, and also, I want to thank the staff and my council colleagues for a good uh, and robust discussion on a very uh, challenging topic. Um, I don't know if we need a motion to continue past 10 AM. We do have some, uh, remaining items. Uh, I'll go ahead and make a motion just in case. I'll move to continue the meeting past 10 AM. Is there a 2nd? Thank you, council member, Mattach. Um, and we'll do the roll call for that as well.

[06:39:07] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Ramirez?

[06:39:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[06:39:10] Unknown Speaker: Council member Mattachek?

[06:39:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, but it's 10 PM.

[06:39:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry

[06:39:18] Unknown Speaker: Council member can May?

[06:39:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[06:39:21] Unknown Speaker: Council member Leaper?

[06:39:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes Yes.

[06:39:24] Unknown Speaker: Council member Shelter?

[06:39:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:39:27] Unknown Speaker: Motion carries unanimously.

[06:39:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. It's late, but it's not that late. Um,

[06:39:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: then we shall move to council staff committee reports. Are there any? membership Walter.

[06:39:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm sorry to have to do this so late, but, uh, the, the, uh, the city, um, uh, generously paid for me to attend the National League of City Summer meeting. Um, I'm on, I serve on the uh, energy environment and natural resources committee, and, um, that's when the policy meeting takes place. So since I've expended those funds, I need to tell you about it, inside of the fact that it's late. Um, uh, the meeting was in Atlanta, and it was at the end of July, and, um, basically, the purpose is to put together the policies that the National League of Cities will advocate on related to the environment and energy. And, um, we have a whole... I mean, there was a 60 page book, essentially, of them. And, um, but they haven't changed a great deal from last year. But, uh, there were some policies that didn't make it through last year related to coal. And so this year, we are redoing those to, you know, to hopefully make them, um, able to pass. We've gotten some people from coal country to, um, go over the policies with us, and, um, hopefully, they'll, you know, they'll pass muster. Um, I um... But the major take home message, from all I heard. was really that there is a lot of funding coming down from Washington. Most much of it will be distributed through states, from the bipartisan infrastructure legislation or the bill. We heard that at the National League of Cities Congressional Conference in March. But, uh, the message was given again. And they've gotten, you know, since it passed several months ago, a lot has been done to talk about the specific programs and how the implementation will go forward, and how you can apply for those funds. And the National League of Cities really sees this as a huge part of their job for the next year to help the cities across America, access these, you know, these huge funding sources. So they've created this hub, this local infrastructure.org hub. And it literally has online curriculum for 30 programs to help cities, um, uh, figure out how to get grant money. And then there are, you know, there's a, there's one on one assistance available for cities that, that would like to take, um, uh, like help, um, and following up on the grants. So I wanted to mention that to everybody. Um, there's a summary, uh, there was a summary presentation that the, um, the staff, the staffer from NLC gave us on the advocacy that they had done all year. I'll share that with you tomorrow on an email. And we also had an interesting presentation on cyber security issues related to water and wastewater plants. And I'll share that with you as well. Apparently, cyber security is, I mean, I guess we all knew, know this, but it's ubiquitous. And, um, so, uh, a great deal, the FBI is working very hard as our, um, our, our city staff. So up and down, the whole government structure is working very hard to figure out ways to protect us from, um, the cyber security threats, um, that apparently come in hourly. Um, so I will share that, that, uh, that presentation with you as well. And, um, it was, uh, it was really a great experience to meet with people who were so enthusiastic about policy issues around the country. And, um, if any of you were thinking about, uh, signing up for some of the policy, uh, committees that NLC has. I'd certainly be glad to share with you what my experiences were. Thanks. I mean, does anybody have any questions?

[06:44:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Not this late? Okay. You can call me if you'd like to talk about it. Thank you very much. Council member Matachek.

[06:44:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I failed to mention at our last meeting. Uh, that I participated in a board meeting of the Bay Area water supply and conservation agency, um, on July 21st. Um, You know, things have changed so quickly. I feel like I don't have anything to report out from that. Um, because, you know, the situation has changed since then.

[06:44:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I also participated recently in a meeting of the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. And we continue to work on an update to the comprehensive land use plan for the San Jose airport. Um, when San Jose airport changes their master plan. We have to change the club, as we call it, the comprehensive land use plan. Um, based upon their new master plan and we're in the process of doing that and doing the environmental assessment on that. And that's it for me.

[06:45:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much, Council member Leaver.

[06:45:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, thank you, Mira. I just feel duty bound, um, to respond to council member, show Walters, um, report by, uh, saying that back in 2002. There was a young detective in, um, Mountain View PD named Chris Chung, who, uh, uncovered an Al Qaeda plot to attack, uh, communications systems in America as well as water infrastructure, and, uh, electrical infrastructure. And I think he was really one of the first to put those traces together, and to put our nation on alert, so we can be proud of that.

[06:46:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Uh, and uh, council member, show Walter and council member, Mattachek. You reminded me. I also failed to report something, uh, in accordance with city council policy, a 2, I guess it is. Uh, I, uh, need to disclose that I attended the mayor's innovation project in Tacoma, Washington. That was also taxpayer funded. Uh, I think the conference was August 4th through 6th. Uh, and it included uh, a number of presentations on, uh, zoning reform and, um, uh, using data to achieve equity goals. Uh, very interesting set of presentations. Uh, I learned a lot and there were a bunch of materials that were provided that I'm happy to share with uh, members of the council or staff. Um, are there any other reports? Uh if not, then we'll proceed to the next item. Close session report, city attorney log, do you have a closed session report?

[06:47:09] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: There's no call session report out tonight.

[06:47:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very good. Thank you. Uh, thank you again for joining us. The next city council meeting will be held on September 13, 2022. Until then, stay healthy. The meeting is adjourned at 1145 PM. Have a good evening.

• ← Previous
• Next →