December 5, 2023 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Study session of the Mountain View City Council of December 5, 2023. We are on item number two now, which is roll call. The assistant city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:00:12] Unknown Speaker: I'll council members present.

[00:00:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, thanks. Thank you. We're now on item 3.1 on your agenda, which is the gatekeeper process updates. The purpose of this study session is to obtain council direction on updates to requirements for legislative gatekeeper projects, including review procedures, streamlined projects, criteria, and community design principles. Assistant community development director, Lindsay Hagen, will present the item. Lindsay?

[00:00:52] Lindsey Hagen: Good evening, council members. Tonight, staff is seeking council direction on the gatekeeper updates. With me tonight is Amber Blenzinski, Assistant Community Development Director. Um, So we've had a couple study sessions where council has discussed gatekeeper updates, including back in April with the council work plan as well as September of this year. And at the September study session, the direction that staff received was to expand the scope of changes. So, what you see summarized on your screen here are a series of items where we got clear consensus and direction from council on, as well as some where we didn't get clear consensus on and that we're seeking direction tonight. And those are around exempt projects as well as which we're now calling streamlined gatekeepers. And as well as just updates to the process overall. So some of the comments we've heard to date are sort of summarized on the screen here, they range from referencing the competitive nature of the gatekeeper process from the development community to having the city consider rebranding the process, as well as some comments from council, regarding wanting to see fewer gatekeeper applications as well as improve the overall process. One of council's main directives from the September study session was to look at other cities procedures. So city staff surveyed 14 cities in total, including all of the cities in Santa Clara County, as well as the cities of Fremont and Redwood City, since they have comparable development to Mountain View. As part of the survey, city staff looked at the city codes, policies, as well as discussed with each of the city staff. Um, In reviewing the general plan amendment procedures at other cities, staff, really found 4 different models, which are summarized here in this table, which is from the staff report. Some of the key components or differences between these models, the most common model represents cities where they require council authorization and hold study sessions, but do not necessarily have community benefits or specific criteria to evaluate the gatekeepers. Sunnyvale is a model where they require a council authorization study, but they focus on the general plan land use 1st and studying that before accepting a development permit. San Jose accepts and starts processing all applications, and under certain circumstances, hold a hearing with counsel to consider whether to proceed with the application. It's referred to as an early consideration hearing. And this process is at the discretion of the applicant to choose, or in certain circumstances, staff can initiate this process. And then the last model is really the Santa Clara model, where they accept and process all applications with no council authorization or study sessions. So overall, the city of San Jose has the most general plan amendments, applications a year, and then followed by Mountain View and Santa Clara. Five of the 14 cities require council authorization before staff processes an application. Two additional cities have early public meetings where they discuss the project, and in many ways, those act like accounts authorization hearing, and that the applicant gets feedback early on, and decides whether to proceed or not. Seven of the 14. So 50% do not require council authorization to accept an application. Moving on to zoning amendment procedures. In reviewing the surveyed city, generally, the majority of cities do not require a council authorization hearing to begin processing a zoning amendment. Um, The only city that has a designated process is the city of Palo Alto, where, um, only if the planning commission reviews a project at its 1st hearing and they don't sort of want it to proceed forward, will then it go to council and council will decide whether the application proceeds forward or not. Um, One of the items in particular, that city staff looked into because it was brought up at the last study session was about zoning text amendments in particular, and outlined in the staff report. Staff highlighted that there are 2 cities, Cupertino, and Fremont that do not allow privately initiated zoning text amendments. So only staff or the planning commission or council can initiate text amendments. So overall, in sort of looking at the big picture of surveying all these cities, some of the key conclusions that staff came to, um, really, uh, especially after communicating and meeting with staff members from each city, um, really boils down to the cities sort of frequently discourage amendments. That's a common, common trend among them. There's a number of them that actually do not process applications in a timely fashion. Quite a few of the cities mentioned, having applications sit for multiple years. Another common trend is a lot of the rezonings that are proposed are 2 planned communities or planned developments for Mountain View. We often use the word p district. So that's a common rezoning request. And from communications with other cities, that's mostly due to it's the only way to get higher density residential or mixed use projects within their city limits. The, uh, in communicating and looking at cities that accept all zoning text amendment applications and sort of how they manage those applications, um, staff, uh, mentioned that if it's a proposal, um, that aligns with city goals, then staff will often carry for the amendment as part of a staff initiated text amendment. If it's one that doesn't align with city goals, then they will maintain it as a privately initiated text amendment and often recommend denial. Or in some cases, there are cities that just don't process them because they're not a priority or they're not interested in them at the time. In looking at other cities, really the only other city that has a very well-defined and structured process and sort of evaluation criteria is the city of Cupertino. And then last but not least, in looking at the applications and sort of surveying the cities, Mountain View really has the highest volume of gatekeeper applications compared to these other cities with the exclusion of Santa Clara and San Jose, which are much bigger cities than Mountain View. So it leads to the question, which I know was raised before as well, which is sort of why is Mountain View different. And I think at the end of the day, in looking at everything, it really boils down to the city's sort of interest and willingness to work with developers, on creative solutions, to meeting our community's vision. Um, And we accept and approve a lot more gatekeeper projects than other cities. Others a high developer interest in doing development in Mountain View. There's also a high council interest, which in other cities, staff was pretty clear about the council not being interested in entertaining these types of projects. And then last but not least, the fact that we our process considers maintaining customer service by looking at staff workload and priorities at the time of these applications. So, um, getting into sort of the 4 main questions that we have tonight before council, um, the main question is really in regards to the gatekeeper process, which, um, we really based off of the survey of cities. And before I sort of jump into walking through those processes, I do want to just mention some key terms that we're using tonight, so everyone's clear. qualifying criteria is referring to criteria that must be met in order for an application to be accepted. Streamlined gatekeepers are projects that do not require council authorization hearing. So previously in our current process, we tend to refer to these as gatekeeper exempt projects. Standard gatekeepers are essentially all of the other project types that require a council authorization. process. So, um, staff is sort of representing the process options using a 4 step, um, process. One is to qualify the project to be able to apply. The 2nd is to apply. The 3rd is an authorized authorization process, whether that's with a council authorization hearing or not. And then finally, uh, to review the application. So you'll see these 4 steps represented in each of the options as a way to try and describe the difference between them. So, for example, with the current gatekeeper process that's on your screen right now, there is no qualifying requirement. So every project can apply, and then based on whether it meets the exemptions in the code. It is either considered a streamlined gatekeeper or not. And all standard gatekeepers go to a council authorization hearing where council can choose to authorize the project or not before it can submit to staff for review. So looking at option A, which is the 1st option, is a scenario where a project must meet qualifying criteria in order to be able to submit an application. This process retains the council authorization process that's in place today, with having defines streamlined gatekeepers as well as standard gatekeepers. With the introduction of the qualifying criteria, this provides objective direction prior to an applicant submitting an application on, um, you know, on what the city may accept for an application. And it provides a clear line to be able to reject an application if those are not met. This process would lessen the competitive nature of gatekeeper applications by having the qualifying criteria, and it still allows early council and community input before the project gets started, as well as considering staff forkloads. Option B, is a scenario where, again, a project must meet the qualifying criteria to be able to submit an application. However, if the project meets the criteria, it can proceed directly to staff review. So there would be no council authorization hearing required. This would mean any type of development or project could be proposed so long as it met the criteria. Um, This could have implications on staff workload. In terms of the optional alternative consideration, that staff also introduced in this option, it would be a path that would allow for a council authorization hearing, to consider a gatekeeper project that might not meet the qualifying criteria. Um, and counsel can either authorize or not authorize it. This alternative consideration process could get competitive, as there's no defined criteria or boundaries for what might be proposed. And there is a chance that we might get frequent requests for these hearings, which could be impactful not only to staff, but council hearings as well. The last option, option C is a process where staff would accept all gatekeeper applications with no qualifying criteria and no council authorization hearing. So this process would align with the 50% of cities that do not have this, you know, a council authorization process. And this would be the most impactful to staff workload. and would also impact customer service abilities of staff. There would be no sort of criteria or guidance on whether a project aligns with the city expectations under this option. In evaluating these proposals, staff looked at whether the process would be aligning with the community vision based on having qualifying criteria, whether the process would be equitable, meaning less competitive, and whether it considers the balance of staff's workload and thus meets customer service expectation. So among these options, staff is recommending option A, as it introduces qualifying criteria that are objective and will help reduce the unintended competitive nature of gatekeeper projects, and still provides an opportunity for early counsel and community input before a project begins the process and also considered staff workload and city priorities at the same time. Sorry. So the 1st question is, which of the 3 gatekeeper review process options does council prefer? Seeking more clarification around streamlined gatekeepers, um, where there maybe wasn't such consensus at the last study session, um, there are 3 streamlined gatekeeper categories that staff is outlined, project type A is 100% affordable housing projects on less than 2 acres where there was clear consensus at the last study session. Project type B is any split zone project site that's on less than 2 acres that matches one of the zoning designations on the site. There was not clear consensus from council on this item. And property type, project type C, which are projects that propose zoning amendments only, staff also did not receive clear consensus last time. So staff is asking for question two, which of the 3 project types does counsel prefer as a streamlined gatekeeper. Ultimately, staff is recommending to consider project type A and or B. Um, Staff is concerned with project type C simply because zoning text amendments are either better served to be proposed and led by staff. Or there's really no way to put sort of clear boundaries around a text amendment. Um, And often these text amendments often impact multiple properties within a sub-areer district beyond just a single property, which often the developer is interested in. Um, so looking at qualifying criteria, the next item, and staff is proposing, um, essentially that we would establish these qualifying criteria where a gatekeeper application would need to meet, um, and demonstrate that it complies with not sort of creating a spot zone, which, uh, in that way, we're, um, meaning, not introducing a land use, that is somehow incompatible with the surrounding area. Um, and demonstrate that the project includes one of the community benefits that are listed in this table on your screen. In preparing this table, staff, utilized existing gatekeeper authorization criteria, the council strategic priorities, and other existing city programs, staff, identified options that we think cover a wide range of project types, housing, commercial office, mixed use, as well as size of projects, whether it's less than 2 acres, or maybe if the request only includes text amendments. So for question three, does council have feedback or additional direction on the qualifying criteria? The last topic tonight is in regards to the community design principles, the purpose of these principles is to provide guidance to the applicant early in the process before applying for a gatekeeper application, on important features to the community that should be considered in their project. We are calling them design principles because each one of these impacts the potential design of a project. And really, the thought behind these principles is that the applicant would need to outline how their project addresses, these principles focused on tree preservation and biodiversity, historic preservation, transportation improvements, as well as tenant relocation for existing businesses. So question for, for counsel, is does counsel have any feedback or additional direction on the community design principles? And finally, staff included a series of additional elements at the end of the council report that staff will proceed forward with in the council policy unless we hear a direction from council tonight on any changes. Depending on council's direction tonight, staff anticipates proceeding with drafting amendments to chapter 36, the zoning code, of the city code, and drafting a council policy. And so staff will review the amendments to chapter 36 with EPC and return to council with the amendments and the draft policy, which we anticipate to be either the end of Q1 or early Q2 of next year. And so with that, that concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for questions.

[00:17:21] Lindsey Hagen: Thank you.

[00:17:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, because this is a study session, we start off with comments from the public. So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comments on the item? If so, either click your raised hand button in Zoom, or I hope you've submitted a blue speaker card, um, and we will take in-person speakers first. I see no speakers listed. Is there one? Peter?

[00:17:56] Peter Katz: Peter Katz. Thank you, Mayor Hicks, and esteemed members of the city council. I'm Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. The chamber would like to thank the city council and staff for undertaking a thoughtful and comprehensive review of the gatekeeper process. Mountain View needs to be true to our values and to our unique character. And we are grateful for your stewardship in keeping our city the best place to live work and play. We actually sent a letter in this early this afternoon, and I don't think it got into the attachments, but I hope that it did get into your inboxes, and that you will consider it. This notion of being the best place to live, work and play, and ensuring that our processes get us there is really the real goal of the gatekeeper process, to ensure that a project that paints outside the lines will make Mountain View better. We have seen dramatic changes since the general plan and the precise plans were created 10, 20, 30 years ago, especially in the last three years, and need to react in ways that the plan simply could not have anticipated. Which brings us to the proposed revisions. The Chamber urges you to support option B with additional considerations of amending the criteria. Option B offers a streamlined path for projects that meet the criteria, which should reduce the burden on staff. Option A is too restrictive and does not allow us to be equitable to all applicants. nor to respond to changing needs and conditions, nor grow in a sustainable fashion. There also needs to be a way for creative ideas to see the light of day and not just be shut out of the process if all the boxes aren't checked. We are pleased that the staff report recommends gateway, excuse me, gatekeeper hearings at least twice a year. This creates better equity and encourages creativity and engagement. We are fully supportive of providing clear guidelines and agree that gatekeeper projects should include community benefits. However, qualifying criteria need to be created that are realistic and doable, and indexed with the size of the project. We also need to be able to accommodate small, one off, non housing projects, like U Haul, for example, which is a 1.5 acre expanded related use project on El Camino, that is just seeking a simple text amendment. Option A would still require as much effort as a large development project. Larger scale projects might be able to handle the complexity and absorb the high costs, but the smaller projects just can't. We believe option B, with consideration, provides the most valuable, most value for our community, simplifies the process, which is beneficial to both staff and developers, and invites innovative approaches to meeting our cities vision. Thank you very much.

[00:20:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Mr. Katz, I think we have a question for you.

[00:21:06] Unknown Speaker: Hi, Mr. Katz. I have a question for you. We often hear that applicants want to bring forward creative or innovative projects, and I'm wondering in your discussions with developers, have they mentioned previous gatekeepers or ideas that they have, that are creative or innovative, and could you give us any examples of that?

[00:21:30] Peter Katz: Sure. So, what happens is that, well, I want to basically understand your question a little bit better. When you ask about previous projects, do you want to know projects that were accepted through Gatekeeper or we're halted by Gatekeeper?

[00:21:43] Unknown Speaker: Both.

[00:21:45] Peter Katz: Okay. So, I'm not an expert of a lot of the projects that happened in the past because I wasn't here. But what I have heard from developers is that oftentimes, it's the amount of time that it takes to get through the process, as well as the details. And one of the things that has happened is that a project will go forward, and then the requirements will change. And so this notion of consistent requirements is critical. And I know that the city has been working very carefully on this, and we appreciate that because being able to communicate that advance is essential.

[00:22:22] Unknown Speaker: So what I'm looking for is, like, do you have an example of what might be considered something really creative? or innovative. Like, has that happened in the city? And was it a gatekeeper project, or do you have things in mind that you've heard?

[00:22:39] Peter Katz: Um, I do not have an example to give you, but I could certainly get back to the council on that.

[00:22:43] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'd love to

[00:22:44] Peter Katz: Yeah, and one of the things that we do want to do is, um, promote a discussion with the developers that, where we can talk openly about some of these projects. So we're planning that for January.

[00:22:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[00:22:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. Are there additional in person speakers? Okay, then we're gonna go to our virtual speakers. The first one is Bruce England.

[00:23:18] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. Just have a few brief comments on this. This is a very important topic. So, um, my comments really have to do with questions three and four, but I'm not gonna split them out that way. I'm just gonna tell you, what I'd like to see included for consideration. Um, The community benefits in general should be available maybe better than they are right now to the public. It's hard to find them. They're in precise plans and elsewhere, and it can sometimes be mysterious what actually counts for community benefits. There's some way to consolidate those in a better way, that would be good. So that's kind of a general comment. Um, I, uh, well, so I went to San Francisco over the weekend, and I was walking on Clement Street, and I was really pleased to see all of the produce and food and products out on the street where people could pass by and look at them and purchase by going inside the stores. I think it's a really nice touch. There ought to be more of that in Mountain View. If there's any at all. And that could be something that could be added on for gatekeeper consideration, gatekeeper projects come up and for other projects too, for that matter. In Mountain View, we need more public facing restrooms. We need better interconnections across properties, including Puseos. Some form of 1st option for return by existing retail tenants, especially if they're essential or wanted by the public, and even more if they're currently lacking, for example, bike shops. And any community benefits should be considered for their impacts on the community, both good and bad. And that's it for me. Thank you.

[00:25:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Robert Cox.

[00:25:13] Robert Cox: Mayor Hicks, Spice Mayor, show Walter and city council members. I'm Robert Cox speaking for Livable Mountain View. We already sent in a letter with our recommendations, so I'll just hit the highlights. Question one, yeah, keep a review process. We support the staff, recommended option A. Accept applications that can be qualifying criteria with council authorization. While we appreciate the value of having staff screen applications, we believe our elected representatives are the best judge of which projects outside the established zoning and precise plans are best for our community. So we want them involved in the process intimately. Uh, question two, streamlined gatekeepers. We support the 100% affordable housing projects, but believe splint zone projects should go through the standard gatekeeping process, and that zoning, all the amendments are not appropriate for the gatekeeping process, which was set up to evaluate specific projects, um, building and that kind of thing. Question three qualifying criteria. We support the mandatory requirement, no spot zoning or isolated land use. We support staffs, affordable housing, and public open space criteria. Popas are excluded. We're concerned about focus, because the owners could end up putting restrictive use on it, even if the intention is, they would be widely available. for the public. We've seen similar kinds of offers happen in the past. We believe community facilities, criteria needs more specificity, and that sustainable goals should be mandatory, not one of the criteria. So, we are concerned on whether it's setting a dollar contribution about housing gatekeepers, with low acreage is consistent with recent state legislation, constraining cities, from burdening developers with additional costs. And on question four, we support the community design principles. We think they're a good list, but we ask the developers required to provide specifics on how they will preserve large trees and existing businesses. We don't want half hearted attempts. We want real answers like we got with the Rose Market, and other things in the Grey Star project. That should be the standard for retaining existing businesses. So thank you for listening to our views.

[00:27:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have April Webster.

[00:27:52] April Webster: Thank you. April Webster, I've been a longtime resident of Mountain View over 10 years. Um, I mostly want to comment. Give me a second, I'm pulling up, um, on the criteria themselves, and I'm looking at, um, the categories of criteria and the community design principles. And I wanted to burst echo something that Robert Cox just said about being having more specific, sorry, more specificity in these principles. They're somewhat general, and I think the devil is in the details in some of these. If you really want to create the, get the benefits and create the city that we want to see, how we want it to look and feel. Um, I think the community design principles are a great start, but I would like to see personally more of an emphasis on sustainability in green. While there is trees and biodiversity, you're talking about individual healthy trees and preserving the ones that are there, but there's no discussion about, perhaps, improving the canopy coverage, the percentage of canopy. There's no mention of adding new treason. Um, with new trees, you also want to be very careful with how much of that soil cell you provide to them, and I think that tea deal's really important if you want to, when you're putting in new trees, have healthy trees that are a little bit lower maintenance and live longer. So you have lower turnover, you know, details like that, and trees and biodiversity. I would love to see something about, um, the social fabric, so sociability and placemaking, where are there opportunities that these developers could introduce benefits that, um, help society, so this could be, um, something like shared amenities. I think someone talked about, rooms where there could be, um, places with, and tools for people to fix their bikes or tools that they can share for their building for other types of, um, construction or whatever they need. Um, there's just a lot of things that could be shared, um, amongst people in a community that can be made available by these developers. Um, I also wanted to look at the, um, the categories under, actually, under active transportation. I think it's missing. It would be wonderful to see a bit more added to active transportation, especially when we're taught, we've talked a lot about holistic design, integrating green into the streets, plus GSI, which is becoming very important and required. There are actually requirements now whenever you dig up the street, even a little bit now, that you have their certain requirements for GSI. So I'd love to see the green, and the act of transportation, and then just more green throughout, and more sociability, and thinking about the community, which I think is missing throughout these criteria. Thank you so much.

[00:30:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, last call for in person or virtual speakers, I don't see anymore. So I'll bring it back for a quick set of questions from council members, and then after we finish off any questions, people. We might have. We'll go into answering the 4 questions that the staff report outlined. So, uh, council member Ramos.

[00:31:23] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor, this one is, I'll start with a very quick, Well, it might be quick, but it might not be quick. This is a follow-up from the council questions, which I've been told as no longer available on the website right now. So that's, uh, But also, it was question number 14 where I asked, where did the 40% for the moderate AMI criteria came from, and the answer was that it was suggested by staff to support city ongoing interest in moderate income residents, but of course, housing, which is great. My question was actually, where did the 40% come from? Why 40%?

[00:32:02] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, council member. So it was really a number that in talking with our housing department staff that we felt like was a good starting point to consider in trying to achieve the moderate income level. So there's not a lot of, you know, there's not a specific report or scientific thing I can tell you other than it was a number in talking to staff that we felt. might be appropriate.

[00:32:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Is there going to be any kind of ongoing study to ensure that we do pick the proper amount for these criteria?

[00:32:37] Unknown Speaker: So, um, there isn't sort of, The criteria that are proposed here tonight are really just ideas for council to consider and are completely at the discretion of council. So there isn't a sort of a specific study that we would undergo, since we don't know these future development projects that might come before us, to determine an exact amount. So really, we're going off an amount that seems appropriate based on the sort of income level that we're targeting.

[00:33:04] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So, I like the categories, but I also have a concern that some items listed for some categories are easier or harder than other categories, or actually to be more accurate, more expensive than some, and how are we going to determine that fine tuning?

[00:33:24] Unknown Speaker: Um, so it's a great question. I think at the end of the day, um, staff's intent was to provide a variety of options. And so you'll see stuff in there, for example, about the affordable housing. Well, obviously a housing development might pursue that option. Some of the other options, commercial or non-residential projects might pursue. So I think the intent was really to provide a broad range of options. Um, And I think part of what makes this gatekeeper update process challenging is that, um, you know, this is a process that the city establishes there isn't sort of boundaries around what we could consider here. This is really what the council is interested in and what, you know, speaks to our community vision.

[00:34:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: All right, thank you. So that's your last question? Then, uh, vice mayor.

[00:34:22] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I have a few more. Okay, I wanted to talk about the chart, the criteria chart, and I think you've explained it, but I just want to make sure I really understand it. So under your current proposals, those criteria would apply to option A and option B, um, that's correct, right? for all of them.

[00:34:45] Unknown Speaker: Correct. Option process option A and B.

[00:34:48] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Where there are... And that would, and then option B, if you met those criteria, then you would get to get your project processed right away. But if you didn't meet the criteria, then you would still get to have a hearing.

[00:35:08] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so it would be an option that somebody could request this alternative consideration that we're coming.

[00:35:13] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. Okay. Just want to make sure, so that, for instance, if they came up with a, if a developer came up with a sort of a mix and match of a few of the community amenities, they could conceivably go through the alternative process, even if they weren't the ones that were in the boxes right now.

[00:35:33] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, and just to clarify, I think the way staff is proposing it, if they were to mix some of the existing ones that are there and actually that their meeting make basically more than one, then that would be meeting at least one, which is the requirement. However, I think what you're getting at is if they don't meet one of the specific ones on there, and they might be proposing something else, or they might not fully meet it, then they would fall under this option of whether they wanted to consider an alternate.

[00:36:00] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Right. For instance, one of them is to provide 3 quarters of an acre of, you know, of a park, right? And, um, say they could only do a quarter acre. But they could also, um, provide, um, a public facility. You know, I mean, that, that would, that, my understanding is that would automatically kick him out, an option A, or it would, in option B, would kick him into the alternative consideration. Do I have that right, or not, not?

[00:36:36] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so if they meet at least one of the criteria on that table, then they would be able to pursue option A, if that was an option. You know, the process selected. If they were not able to meet at least one of the items on the table, then if they are, if option B is selected as a process, then they would either not move forward with applying, or they would pursue this potentially this alternative consideration process if counsel wants to add that process.

[00:37:07] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. Okay. And uh, So there isn't an appeals process for option A, right? except to go to court.

[00:37:19] Unknown Speaker: Well, so there's not an appeals process in place. It would just be you either meet the criteria and submit an application or you don't meet. And so you wouldn't.

[00:37:27] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Just wanted to make sure I, you know, I understand that. And then, um, if we wanted to add other criteria, uh, is that a possibility?

[00:37:36] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Uh, definitely. That's part of the purpose of the study session is to get feedback on it.

[00:37:41] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, well, one, in particular, I was interested in, if you had any opinions about how we would, we would perhaps put, um, business retention as one of them. We've heard several of the compenters say that. And that's something that I think many people in council are real interested, too. Have you had a chance to give any thought about what the specifics of that would be? I mean, for instance, the rose market was mentioned. And I have no idea, what happened with the rent of the rose market. I wasn't involved with that. And they essentially went out of business for two years, right, and then came back. Isn't that what happened?

[00:38:25] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: So, yeah, just to follow up on that. So there was actually a series of items that were proposed as part of that project. So one was an offer of whether they wanted to temporarily relocate or close. And so some of them chose to close. For example, Pete's did not.

[00:38:42] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Right.

[00:38:43] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: The other option that was given is if you wanted to temporarily relocate. They would help, you know, the developer would help assist with that in the case of Pete's. They built the temporary structure in the parking lot. Um, And then the 3rd element of that project was, um, I think to your latter point here of, uh, the commitment on what the lease agreement might be in terms of rent, for however, I don't know exactly the term, but for some term.

[00:39:06] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So we have a precedent for that. And we could perhaps come up with some language without too much trouble of that sort of a criteria then, it sounds like.

[00:39:14] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, so if counsel is interested in pursuing that, staff would go back and kind of look at what are some of the key objective elements that we would consider in that.

[00:39:23] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, okay. And then the other one I wanted to talk about was, and it's question three of the, not question three, question 13 of the council question says, what are the current gatekeeper application requirements? And, um, in particular, I'm interested in F. Reading all the other things, it makes, you know, it's a signed planning application is required. A fee is required. That seems very reasonable. And a project letter that sort of describes what they want to do. But, and that's, you know, really the meat of the matter, I think, and particularly coming up with gatekeep with community benefits. But the other thing that you have lifted here is a set of plans, with a site plan, four plans, elevation, and conceptual renderings. And I'm just wondering, what do you do with all that stuff? Just to make, just to decide whether or not, um, you would make the recommendation or not. It seems like that's a lot. And also, yeah, what do you use all of those?

[00:40:33] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yes, that's a great question. So, um, I think in the past, and what we currently have, in terms of our requirements of requiring some basic plans, was really to help convey what is being proposed on the site. Um, so it's not that staff is providing extensive design direction at the gatekeeper process, but I will note that at many of the council authorization hearings, council will look at the plans and provide some initial design thoughts or comments. So that is common. Um, in terms of uh, sort of revisiting our application materials. I think what we've highlighted in the staff report and what our intention is, is sort of based on whatever direction we get tonight in terms of the process, we'll definitely re-look at our application list and see if we still need all those pieces of information. The plans, I think, at the end of the day or really just to help convey what is being proposed. They're not necessarily mandated for any technical reason, in terms of, you know, particular code compliance or anything like that.

[00:41:34] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, I can see how you would want a site planned so you could see, for instance, generally what it is. And also that there's safety, ingress and egress that's needed, that, you know, check some things like that out. But, for instance, the floor plans, and the conceptual rendering, which I understand's a 3D, that seems like they would be very expensive to produce. And we know that when these projects go through the process, they start out one thing, and they usually come out a very different, much better thing at the end. So, okay, so that's, I'm concerned about spending having developers spend an undue amount of money, and also having staff spend an undue amount of time to go over material that's produced that maybe doesn't get to the root of the question. Okay. So thank you very much. Oh, and the other thing I want to say, I guess I don't necessarily need to say it as a question is. I loved figure one. Thank you so much for that chart, you know, showing all the options. That was great.

[00:42:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Mattich.

[00:42:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I do have a few questions. On page 18 of the staff report. It talks about other public recreational area. And I was wondering if you could give me an example of that. That might be...

[00:43:05] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, I think staff's intent behind that term was really just to be broad and sure we're encompassing things like trails or other things that people might use recreationally, not just limiting it to, say, a public park, but may consider other public spaces.

[00:43:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But Popa would not be considered falling into this criteria. Is that correct? Um, Because it says, um, parks. Oh, boy, it's gonna take me a while to find it. Public park, public recreation area, or trail to the city. And it's dedicated.

[00:43:48] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, sorry. So correct. We said the term dedicated for an intention reason. Yeah. So it is about dedicating land to the city for these functions.

[00:43:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So a Popa wouldn't be what staff has initially suggested here. Okay. So a public recreation area. would also have to be dedicated to the city.

[00:44:07] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: A plaza or some other space that there's just a long list of what it could be. So I think we tried to use a sort of a broad term, but that was our intent.

[00:44:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Let's see. And then on the affordable housing. Um, I did send in a question on this, but I really want to make sure I understand how this might work. Um, So, an applicant would have to propose, um, what's listed here in terms of the 20% and 40%, or is it or?

[00:44:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Oh, sorry, it is or. I just saw that. It's an ore. So the way stuff is intending to convey the information is you still have to meet the city's BMR requirement, which has the weighted average, which means you have some mix of income levels. On top of that, you're meeting either the 20% at low or the 40% at moderate. So it would be an additional.

[00:45:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And then if they use the state density bonus law, And, um, it's my understanding that you can count the city's requirements toward the state law. But how would that work here? So you propose something that, say, has 40%, um, at the moderate AMI, you also use the state density bonus, would we really get more units with the state density bonus, or would they then fall back on, not double counting?

[00:45:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: So, a couple things. Or double counting. Yeah. So one is that, with state density bonus law, they get to count the city's BMR requirements. and door density bonus units towards meeting, Yeah, they're double counted. For lack of a better word. They're double counted. The city doesn't always have to entertain a state density bonus project with a gatekeeper. We have, in some cases, but oftentimes, the zoning will match whatever the project is in terms of its density. So they won't need a density bonus. But we, like I said, we have had some that have partnered with density bonus. To answer your question about more units, because of the way this is structured, where you have to meet the city's BMR requirement, and 20% is low, and 40% is moderate, the chances of your density bonus, if you did have it, exceeding that is probably not high since these are already higher requirements. So it's not likely we'd get more units, but we would get a similar mix.

[00:46:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful. Let's see On page 19 of the staff report at the very bottom. It says for projects less than 2 acres or include a text amendment. And that kind of threw me because we talked earlier about how text amendments could apply to potentially more than just the project at hand. And so we'd want to be very careful about how we approach those. So, I'm struggling with how this could be a qualifying criteria when I'm not sure we're wanting to incentivize those.

[00:47:23] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: I think the bottom category in the um, qualifying criteria table, where it has the less than 2 acres and the text amendments. That was just meant to represent these types of projects would be subject to, in the way it's modeled or proposed, would be subject to paying this community benefit fee, since it can be very challenging, since it's a text amendment for them to necessarily be providing, you know, physical improvements. And then with less than 2 acres, the thought being that those project sites are smaller, so they probably can't provide, say, a .75 acre public park. So, um, having this other option is a way that they could still, uh, for lack of a better word, make the cut, in terms of being able to apply, if they agreed to do that, to pay that public benefit fee. So that's kind of how the qualifying criteria were intended to be structured in terms of health. stuff.

[00:48:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So they have to meet this or agree that they're going to do this, but then it could be that staff doesn't recommend the text amendment that they want. Um, and so then they, depending upon which option is chosen. They could appeal or it goes away. Or staff could say, you know what, this is what we want you to do, and they could modify it. There's lots of options, right?

[00:48:42] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yep.

[00:48:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Got it. Um, and I was wondering, did city staff have a meeting with developers, did get their input on this, or was it just the chamber?

[00:48:52] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: We met with the chamber. We also met with representatives at the development community individually. Okay. Thank you.

[00:49:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Albert Koga.

[00:49:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So along the lines, of Counselor Matachechs, just a question. And in terms of affordable housing. So I was thinking, well, our requirement is 15% now, isn't it? And so we're saying 20%. And I heard from representatives saying that's too high or when, so if not 20, and 15's our requirement, have you heard from, did you hear when you met with the development community, what's their alternative that they're offering or suggesting?

[00:49:43] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: So I didn't specifically talk to the development community about the proposed income levels or the affordable housing levels.

[00:49:49] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, I want to clarify, um, the low income category in the moderate income, sort of of our affordable housing mix or the 2 income levels we have the least amount in. And so it was intentional to use that language versus the city's BMR requirement.

[00:50:06] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Because it has the weighted average, you end up getting a mix of more very low or low on, we have a lot, affordable housing projects that are obviously very low, but, um, so it was sort of intentional to target 20% low, which is different than our city requirement, which is the weighted average. So we were trying to be a bit more intentional in targeting income levels that we don't have as much of.

[00:50:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So the option could be 20% of the weighted average or 25 or some other.

[00:50:44] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Okay. It's at artist council's discretion.

[00:50:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, let's see. One of the issues that has come up and we've talked about it. And we heard concerns is the challenge of small projects in our current system or that we've had small projects competing with larger projects and oftentimes the council picking the larger ones and this smaller ones just get forgotten or so have we looked at that issue and a way to resolve that?

[00:51:22] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: I think staff's attempt, sort of, trying to resolve that was to include specific category in the criteria for the less than 2 acres and, say, the text amendment option, which are ones historically, if they had come forward or historically, if they actually have come forward. They, you're right, to your point. They haven't often been selected to move forward. So that was the, um, the bottom. Yeah, so staff's intention in adding that line and that item in the table was to try and allow an avenue for, you know, them to qualify to submit.

[00:52:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so they still have to go through Gatekeeper. We're not exempting them except for the split zone.

[00:52:09] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Right. So the way the staffs propose this, that category would cover, you know, quite a few of the smaller ones, but yeah, unless council wanted to look at the streamlined gatekeeper categories, that would be a separate.

[00:52:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Or could we just do, um, you know, if we're doing, is it 2 a year or when one session for small projects under 2 acres or and then one for larger ones so that they're grouped according to size.

[00:52:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, that's an option for council discuss.

[00:52:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, so I guess I'm trying to understand um, why we would want to have an alternative considerations. Um, you know, and I know, um, so I, I guess maybe counseling I'm mad at that because I've seen a lot of these projects that have been referenced in the past and, you know, I've, I've sat through pretty much all that have been, um, mentioned and, um, you know, I'm still looking for that innovative project. And then it's referenced in the council questions about like the TMA that resulted from a gatekeeper project. But in my recollection, all of those benefits, I believe, came after, so they were not proposed at the gatekeeper time. It was once we were looking at the project, frankly, I think the council oftentimes came up with these ideas. Like the Rose Market, it was us saying, you know, we have these thriving businesses, we want you to make sure that they continue. And so we're gonna require you to bring them back and, you know, help them out or relocate. So, I guess that's where, I mean, for me, this looks like what we're trying to do is put that up front instead of, you know, during the process. But I get, so in light of that, I guess I'm trying to still understand why we would provide an alternative consideration. And have you seen in your survey of other cities, something special that came out of that alternative consideration that would make an argument for why we should have that.

[00:54:30] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Um, it's a great question. I think, obviously, what staffs proposed here are really options for council to consider. So in terms of the sort of staff's thought process of introducing this, which is just an avenue to the term appeal has been used here tonight, but an avenue for council to consider sort of what happens for projects that don't meet these criteria. If you're still interested in seeing them. This would be potentially an avenue to do that. I think, you know, there's pros and cons to it. I think, um, it does sort of looking at, uh, well, that process being challenging, it could be challenging because it's a little bit like, why would you have criteria if everyone can request to circumvent them. So there is the potential that that could happen with that process. On the flip side, there may be, you know, good ideas that we didn't put in this table that may be of interest. and so this would be an avenue to consider those. So, you know, there's pros and cons to it.

[00:55:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And then is the intent that this criteria would be reviewed after a certain number of years. So, you know, based on what the council's priorities are at a certain point in time or, you know, circumstances change, change, and sure, right now we need affordable housing, but let's say 10 years from now, it's about economic development, is that, um, is that considered or anticipated that the criteria would be could be changed over time?

[00:56:00] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: So yeah, I think a couple things. One, because the question was raised earlier, I think, from a public comment about just understanding what all the requirements are and what all the community benefits are. So with this draft council policy that will help provide a lot more transparency to the gatekeeper process and what these criteria, you know, ultimately end up being. Um, in terms of the question about timing of revisiting it, um, by, you know, the nature of it being council policy can definitely be revisited at any point. And I think to your point, it would be something that staff would anticipate it would get reviewed every, you know, so often. I don't know if we'd have a fixed schedule, but it would definitely be something based on changing priorities. that we might revisit.

[00:56:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And then I've had questions about these criteria and trying to drill drilling down further, like what is the, um, I think it was asked earlier, like what is the trail or what's the, you know, what is a public park and a plaza be a public park? Is that something we should need to define tonight or will we have another opportunity to do that?

[00:57:07] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: I would say if council has any specific feedback they want to provide, then definitely provide it tonight. But I think the intent, and I know we also heard it in public comments is wanting more detail. We weren't really prepared to do all that today. We kind of needed more specific direction before we dive into the details. So in terms of being able to revisit some more details, we would anticipate that would be part of the draft policy.

[00:57:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so tonight we just need to say yes or no to these criteria at anymore we might want, and then you'll come back with more details of what that each category entails. Okay, great. Thank you. And then the public benefit fee. It was mentioned, I believe. Are we anticipating allowing that as an alternative?

[00:57:54] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: So right now it's proposed on the table to serve those kind of smaller projects, potentially. Um, and it was in the council responses, but, um, our response to council questions, um, we did not put it in the staff report, but staff's intent is to really utilize an existing adopted public benefit fee, um, which would likely be the East Wisman precise plan because it has one for, um, commercial development and one for residential. So that would be an option to consider that fee.

[00:58:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. That is it for now. Thank you.

[00:58:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, questions, council member Kameh?

[00:58:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks so much. So, uh, I have uh, questions kind of related to what council member Mattachek and council member Abakoka were asking. So, um, I like the suggestion and it sounds like maybe we could address it in a straw poll about the smaller versus big or text amendment, but I think that some of the feedback that we received today was that some applicants feel that the text amendments are straightforward. Um, and I don't know if that leaves kind of room for a discussion of then, does it make sense to put potential text amendments and the smaller ones in a group, or do we do text amendments in a group, the smaller in a group and the larger in a group? I don't know, kind of talking about, in the staff report about the staff constraints, what staff might envision. And I think there's a couple projects that have reached out who, um, fall into particular, the text amendment category. So I don't know if staff can share their thoughts or they just want us to do a straw pull on them, but I think that I feel council's having to address a couple different items of feedback and so look to staff if they have further or in the discussions and interviews that you had with the development community in particular, that there might be some helpful feedback to share with council. All right, I'm trying to frame it as a question, but I think you understand the issue.

[01:00:15] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, I think the text amendments are just really challenging because oftentimes developers come forward and they want to address just their site, but their site is part of a whole subdistrict that may span many parcels and many different uses. So it's not simple. Um, and unfortunately, if it was simple, you know, that's the kind of discussion that staff would have, and we would look at, well, maybe we might include this in a minor code amendment or whatever we might do. There are ways that staff has initiated at text amendments as well. So, I think the way that the staff report is presented and staff's recommendation is really that, um, text amendments still be considered a gatekeeper. I think at the end of the day, whether council wants to have it be a streamlined gatekeeper or not, you know, that would be part of the discussion. And then really the intent for the qualifying criteria was to provide an avenue for them when they're not always going to be tied to, um, you know, large properties or, yeah, and it might just be a land use amendment, you know, or amendment to a land use, not necessarily even development standards. So it's so there's just such a wide range of text women options. Well, that's what makes it challenging.

[01:01:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And so I kind of wanted to address that too, because several of the correspondences we received is like, oh, it's really straightforward. And I think just hearing the levels of complexity from staff's point of view is important and is helpful, but I do want to figure out kind of the path forward for this issue.

[01:01:44] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan: So, um, it sounds like it's up to council discretion, whether we wanted, you know, want to, how we would want to group them, but we'd still need to go through some type of gatekeeper process for them.

[01:01:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you for that clarification. That's it, Mayor. Thank you.

[01:02:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez.

[01:02:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay.

[01:02:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Yeah, um... So, my only question, and then I'm gonna make a couple comments before I open it, because I will speak last as mayor. Um, so my only question is, how you go through, it seems to me that qualifying criteria that that term is, um, it's two things. It's making sure they're not spot zoning and also making sure they're providing an adequate community benefit. It's really just those two things. In large part, it's making sure they're providing inadequate community benefit. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that I understood it because they seem to be largely overlapping. And that's my only question. Um, I'll make a few comments because I will speak last as mayor. First, I just wanted to say a few things about why I think we're doing this, kind of piggybacking off of council member Matachek's comments about creative and innovative, uh, development ideas. I just wanted, to me, that's not why we're doing this. I want to kind of challenge the idea that you can't do anything creative or innovative within our existing general plan and zoning, because I think that you can. And when I try to, when I try to answer council member Mattachek's question of what, what would I see as a creative or innovative project, I think maybe the gradient canopy project, maybe this project in its time, you know, the Civic Center, and and Performing Arts Center, neither of which, I think, correctly, if I'm wrong, but I think neither of them were gatekeepers. So I don't...

[01:03:55] Unknown Speaker: Right.

[01:03:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: That's what I thought, but I just want to be, you can correct me, always correct me. So, I don't think that's the reason. And I think that the reason is that we can't always update our general plan and precise plans fast enough to keep up with what developers may offer. I think that's have to offer. I think that's the real reason. And so that's kind of the good news when we're looking at gatekeepers, but I think that the bad news is, or what I don't want to do is just open up an avenue to get around. I mean the general plan is something the community has come together to create for how they want to see their city. And we just have to make sure this is not a quick and dirty way to get around the community. That's not at all what I want. Um, so that said, um, that said, I'll just go into, so I was particularly pleased to see the community design principles. I think the problem that I've seen with some of the gatekeepers is that, particularly, the one that jumps to mind is 555, Middlefield, is that many of the basic design principles, which I really want to thank staff for listing those. I think many of those design principles are essential, just as indoor plumbing and electricity are essential in a building. I think, you know, being able adequate sidewalks, wider sidewalks, as we make taller buildings, or, you know, these days, we don't want everybody in a car adequate bike facilities. These, the things that are listed, making sure that our tree canopy, and that, you know, heritage trees are maintained. The lists that you made, and making sure that historic properties are respected. This is, to me, the essential list, or we have to add to it tonight to make sure that it is just the basic list of what we want out of every project, so that we're not just getting around with the community. wanted. So, that's, so, that's one of the most important things to come out of this for me tonight. And the other thing is my understanding of community benefits. I don't think that a community benefit is like a bright, shiny gift that developers are giving us us I think every time there's most of these are larger projects, and every time there's a larger project, it has some impact on the city. You know, uh, maybe more, unfortunately, these days, usually more cars on the street, maybe if it's an office building, then later, um, you know, HCD will require us to build more housing, some of it will be affordable, we'll have to do more parks, more schools. So there are all these impacts that developments have, and we don't have a lot of ways of addressing those impacts. And that's what I think, maybe we shouldn't call it a community benefit, maybe we should even call it project mitigation. But I think that's the reason for that. So, I mean, these projects, we talk a lot about these projects penciling out for developers, but they also have to pencil out for the city. So, that's my background, and I guess the last thing I want to make sure is, we do need an effective and efficient process for developers, but we also need an effective and efficient process for the city. And, I mean, you may notice that not all the people sitting at the daist tonight, there are several people who are missing tonight. Our city staff, and council members, are real people who have real impacts. There's a lot of COVID going around. There's other personal situations that affect people. And we need a process that real people can deal with. I'm all for streamlining in some ways, but not so much that it's burdensome in our staff, and we can't actually handle it. So, with those, with those caveats, um, I, uh, and I'll just underline one more time that I really like the community design principles, and I think they can lead to a streamlined gatekeeper situation. So, with that said, um, please, answer the four questions. Uh, council member Ramirez.

[01:08:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And first, thank you to staff for the thorough analysis provided, and the questions, which you think do help us provide input that will lead us to, I think, an improved process. I'm actually, I was very excited to see the benchmarking done across other jurisdictions, and a lot of deep thought by staff in the reports. So I'm very grateful for the work that you've done. I also really appreciate the questions that my colleagues have asked, and the preliminary remarks provided by the mayor. I've actually changed some of the things I'm going to say as a consequence, so thank you for a lot of thoughtful dialogue tonight. So I'm going to answer some of these questions concurrently, because they're all inextricably linked. The short answer to option, or to question number one is, I support option B, with the alternative consideration. But the longer responses, what I am supporting is 3 separate pathways to get a project evaluated by the city. The 1st would be, and some of this terminology is new, and I think we're going to have to, um, think a little bit more deeply about how, where we want to land. But I think of question too, as which project types are just categorically exempt from the gatekeeper process entirely, that there's no need to go to council for an authorization, that there's no expectation of community benefits.

[01:10:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And the only type of project that I would support for this categorical exemption is 100% affordable housing, because 100% affordable housing, in my opinion, is a community benefit. And it's the type of project where I think the council and the community are working to remove barriers, right? So we don't necessarily need a 100% affordable housing developer to go to the council for permission, to submit an application. And on top of that, we have a no for process. So there are multiple opportunities for check in. If we don't like the project. We don't have to provide a subsidy, right? So there's a lot of opportunity for the council and for the city to provide input into those types of projects. I wouldn't expect a 100% affordable housing project to provide community benefits. And so I'm comfortable saying that type of project doesn't need to think about this gatekeeper process at all. I don't, as I thought more deeply about it, I don't support the other two project types. The split zone projects, I had to really think about. And what I've come to the conclusion is, those are the projects that seem to struggle most in review, right? The Castro Commons project, the Ombra project, where the council, I think, had, you know, good, well intentioned reasons for exempting for the authorization process, but those projects get stuck, because there's no, um, there's no guidance for staff to evaluate those types of projects, right? And when you disagree with the applicant, then projects get stuck. And that's why some of those projects have been under review for six years, or whatever. So I do think the split zone projects do need to go through that preliminary review that I'll talk about under question three. Um, and then, uh, the text amendments, you know, I, I don't necessarily expect every text amendment to come with a robust, robust community benefit, but I do think it needs to go through an authorization process. The council or staff should review it and say, is this really what we're trying to achieve as a community? Is this a really good idea that we probably should consider, you know, more quickly than we could with a, you know, an omnibus zoning code update, like we have later this evening. So I do think there should be a pathway for text amendments, but I don't think it should be a categorical exemption from the gatekeeper authorization process. So, option B, alternative consideration, for question two, I only support 100% affordable housing projects. If members of the council are comfortable, I also would consider conforming rezonings for residential projects, and part of that is, we may not really have an option, state law would preempt us in that case. So I would rather an applicant, you know, submit a project for review with a conforming rezoning than for an applicant to just take state law and say, I'm going to submit a project where we don't have a zoning that provides development standards and guidance for the consideration of that project. And I use this example all the time. We don't have too many of these. But the Bruce Bauer project, or not project, but the Bruce Bauer business has a residential, general plan, land use designation, and an industrial zoning. And so if somebody were to come in with a residential project, the zoning is worthless. We couldn't evaluate, we would just have the very high level evaluation criteria in the general plan, and no zoning, that staff would be able to use to properly evaluate that project. So that's an instance where I feel like a conforming rezoning for a residential project. could, I think, could go through the streamlined process, or what I'm calling a categorical exemption. For question three, I'm generally supportive of the categories. I think my high level direction here would be, we need to do a little bit more stakeholder, solicit more stakeholder, input, do some more workshopping. Most importantly, I want objective standards. I don't want there to be any ambiguity or disagreement between the applicant and staff in reviewing a project based on these the qualifying criteria. So, I'm okay with the mandatory requirement. The project does not create spot zoning or an isolated land use as long as we have very clear objective standards that we can use to evaluate that. And I asked the question, well, what about the public storage project where we have, you know, 100% affordable housing? And staff said, well, the personal storage use is not incompatible. If you look at a map, it's a, you know, there's that high density residential surrounded by a bunch of industrial. It feels like spot zoning to me. So I think, you know, I'm okay with this as a requirement, but I do think we need to think more deeply about when is that okay? And to be very clear, to have very clear guidance for applicants and for staff. So there's, we don't have this problem where an applicant disagrees with staff and a project gets stuck. I'm open to the specifics for the other qualifying criteria. But the way I think about the qualifying criteria is, an applicant is able to bypass the authorization hearing, because their project really demonstrates some superior attributes, right? If you're gonna bypass the council, you have to be providing something really good, something that is, you know, so spectacular or challenging or something that it merits just proceeding to review. So I'm okay with a pretty high set of thresholds, a pretty high bar. And so, like, council member Mattachek said, you know, I think, you know, dedicated land for open space or parks is appropriate. I wouldn't support a POPA. I just don't think that's where our community is looking for. You know, I'm open to something like what the vice mayor was suggesting, this is why I think workshopping is helpful. I'm okay with picking some of each, right? Maybe 17% affordable housing and, you know, dedicating .6 acres, you know, for a park would be fine. I don't know. But, like, you could think about, like, a point system to see how close are you to that standard? Or we could just say, look, you know, it's just easiest to have, you meet one of these four things. And if you do, you can proceed. I'm open to suggestions on that. But I do think that, you know, this is the next category. So, categorical exemption, and then you bypass the council authorization hearing, because your project is really good. It's really spectacular. And I think these criteria do promote things that we don't often get, a high level of inclusionary affordable housing, you know, a substantial amount of parks and open space dedicated to the city. I really like the community facility as long as, this is the key for me. The objective standard would be that it's city controlled, or leased to the city for a dollar, for the life of the project. So we have control over that space, and we can use it in whatever way we think is most appropriate for our community. I don't like, you know, we have had proposals where there's community space that's controlled by the applicant or by, you know, the tenant of that space, and that's less interesting to me. I don't think of that as a superior community benefit.

[01:18:06] Unknown Speaker: Council member Ramirez, can I ask you a clarifying question?

[01:18:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sure.

[01:18:10] Unknown Speaker: When you say you want more stakeholder outreach regarding the topic under question number three, Sometimes when, under this topic, when people say stakeholder outrage, they mean just to the chamber in development community, but there was interest from our wider community, our resident community as well. What do you, when you say stakeholders, who do you mean?

[01:18:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's a fair question. So I'm open to suggestions on this. I don't think that we are creating the policy tonight. I'm expecting the policy to come back several months from now, and I think that should give us some time for it. maybe just a community meeting. And then anybody who's interested can say, This is what I think would be appropriate for it. Okay. You know, a demonstration of a higher of superior projects. Um, uh, so, and then the sustainability, what is really tricky, 'cause I do, I think we got some input from maybe that was from livable Mountain View. Um, you know, I think the objective standard in the staff responses to council questions is helpful. I just don't know if that's what I'm looking for, as a community benefit, but I could be persuaded. Um, and then, um, the proportionality, uh, and allowance for a fee or something, I think would be, um, would be appropriate, um, for, for smaller projects where, you know, you just, there's no pathway to dedicating, dedicating a substantial amount of land for a community facility or open space, or, you know, like the U-Haul project. It's not a residential project, so you can't have inclusionary. So that's for that middle category. And then the reason the alternative consideration is important is, I think, from staff's perspective, that's just a categorical recommendation for denial. It isn't 100% affordable housing, and it doesn't meet the criteria. But an applicant can say, You know what? I think my project has a lot of merit, so I'm going to reach out to the members of the council and see if I can count to four, and if I can, I bring it to them as, you know, through this alternative consideration project process. And I think that's a helpful process to have when someone maybe gets pretty close, but it's not quite there. You know, and staff says, look, you know, we're sorry. You know, it's not the criteria approved by the council. But the council might say, we might want that discretion to say, you're 95% of the way there, and it makes sense for us to approve that. Or I was thinking about other examples where maybe we wouldn't necessarily subject a very high community benefit expectation. So when we talked about, I think it was the last gatekeeper study session, someone asked in advance of the meeting, what are types of, you know, I think businesses that have been denied by staff. And there was one, like, a commercial kitchen use in the general industrial zoning district. And I was thinking, that makes sense as like an alternate consideration process request, right? So I'm going to the council and say, look, I have a community kitchen concept, right? Or a congregate kitchen use, that's, you know, gonna be very affordable, and for, like, the mompreneur project or something. You know, people could access that kitchen and do something interesting there. You know, we may think that's a great idea and not have an expectation of, you know, $30 per square foot as a community benefit, because the idea itself is not one allowed in our zoning code right now. It's a new use, and to, kind of, is a community benefit in and of itself. So I want to leave space for something like that. It's maybe not terribly innovative, or it's not, you know, Google Landings, you know, restoring repairing corridor, but it's a cool kind of facility that has no path right now. to getting even considered. So the alternate consideration process, really, as staff would come to the council and say, you know, here are your evaluation criteria. Doesn't mean any of them. It's not 100% affordable housing. We recommend denial. And then the burden falls on the applicant to make the case to us that this project really does deserve some attention. They pay the fee, right? There's a cost recovery mechanism. And then we get to decide. That's the discretion that I think the council deserves to retain. So I'm blathering at this point. So for question four, I'm generally supportive of the community design principles. I think that's another thing where, you know, having subject some objective standards, as we've heard from the community, would be helpful, and maybe a little bit more workshopping or a community meeting. And then, um, the only other, so the final things, I really like council member Abbe Koga's suggestion to have a, like, a review of some kind. I don't know after some number of cycles of gatekeeper authorization hearings or after 3 years or something, I think it's good to just check back and see, are we getting, you know, applications that qualify? Do we need to increase the threshold or decrease it or explore some other concepts? And then, um, there's a, uh, a suggestion and the staff report that an EPC and council study session will be held for all gatekeepers, I'm okay with that, except for 100% affordable housing, because they're already subject to the NoFA committee, and I think there's already a vehicle for additional consideration input by the council, and I don't think it needs to have a special study session in addition to a NoFA committee hearing. So, those are my thoughts. Thank you.

[01:23:59] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Uh, Councilman... Councilman Abbe Koka.

[01:24:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry, I unplugged my charger and then it got me off the queue and then it motioned on my screen. It was doing a lot over here, so... You missed what I was. I swear second. and I hope to, um, apologies. Thanks.

[01:24:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, council member, Robert Coca.

[01:24:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I just wanna, uh, echo my thanks to staff. I thought that this, I really appreciated the time and the attention to detail and then the input from our development community as well as the chamber. Um, and I appreciated the mayor's comments in terms of, so I'm looking at this gatekeeper process update as just that, an update. I think that this is going to continue to be an iterative process. And when I'm thinking about, for example, um, the criteria or the principles, they may change as our city and our community changes, and, um, do want to echo that I want to go in a direction that I feel like is achievable, but I want to also say achievable right now. With the current staff capacity. Um, that we do have. And I think even then it'll be a bit of a reach. So that will inform some of the answers to the questions. Um, so I um, for question one of the 3 options. I'm comfortable with A, I think that it is somewhat similar to what we have now, and it takes it a step further, and I think that that will lead to success on actually getting it done. For question two, the 3 different project types, I'm comfortable with A, and appreciate the staff response and dialogue on B and C. And so my suggestion, if colleagues are open to it, is then maybe moving from one a year to twice a year, and one is for the larger projects, and then one is for the projects that are less than 2 acres and those that are requesting text amendments only. I think putting them into those 2 buckets, you know, separating them, allowing for that will maybe help address some of the issues that we hear and the feedback we get. And then for item number 3 in terms of the qualifying criteria, I just want to thank staff for the affordable housing component when it comes to the BMR requirements, council has committed to advancing below market rate as well as middle income housing. And I see staff's efforts here on trying to address that need. So I just want to say thank you. Um, I'm fine with the rest of the criteria. I think the no popa, the city controlled makes sense. Um, I also feel we're going to need a branch library. We have a new bookmobile that we'll be getting, that's all electric, but even then with the size and the ambition that we have, I know that we're going to need more. So I would like to keep that in and appreciate the call out for the participation in the, um, Los Altos school district TDR program. And then for question 4 for additional feedback on the design principles, I'm comfortable with the 4 design principles. I think it speaks to where the city is currently, but again, I feel like this is currently, and so I don't know if future councils will just kind of take up the gatekeeper process when they feel like it's time for the refresh. But, um, you know, I don't want to crystal ball it too much, but I think that this is where we are now, but it's not necessarily where we're going to be in the future. And so just wanted to add that. Um, and then I do want to echo. I think that some of the things that Mayor Hicks mentioned, Castle member Ramirez just mentioned, is, um, you know, the words, like, superior, and I think that moving away from calling it community benefit to project mitigation is a direction that I would like staff to explore and to go into, particularly when discussing the gatekeeper process. Because it is... Mitigating the effects of your project versus a community benefit. And I think do think that that distinction is important. Um, submitting a gatekeeper is already, um, going beyond what our existing um, plans have. So I would support changing that language. Thanks.

[01:29:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Abbott Coca.

[01:29:14] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, Mayor. And I do appreciate staff's hard work on this is a pretty dense topic. And so when I started reading the staff report, it was a little dense for me, but it actually got laid out quite well. And so thank you for that. You know, I've said it many times. I know people are probably tired of it, but I've lived through Gatekeeper, I guess, almost 20 years now. So I know kind of the origin of it and then how it's evolved over time. And so I have some strong feelings about this. And I would start off by saying that I agree with some of the mayor's comments. You know, we spent a lot of time and years updating our general plan and the precise plans. And we did that because earlier on, we were seeing a lot of rezoning requests. And so it was time to update the plan. And someone mentioned, you know, that was with a lot of community input. So my expectation, and, you know, I've heard people say, oh, we're stifling development. No, we're not. I don't think so. What we tried to do with the general plan and the precise plans was think about everything, you know, we can come up with to encourage development, but then also make sure that the community's interests are protected and included. And that, you know, we have a neighborhoods, business community that can thrive, and that future development does not degrade our quality of life. So when I look at Gatekeeper, and again, the origin of this was because we had an outdated general plan, we needed something and someone mentioned something, a mechanism to allow for new projects to come in. I guess I don't feel that way as much now because we have a general plan, updated and precise plans. And, you know, it's been 10 years since we approved the general plan, but it took several years after that to do the precise plans. And the only one I think that we've seen actually built out or close to built out is El Camino. So there are many general, many precise plans that we have yet to see come to fruition. And my interest is to see that. And so that's been the issue, right, is we have limited staff. We've had many challenges with staff and workload and pandemic. And so where do we put our priority? And my priority is to see the general plan and the precise plans come to fruition as much as possible. The cake keeper, and, you know, I'll just be even more blunt and saying, is frankly, a loophole to me, to get around the general plans and the precise plans. And so that's why I don't think it should be a high priority. And looking at the other cities. I think we, and it's been mentioned, we are the most accommodating, I believe. And so, um, you know, I frankly did not appreciate these comments that we're not being innovative or allowing for innovation, because again, as I've seen gatekeeper projects over my, what is it, now, 15 years. I haven't seen a lot of innovat- innovative projects. I think, and at the TMA, I can't remember. It may have come before or at the time the project was coming through Gatekeeper, but again, my recollection is a lot of those community benefits came as a result of our discussions, study sessions about the projects. So those were not, you know, innovative ideas that came to us, we actually, over deliberation came up with them. And that was the whole Rose Market discussion, too. So what I see this, the beneficial, number one, is that we're putting that criteria up front. So we don't have to have these long drawn out, you know, discussions. And then, I mean, a lot of it was like, we were coming up with these ideas on the fly. I remember our first one with Prometheus was $100,000 for some street improvement in front of Montrose, and, you know, and we got criticism. Oh, that was a, you know, a cheap deal, like spicy. But we didn't know what else to do at that time. Now we do. We have a lot of experience. So I appreciate putting that criteria forward. And as mentioned, these do need to be superior projects, because they're going around our general plan, basically. So I think that, you know, I've heard the, yeah, the affordable housing is not achievable. Um, I don't know, you know, 15% is our requirement. We're asking for 20. I don't know, 17.5 is, you know, even worth us looking at. Is that, does that make it superior? I don't know, but, you know, 20% in other cities are doable, I've seen. So why not as try? And that's the other part of this is I do see is, I think, Councilman, I may mention, this is iterative. You know, this is a new chapter in our gatekeeper history. I don't expect this to stay the way it is, but when I hear anticipation, let's restart the gatekeeper. So my feeling is let's, you know, go ahead and do that and just try this out and see where it goes. My, um, and then the other issue is staff workload and, you know, as much as I appreciate, and I think it is important to have a clear process, um, and streamline for development or developers. For me, the real interest, again, is staff workload. And so I am looking for a process that will cut down staff workload. And the challenge here I have, and that's why I'm actually looking at option A, is this alternative consideration. And I appreciate, um, you know, Council member is your comment about what everyone we thought about. I actually have some ideas of adding criteria to maybe cover that. But I don't want every project that doesn't come up with this criteria to end up in an alternative consideration box, and then we're gonna go through and see them again anyway. And it's all gonna come to council. Like, that's not the intent here. It's the intent is, let's, you know, look at only the projects that our superior based on our criteria. So I'm not supportive right now at this time at an alternative consideration process. So in light of that, I would say going, so that's number one is option A. Number two, um, project types, uh, streamlined I agree, um, 100% Affordable is fine. Um, I think Council member Ramirez is brought up a good point about B, the split zone projects being the most difficult, so probably not not really something we should be looking at now. You know, down the road again, we can reconsider it. And then, so with C, I guess, you know, it's been brought up this U-Haul project is something that, um, like, how do we deal with that project is has been the question. And so I then go to three, the criteria, and I support the criteria that's been laid out. I think we do need to drill down and be more detailed. But in addition to this criteria, I would actually like to add 2 more categories, when, as the vice mayor mention, and thank you for bringing up business retention, I don't know if we say business retention or retail retention, but that is really important. It has been important. And Rose Market was an example of something somewhere where we were able to do that. So it's doable in my mind. So I would like to add that as a category. And perhaps that would resolve the U-Haul situation. I don't know, because it would be retaining the existing business by allowing a different use. So maybe staff can look at that. The other area, and then, and slash economic development. So maybe that would help in that situation. The kitchen idea, my thought actually was that could be under community facilities, perhaps. And I don't know if you were thinking it'd be an actual private business, but... Okay, okay. And then, um, the other area, transportation, and that because you are, you know, good to remind us of the TMAs formation through this whole process. So, I don't have any specifics right now about what that could be. But I guess I did have a question. Do we now require everyone to join the TMA at a certain level? I mean, could that be it, that we just require them to join the TMA?

[01:38:28] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So the city's in the process of developing a TDM ordinance. Okay. And historically, though, in terms of how we've been implementing it over the last 10 years is, yes, we've been asking a lot of the new development to join the TMA.

[01:38:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So could be potentially, say, join the TMA would be a criteria that you can meet.

[01:38:45] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Um, I think staff's recommendation is we already do it.

[01:38:48] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, you don't know that we would introduce it as part of... a criteria. Okay. Okay. So then something else in the transportation categories. Maybe it's to help. Support a, um, our shuttle or something, yes. I'm hearing more and more about school, you know, schools needing transportation. So something we can come up with. And then I do support the fees for smaller projects and if we can just decide what that means, what's a small project. Are we thinking the 2 acres or something else that would be helpful? Um, And then I think the design principle...

[01:39:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: Can I, uh, council member, Abbe Koga, just clarify because I'm going to do straw poles. By, can you spell out what you mean by fees for smaller projects, you mean instead of as an alternative to a larger community benefit? mitigation, whatever we call it.

[01:39:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so the, what are we calling it?

[01:39:56] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Okay. Project mitigation fee.

[01:39:58] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Alternative fee as opposed to one of these.

[01:40:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay Then I did understand you. Thank you.

[01:40:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, that's it, I think.

[01:40:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. Thank you. Council member Matic.

[01:40:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. First, I do want to also thank staff for this. Um, I found this to be one of the best staff reports I've seen, um, 7 years on planning and now 7 years on council. was outstanding. I appreciated all the research. I appreciated the tables and the charts. It was very well organized, very clear. Awesome, awesome job. Thank you. Um, And I found it so interesting because the research, um, really brought to light kind of, um, what's happening in Mountain View versus other cities. And I, I agree with a lot of the comments that the mayor made and council member Abbe Koga made. I'm okay with our general plan and our precise plans in our zoning ordins, and I'm not looking for substantial changes to those. They're still very relevant documents, as was pointed out. They haven't been completely implemented. Um, and I'm okay with them. And I don't think our community is interested. At least the people that talk to me in significant change. Um, so, I actually don't want to do things that encourage, um, or enable, uh, people to go around those plans that we have in place. It was very disappointing to see that the development community. thought that staff resources shouldn't be a consideration. That is one of my primary considerations. It's like, really? Um, as was pointed out, you know, we, we're a very busy city, and, um, in a very expensive place to live. I would like us to have the best people, which I think we do. But I want to keep them, and not burn them out, with so much work. So, um, the impact on staff is a huge factor for me. So, um, I do, uh, for question number one, uh, I do prefer, uh, option A. And, um, I would actually, if the description is gonna be used anywhere. I would say that it's an objective tool for staff to accept or reject. and make it clear that that's the process, even though that's in the flow chart. And I'm not sure if that description's going to be used anywhere, but if it is, then I'd modify it by adding those words. But as I said, the reason I like option A is because it has consideration for staff workload. And things that don't meet our criteria are quickly screened out. And I think that really helps. And somebody else pointed out, it actually helps reduce the competitive nature of our application. So I thought that was good. Which projects are streamlined? I agree with what others have said in terms of the 100% affordable housing, and that would be the only one. Um, I think I was on the council when we decided to include small parcels that have split zone. And yeah, that really hasn't worked out like we thought it would. And so I would say, yeah, let's take that out. Because I don't think anyone wants to do exactly what we thought they might want to do. They all want to do something different. Uh, in terms of question three. Uh, it is challenging to create objective criteria. And so I agree with the public comments, as well as comments from my colleagues that, you know, we need to be really specific with these, so that there isn't a lot of room for interpretation, and therefore potentially disagreement with the council and staff. Let's just be really, really clear. So, I agree about not creating spot zoning, but again, I think that needs to be really clear. I think Council member Ramirez mentioned that. And, um, I would like more definition or more specifics around public recreation area. Um, who owns the land, what are some options that we would find acceptable, uh, maybe throughout all of this, we also want to say what's not included. just to make it really clear. Um, In terms of community facilities, I, um, Again, I think we need to be very clear, and I think I might even go so far as to say they have to be ones that the council agreed that we want to do. And I like the idea of at a dollar a year. We have had a lot of applicants that have provided space for community organizations. I really don't know of any community organizations that have really taken advantage of those. In my neighborhood, when we tried. It wasn't exactly a deal. Um, it was very expensive, and so we found something else, um, even though we thought that this was something we could use. Um, didn't turn out that way. So again, we need to be specific. I'm okay with the TDR program, but we I actually would broaden it at this and say for public schools, because there might be some others that want to make use of that. And while I support LASD, I would probably support other public school districts for those. Um, in terms of sustainability. I feel like this is a given in my book. And so I'm not sure I'd have, um, sustainability as a qualifying criteria, because we've set the bar, we need to set it even higher. And so why have that as a qualifying criteria? You just need to do it. And as I've sort of alluded to earlier. I've really never seen something that's a gatekeeper project. that is truly innovative and creative. And as the mayor pointed out, probably the one I can also agree with is what was done at Charleston East. Um, yeah, that was creative and innovative in terms of um, lots of things, actually, but that wasn't a great keeper project. So I just, um, Yeah, I don't think we're doing this for innovative creative projects. I like the idea on question 4 of having that be project mitigation. That was a good idea. And, um, I agree with the ones that are listed. I think I had a couple of notes on those. What page was that on? Oh, sorry. I didn't have any more on that. Um, let's see. And then the design principles, um... I like the addition of, I think somebody, I think it was Council Mark Robbie Cogo, who said retention, um, and relocation added to that. Um, But I would put that under design principles.

[01:48:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Were you saying to put that under mitigation?

[01:48:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes. criteria. Okay. That they would, if it's, you know, business details there. They have to stay up front. Yeah, that's good. I like that. Let's see. I think that's it on design principles. Yeah, I think the ones staff listed are great. The additional items. I was actually thinking that

[01:48:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'd be okay with one gatekeeper meeting a year, but I also am intrigued by the idea that was brought up about having different categories of projects during different gatekeeper earrings. So I would be supportive of that. And I think that is it. I have a clarification question.

[01:48:59] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So when you said, um, sustainable buildings are just what we should do. Are you putting that under design criteria? Because that is, my understanding is that's just a list of what we should do.

[01:49:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No, and send your qualifying criteria.

[01:49:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: I know, but I'm asking whether you want to switch it.

[01:49:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No, mm mm. No, you just want to tell people...

[01:49:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: That's what I thought design criteria was, a list of things you have to do.

[01:49:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, that'd be okay.

[01:49:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, that'd be okay. Okay, and now we have council member Ramos.

[01:49:37] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, thank you, Mayor. So, thank you, staff, for your work on this. This was quite a dense packet for this whole meeting, actually. But this item in particular, highly anticipated. My favorite page of all staff reports that I've ever had and ever seen. Through all the times I've watched Council, NRAC, my favorite diagram is page 16. I love that diagram. It's, it really, um, it really makes things easier to be if this than that, um, kind of thought process. Um, so I'm taking a slightly different tack. Um, Trying to figure out how to say this, best. Um, I understand the the desire to change, um, some of the languaging and the framing of some of these gatekeeper projects of like, um, you want to change it from community benefits to, um, project mitigation. Um, and it makes sense if you look at it from the lens of what we're trying to do is, is, This sounds a little bit more harsh than it means to be, and I'm trying to find a nicer way of saying it, it sounds like we want to limit development. Um, but I also think about the flip side of that. And I'm not saying that we aren't, that, that we aren't not developing at all. I hate to use double negative, but like there are impacts on our community when we don't develop enough. Um, I, I, and that's something it's not as easy to see. Um, you much, you see the impacts from a new development much more easily. You don't see the impacts of developments that never happened. Um, and so I think about that with, um, well, you only see the impacts of, like, our housing crisis in general. Um, and that's how I'm kind of viewing this. And that's why when I look at the 3 gatekeeper review processes options that we want, I am more inclined to go with option B, with the alternative consideration, because I'd rather air on the side of more options to get a good project through than holding it back. Um, and I don't believe my colleagues are trying to do that. I think it's just a different framing of how we're seeing it. Um, so that is largely why I would go that way for uh, number one. Which are the 3 project types does the council prefer as a streamlined gatekeeper? I agree with most of my colleagues, uh, who have spoken before me. I really, um, only seeing Project A, uh, project type A, as the, really, the, the streamline, let's, let's go push right through, um, 100% affordable housing. Um, I did like the idea of conforming rezoning because we have to do that anyway. Um, And I am less inclined for B or C to be streamlined. As we're going toward the qualifying criteria, I think about it in this way. Um, as as I'm trying to allow for more and not holding back more. I view it as I want the criteria to be not unicorns, but like rainbows. So, the unicorns are rare and don't actually exist. and are impossible for you to actually get. rainbows. That they, they, they exist. There are specific qualifications for them to exist. We could even go like a stricter sense and go for like a double rainbow, and that's like even more rare. Um, and so that's what I think about with qualifying criteria. I really want to know, like, I've never seen something about 40% or more, even if it's like moderate AMI. I worry that that's too high. Um, because I've never seen, essentially, uh, 40% at a BMR, because market rate is still above a moderate income family, uh, level. So, um, I I want to see something, In terms of the moderate AMI, something, I want to see something possible, extraordinary, but not impossible. Um, one of the ideas that, uh, was...

[01:54:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: A member of Ramos? Yes? Just a question of clarification because I'm having trouble taking notes on rainbows and unicorns.

[01:54:26] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Sorry.

[01:54:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: That's all right. Are you saying that you'd like more stakeholder review for, because you want that the criteria be substantial but not impossible?

[01:54:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes, I want the stakeholder...

[01:54:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: That what will be in mind now? Thank you.

[01:54:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: One of the interesting things with the moderate AMI, though, would be kind of interesting if we would look at that for ownership, actually, for the moderate AMI thing. We could lower the percentage to, to, similar to a BM, um, low income BMR, to have moderate income BMR ownership, I think, is something to also explore. Um, And it's also, I worry that some, I like the categories. I worry that some in terms of the categories, um, Seem a lot easier than others, and I don't, we, we, we set criteria for things that we want, um, and I don't want, If it's so much easier to do one of the criteria. We kind of know that. And so we, A lot of these community benefits are really good, and I would love some distribution if we really want that. Otherwise, why would it be there? Um, so back to the plausible, not extraordinary, not impossible. Um, and I don't believe I have feedback on, or new feedback on the additional direction. I was hoping that there was a lot of good ideas that have been spoken about for my colleagues beforehand. Um, I'm, I'm hoping that will go to a straw pole, so I could be like, +one. Or I don't know how you're planning on doing this, Madame Mayor.

[01:56:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: We'll be doing straw posts.

[01:56:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes. Great. Thank you

[01:56:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: So the last, did you have an item you wanted me to put on for a second?

[01:56:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I had no additional...

[01:56:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: You just have comments on other people's. You want to raise your hand for other people.

[01:56:31] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[01:56:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Vice mayor.

[01:56:40] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Wow, a lot has been said. Anyway, and I will add to my thanks for the staff report. I'm not sure, this is my page 16 is my favorite page ever, because I have looked at a lot of staff reports over the six years I've been on council, but it's way up there. I really appreciate the time and thought, and it will be, I think, very useful for people. Um, one thing I would just like to step back and say to everybody is, in a sense, I think we can kind of take a breath, because what we're here to do is to make a process, that is just basically kind of been derailed by the pandemic, come back on board. And we've done some really good thought with it, and the economic situation has changed. We're not in the same kind of, you know, I don't think we're gonna get a tsunami of applications, just because of the, you know, the price of funds now. And that's different than it would have been, you know, five years ago. We would have gotten a tsunami of projects. So I think we should sort of take a breath about that. And then the other thing, I think, is as council member Abbe Koga mentioned, we're going to want to review this from time to time. I would think we would want to run it a couple times and see how it goes, and then have staff say to us, oh, this is going beautifully, or, well, wait a minute, let's talk about X, Y, or Z. So I just wanted to open with that, and I do think that having two a year is going to, just by itself, markedly improve things, and it seems like there is consensus thus far on that. So I wanted to mention all those things. It's interesting about how people look at things. When you talk about the impact. You know, I've been working on sequed documents, literally forever. And, you know, some impacts and requirements that are done are so beneficial. Under the sequel language, we look at them negatively, but in fact, they can be very beneficial. And I mean, the mitigations can be very, very many beneficial. And, um... And I think so, looking at this as a mitigation, to me, that's not a stretch at all. But at the same time, I really think that's one of the things that's just great about this project, about gatekeeper projects, is because we have that option, you know, to ask for extra things that are very valuable to our community, and wouldn't necessarily be available to us otherwise. And there are sort of external impacts to things that don't really come up in the standard planning process that are very real. So, um, so, um, I like that, I like that framing. Okay, I'm going to go with option, B, with the alternative on the idea that I don't think there's going to be that many applications. I do think being as welcoming as possible, is a good idea. That's typically what we do. And I also think, in a sense, it may make it a little easier for staff, because they're just, you know, they'll have a process trained for pretty much everything. And it won't put as much, I don't think, it will put as much burden on them, to make decisions that might be unpleasant. Um, two, affordable housing is great. Let's go with affordable housing. I... I agree with a council member, Mattachek. When we put in the split lot thing, it just hasn't worked out. So it seems like most of the things that have would come up under the, the, the server that we are in the mix now, the Amber property, and the Castro Commons would come up in the existing categories we've set up. So that's good. Okay, so then getting to question three. That's the one I really like to talk about the most. I'm kind of interested in adding a few categories. Like I mentioned earlier, I would like to add a business, existing business retention category. And I'm not quite sure exactly what the, you know, the community benefit should be, but something along the lines of what my other colleagues have said about retaining the existing benefits, uh, existing businesses, and, and basically their rent to stay at a reasonable level in perpetuity. And I would also be interested if there's a way to provide language so that if the business changed, that use could still stay there. For instance, if it was a restaurant, you know, maybe the people who are renting the restaurant would retire and they wouldn't want to do it anymore, they'd want to sell the restaurant. So it would move on, but they would still get the benefit, so that the community should still get the benefit, because, really, that's what this is about, is what can the community benefit from? So, um, I, uh, you know, I really would like to add that, and, um, be interested in some language. Affordable housing. It seems to me that affordable housing is real different, whether it is ownership housing or rental housing, and I think that the category you have here is a very good one for rental housing, but we want to be promoting ownership housing. That is a value of the council and the community. And so, I would propose that, um, we, what is the requirement for, um, for ownership housing, um, Ms. Hagen, at the moment? It's 25% for row houses and townhouses, and what is it for stack flats? Yeah, it's still 15%. for other housing types. The row home townhome has a different percentage just based on the income levels of those types of developments. Well, I guess my proposal, then, just off the cuff would be, oh, it's still 15% inclusive for, okay. Well, I would be interested in what other people thought about changing the percentage of that, to encourage the production of, they encourage the production of ownership, multifamily housing. Okay, so that's, I think, that's qualified criteria. And then moving on to question four, that is talking about design principles. I do like these idea of design principles, but I'd even, you know, taking another step back. I think that developers always need to look at what are the council values of the current council? And we, you know, we have these strategic concepts, and they are, they're really right on target. They're things we care about, and I think that all the developers need to really pay careful attention to those, and these things that are listed here, they fit into that, but I think it's even more than that. You know, we've been real clear about what we care about as a community, and I think that all of those strategies should be part of this. And then feedback, what was the other feedback I had another feedback? Oh, really, that's it? I just, you know, I just think that we should all kind of take a breath and understand that we are getting this started again, and that, in itself, is a really good thing, particularly if we're doing it at the frequency of two times a year. Thanks.

[02:05:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So I'll run down my answers to the four questions, and then I see a couple of other council member comments. So, first, with the process, I'm, um, I'm feeling like we, I'm feeling like the council members are, uh, some of the people in the, who are most in touch with community and the community wants and needs, and I would, hate, from going to ice cream socials, from campaigning, from, um, reading all the emails we get from people, and I would hate to skip a council review early on. So for that reason, I would go with option A, I would, um... I would like a review after a little while, and if there's some way of simplifying it, if we're jumping through too many hoops, then I would be open to eliminating some of the hoops. As for number two, I would agree with my colleagues that 100% affordable housing, it would be my candidate for streamlining. Number three, I, let's see, number three is the qualifying criteria, which are also the community benefits or mitigations. With those, I agree with, I support them. I agree with colleagues who've said there might be a few more, and I will be supporting when I do a straw poll for some of the others that people have mentioned. I think that I would add, um, as a possible community benefit or mitigation, something that's gonna come to us in, some sort of lasting, this is similar to the small business retention, some sort of benefit for historic preservation. And I think that's something I'm not gonna specify it very much, because I think it's something that we can work out either a little later or as part of when we speak about historic preservation later in the year. But much as people have been talking about small business retention, I think that we could craft a similar policy that would put a little clout behind that. So that's one thing I would add. Another, I just think, I like some of the, um, qualifying criteria, but I think some of it could be, um, there was criteria along the lines of, uh, treason, biodiversity. We might be able to spell some of those out. I know, one of the things that's come up continually, uh, during gatekeepers is tree buffers between freeways. I think I've seen that, you know, with alta housing, the alta housing, uh, and storage gatekeeper, uh, with the 555 middle field, um, and then also with the, uh, shoreline, um, and Terabella project. They all were adjacent to freeways. And I think that's something that's been important to many residents and something that's doable if you bring it up in the beginning. So just add that to, um, as a part of the description for, um, for biodiversity planning. Let's see, other people have mentioned small businesses, so I won't mention that. I guess the other one would be enhanced streetscaping, if there's a streetscape near or even far from a project that would consist of some combination of a large sweep of widening sidewalks, adding planning strips with trees, maybe in an underserved area, going to a park, adding or improving bike lanes, undergrounding, phone poles, you know, that whole set of things. So I think that, and then for number four, I support, I strongly support the idea of design principles. I think this is one of the best things we can do to streamline this process, is, you know, again, thinking of 555 Metalfield. If these design principles had been brought up in the beginning, we wouldn't have had those meetings at the end where residents brought up valid things after so much architectural and engineering work had already been done, and it was hard to incorporate their comments. And I think we kind of know what residents are gonna bring up, they just residents tend to come out at the end when they know the project is an actual thing. So this is probably the piece of this process that I'm most thankful for. Um, and... You know, there are just a few things that we might, I think people have talked about both retention and relocation of businesses. I'm repeating myself now. Some of these, I'm not sure whether they go under, this is something we might define a little more whether they go under qualifying criteria or community design principles. Um, you know, whether they're required or an additional benefit depends on how big they are, I think. I would just like to amend complete street principles, under active transportation, to complete and green street principles. I think that's an underline that, you know, tree or vegetation buffers from freeways, again, are important. So with that, those are my comments. And I can read through a summary of what we've said, but I have a couple other people who want to comment, maybe change what you've said, or add to what you've said. I'll let you do that first.

[02:11:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, first council member Ramirez.

[02:11:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, a lot of, uh, good ideas, and, uh, I don't envy you for trying to compile them, and then, uh, repeat them back to us for a consensus. I do want to respond to a few of the ideas and then share a concern about one. So starting with the concern, the challenge I have with option A is that it is more restrictive than the status quo. In order to seek counsel permission to submit an application, you have to meet the qualifying criteria. The qualifying criteria are extremely robust. So, what an applicant would have to do is say, can I meet these criteria, and then, if I do, do I want to take the risk of going to council and be denied? And that's why I'm concerned that if we proceed with option A, we're going to receive very few or no applications at all. with option B, with the alternative consideration, the qualifying criteria serve as an incentive. If an applicant meets the qualifying criterion, they don't have to seek the council's permission to submit that application. They go straight to review, which is a great benefit, which is precisely why I think the standards need to be high. Because now they don't have to see counsel permission. They go straight to review, which is a significant benefit to the applicant, and precisely why, if we're going to relieve them of the obligation of asking for our permission, we need very high standards. But there is an alternative consideration for projects that might have merit, but for whatever reason, may not be able to meet the criteria that we establish. And that gets to one of the questions that Council member Abbe Kogast, for instance, the community kitchen. The reason I wouldn't, in that case, consider it a community facilities, because I'm anticipating that that would be a privately owned and operated facility. And for a community facility, I think the high threshold should be, is this a commercial condo that's dedicated to the city. So we have full control over it. And we can guarantee that it's going to be used for, you know, staff or for, uh, you know, community center or something like that. So I would have a very high expectation for an applicant who proceeds with a community facility oriented community benefit. And I think a commercial kitchen for the community is great, but I'm not sure it would quite meet that standard unless that applicant were to say, I'm building this so the city can lease it for a dollar in perpetuity. Um, So I do want to be careful. I think Council member Ramo said it really well. We set criteria for what we want. So if we're trying to secure development that contributes to the community in some way, That's what the criteria should do, but the incentive should be, then you don't have to also go to the council to get permission to submit an application where there's no guarantee that you will. But I do think I hear and share the concern about staff capacity, and I think a modification we can make to option B is to allow staff at their discretion to take a qualifying gatekeeper. So even if it meets our criteria, they could say, we just don't have the capacity to take this on. So they can initiate an authorization hearing, and then make the council make a tough call, right? This is a great project. It meets your criteria. We just don't have the capacity. So, council, would you like to remove something from your work plan in order to create capacity for us to process this project? And that's a policy question for the council that I think is worth consideration. Or another idea is we could require that an applicant provide funding to increase staff capacity, which we've done in the past, that Google, I think, has had agreements with the city to, I forget how many staff, it was one or two or something. It was significant, but also, I mean, their project requests are massive. So it's the least that we can do, or that they can do. And then the final concern I have about option A is, when you have a really high barrier to entry, just to ask for permission, what we're doing is incentivizing code compliant projects. And I feel like oftentimes, I still have a list on my, I have a running document here of code compliant projects where there has not been community or council support. So the Charleston Plaza proposal. You know, we've lost big box retail, and we're getting R&D with no community benefit or the office project at 1001 North Shoreline. Go compliant office project. Uh, 590 Caster Street, code compliant office project, 2019 Leghorn Street or 1400 uh, Terabella. These are projects that meet our plans, and, you know, are compliant with our regulations, but, you know, we've gotten a lot of community consternation about office projects that don't really provide any meaningful benefit to the community. And then these will hopefully become rarer, but we also have a number of residential projects that are code compliant where we've displaced existing residents and lost naturally affordable housing and got in its place very expensive ownership housing. So, that, I think, is what we incentivize with option A. We say, we want you to proceed with a project that meets our regulations and our regulations right now, say, offices or, you know, residential projects that aren't really meeting our community's housing needs. There were a lot of good ideas for qualifying criteria, existing business retention, economic development, transportation. Those are all things I would explore supporting. I really liked Council member Matachek's recommendation to expand the TDR program to include other public schools. I like Council member Ramos and Vice Mayor Show Walter's suggestion to look at ways of incentivizing ownership BMR ownership units, so that's something I'd be, those are all good ideas. And then, uh, Council member Robbie Koke also had the subsidizing commercial rents, um, as a, uh, community benefit. And the last thing I'll say is, this is one where I would appreciate staff's input. I'm not opposed at all to the idea of project mitigation as a way of framing what we used to call community benefits. The one concern I have, though, is I know that gets complicated when Siq was involved. Um, uh, that's, so when we did the multimodal transportation analysis where years ago, we had to be very careful never to use the word mitigation, because legally we can't require mitigations for LOS impacts. I think we use the term improvements now or something. Um, so, I think that's something that we should, we should probably, um, you know, iterate a little bit more on, but I think it's, it's, you know, community benefit is, is a kind of a good catch all term, but I think I appreciate the intent and, you know, thinking about mitigating, mitigating the impact of a project, but we just need to be careful that we can legally use the word mitigate in that context. I think that's everything. Thank you.

[02:19:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Maybe I can ask you a clarifying question here. In trying to, um, since most council members went for, um, option A, and I hear you're trying to simplify it somewhat, uh, do you have a suggestion for, uh, council being able to weigh in before the architect and engineer and so forth, have so completely done so much work and spent so much time, that it's very difficult to change? That's my main concern.

[02:20:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: We could require that for a qualifying project. They proceed to a study session immediately. And then there's the bones of a project. They meet our criteria, but then they go to council for a study session to receive input on things like architecture, layout, and maybe if there are things like a fee involved, how do we want to use that fee? But there are a lot of questions that the council could answer very early on that don't have to be permission to submit an application.

[02:20:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Rabbi Koga.

[02:20:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, I guess, go a 2nd round. So, uh, I will say that, uh, I actually, well, number one, I don't think we are trying to stunt development, because again, the best and fastest way to develop is to go and look at your precise plans and general plan and just propose a project that meets all of that. And I don't think our general plan is stifling development. And we've opened it up. We've reviewed it. We've added more housing. You know, the housing element is now adding even more housing. So we're not stifling development in any way. And again, the survey of all of the other cities proves that in my mind. So I don't understand this whole concept, Counselor Ramos, you know, that you think that we're stifling development. What we are simply trying to do is take our limited resources of staff and focus it one way or another. My interest is to focus it on developing out our precise plans and our general plans. Why did we spend 6 years? I don't know how many years we spent a lot of years on those plans and I want to see them developed. And we wouldn't have developed plans that didn't make sense or was stifling things. I think we have built into those plans, ways to develop and develop well. So I don't really agree with that was those comments at all. And to be frank, you know, I've been through all this and I've seen the evolution and I've seen projects come and go. And so I can say that. with confidence that our general plan is a good one that will that is encouraging development. But the real key to this gatekeeper, and I want to, you know, appreciate Vice Mayor's comment is, yeah, let's take a deep breath of whatever you want to, what did you say, breath, a deep breath. We stopped gatekeeper because we didn't have enough staff resources to do everything that was coming to them. So the fact that we are opening it up is a step forward. So let's look at it that way. But I will say yes, may I don't think option A is that much more restrictive. It's actually, to me, clarifying what kind of projects we want to see. In the past. We've seen. I mean, I've seen so many projects and just random projects and, you know, if you look at the list, we had, what, 21 projects in 2011. And it takes a lot of time for staff to go through all the projects, evaluate them. And then I remember that there was a point where, you know, staff would recommend, yes or no. And then that stopped happening because staff just didn't know what to do with some of these projects. And so what we're trying to lay out is criteria, and that will, you know, clarify what kind of projects should go through, and that should make it easier for developers, so they know exactly what we're expecting, make it easier for staff to say yes or no. And then, you know, it streamlines the process in that way. Otherwise, we're gonna continue, if we open up the gatekeeper again, and do what we're doing, or, you know, allowing the alternative, which I don't see is actually, I don't see the option is a B, that much different from our current gatekeeper process. It's going to be the same situation. again and we're gonna get inundated. And maybe not right now. Yes, vice mayor, but I remember in 2010, when all projects stopped because of the economy. And then 2 years later, we started look at 2011, 21 projects. So it can happen on a term of a dime, and that's what we need to be prepared for. So, I do, I am going to be very protective of staff, because that is a concern from as Councilman or Mattachek said, we have lost staff. We have had turnover, you know, that burnout, and that really does need to be our top priority to be able to sustain our organization. And so, you know, developers, you can develop all you want, just go pick out land that's in a precise plan. But what they're doing is they're taking land that's not in these areas because essentially what we've done by doing the general plan and rezoning and upzoning is we've made that land more expensive. And I totally acknowledge that. And so they're incentivized to go outside of those precise plans and general plans to find shape for land to develop. And then they bring it to us, and we have to get their gatekeeper and rezoning, and it takes, you know, projects at least, I think, twice as long to get through these gatekeepers than if they went through the general plan. And that's what we're doing, is making it more difficult for our staff, giving them more work, so that, you know, and, you know, I mean, there's nothing wrong with it. I know that developers, yeah, you want to make profit, but we can't do that at the sacrifice of our own organization. And so I'm going to protect our staff 1st in this situation. And that's what I think option A does. Thanks. Council member Mattachek.

[02:26:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, yeah, I agree with everything that council member Abbe COVID just said. It really is highlighted on the chart on page 16, which shows that option B has limited consideration of work. And, um, that's a huge concern for me, um, that we would not be taking into consideration staff capacity. The other thing that we learn from the other information that staff collected is, in other cities, when you do something like an option B, how does staff prioritize? Um, You know, if they've got some gatekeeper projects here, do they put those on the back burner and they languish? You know, that's going to be hard for the applicant to accept. And I'm sure they're going to be calling staff all the time. Have you worked on this? You know, what about this? and just putting the pressure on. And I don't want to do that to our staff. I don't think it's fair. So I still think option A is the way to go. But heck, if folks don't like that, I stick with our current gatekeeper process. Thanks. Vice mayor.

[02:27:33] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, it is interesting how, when you look at the same chart, you see different things. And, um, uh, when I looked at this chart, and I saw 2011, to me, that was, that's right before the general plan. And that goes to exactly what, the mayor said, is that, in a sense, this is a bit of a relief valve for things that, you know, were just not considered at the time. And we have had a lot of development. We've had so much more development in the last 10 or 15 years than we did in the previous decades, a few decades. We just did. I mean because of the economy. And so, you know, the current general plan has been implemented to so much more of a degree than the previous ones did. And it is a good general plan, but it's not perfect. Times have changed a little bit. And so I think this relief valve is, to me, this is more of a relief foul for things that, you know, don't quite, uh, haven't quite weren't anticipated, and, um, and, uh, and have changed. Like, for instance, you know, having life science come, uh, and to for R&D. I mean, we didn't anticipate that before. I think, I hope we'll have some gatekeepers to, you know, to allow that business to come into our community. But the other thing, I think, along what council member Ramirez was saying, is that in terms of housing, we thought that having a lot of townhouses and rowhouses would be a great housing type, maybe 20 years ago. And to some extent, it is. But it doesn't provide housing of the density that we'd like. So we'd really like to encourage stacked flats and some other things. But our current zoning doesn't really do that. And so we've had some things like Rock Street come forward, where we actually got fewer units. Well, the state has passed a law, so that's not gonna happen again. But, you know, I think that if we had allowed some gatekeeper, flexibility, some of those townhouse proposals wouldn't have gone through, and we might have gotten more units. Certainly, that's, I've heard, I can think of two projects that we've passed recently, one that never got built, well, two of them, I think, haven't gotten built yet. So, anyway, so when I look at that chart, and I see the 2011, Margaret, it does, or Council member, uh, Avocoga. It does lead to your comment, but it's because that was right before it. And by having that great general plan, we brought those numbers down until we got into that crazy boom related to development in the North Bay Shore, where you see the 15, 13, and 13. And those are, many of those projects are the same project, because, you know, they were just submitted again and again. I was on the council then, and the list of gatekeepers that we saw didn't vary, very much, from year to year. It was the same projects, and they didn't get through. And then the other thing I'd like to say about, I think the staff has been really smart in putting together the criteria, and bringing that forward, bringing that forward and being the community benefits forward, to essentially say, We're going to want the developer to work on this at the beginning, to get that taken care of before it comes to us. And then we won't have to work on it. And so I think that this process, that they've just, these are some really good changes to the process. And, um, but I'm, I'm concerned that, with option A, we don't have an appeals process, and I just always feel that, in good governance, you should have an appeals process, that it's just one of those things. And, um, option B provides that. So that's why I'm concerned about it. I think we always need to have a little bit of an appeals process. Well, I suppose if they've been turned down, they can always modify their project and resubmit. But they don't do that.

[02:32:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'm not saying additional comments. Um, so I'm not saying additional, um, you know, people uh, changing their minds and so forth. So I'm going to read off what I've heard. which is going to include answers to the 4 questions, plus some additional things to vote on, but starting, uh, with answers to the questions, I heard 4 people saying process, A, and 3 people, and please, if anybody has different notes than mine. These are a lot of notes, so tell me when I'm wrong. Four people saying option A, three council members saying option B, as for number two, I see 100% of everybody saying 100% affordable housing, as for number three, which is qualifying criteria. I see a lot of support, and then some additional comments on that that I'll bring back for straw poles. And as for number four, I also, which is community design principles. I also see support and some additional comments. So now is your time to tell me where I've read Everybody Wrong. No comments. Okay. So, the additional support is, or the additional comments have been, um, one. One was, and I want a show of hands for these. One is to have a review. That's a little nonspecific. Does anybody want to say anything more specific?

[02:33:57] Unknown Speaker: Have a... both, um... Yeah, something along those lines, but there was no specific amount of time for review suggested by anyone that I remember. Okay, everyone who would like to have a periodic review. Oh, vice mayor, has it? Okay, vice mayor?

[02:34:16] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I did suggest a review after two cycles that staff would make an analysis after two cycles about, if they felt we needed to work on it, and then we would go into a regular one, just to... But that... We can do it that way.

[02:34:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, everybody who supports a review after two cycles.

[02:34:37] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that's one year.

[02:34:38] Unknown Speaker: Two cycles. We gonna have two of them, one a year.

[02:34:40] Unknown Speaker: I don't think we've decided that.

[02:34:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, let's vote on that one first. And then we'll vote. So, I heard... I heard, uh, council member Kameh suggest, um, that we do two per year, and one would be for large projects, and one for smaller projects, am I quoting you, right?

[02:35:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Smaller projects and text amendments for the second. Yeah, the text amendments and the smaller would be grouped together, and then the larger would be its own group.

[02:35:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, that's what I heard. Okay, all those in favor?

[02:35:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh. Correct.

[02:35:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. Any other comments? Okay. All those in favor? I can't even see hands. I think it's 6 out of 7 people. Okay, so that means we're having 2 per year, and is this vice mayor, and I understand you correctly, that after that year, you would want to review?

[02:35:38] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: No, you're changing your comment. You're the one who didn't vote for it.

[02:35:42] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I would think it would be... Well, maybe staff would, what does staff think would be a good time to reevaluate is, is that too early, or what would be appropriate?

[02:35:54] Unknown Speaker: Um, yeah, I think from staff's perspective, we might suggest the initial one, um, or setup might be every other year. Um, that might count for 2 or 3 cycles. Depends on when we come to council.

[02:36:07] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so we'll take a straw poll for the staff recommendation of a review after 2 years. Did I get you right? Okay, all those in favor. That's 6 out of 7 people also. Okay, um, There, let me see, I'm trying to do these more or less in order, but I'm not sure I can. There is under number three, which is qualifying criteria, there was a desire by several people to have an additional one, which would be business retention, with possible rent stabilization added. Oh, I see Mr. Andrews.

[02:36:58] Mr. Andrews: Thank you, Mayor, and council members. Just one point of clarification on the two meetings per year. We're assuming it's 2 meetings per year. In the event we actually have applications, correct?

[02:37:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I would say so.

[02:37:11] Unknown Speaker: yes.

[02:37:11] Mr. Andrews: Great. Thank you. And staff can figure out what an appropriate timing would be for two a year.

[02:37:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. So, now we're adding for, uh, in question three qualifying criteria. Should we add qualifying criteria, which are also community benefits, which we may not be able to call mitigations? Should we add an item which is business retention with possible rent stabilization? I assume that can be made more specific in the future, but that general concept, all those in favor. Oh, that one gets seven votes. Um, I got, um, also a, and, you know, I also want your help because I think there was some people were putting the same thing under three qualifying criteria and four community design principles, so tell me if you would like me to put this under a different category. But the vice mayor and several other people also wanted a qualifying criteria regarding ownership housing. Since that's yours, is that am I wording it right? Would you add specific?

[02:38:31] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I don't really have the specifics, but, yeah, I thought something to encourage ownership housing.

[02:38:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: Staff has a suggestion. I'd be interested in hearing that. And is this affordable ownership housing?

[02:38:41] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah. Okay. And does... The answer to that was yes. Affordable ownership housing. And does staff have any additional comments?

[02:38:51] Unknown Speaker: Yes. A question? Thank you. So, ownership is... more challenging in terms of qualifications, so, could we set it at that, I think, with our BMRs, it's at 150 AMI, so we would have the same AMI levels.

[02:39:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think staff would need to go back and talk to our housing team to kind of figure out what that level might be and what the particulars might be.

[02:39:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. So I'm going to keep it non-specified at this point. Okay, so all those in favor of adding affordable ownership housing as one of the qualifying criteria.

[02:39:36] Unknown Speaker: That, how would we do it? We're gonna get the specifics later. We're not deciding today.

[02:39:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: We would do it. Well, just have... They'll come back with specifics and if we don't like them, we will get rid of them. Okay. All those in favor of exploring that. Okay, that gets 7 votes. Um, let's see, we had business retention, we've... Business retention. We'll just add to that, another person said business nist, retention, or economic development. I am not sure what that means. Then there was also, and, uh, Council member Abbe Koga, this was yours. So there was also, I think this was under three, which is the qualifying criteria, a criteria regarding transportation. Can you be more specific? You say,

[02:40:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I was gonna... I had asked staff if they could come back with some options. I had originally thought TMA, but sounds like that's already required. So some other...

[02:40:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So the question is, the straw poll is on. Does council want to see staff come back with options under qualifying criteria regarding transportation? Okay, that gets one, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. Um, then I have uh, under qualifying criteria, um, TDR for public schools. Council member Manachek. Do you want to say specifics on that?

[02:41:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I just want to be real clear what would be for, um, public schools serving Mountain View residents. And if staff can think of other descriptors, um, to make sure where you get what we're looking for, that's fine with me. But public and Mountain View residents.

[02:41:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So this is staff would explore, or we would add something regarding possible community benefit slash mitigation, which would be TDR for public schools, all those in favor. Okay, seven. Um, then we have... Uh, we have, uh, council member Mattachek said, after I pushed her to say it this way. Put sustainability as a design criteria that we expect, not as community benefit and not net zero, I would imagine, but just that we expect some sustainable building design. And you have more specific?

[02:42:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I guess for me, just a net 0 building design by itself isn't enough to be a qualifying criteria. And so that's why I would say move it to the other category. And, I don't know, maybe we need to look at other requirements that we have and raise the bar. But I would do that instead of leaving it under qualifying criteria.

[02:43:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'm not going to say net 0, because I've heard that bar is a little high, but I would like some sustainable design as qualifying criteria.

[02:43:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, all those in fa?

[02:43:12] Unknown Speaker: As... As qualifying criteria?

[02:43:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: No, sorry. As, uh, under Design.

[02:43:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Question number four community design principles, some sustainability. All those in favor?

[02:43:25] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, can stop just clarify? So it's to remove it from the qualifying criteria, question three, and relocate it.

[02:43:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Put it under design that there should be some building sustainability we already require, elect, all electric, so I'm not sure what else. I think that was 4 people, am I right? Then. Let's see. Have a review we did. Um, then council member Ramirez, you had a comment on, um, funding for staff capacity. Did you want to include that in some way? Did I wrongly assign that to you?

[02:44:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I think the intent was to address the concern about option B, um, I don't know if it, I mean, because every project goes with option A, every project goes to the council in order to get permission to submit an application, we don't really need that, because staff will tell us whether there's capacity or not.

[02:44:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll check that out. And then I had... Uh, let's see... You had also, as what project type does council prefer as streamlined gatekeepers, you had conforming rezonings for residential projects. Is that something you'd like us to draw Poland? Okay, so everybody who wants to add conforming rezonings for residential properties as streamlined projects. I'm taking a draw poll on that. So where the general plan already allows residential, but there's a mismatched zoning.

[02:45:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right now, we could not enforce the development standards in the zoning district. State law says general plan allows for residential, so you have to allow residential. But the problem is, there are no development standards that are meaningful in the general plan. I mean, staff can speak to this better than I can, but there are some bare bones requirements. And so, the idea would be, rather than, I mean, a developer could just proceed with that, but we would like to encourage them to seek conforming to rezoning, so we have development standards attached to that project. Maybe staff could help me in explaining the value of this.

[02:46:05] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah, I think I mean, that could be added, but I do want to mention that it is my intent to fix that. Um, and of course that comes to staff capacity also. Um, but there are there are a few properties in that boat. And, you know, the, the, there's recent state legislation that says, you know, that needs to be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. So, you know, obviously that doesn't give you a set, um, you know, time frame, but it is, I think, our intention to fix those issues. So it could be added, and maybe that would beat us in some cases. In most cases, we would just take care of that with the project. So they would submit.

[02:46:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I get what you're saying, and I understand, you know, there are limitations when you have that situation, and I hope that we're able to address that relatively quickly. But I think it could also be, you know, added as a streamline. But I don't know that a project applicant would necessarily even propose that project because it would ultimately put them in the position where then they have to meet those requirements versus now where they may not have to meet them and can still proceed with their project under, you know, the general plan requirements. I'm thinking, I have San Jose examples in my mind where you have extremely aggressive developers who exploit this and come in with um, projects that would probably astonish this council. And I'm not anticipating that that's likely to happen here, but I would rather somebody go through our conventional process and good faith rather than risk somebody coming in with a project that we have really no control over because it complies with the general plan.

[02:48:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so you're withdrawing that one. Okay, so, um... See if there... So there, uh, Council member, you also had, uh, community benefits changed to project mitigation, but then there was conversation about maybe that not working, so...

[02:48:34] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: And actually, sorry, if staff can interject here. So we're happy to think about maybe renaming it. Maybe not mitigation. That might not be the right word for the reasons that we're discussed here tonight, since Sequel uses that heavily. But we will definitely look at how we could reframe that. Is part of reframing that, I guess, one clarifying question that staff has is, um, If we were to call them something else, are those items still considered community benefits or is the expectation that there would be additional?

[02:49:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: My understanding, council member, Kamek, but my understanding was that it was the same general concept, but just more to reflect that, you know, the projects have impacts on transportation and they cut down trees and stuff. So there are things that you want to make sure are addressed.

[02:49:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, and I think, too, like, trying to define how a community benefit as described in a general plan or a precise plan is different than what we would be looking for the gatekeeper, and I think having that distinction, right? Like we have a way for applicants to go forward, the general plan, the precise plan, with a package of community benefits as outlined. And if the gatekeeper is going to be this separate process, then I think using a different terminology also helps clarify that point for applicants.

[02:49:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. helps. Okay, so all those in favor of rethinking the terminology for community benefits. Okay, I think we have a majority there. Okay.

[02:50:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: And then, um, I think the, so I had under a qualifying criteria, which is also currently mainly community benefits, um, coming up with, uh, kind of like the small business ones, some, uh, coming up with some way of offering uh, historic preservation community benefit. All those in favor on that one.

[02:50:43] Unknown Speaker: What you mean by that? I mean, do you mean they would help preserve something, or what would that be?

[02:50:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: So it, so I think we could, it could be further clarified when we, when we next talk about historic preservation. But sometimes there are, um, sometimes there are ways of, you know, giving funds for restoration or, um, or other, something along the lines of TDRs that can be done to make sure that the, um, you know, that a historic property remains. So

[02:51:23] Unknown Speaker: what would necessarily have to be on site? They could help with the restoration?

[02:51:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, yeah, okay, that's a good or support of something else in the community. I mean, say they were prepared, they were working on a site that didn't have any particular historical significance, but they wanted to contribute to historical preservation of something else.

[02:51:44] Unknown Speaker: Yes, so before you have ongoing discussion about, say, historic preservation of buildings in Area H. And somebody is an applicant knows that that's going on. They could contribute to that effort.

[02:51:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Council member manager?

[02:52:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes. So we have the update to our historic preservation ordinance going on right now, and I guess I don't know what the result of that is gonna be. And so I'm wondering if, um, if there will be opportunities for an applicant to help further that, um, and how significant of, uh, commitment is it for the applicant. I guess... So, while I believe in historic preservation. I'm trying to figure out, is this really the route to go, or is there a different one?

[02:52:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: So there may be different routes, but I think this is just something we can explore while we're having that conversation, and then if it doesn't work out, we can go to some other route. Okay. So, all those in favor?

[02:52:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, that passes. And I think I think I have everything here. Are there any that I overlooked? Uh, council member Ramirez.

[02:53:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. This is a new idea, but the direction provided is significant, and staff will probably need a lot of time. to develop this council policy, and then it'll still have to come back to council, but I believe our housing element commits us to having a gatekeeper authorization hearing in June 2024. Is that right? So I think rather than rush this, it might be good to have that hearing consistent with our housing element, but under the current gatekeeper authorization process.

[02:53:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so you're asking for a straw poll on that. Okay. Okay, so any comments on that? Vice mayor?

[02:53:59] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I'd like to confer with staff about that. Do they feel like this is going to take months and months, or have we given them sufficient direction that, um, they will be able to put this together in a few months and get it back to us? I mean, I think that's, I don't know the answer. Um, I wouldn't presume it.

[02:54:21] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So with the additional outreach, and I think the extent of additional items that are being discussed, I don't know that we would make our initial target date of coming back to council in the spring. to try and capture the June deadline for gatekeepers. So, um, I do think having an alternative option might be appropriate.

[02:54:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so the straw poll will be an alternative option of if staff is not able to meet that deadline doing a gatekeeper under the current process. All those in favor. does not pass. Mr. Andrews.

[02:55:10] Mr. Andrews: Thank you, mayor, and city council. This might be an item best taken offline with staff to come up with what we feel would be a realistic estimate rather than the council trying to do a straw poll this evening. It's just a suggestion.

[02:55:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I'm willing to go with that. Are there additional comments? Okay, so now we're going to, um, take a short break, and, um, we will start our regular session at 8.30. Yeah.

[02:56:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the special meeting of the Mountain View City Council of December 5th, 2023. First, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic,

[02:56:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice, for all. We're now on item number three, the roll call, the assistant city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[02:56:41] Assistant City Clerk Heather Glaser: All council members are present.

[02:56:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank. In recent weeks, several of our neighboring elected decision making bodies have been subjected to disruptive, racist, verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice, as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all. The council welcomes respectful and non threatening public comments regarding matters over which the council has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the Council Code of Conduct and the government code. Maybe grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period. We'll now move to item four, the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. If you'd like to speak on this item, or the next item, which is oral communications on nonagenda items, uh, in person, submit a blue speaker card, um, or virtually, you can raise your hand on Zoom. Would any member of council like to pull an item, vice mayor?

[02:58:03] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I would like to comment on a few items. I don't want to pull them. I'd like to comment on item 4.4, which is an addendum number 12 to the regional water quality control plant agreement. And what this is about is a project of finishing up a large sewer rehabilitation project that's been going on for several years. And I just wanted to bring this up because maintaining our infrastructure is one of those things that literally is under the ground that most of us don't see, but it's a very vital service. So I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention and say, this is a very good thing that it's going on. And thanks to public works for taking care of it. And we do it jointly with the city of Palo Alto. Then the other one I wanted to mention was the Vision Zero outreach, the marketing engagement. We talk about, in the study report, they talk about seven ease of engineering. And only one of them is the technical one, the engineering. The other one is equity, there's equity and education, and several other things. And those are so important for making sure that the engineering changes that are made are actually used properly and work, and make the change that we all desire, which, in this case, vision zero, is to reduce the number of deaths we have per year by traffic and biking accidents. So, you know, so this project to educate the public, about Vision Zero, and how it works, and how our bike infrastructure should be used, is just really important for actually making the projects function, the way we want them to. So I just wanted to mention that. Thank you very much.

[03:00:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Abbe Coca.

[03:00:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull point 4.1. I just have some questions on it. Thank you. Okay.

[03:00:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: Now we are going to have public comment. Uh, let's see, I do not see any speakers either in person or virtually. Um, and so we'll now, um, we'll now, uh, take the item back

[03:00:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: for action on all but 4.1. I see a motion by council member Ramirez and a 2nd by council member Ramos, and we can vote. Oh, read it, yes.

[03:00:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve the balance of the consent calendar, excluding item 4.1. including item 4.2, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending the fiscal year, 2023 to 24 budget, to appropriate $1 million from the Liability Self Insurance Fund, fund number 754, and $210,000 from the Wastewater Fund, fund number 602, for litigation expenses to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[03:01:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now we can vote. Pass this unanimously. So now, um, council member, Abbe Koga, uh, item 4.1.

[03:01:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So I want to thank staff and CPPC for all your hard work on this. I think over the last few years, there have been scenarios in terms of order, the rotation that have come up that hadn't really come up prior and anticipates that will happen moving forward as there might be more people like me coming back to council and so forth. So I appreciate the clarification on some of the policy language that was not clear in the past. I did have, um, 2 other areas that I had hoped would be discussed and went, I'll be honest. I'm not sure if they are being covered, so I wanted to ask the city attorney about them. Um, I think one is covered, but one isn't, um, but let me just ask and um, get clarification. So one scenario that, um, I was thinking about is, and this is, when all council members have served as mayor, and we go back to deciding who gets to be mayor again. Um, If there are multiple council members who are in their 2nd term of 2 consecutive terms. How do you determine seniority? I know the waterfall goes to vote total in the in the last election or the election? Um, and there's, if it's 2 consecutive terms that we've gone through 2 election cycles, most likely the same candidates or council members, which election do we choose to go by?

[03:03:34] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So I believe that the election that you are going by is the election where you were 1st elected. So it would be the 1st term of the 2 terms. Um, so I wanted to find the language directly in here. So if you hypothetically, we're elected in 2020, and then again in 2024, it would be 2020 results that would break the tie. So it'd be the 1st time you were elected to counsel. Um, and I want to, let me see if I can find, if you give me a 2nd, I can find the direct language in the in the policy.

[03:04:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Could someone on CPPC explain the rationale for that? Or how that came about.

[03:04:18] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I will share that that's how it was before. So I don't think that was a change. So let me see if I can find it, but I can tell you that's how it was in the policy before any amendments, and I will just confirm that we did not change that.

[03:04:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Uh, oh. Council member, Matterchek, do you want to make a comment?

[03:04:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, as a member of the CPPC, yeah. It was in the current policy, and what the CPPC was trying to do was clarify things that were not clear in the current policy and not necessarily change it. Um, but it also, um, because. Well, you have a, let's see, a different scenario. This was the challenge. We went through lots and lots of different scenarios. But, um, the reason you would go back to when people are 1st elected to their current, potentially 8 to 10 year term, um, is because you start going through them and through mayor. And so then, if something happens, and you start to go back, you go back to the same order, as opposed to a different order, um, that is more recent. Because then that's whoever was the furthest away from being mayor.

[03:05:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, and the reason, I was thinking the more recent one, because there is the scenario where the sitting council members are, would have not most likely been in that most recent election versus the 1st or the prior election, there would be, you know, less of us, most likely here. If that makes sense. That was just, so yes, that was a question I had and something, I think I'm going to go ahead and support this, but I'm thinking maybe another pass if I could get support to clarify even further, just because I just think that a lot of these, you know, new scenarios are going to start coming up as we go, and I'm not going to be around, but for future councils, it might be helpful to clarify. And then the 2nd question was, again, determining seniority, and if everybody has served as mayor, There's a scenario where there are council members who are serving in their 2nd of 2 consecutive terms versus there could be council members who served a term, left the council and came back. And so, in my mind, those who have been serving two consecutive terms longer would have seniority because they've been here longer, but I don't think this policy clarifies that or does it.

[03:07:18] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So you are correct. I will go back to the question that I was looking up before for you, and the language, I was correct. It is the first election, so it's actually in the definition section, and it talks about... If 2 or more council members have served for the same number of consecutive days in the immediately preceding 10 years. Highest ranking member shall mean the member who has served on the council for the greatest number of consecutive days in the immediately preceding 10 years and receive the highest number of votes in the election that initiated their current consecutive years of service. So it would be the election that 1st got you on council. for your current consecutive years, whether that's 4 years or 8 years if you're in your 7 years if you're in your 2nd term. So it is the 1st election. So that's the answer to the 1st question. Answer to your 2nd question is, You are correct. The policy does not address the scenario that you just raised. Council members that have 2 consecutive terms right now would not necessarily receive priority in determining who became vice mayor or mayor in the event that you had to select a mayor and there wasn't a vice mayor to move up to that seat. It would not prioritize council members that have two consecutive terms over those who had a break in service. So if that is something that you wanted addressed, we would need to clarify language.

[03:08:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. So, um, I'm happy to move the current, uh, proposal because I know there's a time crunch to that too. Um, and then I guess I would make a 2nd motion then to ask the CPPC to review the, the scenario, the scenario.

[03:09:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So you're making a motion for the at 1st for 4.one as is.

[03:09:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[03:09:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: And you're gonna have to read it.

[03:09:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So my motion is to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending city council policy, a 6 election of mayor and vice mayor to clarify the elections process and to add a diet seating chart to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[03:09:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Passes unanimously, and you have a 2nd motion.

[03:09:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so my 2nd motion would be to request the CPP review and recommend clarification on the determination of seniority based on whether it should be consecutive terms served or um, versus a single term served and just determine which which person, which one would have a seniority. If in the scenario when everyone has served as mayor once.

[03:10:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: But you raised two different ones. That was one of them. Are you not going to make a motion for the reconsidering or take a second look at the other one?

[03:10:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: The 2nd the 1st issue, um, now actually, when you've, it makes sense now. Okay. Yes. So just for that one.

[03:10:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Do we have a second? Okay. We have emotion in a 2nd and we can vote. Passes 6 to one. Okay, so now we're moving on to oral item five, which is 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 within the city council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. If you'd like to speak on this item, or the next item in person, submit a blue speaker card, and if you'd like to speak to us virtually, raise your hand in Zoom. Um, I say no in person speakers. And also, no virtual speakers. So we'll move on to item number 6.one, which is amendments to chapter 8, chapter 25, and chapter 30, chapter 32, and chapter 35. Uh, 35 of um... Oh, and chapter 36 of the city code. And we presenting the item we have, senior planner, Cretia Penelar, and will be presented.

[03:12:39] Senior Planner Krisha Pinoyar: Good evening, council members. My name's Krisha Pinoyar, senior planner, and I'm here to present the proposed amendment amendments to city coach chapters 8, 25, 28, 35, and 36. And I'm joined tonight with Lindsay Hagan, assistant community development director. Staff routinely brings forward zoning code amendments annually or biannually for council consideration to reflect changes in state laws, regulatory or procedural modifications, or to address necessary clarifications in the zoning ordinance. This year, the proposed amendments can be categorized into four topics. The first is updating the city code to comply with state legislation signed in 2022 and effective in 2023. The 2nd is to implement a portion of the 2023 to 2031 housing element policy programs. Some of these amendments are based on state law, while others are commitments made by the city in the housing element. The next set of updates are related to the city's existing accessory dwelling unit regulations, and are intended to ensure continued consistency with 2022 state laws, as well as amendments that improve and provide clarity to existing regulations based on cities implementation over the past 3 years. The 4th set of amendments are other updates to clarify existing zoning and subdivision procedures and regulations, update regulations to reflect current practices and to align with state laws. Since some of the amendments are tied to state law and others are recommended by staff, staff highlighted in the council report and materials where council has discretion. And just for clarity, none of the amendments proposed are to address any legislation signed in, um, in fall 2023. So, staff package these amendments across 2 ordinances, as amendments to the zoning ordinance, or chapter 36 require additional hearings in the other chapters. Staff presented the zoning ordinance amendments to the environmental planning commission on November 1st, and at the hearing, EPC unanimously recommended council approved the chapter 36 code amendments, with 4 modifications related to ADU provisions, roof screening requirements, and removing a one application limit for new development proposals. These modifications have been addressed in the proposed draft ordinances before council tonight and have been incorporated as staff's recommendation to counsel, which we'll discuss later. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, or A-Look for short, reviewed the amendments on November 15th. The zoning code amendments are required to be reviewed by A-Look, as the changes introduce new land uses on parcels within the airport influence area of the Moffat Field comprehensive land use plan. At the meeting, A-Look found the zoning code amendments to be inconsistent with the club unless specific additional text amendments are incorporated by the city. So, at the hearing, Ailuk found the chapter 36 Code Amendments to be inconsistent with a Moffat Field Club to a 41 vote. Unless certain texts are meant, amendments are added related to height limits, compliance with density and open space allowances and safety zones, conformance with noise guidelines, and that the city require navigation easements for certain projects in the airport influence area. City staff tried to clarify that the request being made by ALUC were beyond the scope of the zoning ordinance amendments and that the amendments do not impact areas within the safety zones or the noise boundaries. However, ALOC proceeded with their inconsistency determination to err on the side of caution. City staff is recommending that the council proceed with the resolution of intent to override A-Lux determination, as outlined in the staff report. As we feel the request being made by ALUC are items, the city's zoning's ordinance is already compliant with, like height limits in the area, is already a procedure we regularly implement and practice that is consistent with the club requirements, such as requiring navigation easements, or the proposed amendments do not impact parcels within the safety zones or identify noise boundaries. Ultimately, the package of amendments before council tonight are consistent with the Moffat Field Club. As for APC recommendations that have been incorporated, the 1st one proposed by EPC is to allow additional heights for all detached data use. The proposed amendments initially were drafted to be consistent with state law. This permits properties within a half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor, or on a multifamily residential, multi-story site, to be permitted a two-story ADU with heights of 18 feet, up to 20 feet, to match the roof pitch of the existing structure. All other ADUs are limited to 16 feet. EPC wanted to allow all other detached ADUs, regardless of their location, to have an 18 feet height limit up to 20 feet, to ensure a consistent application of ADU regulations, and to allow for a pitch group if more desirable by the property owner. This is a discretionary change that can be considered by counsel as it exceeds the state law minimums, and staff has incorporated these amendments as part of our recommendation to counsel. The 2nd modification proposed by ADU by EPC is to allow 2nd story balconies on detached single-family ADUs. The proposed amendments originally drafted by staff was adding language to reflect the current prohibition of 2nd story balconies on ADUs. Based on EPC's recommendations, staff has modified the amendments to permit, 2nd story balconies on ADUs, when it meets a minimum side setback of 7 feet, which is the typical allowed for a single for 2nd story of a single family home, and 10 feet from the rear property line, which aligns with how close a single family home can encroach into the rear property line. And a 4 foot setback for balconies that face a street side, for a corner lot. And staff is proposing a maximum size allowance of 75 square feet, which is half the size permitted for the primary structure. These balconies would only permit it be permitted to face toward the single family home, the interior of the lot, or street side yard. Staff has incorporated these amendments in draft ordinance before council tonight, as staff's recommendation, as second story balconies are the most popular request by homeowners for new ADUs. The 3rd set of amendments recommended by EPC is to allow more of a flexibility in roof screen height requirements. EPC raise concerns that requiring a roof screen to be the same height as the proposed equipment would add bulk and mass to the building's overall height. Specifically, EPC desired flexibility to allow a shorter roof screen than the proposed equipment if the equipment would not be visible. As a result, staff has modified the amendments to allow group screens to be up to 12 inches shorter than the equipment. If the screen continues to not be visible from the adjacent property lines or from the public sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, the drawing on your screen here shows a line of sight drawing, and it's represented by the red arrows. This is a common way to demonstrate compliance with the type of requirements in building plans. And the last modification recommended by the EPC is to remove the proposed amendment, limiting the number of planning applications allowed for new development or redevelopment on the same project site at the same time. APC felt developers should be given the opportunity to submit multiple applications for different project ideas, and that the introduction of an online permitting enhances the visibility of application information, which may reduce confusion from the public on the status of project applications. Staff's recommendation in the council report was to proceed with the amendment as originally proposed. Well, staff continues to believe there are practical reasons for the proposed limit on multiple concurrent applications, as described in the staff report. It is not necessary to include such a prohibition in the zoning code at this time. Staff acknowledges it is unlikely that applicants will pursue multiple applications concurrently due to the waste of applicant resources it typically presents. However, over time, if staff sees arise in the filing of multiple concurrent applications for projects on the same project site. And this has demonstrated a negative impact on the development review process, then staff will determine the best course of action, and that may include zoning code amendments. Therefore, staff's recommendation at this time is to modify attachment one to the council report to delete section 36.56.12 aligning with EPC's recommendation. In terms of next steps, should counsel adopt the resolution of intent to override A-Lux determination, city staff will consult with A-Lux as needed. Additionally, city staff will coordinate with the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, regarding the amendments on the ADU regulations as required by state law. And then we plan to return to city council with the 2nd reading of the ordinances, and that's tentatively scheduled for January 23 of next year. In conclusion, the proposed amendments are exempt from sequa, as they will not result in significant environmental effects. And staff recommends that council introduce an ordinance amending chapter 36 with modifications. These modifications are intended, are included in the supplemental memo at each council member's seat, and these include revising section 36.12.75D to refer height limits of multifamily residential ADUs to where it's listed elsewhere in the code, revising the commercial land use table in section 36.18.05 to add residential care homes as a permit use in the CN, CS, and CRA zoning district per state law, until delete section 36. 56.12 in its entirety regarding application filing limitations. Staff also recommends that council introduce an ordinance amending city codes chapters 825, 28, 32 and 35, and lastly, that council adopt a resolution of intent to override Alex decision and find the zoning code amendments to be consistent with the Moffatt Field Club. Thank you for your time, and staff is available for any questions.

[03:23:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now, do any council members have questions?

[03:23:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Mattachek.

[03:23:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, So, uh, on the slides, it was talking about Publix access to the development applications. Can the public see? Through the online system, all of the different applications that a developer even one that a developer has submitted. Or I guess what can they see?

[03:24:21] Unknown Speaker: Currently, the city does not have a portal by which you can see all application materials, especially if you're not an applicant. The only software we have in place is with our building permits where only the applicant or people invited to see can see the status of a building permit. The comment, just to clarify the comment that EPC made was just that over time as the city gets this technology, it may help address it. But at this time, we don't have it in place.

[03:24:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And do we have plans to have that in place?

[03:24:54] Unknown Speaker: Yes, so it's a great question. First, the city is developing a strategic plan for our technology needs. overall. So that would be something we would include as part of that. And then secondly, the city is adding additional departments into the building permit systems. So that will become more available. But ultimately, we need to have a land management system in place to really have the ability for the general public to access a lot of those materials.

[03:25:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So given the recent changes to state law that says an applicant has to provide permission for their plans to be released to the public. How does that fit with that, a new system then? Would they be able to say, no, I'm not going to share my plans?

[03:25:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so it's a great question. I can't answer specifically what technology might be able to do, but I think, in terms of state law, that you're referring to, is if the architect who prepares or any licensed professional who prepares the plans, if they don't give consent to allow us to post them, then we wouldn't be able to share them publicly on any platform. The state law has a special provision saying that essentially if people want to see plans, they would have to physically come into our office to view them in person, you know, on a computer screen.

[03:26:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, and I thought that the staff recommendation, um, was to, um, retain the original proposal, and, um, not allow an applicant to file multiple projects.

[03:26:42] Unknown Speaker: So in the staff report, it did outline that, I think, upon further reflection, knowing that there might be challenges in implementing it, we've revised our recommendation to what the supplemental memo suggests, which is to remove that language at this time.

[03:27:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and then, um, I think that's it. Thank you.

[03:27:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez.

[03:27:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I have a few questions. So the 1st I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but just to clarify, the ADU recommendations proposed by the EPC pertaining to all types of ADUs, right? So attached and detached on single family, um, uh, lots, and then also EDUs that are close to transit or not, and then ADUs also in multifamily lots, right?

[03:27:43] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, specifically, they said they wanted height limit, height limits to be all the same, particularly with detached ADUs.

[03:27:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So across the board. across the board, correct?

[03:27:53] Unknown Speaker: And I, just to clarify, so in terms of the height, it was detached ADUs across the board, in terms of the 2nd story balconies, that's specific to single family ADUs, detached ADUs. So, if you have an attached ADU, you could not have a 2nd story balcony. So the current code prohibits 2nd story balconies universally for ADUs. So you can't have it for an attached JDU to a single family home or a detached one. In the original staff recommendation, we included a provision that says you can have it on a single family attached ADU, you can have, as long as the balcony aligns with what the standards are for the single family homes balcony, because essentially you can't tell the difference from the exterior. So that's already part of the package of amendments that includes in this package. EPC's recommendation was to go further and actually apply a standard to detached single-family 80s, which is what staff has incorporated into the record.

[03:28:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And specifically on single family lots.

[03:29:00] Unknown Speaker: Correct. So the 2nd story balcony for a detached ADU on a multifamily lot could not be constructed. Correct. Currently, there would still be a provision on that.

[03:29:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And then, um, So for a homeowner who would like, in some respects, more generous development standards and wanted to construct an AD, so for instance, height, they could use the duo standards to achieve that goal, right?

[03:29:31] Unknown Speaker: You could use duo standards to construct basically an ADU with more flexibility and height.

[03:29:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So they'd be able to construct a 2nd primary unit.

[03:29:42] Unknown Speaker: So the requirements between the duo developments with a 4 foot setback is a little bit different than an ADU, just because an ADU is accessory. And so it does not need certain requirements, such as fire sprinklers for the ADU. So duo developments is the primary unit and is treated as one. While accessory dwelling unit is accessory to the primary. So there's different requirements.

[03:30:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Aside from sprinklers, what else is different?

[03:30:09] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so I think to get at the root of your question, the answer is if somebody wanted to build a bigger, effectively a 2nd unit on their property, they would likely go down the road of a duo development because you get greater height, you get greater FAR. You have similar setbacks to an ADU. There are some additional landscaping and other requirements with a duo development. So there is some that is more onerous. But for the most part, if it came down to how big of a 2nd unit you could build on the property, then duo development would be the path that somebody would pursue.

[03:30:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: For somebody outside looking in. Would they be able to tell the difference between a detached duo and an ADU?

[03:30:58] Unknown Speaker: That's also a great question, considering, um, So, yes, if you wanted to just look at scale, because these would be taller, duo developments could match the same height as a single family home potentially. So, um, it could be seen as taller. It also has, um, it's subject to the same FAR limits as the as the whole property under the R1 standards. So, um, you could conceivably have a larger structure, um, a secondary structure is a duo development than an ADU.

[03:31:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't want to dwell too much on this, but I'd be curious to understand the value in having these are the standard side by side.

[03:31:48] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, these are the development standards side by side.

[03:31:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, I may come back with more questions on this, but I guess I could interpret this as, in some respects, if I wanted to construct an ADU, but I wanted more flexibility in development standards like height. I could do that. I just have to use duo standards. Is there value in making that distinction?

[03:32:15] Unknown Speaker: So, and this is where council has discretion, if we wanted to have more lenient or expansive ADU standards, say, to allow additional height, that would be something we could entertain, you know, as part of still being compliant with state law. We're still meeting the minimum. But that would be at the discretion of counsel. I think how staff approached this was more just being compliant, consistent with state law.

[03:32:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so yeah. Okay, thank you. And then, um, for the pre-application, uh, so this is section 36.44.40 in the code, is a pre application voluntary or required.

[03:32:57] Unknown Speaker: A pre-apple, you mean an informal application?

[03:32:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:32:59] Unknown Speaker: So that would be a voluntary, we don't have required informal application.

[03:33:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: In every case.

[03:33:05] Unknown Speaker: is voluntary. Correct. It is a voluntary process.

[03:33:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And then, um, for zoning code updates like this, um, to what extent, what outreach do we do to the community? Because there's a lot of stuff in here, some of it is nondiscretionary. A lot of it is discretionary. It feels like it's, it would be helpful to get some input from the people who would be affected by these changes, the changes in standards, especially, and especially where we have discretion. To what extent, you know, for instance, would the zoning code amendments have triggered the minimum noticing requirements that we're now including in the code? And then how do we allow for additional outreach?

[03:33:57] Unknown Speaker: So I think when it comes to implementing state law provisions. oftentimes it's very technical in nature. And I think in what we've done in the past, what we've found more fruitful if we do as part of outreach is to actually provide the clarity, um, sort of after adoption on what our new regulations are in particular to that development type or standard. In terms of some of the discretionary recommendations that staff has in this ordinance, a lot of it's coming from the specific audience of residents who are coming in for the permits. And so through that process and experience, we get a lot of direct feedback, we see and understand a lot of how the rules are working, or not working, or where we need to add a lot of clarity. And so that's where a lot of this, a lot of these amendments are really about that. And so I think from staff's perspective, we feel we are communicating with the community and that we're working with them through these processes and coming up with these amendments that we find necessary to really accommodate the scenarios that we're commonly seeing. And so I think from that perspective, that's sort of the outreach that we typically do with these type of updates.

[03:35:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm having trouble reconciling that with the approach that we're taking is the bare minimum required by state law, which is probably different from what some of the applicants are requesting.

[03:35:23] Unknown Speaker: Um, So the applicants are requesting, uh, for these ADUs or using our current regulations, you know, and trying to permit their ADU. And I think in doing that, we're seeing that there's either areas where we aren't explicitly saying something that we need to say, um, or it's a common question that we're getting, um, or it's something that we're seeing commonly proposed, and I'll take uh, front porch cover is one of the items, um, where a 15 square foot French cover, uh, sort of uh, front porch cover is one of the items that was added, is it's a common thing we see come up in these proposals. And so we feel there's a need to address it, and it seems like a very reasonable request to address. So the outreach we're doing is really with the people coming in and getting these permits and actually utilizing these rules, in terms of the changes to clarify existing regulations.

[03:36:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[03:36:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[03:36:28] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Steph, for the very robust report. Um, My question is, is to build upon question number 5 and the council questions, um, relating to compliance with AB 2097. Um, You mentioned that you have directly communicated with NTC about the language of a major transit stop. However, the question initially did, uh, show that, um, other cities, like Los Altos and Santa Clara, have viewed a more, um, Constraint removal. Um, interpretation of that law. Um, are we looking at, um, trying to find a better way of saying this. These, these, these changes that we're doing in this all on this item is, um, not just to comply with the state, but also the state laws exist so that we can remove constraints to housing. And with that kind of in mind, As staff when they directly communicate with MTC on determining those transit stops. Are we asking MTC, are we just doing the bare minimum allowed, or are they, are we discussion with them, how? I wish I could say this better. Um, But my, my, my major concern is that there are different cities that have different, um, interpretations of compliance with this law, and we're taking a bare minimum, while other cities are looking at removing constraints to housing, which is the overall goal of why these laws are put into place, as staff considered, why?

[03:38:22] Unknown Speaker: Now, thank you for the question. So a couple things. MTC is our primary resource as somebody who would help us determine this. So, it is natural, I think, for us to consult them and get direction from them. And the majority of cities in our area are following this same approach and definition. I will be honest, with when this new role, new sort of law came out. There was a lot of confusion initially. And I don't know that all the transit agencies were aligned. So some of what maybe BTA or other agencies were saying didn't align with what maybe MTC was saying. So there was a lot of kind of initial confusion. And so I think staff doesn't know for sure why Los Altos and Santa Clara are sort of defining it differently. But I think from staff's perspective, what we can rely on and what we can consult is the MTC directly. And so in our consultation with them, and we did the consultation actually with Sunnyvale as well at the same time, and it was clear that we didn't meet that definition along El Camino at this time. But I think an important factor to share is just that this is an evolving requirement dependent on bus service levels. So, should rapid transit and other things come down, you know, in the future, this is something we're always going to have to keep track of. And so we will modify based on, whatever service levels we have at the time. Did you have something to add as well, Andrew?

[03:39:52] Andrew: And I think just because I dealt with this very directly, over in Sunnyvale, and had many conversations with MTC on the topic, I'll just add that the confusion came because on El Camino, there are 2 lines that have the correct headway, but they're going the same directions. So they're not north-south, they're just going east-west. And so because of that, there was a fear, I think, in a worry that because those 2 lines, you know, essentially intersect, but they're doing the same thing, that could potentially meet that definition. And so we needed the transit, you know, authorities to help us interpret that. And the point is that you have these intersections where you're able to take people, both east and west and north and south. So you could get off and then you can travel in that other direction. And on El Camino, the north-south lines in both Mountain View and then where I was before. In Sunnyvale, their headways are just not up to that level. And so you can go east and west pretty easily, but you can't get north and south very easily. And that's where the confusion came from. Does that help? So, and then to go a little further, you can go beyond that requirement, but that is a larger, obviously, policy discussion,

[03:41:19] Unknown Speaker: and, you know, what the goal here is, is to do these kind of minor code amendments that have to do with recent state law.

[03:41:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you, I guess that is...

[03:41:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Miss Cameron, do you have additional comments?

[03:41:48] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Well, well, thank you. I was going to, um, pass since the cast member Ramos said it answered her question, but since I am up here, Don Cameron Public Works director, and I really appreciate the further clarification that the assistant community development director provided, because that's exactly our understanding as well. And just wanted to point out a couple things. This definition for the, um, you know, um, major transit stop and so on has implications in other areas as well. So consistent application, how we define it. is very important. It doesn't just apply to this piece of legislation that affects minimum parking requirements. In addition, the city, through its housing element, and other means, can choose and has already, in some cases, to eliminate minimum parking requirements. You don't need this legislation to do that. Thank you.

[03:42:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, are there further counsel questions? If not, uh, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, either raise your hand in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card? And I see. Um, okay, so there is no one in person. And virtually there is Leona Pierce.

[03:43:42] Leona Pierce: Thank you, Mayor. My name is Leona Pierce, and I'm a homeowner in Mountain View, who has recently received permit approval to build a duo in our backyard. Firstly, I'd like to thank the city council members who took the time to meet with me over the past week to hear my thoughts on the 2 points that I'd like to speak about tonight. It's a busy time of year, and I am very thankful that you take the time to meet with Mountain View residents. I think that makes a big difference. My 1st comment relates to 2nd story balconies on detached single family ADUs. I fully support the staff's recommendation to allow a 2nd story balcony on a detached day to you. And if this rule is voted in by council tonight, can this rule please be applied to the duo code as well? Um, my 2nd comment relates to the height for detached ADUs. The staff recommends an 18 feet maximum with up to 2 additional feet to match the roof pitch of the primary residence. We received our permit for a 2 story detached euro last month, and 2 feet is insufficient to enable an ADU to match the roof pitch of the primary residence. You need at least 5 feet to pitch a roof. This will allow for a whole house fan, insulation to be included in the design, and that will result in a cooler home in summer. So since the council have the discretion to exceed state law minimums, I would like to advocate for an ADU height limit that aligns with the height standards for a single family home, which allows an ADU, which would allow an ADU to have a maximum building height of 28 feet when it is a 2 struct, 2 structure. Um, That's it for me. Thanks very much.

[03:45:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, I see. Let me make sure I'm right, but I see no further. Yes. I see no further virtual comments. So we're going to now, um, bring the council, bring the item back for council deliberation and action, and note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinances and resolution attached to the report. I'm also going to take comments. And if there are any amendments to the staff recommendation. I will take straw polls on those. And I would appreciate staff's help in figuring out which of the ordinances they fall under. vice mayor.

[03:46:11] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I was just, I would just like to compliment staff on going back and making some of these adjustments that really came out of the EPC discussion, or many of them did. I was quite surprised, initially, to see that there was such a difference, because usually there isn't a big difference. It's a pretty rare occurrence. So thank you for going back and taking the time to do that. I think that our advisory boards, particularly EPC, spends a lot of time and effort on things, and I think the council has a lot of respect for their opinion. So thanks for doing that.

[03:46:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez.

[03:47:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I share the sentiments expressed by Vice Mayor Show, Walter, I appreciate the work that staff has done to get us into compliance with state law and begin implementing the housing element. It's a lot of work. That's why it's a very lengthy set of attachments. Um, and some of these things, I think, are, um, challenging to interpret as we were discussing earlier. There are, so I generally support the planning commission recommendations. There are a few things I'd like to advocate for changing either in this set of amendments or in the next routine set of amendments to the zoning code and municipal code generally. So I do agree with the public speakers, suggestions. I met with her and we talked about her particular experience, which I thought was helpful and since I don't own a single family home and, you know, don't have the ability to construct an ADU. I hadn't really thought too deeply about the differing development standards that we have for ADUs and for duos. And in her case, she wanted to construct an ADU and couldn't using the development standards that, you know, we have in place. And so was pursuing a duo to achieve that objective. And so I'm having trouble. You know, I think staff can help me understand maybe why we do this, but I'm having trouble justifying having development standards that are pretty different when you get essentially the same product as the end result. So I would support, um, in addition to the EPC recommendation, increasing the ADU height. So we don't have, we don't put homeowners into this, you know, which one do I use? ADU or duo development standards. doesn't matter. You know, you can get the same type of product to, you know, meet the needs of your family or, um, you know, whatever it is that you're trying to address, um, with the construction of either an ADU or or a duo. Um, so I, I think that's, that's an adjustment that I would feel comfortable making, um, now, and then in the future. Um, you know, not as part of this set of amendments, but, you know, for staff to return, um, allowing 2nd story interior facing balconies in duos. So, we can achieve a substantially similar purpose in allowing, I think, a nice quality of life amenity, that staff has devised some very thoughtful development standards for, so we're not impacting adjacent properties. There are a few other things. We got...

[03:49:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: May I ask you a question of clarification on both of those? So you said for now to increase the height limit, the ADU height limit to match duos, and what would that height limit be, maybe, in both cases?

[03:50:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So it's 28 feet for 28 feet in both.

[03:50:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. And the 2nd one was, you were saying not to do now, but to do later, and that would be to allow 2nd story interior facing decks or balconies in duos.

[03:50:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right, which we, it's not part of the agendaized discussion tonight. But I think, you know, as Steph was explaining, you know, these are the kinds of things that we hear about from the community and in a future set of comprehensive zoning code amendments, that might be something that we can incorporate. Since the development standards have already been produced and I think they're reasonable. So something that you could come back with, there's no urgency. I don't know when the next set up. zoning code amendments will be, but that would be one of many things, probably, that that staff could consider.

[03:51:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I'm clear on those, yes.

[03:51:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. A few more. We got a suggestion from Cliff Chambers to allow the EPC to review development agreements, and because development agreements, do you have policy implications? I think that's appropriate. We are amending the authority table as part of this zoning code package. So if there's council support, I'd like to provide that modification. And then we have a few sets of modifications where I think it would be helpful to provide greater definition. So, for instance, there's a set of modifications related to map extensions. And I think, so one has to do with allowing, if there's a finding of a good faith effort to comply with our approval requirements, then, you know, we would provide an extension, but good faith effort is not defined. And I have trouble with inequitable application of, you know, a standard that's not defined. So I do think it would be helpful to define what good faith effort is. And, in fact, staff provided some examples of that in the staff responses. I don't know if I'm gonna find them, um, really quickly, but I think one of them had to do with payment of fees, for instance. You know, if an applicant has paid fees, That's a pretty good faith effort, I think, to demonstrate compliance. And then it's also ambiguous when a map extension is voluntary or mandatory, and I think it would be good to provide some clarity on when the city is legally obligated to provide an extension and when we have that discretion, you know, as long as a good faith effort is made. So that's a modification that I hope we could include. And then finally, I think clarity in Section 36.44.40, that informal applications are voluntary, because this is a question I've got before. I've gotten before, and I think it would be helpful to say, this is a voluntary process, but, you know, we strongly encourage it, because it's helpful to the applicant to ensure that, um, you know, that they're complying with standards and that they're, you know, meeting the requirements that we expect. But because staff has clarified here that it is voluntary, I think that's a helpful thing to include in the code as well. The last thing I'll say, I think, you know, I would, in the future, I think it would be good to, um, provide an opportunity for the community to provide some input, especially on those discretionary elements. Nondiscretionary components of zoning code updates. I totally understand. There's not a whole heck of a lot we could do, and that's more of an education opportunity, but where we do have discretion. I think it is good to understand from, you know, homeowners from folks who would use the, what's it called, the Miko development standards and that kind of thing, and from people who would love adjacent to them. Do these make sense? Or the, you know, I like the fact that we, I didn't know that we didn't have development standards for the industrial zoning districts. So I'm glad that we have them. But, you know, wholesale, utilizing the commercial development standards may or may not make sense, and we really won't know if we don't reach out to, you know, folks who are going to be abiding by those standards. So those are examples where I think it might be helpful to spend a little bit of time just to get input, and then that'll inform the discretionary decisions that we make. And that's something I'm hoping that we can make a more routine consideration in future zoning code updates.

[03:54:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay, so to recap, just to make sure I have the things you want, straw polls taken on, you want us to take a straw poll on whether to allow the EPC to review development agreements. You want a definition of good faith efforts for map extensions. Um, is there anything else, and you want, um, you want it further defined, whether it, maybe you can go into detail on that, more succinctly what you want.

[03:55:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, so I think there is ambiguity. Sometimes we are legally obligated to approve an extension, and sometimes we have discretion. And when I read through the code, it wasn't clear. Um, when we have that discretion and when we don't.

[03:55:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so you want it clarified when we're legally obligated to approve a map extension or when it's volunteer. Okay. Okay, council member Ramos.

[03:55:57] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Sorry. Um, So, I agree, I am inclined to help address the, um, suggestions by the public commenter. I also had the opportunity to meet with her. She lived in Shoreline West. I used to live there, not anymore, but it's a beautiful neighborhood. Um, and I, the, I think about, and as we, have these, hopefully getting matching and clearer, uh, defined limits and and design guidelines because they're essentially the same structure. And the thing about ADUs and duos, most of these, um, developments are being built by usually the homeowner themselves. This is not going to be a big developer. This is not, this is not Prometheus, this is not Avalon Bay. They're going to need a little bit more clearer definition and more flexibility. Um, to get that, essentially, that that middle housing, um, in a different sense, not the middle income housing, but like the missing middle housing that we're also kind of looking forward to. So, um, I am supportive of getting, um, adding more flexibility, uh, to, um, those standards to essentially match them together and to the greatest extent of flexibility possible. Um,

[03:57:26] Councilmember Emily Ramos: The other one is on page, uh,

[03:57:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: so just to clarify, you're supporting what council member Ramara has said on those. You're not adding anything different.

[03:57:37] Councilmember Emily Ramos: No.

[03:57:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay.

[03:57:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: That was just my two cents. I was, like, additionally important. Okay. This is not. These are not big developers. that are doing these. These are our neighbors. Um, the other one, um, on page 10, uh, the allow low barrier navigation centers and beyond state minimum locations and same industrial public facing zoning districts as emergency shelters, the AB 101. Um, I would love for us to move that to be part of our homeless um, response strategy. I think that if there's a bucket to be put in instead of, we're doing a lot of scatter shot. Um, amendments. And this one was a discretionary one. So there's one that we have to do, and then this one was the one that was discretionary. I would love to move that discretionary to view with our comprehensive look at homelessness. Um, Uh, the DRC review, this one relates to question 11 in the council, um, questions. Um, I think that needs to be clear, not just in more clear, not just in the code, but in education out there. So, um, particularly, I'm curious on how that works with SB 330. Um, the, when there's a DRC review option on SB 330 limits the number of meetings you're able to have, I would love more clarity, clarity on that. Um, when as we move forward with our guidelines and codes. Those are the only items that I am adding too. So thank you so much.

[03:59:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[03:59:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, as many of you know, I am on the airport land use commission for Santa Clara County, and I am a bit puzzled as to the ruling of the ALUC in terms of these changes being inconsistent with the Offit field comprehensive land use plan. Um, I was not at the meeting where this item was discussed. And even if I was there, I would have recused myself. because I recuse myself on all items that are referred from the city of Mountain View. Um, but I appreciate that Paul Donahue, who we just pointed to the EPC, was there, and asked a lot of good questions, and he was actually the one person who said these were consistent with the Moffat field comprehensive land use plan. Um, you know, sometimes, um, there's just some misunderstanding, miscommunication, um, and I feel like this is, um, one of those cases. So I feel comfortable, even though it's kind of, um, a little bit unsettling, to, um, overrule the ALUC. In this case, I feel like it makes sense. If you want another person's perspective on that. Um, so I do have a question about one of the, um, proposals from council member Ramirez. Um, I guess I'm trying to sort out, um, why we would kind of now make ADUs and duos kind of the same. Um, when you ask Steph the question about, well, what's the difference? And the primary answer was, well, massing, you could see. would be different. I feel like we have a variety of housing types, that look different, different sizes, all kinds of different regulations. Um, for a reason. And so now to make 2 more like each other, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that. But I also wonder if you just increased the allowable height. Are there other things that we might want to, um, include, I think you said one of the major differences is sprinklers. So now if we allow these to be larger units, would it trigger anything else that should be included that we, we shouldn't, that we might not know about tonight?

[04:01:54] Unknown Speaker: So one thing to clarify is, really, we're still subject to state law. And in this case, state law has spoken on ADUs and fire sprinklers and when they're triggered and when they're not. And that same language is not part of, say, SB9 and other housing types. So, some of these standards, sort of, no matter what the city ultimately adopts, they will still always be subject to some of those allowances under state law. So in terms of fire sprinklers, it would be the SB9 units are subject to fire sprinklers, especially if they get to a certain size.

[04:02:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So you can't think of anything tonight that we should, if we were going to do that, should add to it, that isn't covered by state law. Um, Unfortunately, at the moment,

[04:02:48] Unknown Speaker: yeah. I don't think staff can come up with what additional factors may, you know, be relevant, but I will say even if the height increases, unless other standards are changing, it would still be the same size limit and same other factors would still apply.

[04:03:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, Okay. Um, I actually um, was in favor of limiting applicants to one, um, application. I think it is very confusing to the public. Um, the one that was cited in the Council Q and A is one that's, um, in the Wisman area. And, yeah, residents around there are confused about what is the applicant doing, um, and which one is staff working on? And why are there so many? Um, it is confusing to the public. And having a portal, I mean, that's a long time from now that we might have that. And so we could have confusion for years and years. So I'm kind of disappointed that we decided to take it out. Thank you.

[04:03:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: So are you wanting a straw pole on that or you're?

[04:03:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, no, I respect Seth's perspective, and they think if we should take it out, we'll take it out.

[04:04:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. Council member Abbe Koga.

[04:04:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I was actually thinking the same, um, I'm, you know, good on most everything here, but, um, as Kells's remember, Mattachek mentioned, um, with the applications, um, I guess my question was, which do you decide to work on first? And do they, are they subject to the, we have some timelines, don't we? So how do you realistically work on 2 applications? I guess at the same time? And shouldn't. The developer have to just, you know, make some hard decisions and pick one or the other.

[04:04:48] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I appreciate the questions and comments. I think, staff made it pretty clear in the report in terms of where our initial thought process was going. Um, I think, you know, it is potentially a challenging um, thing to enforce based on the various state laws that we have in place. In terms of how staff prioritizes, These would be permit streamlining act applications. So we are mandated to respond. And I think, um, if there are multiple applications that come from, uh, especially on the same site, we have to process them equally in the same. And I think that's where sort of the workload implications, the inefficiencies of that process are definitely out there, and it's definitely evident. Um, I will say, uh, you know, we don't currently have a high volume of this scenario happening. So I think we haven't seen an issue to date, but I think from staff's perspective, we will be paying attention and watching for this and seeing if there are what other options or solutions there might be out there. So it's something we can modify later. I think we will just continue to look at what options we have and what we can, how we can address it if it becomes a problem, whether that's through zoning code amendment or other procedures or processes, you know, we can entertain and look at options.

[04:06:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But you're still recommending at this time that we take it out.

[04:06:18] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:06:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, and then the other comment, I would agree with, was the, um, counselor, met a check, comment about duos versus ADUs, and I think I guess I would question why we would have 2 categories in. It would just be 11 type. And, um, I think, uh, you know, we try to uh, encourage and offer different options for folks to build different types of housing. So if we're going to keep the 2 categories, I think there should be some distinctions. And my senses ADUs are going to be smaller, so it would make sense to, um, you know, have standards that are proportionate to the size of the units.

[04:07:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thanks Okay, so I see no other council members speaking. I'm, I guess my comments are that uh, I, yeah, I agree with the general sense that we should, regarding the multiple applications. I would be going with the staff recommendation, but keep track of the workload and the compu possible confusion for people trying to, for residents, neighbors, keeping track of the situation and report back to us. Um, it might be nice to explore for future zoning code amendment packages, whether a community meeting would be feasible or, you know, workable in any way. And, um, I'm also for the future, interested, this wouldn't be for now, but for the future, in, um, including AB 1033 implementation, which would allow separate sale of ADUs as condos. So those are my comments. Um, and I'll now, um, I'll sum up, we'll take, uh, we'll take straw pull. I'll take straw poles on the different things that have been recommended, and I would appreciate if staff would say which ordinances they go into for upcoming motions. So the first on my list is the low barrier navigation centers, the discretionary ones moving that from today to consideration under the homeless response strategy. Um, and this was council member, Ramos, is all those in favor. Oh, and which would it fall under?

[04:09:13] Unknown Speaker: So just to clarify, staffs, I guess, interpreting that to mean you would delete it from this ordinance. And then talk about it as a future amendment at a future time. Right, the discretionary one to have... That would be part of attachment one. attachment.

[04:09:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so all those in, oh, council member Ramirez?

[04:09:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, just to clarify, if we're allowing it now, I'm a little reluctant to delete it and disallow it, but I would be maybe open to revising it to include as part of that more comprehensive work, some additional analysis or a discussion by council about low barrier navigation centers because it is a new um, use, that we, um, we have one of that was created through Project Home Key. And it might be a good opportunity to think about, because we've also heard community concerns about that. Maybe that's a good opportunity to have a broader discussion about low barrier navigation centers and revisit the standards and also identify ways to improve the concept of moving forward. Would that be an okay modification?

[04:10:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I'm okay with that. I get, um... When we're looking at what we have to do versus what's discretionary, I'm always a little bit more gun shy on discretionary. Um, but I'm okay with, uh, the adjustment council member, uh, Ramirez has suggested. Okay, I'm not understanding. Oh, Mr. Andrews.

[04:10:53] Mr. Andrews: Thank you, Mary, city council, since we're discussing the navigation, I just wanted to remind the council that CSA has agreed to already operate a navigation center as part of the funding we provided them with, and staff is starting to work through that arrangement. So just a reminder that there is one component out there in the works.

[04:11:16] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so let me see if I understand your proposed change. Council member Ramirez. It sounds like you're just saying we should discuss it later, and I don't see anything to vote on. Do you see anything to vote on?

[04:11:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I think the difference is, instead of removing it from the thing now, it's going to be a significant component, when we talk about our homeless response strategy. So, it'll stay in. Right. But we want it's more like we want this... It lighter. Okay. I'm not sure we need to vote on the fact that we're going to discuss it later, but we can. Unless it's not part of the staff feels comfortable just conveying that to our other team we want.

[04:12:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. So we're skipping that one. Um, then the next one is, um, is allowing the EPC to review development agreements.

[04:12:20] Unknown Speaker: So, sorry, staff needs to interject here. Unfortunately, that's not discussed at all in any of the staff material reports, and so there are concerns about needing to re-notice and do another public hearing for that.

[04:12:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so could that be something that we address in the future, and we can note that down? And I don't think we need a straw poll on that. Okay. Um Council member, commit?

[04:12:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sure, when that comes back, I'd also be interested in kind of staff capacity to do that, how that would affect EPC work plan, I think that that's also important to add in. Sure. If that is explored. Thank you. Council member Abby Kokan?

[04:13:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, on that item, I guess my question is, what are the legalities, since DAs are usually closed session items, I believe, right? Because we're negotiating real property. So are APC members allowed in those types of deliberations?

[04:13:26] Unknown Speaker: Unfortunately, that I think that's something that we're going to have to work with staff on and consider the legalities of those. I wouldn't have an answer to that tonight, but we can certainly work with staff and make sure that we, you know, we address that issue.

[04:13:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. I'm sorry to interject. We have senior assistant city attorney, Sandy Lee, who has our hand up. So she might speak to that. That would be great. Yes, let's promote her. great. So, Sandy. you with us?

[04:13:57] Sandy Lee: Yes. Good evening, council members. Uh, let me. Just hop on. Okay. So the EPC, if this change were made in the future, would not be part of the confidential negotiations, um, and they would not have that, the same, um, participation that the council might have, if there were closed sessions, uh, on, on this item, they would basically function in the same role that the zoning administrator currently functions in, and that is to see the, the, the development agreement, um, as a negotiated document. Um, in draft and near final form and provide a recommendation on the development agreement.

[04:14:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, Council member Mattachek.

[04:14:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh. Okay. Council. Oh no, so I guess I really question the, um, the relevance or the, I don't really see the value add to that, frankly, um, but open to hearing from others.

[04:15:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I guess when, um, you said the APC, um, would be seeing this as a negotiated document, and they're, um, making their recommendation. Is it just a recommendation, yes or no, to the council to accept the DA, or is it they're making recommendations on things to change?

[04:15:38] Sandy Lee: Well, I think they potentially could make recommendations on, um, items to change. So it sort of depends on how you, how the council kind of carves out the role of EPC. I would say that, you know, in other jurisdictions, the planning commission, um, in some jurisdictions, the planning commission does play this role, um, in providing a recommendation on the development agreement. I haven't seen planning commissions get in the weeds on the specific, um, the components. Um, but I do think that, um, they may. So it sort of depends on the agreement, um, I would say, for example, with a Google, uh, development agreements, there was some interest, um, in, in the negotiated components of that agreement. Um, that the EPC under the current zoning code didn't really have a role to participate in. Um, but they may have if, um, they had a formal role uh, with respect to the development agreement.

[04:16:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Vice mayor.

[04:16:48] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I was just going to comment on, um, how, in a sense, like, when we were doing very complicated ones, like the one in the North Bayshore, which are very rare, it really, um, functions as another opportunity for the public, to become involved in the project, and understand what's going on. I think it's important for transparency, as well as having another set of eyes on it. I don't think there are that many development agreements, but I can conceive of times when they would be important, and it would be helpful for transparency.

[04:17:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abbe Coca?

[04:17:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I appreciate that. I guess, you know, there's the issue of negotiation, and so I'm not really sure how this would work if EPC made some recommendations for changes, you know, essentially, we've kind of shown our cards in negotiating. And so that's my concern is that would this weaken our position in negotiation.

[04:17:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Also member Ramirez.

[04:17:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Attorneys. I think as a, the example that Sandy used as a helpful one, the, um, the DEA for the Google North Bay sure master plan was reviewed 1st by the ZA. And then when it came to us, there were 40 pages of changes. And I feel like that's an instance where public comment had a significant impact. in the revisions to the DA. You know, a lot of those were cliff sending a 10 page letter and Google saying, yeah, these are good ideas. And so, you know, restoring things like the commitment to having, um, Google provided shuttles to address transportation impacts. So I agree with the vice mayor. I think, if nothing else, it's a helpful transparency measure, because most people don't observe ZA meetings, but a lot of people might, for the first time, review a negotiated, you know, development agreement at the EPC hearing. And then we get to hear, you know, 7 perspectives, and they might identify similar types of, you know, good ideas where an applicant might be wholly willing to accept them, um, or errors, right? You have more sets of eyes. And if we don't like the recommendations, we don't have to accept them, either.

[04:19:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: I'm agnostic. I think that's something we could leave to staff.

[04:19:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, if you're saying, oh, council member, commit.

[04:19:30] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, can we clarify then what the final, are we doing a straw poll on this?

[04:19:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: I was about to.

[04:19:37] Unknown Speaker: Okay, perfect. You'll clarify what...

[04:19:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: I was going to say. Staff explore. I was gonna say, uh, staff, explore, uh, having the EPC review development agreements. Is that, uh, is that clarified enough for you or would you like it worded differently?

[04:20:03] Unknown Speaker: I'm not sure if you're asking staff or council member, but that's plenty of clarity for staff to whether we look into it or not. And I would concur that we would like to keep it as a review statement.

[04:20:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we're taking a straw poll on whether we're gonna have staff, explore allowing the EPC to review development agreements, all those in favor. One, two, three, four. Five. Okay, passes. Um, We

[04:20:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: have... We have, uh, defining further what a good faith effort is for map extensions, all those in, are there any comments on that? Okay, all those in favor of doing that?

[04:21:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: That's, I think 6 out of seven. And we have also clarifying when we're obligated to approve map extensions and when it's voluntary.

[04:21:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: All those in favor.

[04:21:25] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, if staff could interject. This is gonna be challenging. to figure out what the code amendment would be to address that if it's about what's discretionary and what's, um, and what's mandatory. We rely almost exclusively on the subdivision Map Act, which actually has very limited discretion that the city has. And so while a lot of the amendments that we've already incorporated into chapter 28, which is the subdivision chapter that addresses map extensions, it's actually to align with the subdivision map act even more. So while I think staff understands the concern, and I think there's ways we can definitely clarify this. And automatically, I'm already thinking about some of our new website pages and other ways we can get a lot more information out about what we consider and how we evaluate things. I think staff's a little bit concerned about how this suggestion is being done, that it's not quite clear what we would be amending or doing.

[04:22:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: So are you willing to withdraw that one? Staff recommendation for staff recommended approach. Do the staff recommend? Can you say what the staff recommend? Sure. So staff's recommendation to address

[04:22:44] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: the concern about discretion is actually to address it using other resources and tools, not through the zoning code or the chapter 28 subdivision.

[04:22:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: And would you need a straw pole on that?

[04:22:56] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: No. No.

[04:22:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Good. Okay, so that one is addressed. And then we have, um, increasing the ADU height limit to match duos, which is 28 feet. Have I summarized that right? Okay, all those in favor? So that's four in favor. Okay. I think that's all of them. Have I skipped any of them? Did I skip one? With allowing... Oh, the coming backs we're voting on? Okay. All those in favor of coming back, uh, to review, uh, second story interior facing decks in duos later. Did I?

[04:23:56] Unknown Speaker: Balcony?

[04:23:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: I think they are balconies. I think they're balconies. Okay. All those in favor.

[04:24:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: So that's four. Do you have another one?

[04:24:11] Unknown Speaker: Maybe, well, you mentioned...

[04:24:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, I wasn't gonna, the coming back ones I wasn't bringing up, but I can bring them up if you'd like.

[04:24:19] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: If staff may interject about 1033. So one of the housing element items, our programs, excuse me, is to look and study and consider subdivisions of SB9 units, which is gonna be a very similar process for looking at potentially subdivisions for ADUs. And so what staff's intent is, is to take that program in that process and look at these holistically. So we already have, I guess, on our list of things to do, look into, what, 1033, you know, is asking.

[04:24:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, that's fun. Okay, I think I've caught them all. Are there any, are there, you have several more?

[04:25:01] Unknown Speaker: The community meeting?

[04:25:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, yeah, so all those suggestions for the future, I was not going to take, I thought staff was good with them, but do you need, they're not, you want, uh, straw poles, or are you good with the suggestion?

[04:25:16] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: I think we're clear. Thank you.

[04:25:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so are there any remaining ones that we need straw poles on?

[04:25:28] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: So just to summarize real quick, the only actual changes to the draft material in front of council tonight are to address the definition of good faith effort and to increase the ADU height. Otherwise, everything else are suggestions for future consideration.

[04:25:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Did we talk about the clarity about whether the, what do we call it, the pre-application, the informal, is that, do you need guidance on that too? I don't believe we got a vote on that one, so that might be one we missed. Which one is that?

[04:26:11] Unknown Speaker: Clarifying that the informal application is voluntary, as staff said earlier. Definition of the good faith effort on map extensions? No, different one. When we're obligated to improve map extensions and when it's voluntary? No. Yet another one. Staff

[04:26:31] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: had mentioned earlier that the informal application process is voluntary, but that's not mentioned in the municipal code, so it would be to clarify that it's a voluntary process.

[04:26:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, clarify that the informal application process is voluntary. That's what you want. Okay. All those in favor of clarifying that the informal application process is voluntary. Okay. Then I'll stop.

[04:27:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So we have... Three now. Are we ready for emotion?

[04:27:20] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: And just to further assist? So of the 3 proposed modifications, Specifically, if the good faith effort definition is in regards to the map subdivisions, that one would be in attachment too. So that would be a modification to the ordinance, the attachment to the council port. And then the other 2 are amendments to attachment one, chapter 36. Okay.

[04:28:00] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, if I might also a reminder that the supplemental report that was at the dais for each of you has additional language for readings when they come to that.

[04:28:17] Unknown Speaker: I believe it's on the 3rd page we actually wrote out. in red text, what could be read into the record.

[04:28:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. No one wants to read the motion because it's 1000000 pages, so I will I will do that.

[04:28:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: So happy birthday.

[04:28:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, this is how I want to celebrate my birthday, listening to all of Lucas's pet amendments and reading this text. Okay.

[04:28:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: You can read it.

[04:29:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I know, that should be his that should be his punishment.

[04:29:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, um, I would like to make emotion. Um, to, one, find the proposed amendments to chapter 8 buildings 25 neighborhood preservation, 28 subdivisions, 32 trees, shrubs, and plants, 35 water sewage, and other municipal services, and 36 zoning of the Mountain View City code to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Secret Guidelines, section 15061 subsection B1 through B3 as the amendments are to with state legislation. Implement adopted housing element programs, relate to ministerial activities, otherwise categorically exempt under the sequet guidelines, and are otherwise covered by the common sense exemption that the amendments will not result in a significant effect on the environment. To introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 36 zoning of the city code to align with recently enacted state law and to implement 2023 to 2031 housing element programs, including updates to accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit regulations, the land use table on development standards in residential, commercial, and industrial zones related to low barrier, navigation centers, child daycare, employee housing, and other res uses, and parking requirements, and provisions for micro-enterprise home kitchen operations, and hydrogen fueling stations, to modify provisions related to entitlement applications, development review, hearing and extension processes, to clarify or streamline existing procedures and practices, to incorporate permit provisions for moving buildings, and to make modifications, clarifications, and technical corrections to be read entitled only further reading waived, and set a second reading for January 23rd 2024. Attachment one to the council report, with modifications as described in the staff's supplemental memo to revise Section 36.12.75D to refer to section 36.12.85 for applicable height limits for multifamily residential ADUs to revise the commercial land use table in section 36.18.05 to address residential care home as a permitted use in the CNCSNCRA zoning district's per state law. And to delete section 36.56.12 in its entire regard, I'm assuming, entirety regarding a one application filing limitation. Three, introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, approving amendments to chapter 8 buildings, chapter 25, neighborhood preservation. Chapter 23, tree, shrubs, and plants, and chapter 35, water, sewage, and other municipal services, to replace references to the development review committee, with design review. Align with state laws on electric amendments to chapter 8 buildings. Chapter 25, neighborhood preservation, chapter 28 subdivisions, chapter 32, tree, shrubs, and plants, chapter 35, water sewage, and other municipal services, and chapter 36 zoning of the city code, December 5th, 2023, page 2 of 18. vehicle charging requirements and micro enterprise home kitchen operations, and relocate certain accessory dwelling unit provisions from chapter 36 into chapter 8 and amendments to chapter 28 subdivisions to modify Lotline adjustment procedures and clarify existing subdivision map extension procedures. To be read in title only further reading waived and said a 2nd reading for January 23rd, 2024 attachment 2 to the council report. For, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, making findings required by California public utilities code section 21676 that the proposed amendments to chapter 36 zoning of the city code is consistent with the purposes set forth in California public utilities code section 21670 and overruling the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. A-Look determination that said amendments is inconsistent with certain A-Look noise, height, and safety zone policies, as defined by the comprehensive land use plan for Moffatt Airfield Airport, attachment 3 to the council report. Thank you. We can fill.

[04:33:47] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, if counsel wanted to include the amendments.

[04:33:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And council member Ramirez amendments?

[04:33:53] Unknown Speaker: No, no, I don't know.

[04:33:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And the straw, which do I need to read those too?

[04:33:58] Unknown Speaker: No more reading. So adding the definition of good faith effort would be to attachment too. The amendments regarding increase ADU height to 28 feet, as well as clarifying that informal applications are voluntary or both part of amendments to attachment one.

[04:34:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, so moved.

[04:34:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: And it passes. And what is the sense of counsel? Would you like a short break or power on? Power on.

[04:34:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Do we need to vote to move past 10?

[04:34:38] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we do.

[04:34:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I make the motion.

[04:34:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: So we have a motion by council member Ramos and a 2nd by council member Ramirez to move past 10. And we can vote.

[04:35:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Passes 6 to one. Okay. Now we're moving to item 7.one, which is the public safety building, project 20 dash 49 conceptual design and public art budget. We have principal project manager David Printy, an assistant public works director, Adirango, presenting the item.

[04:36:09] Principal Project Manager David Printy: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and city council. My name is David Printing. I'm principal project manager with Public Works. I have with me Edarango, Assistant Director. And also in the audience, I have Nathan Herrero of SVA Architects, our consultant group, and for public safety related questions, Chiefs Michael Canfield and Juan Diaz are also in the audience. We are here to request approval of the revised scope insight plan, architectural concept design and public art budget for the Public Safety Art Building. This project has been to council several times over the last two years. Last on June 27th of this year, council reviewed the conceptual design and requested changes to the scope and design approach. Council requested six main adjustments to the projects shown here, including accommodating the city's public safety needs for the next 40 to 50 years and revising the architectural design concept alternatives so that they better emulate the permanence and presence of Mountain View's existing civic buildings. Working with the design team, we revise the scope and site plan to increase the main building to 75,000 square feet, which also includes enlarging the multipurpose auditorium by 1,000 square feet. We also increase the outdoor area, adjacent to the auditorium for public events, and added capacity to the public parking adjacent to thereof. Also, as requested, we provided a secondary exit from the secure parking to Franklin Street. These modifications reduced the future use portion of the site down to 0.6 acres, which is still large enough to accommodate a future city administration building, or expanded public safety operations, or other uses. Lastly, per council request, we added a fully enclosed shooting range to the top of the parking garage. One other area where council expressed interest was in continuing to provide a welcoming community activity space near the corner of Villa in Franklin. There's a conceptual design plan, has accomplished this in several ways by providing a protected public entry plaza, which adjoins the generous entry lobby. which is also next to the expanded auditorium, which has kitchen amenities and restrooms for public use, and is adjacent to the expanded public event plaza next to the public parking lot. This expansion of the scope, an increase of the size of the facility, to 75,000 square feet, will provide a staffing capacity increase of over 40% 7% over existing levels. And we'll meet the needs of the city for the next 40 or 250 years. Staff, therefore, requests council approve the revised project scope and site plan with the following features, including the expansion to 75,000 square feet. Council also requested that we address comments on the and work with the design team to revisit the exterior architecture of the project. And in doing so, they've created four distinct alternatives that better represent the permanence and presence of civic buildings, such as city hall and the Mountain View public library. Excuse me. These were reviewed internally with police and fire and planning departments and staff selected, civic traditional and civic Americana for council consideration. The Civic Traditional, the proposed option is an expression of perhaps the quintessential architecture style in California. The style provides a familiar vernacular with a mixture of gravitas appropriate for a public safety building. The tower and arches at a sense of grace and elegance that are well suited to attenuating the main entry, accentuating the main entry, excuse me, and breaking up the long villa elevation. The traditional scheme materials would include stucco and stone, or precast wainscot, as well as a tile roof. And we have a few perspectives, viewing the main entry off of Villa and Franklin, and in view of the public plaza next to the auditorium. And here are some both historic and current examples of this style. The second option, termed civic Americana, is a classic American architectural style, commonly used for both civic and transportation buildings. The building is characterized by large massing elements, prominent gable roof forms, and strong symmetry. Similar to the traditional style, the elevations provide a balance of glazing and solid materials, to convey civic character, as well as security needs of the public safety building. Americana scheme would include precast sighting, and or stone veneer, as well as standing scene metal roof at the gables. Here, again, are a few perspective views at the corner of Villa in Franklin, and off of Franklin, looking towards the auditorium and public plaza. And again, here are some examples of this architectural styles, several of which should be familiar to Mountain View residents. The other style options, Civic Modern and Civic Expressive, were developed, but were not as well suited for the projects transitional downtown environment, and in design challenges that made them less than ideal options for this project. Nonetheless, to achieve similar artistic and interesting features that the Civic Expressive contains, staff recommends the council consider enhancing the project with an increased art budget, increasing it to $1 million. So staff, therefore, requests that council would select one of the two proposed concept designs so that the detailed design of this project may commence. As previously discussed with council at the last meeting, the project was originally estimated between 160 and $165 million, with the proposed project changes and art budget recommendation, as well as the added timeline to the project. It is now estimated to cost between $199 million and $204 million. After tonight's council meeting, staff will work with the design team to commence schematic and final design, and we'll eventually return to council in early 2024 for the garage design that complements the selected architectural option. Staff will also return to council in the fall of 2024 for California Environmental Quality Act, or sequel clearance, and to bring recommendations for heritage tree removals and mitigation. Staff will also meet with the Visual Arts Committee in the fall of 2024 to review public art options for the project. In conclusion, staff requests for Public Safety Building Project 2049, council approve the revised project scope and site plan, select an architectural conceptual design for the building, and approve a public art budget increase from $400,000 to $1 million. Thank you for your time, and staff is available for any questions.

[04:44:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, now we're this part of the meeting, we will ask council questions. Do council members have questions? Vice mayor.

[04:44:29] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I just have a question. Um, I think, um, Arn could answer this easily, uh, about how much, um, money we will have, how much tax money we will have to have annually to bond for, um, $200 million.

[04:44:46] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for the question, Vice Mayor. I'll be able to partially answer your question. So previously, we asked our consultants to size what would roughly be 160 million at the time, it was at prevailing rates, such as bear in mind, it could change, but it was approximately 9 million annually in debt service payments for a bond sizing of roughly 160 million.

[04:45:14] Unknown Speaker: If staff could interject real quick. On that topic, we do have existing funding stream identified with the cops program. How much is that?

[04:45:31] Unknown Speaker: My understanding, and um, is that it was estimated to be a funding stream supporting $40000000? Was the target?

[04:45:38] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Sorry to play ping pong with you. But we have also been saving some of those money, so they're currently as a fun balance available, which I believe is approximately 20 million, but I think public works is going to be utilizing most of that for the early stages of the project.

[04:46:02] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: They're using it for the early stages of this project, not another project.

[04:46:07] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Correct.

[04:46:08] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. you. Um, thank you, Don Cameron Public Works director.

[04:46:12] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you for confirming that. I did want to further confirm that. We expect to use the 20 million will be sufficient to get us through final design. And as noted, while the council previously made some decisions to set aside funding for this project, which previously was estimated to be up to around $40 million. We do envision continuing to work with Mr. Andrews and our finance department in terms of all the, you know, various funding strategies to put together full funding plan for this project.

[04:46:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Matterchek.

[04:47:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um... So I was wondering if you could, um, talk a little bit more about the path from the building to the secure garage? Is it secure? Like, what are the black asterisks? I think those attachment one. Sorry. Oh, there we go.

[04:47:41] Public Works Director Don Cameron: It's a little small on the screen, but I can move my mouse here. This is Oak Street up the top. And, um, so your question is about arrestees being brought on site.

[04:47:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No, from the building to the secure garage for the employees.

[04:47:59] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Oh, so this area behind between the garage and the building is a secure area. There's a gate that goes across the driveway, you know, from Oak Street.

[04:48:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, and if you're walking, and you're leaving the building?

[04:48:16] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Right, you're walking as a pathway across here directly into the secure parking.

[04:48:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So this side of the site is all staff only. And is it secure?

[04:48:28] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Yes, it is fenced in. And it will have an automated fence at the Oak Street driveway.

[04:48:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yep, sorry, I'm talking about pedestrians. Um, employees who are walking. I got the entrance with vehicles. But what are those black dots, so to speak?

[04:48:48] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I think those are just meant to be planters. They're diagrammatic. Those could change.

[04:48:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, there's a fence. Is there also landscaping? Is that what that is?

[04:49:03] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So there's an area between the buildings, the sort of a staff area that's, again, a secure and a staff only area, that is an amenity for people come out here to eat their lunch? They also have access between the 2 buildings. So there's a walkway that goes between the 2 buildings.

[04:49:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, let's see. And the only way to get from the building to the secure parking, if you're walking, is on the ground level, right?

[04:49:40] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Correct.

[04:49:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And can you tell me, or maybe this is a question for the chief? Um, a little bit more about how the range would be used. Is it just for firearms training, or would it be used for other things? And would it be used all the time?

[04:50:02] Chief Mike Campfield: Mike Campfield Police Chief, Councilwoman Ratachek, to answer your question, the firearms range is absolutely used, as you would expect, for firearms, but not just for firearms, our less lethal munitions, our bowl of wrap, which is essentially a weighted tether, that's projected from a handheld device. We utilize that at a firearms range, just like we would use soft projectile targets that are less lethal, or that are impact rounds, sponge rounds, or sometimes beanbaggrounds. That type of training would happen and take place at our firearms range, as would scenario based training, realistic, kind of hands on scenario based training that could result in firearms being used, or could result in a de escalation and verbal tactics, having the facility enables us to greatly expand the types of training that we do. Part of it is firearms, but it is certainly not limited to firearms. And as far as the frequency, certainly our training would increase, there are a lot of barriers to training currently, certainly the duration, the distance of travel, as well as the frequency, with the ability to book the training, have folks that can are certified to put on the training, having available at the same time that the ranges that we utilize are available. That's a barrier, and I would expect that there will be significantly more training with fewer work hours used for transit.

[04:51:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: How many times a week.

[04:51:35] Chief Mike Campfield: I would think that almost every day, there would be some level of training within the range. However, that remains to be seen exactly.

[04:51:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And would we consider allowing other agencies to use the facility for a fee when we're not using it?

[04:51:51] Chief Mike Campfield: Certainly, that's, that's consistent with many firearms, police department firearms ranges, and I would not be opposed to it. It's probably a larger conversation to be had, but I know that that loosely has been discussed. and is consistent with firearms ranges of this sort.

[04:52:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes. Okay, thank you. Um, I think that's all the questions I have now.

[04:52:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, I actually, um, Mr. Campfield, I am Chief. I have a related question. A resident brought up renting out the range, and that he was hesitant about implications, and you said it would be part of a larger discussion, and I'm not familiar with that case. Can you say what the larger... He said he didn't want people traveling in and out with guns. I don't know what the larger discussion entails, so maybe you can clue me in.

[04:52:42] Chief Mike Campfield: I think, like, any, what I was referring to would be that the conversation about what a city building is used for, and the desire to have offsetting revenue from renting out the range. I am not familiar with government or police ranges being used for anything other than police type training. So I don't think that any range, any kind of foreseeable outcome would be civilian or community based use, like a private industry. It is not uncommon for other law enforcement agencies to utilize ranges, like we do now, but I personally do not see community safety concerns from law enforcement agencies coming to the Mountain View Police Department, like they do now for shared investigations, but to do training. I think that's just the reality of the need for law enforcement training, and the fact that sworn law enforcement officers do carry firearms.

[04:53:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Oh, Chief, we need you again. Council member Avoco.

[04:53:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So regarding the range, um, was there any, in all of you, I guess, uh, discussion about building it elsewhere, like, I think we're talking about a substation or some facilities out, um, by fire station 5 out in the North Bay Shore area. What was that, discussed at all? I'm just wondering if that would be easier, faster to build. Um, thoughts on all on that.

[04:54:18] Chief Mike Campfield: So I may have to defer to the public works director, but I think that the space that I'm familiar with that has been discussed would not meet the needs as available for a firearms range.

[04:54:34] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you for the question, Councilman Rabbit Coco. No, we have not explored other locations where a fire range could go. However, as the chief was noticing, noting North Bay Shore, we just on the face of it, could not envision trying to put a range out there that would meet the needs of the police department, trying to integrate it in with the precise plan and the master plan and all the housing that's planned out there. Just the amount of land that would be necessary. And it may not necessarily save in the construction cost, because, ideally, you're still going to want to build something that provides the noise proofing and other aspects of firing range. In this particular case, the roof of the garage structure does present a unique opportunity to get in the size of firing range that is needed by our police department without having to use additional land area.

[04:55:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Yeah. Just want to make sure we, um, can do it as efficiently as possible.

[04:55:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I guess my question is, I am a little taken aback by the escalating cost. And I'm wondering whether, and, you know, the fact that we'd have to do a revenue measure to address that, and that there are multiple things that our community wants to see in a revenue measure. I'm wondering if there any, if there's any fallback position, in terms of, you know, if, if, um, the community doesn't, if, if it, uh, doesn't poll well, are there fallback positions, or we talk about that at that point? Is there any comment on that?

[04:56:34] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Again, thank you for the question, Mayor. At this point, we are exploring the revenue measure, as Mr. Andrews can speak too further, if need be, as the key option for funding the new public safety building. Should a decision be made that it's not what there is no revenue measure available or to be pursued, to fund it, then, yes, we would have to work closely with the city manager's office, to examine, are there other possibilities, what could they be and bring them forward for council's consideration. Okay. Thank you.

[04:57:15] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I can just add to that. So tomorrow will be actually the first ad hoc committee meeting of the subcommittee that's gonna be starting to discuss the revenue measure. At that meeting, we will introduce our polling firm and our strategist firm that will be working through the polling firm. And those are exactly the types of questions that we're gonna want to query the community on, and as we start to develop a survey instrument, we will be trying to discern exactly that type of sediment.

[04:57:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Are there further council questions? Okay, so now it's time for public commentary. If, um, those of you who are here in person, please make out a card, and those of you who are here on Zoom, raise your hands, we take in person speakers first.

[04:58:17] Public Speaker: Hi, friends. I would like to do some target practice at the range. That sounds like fun. Thank you.

[04:58:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, as for virtual speakers, first, we have Jesse Cup. Mr. Cup, are you there?

[04:58:53] Jesse Cup: Yes, it took a moment. But I'm here now. Uh, some Jesse cup, uh, chair of the visual arts committee. However, I'm not speaking on behalf of the committee tonight. I want to thank staff. Whoever it was, I don't know if it was Chief Panfield or multiple staff members or whoever, but whoever said, we should have a $10000 of public art here. That's a really great sentiment, and I appreciate, um, the value of public art, and that it more art makes a project better. That's awesome. However, if, you know, in my in my ideal world, I would say, yeah, we could have a $1000000 of public art. Uh, here at the public safety building, um, and maybe a $1000000 at the, uh, new transit center with the light rail station, Caltrain station, underpass, all that. Um, but if we're living in a budget constrained world, if we have to choose, which site gets a million, I would prefer it to be the location with more people and more foot traffic. I think it makes sense to focus the art on where the people are. Um, and I think that's gonna be kind of the gateway to Mountain View, the gateway to our crown jewel downtown. And it makes sense to just put the extra funding there. If we do have to pick and choose, which, say, gets public funding. If they can both get a million, great, I'm on board. Um, but again, if, if, you know, there's a question of, oh, we can only force you at once, I think it's more appropriate to do it at the transit center rather than the public safety building. Thank you for your time.

[05:00:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Let's see. We do have one more public speaker. Albert Jeans. Can you hear me?

[05:00:45] Unknown Speaker: We can hear you, yes.

[05:00:46] Albert Jeans: Okay, great. Good evening, Mayor Hicks and council members. Actually, I wasn't planning to speak, but after I saw these designs, I thought I should pipe up. Um, 1st of all, I'd like to congratulate staff on limiting your choice to these 2 designs. I think we've seen enough of the leg of the style buildings all around that we don't need more of those, and I think in a few years, those are going to look extremely dated anyways. Between the 2 styles presented to you. I personally prefer the, it's called Civic America now, Americana. Um, maybe it's because I happen to like Frank Lloyd right a lot. But I think you can't go wrong by voting for either of these 2 styles. Thank you very much.

[05:01:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay, so now we're, we're, um, bringing this back for council deliberation and action. Um, Council member Matachek?

[05:01:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I really appreciate staff revising the proposal. Um, I think this is much better than what we saw last time. In many respects. Um, it's great that it should accommodate the city's needs for 40, 50 years. The addition of the second egress from the parking structure is good. The addition of the shooting range. The expanded auditorium, the expanded outdoor space. Those are all great. I think that's what I was looking for, and I think some of those were ones that my colleagues mentioned, so thank you for incorporating all of those. I especially like the new options for the architecture. And I do think both of them are very nice. Um, I'm leaning toward civic traditional, and the reason I say that is because, um, it's got arches. It's very simple. It's got arches. And we have so many buildings in the city that are, as we've said before, squares and rectangles, that it's nice to see a different shape. And so I prefer that one, although they are both very nice. It also seems like it has more of a sense of permanence. versus the previous designs that we saw. So, um, I appreciate it, and thank you for coming up with some other ideas. And I was thrilled when I saw the recommendation to increase the public art budget to a million dollars. Um, I think that's a great idea. And I support it. So actually, I will make that motion that we, if you're ready for one. Uh, that we approve the staff recommendation is, which is the revised scope and site plan, and that we, um, increase the public art budget from $400,000 to $1 million, and that we select the Civic Traditional as the, um, architecture. Thank you.

[05:03:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: So additional comments, uh, council member, Abbe Koga?

[05:03:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to staff for bringing this back and much improved on many levels. I do believe that planning out for 50 years is important because these buildings should last a long time and should be able to serve our community for that duration. And just, you know, my comment. I know there's some public comment about the cost of the building and some concerns there, but for me, the, you know, I've been talking about this at least in my, before my time, but during my time, it's been about 12 years now and that cost increased. It was 60000000 back then and now we're at 200 million. So my, you know, my interest priority is to just get this moving as quickly as we can so that we can just keep it going. And every year, as it was mentioned, escalates the cost. So the sooner we can get it done, the better. So I appreciate us moving forward with this. And, um, in terms of architecture, I actually, for the, uh, Americana style, I think the, looking at the pictures, more of our city downtown buildings are of that style, um, but, I mean, I'm not going to, I'm not going to, make that the reason not to vote for the project, but I was hoping that we could get a straw. vote on the the style 1st before we made emotion and voted on it. So I would be willing to do that.

[05:05:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, ways of phrasing that. We now have, so we now have, um, civic traditional on the, as a part of the motion, and so we can vote in favor or not in favor of that. So all those in favor of civic traditional. Those in favor of Civic Americana? So I guess... We're going with that. So do we need to ask for an amendment to the motion or do we put up a new motion? I guess it depends on whether the maker of the motion wants to, wants to take the, um...

[05:06:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Can I ask why folks prefer the civic, um, Americana? I heard one, you just said it looks like other buildings.

[05:06:41] Unknown Speaker: You have someone behind you.

[05:06:43] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I promise.

[05:06:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, you want to? Sorry, I was just... I was wondering if...

[05:06:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, council member, hobby, go go ahead more.

[05:06:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I, I, again, I think it matches our down, more of our downtown buildings, and, um, I think it's, we didn't, we eliminated the modern ones, and I totally agree with that, but I think it is more modern than the traditional, and we have, I wanted, you know, reflect that the times. But it's really more about fit and match and I just feel that America matches our downtown better.

[05:07:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos?

[05:07:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So, I'm glad that we actually got these 2 items to pick from, because I felt like we got a lot of pushback whenever we get those next, the other 2 architectural styles, whenever, when everyone's complaining about giant boxes. Um, But, uh, I lean more towards Civic Americana. I do love the the arches as as Council member Magic, says. And I do love the look of stone. One of the things that kind of did steer me away from it was a concern of, which has a little level of irony, of the mission style, and the history behind some of our missions in relation to the indigenous people, this land. And, um, I actually grew up in a mission district. So that was actually kind of ironic that it was also, but it was a concern that I heard from a constituent. And I did want to respect that a little. If there's ways without the mission style of it being still traditional, I am not an architect. So I'm going from this as a look of values, not from a heavy background in architecture or really have an eye for really anything. Um, so that's, that was my logic, and also Americana does look pretty much like our city hall and our other civic areas.

[05:08:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I'll just comment that I voted for Civic Americana, for reflecting some of the reasons that council member Abacoga did, I think that I don't want to, um, I would strongly prefer not to build something that's kind of faux historic with stucco panels rather than real stucco. I think that the, the civic traditional kind of bridges that, that it's not overly modern for this area, but it's not trying to fool you into thinking it's an actual mission, which is not going to be able to fool you into thinking that. And then also that all the members of the public who've made comments have preferred the civic traditional over the civic Americana. So I think. Oh, did I say it wrong? I knew I would do that, but thank you. The Civic... Wait, here. Pacific Americana over the Civic traditional. Thank you. Um, yeah, the terms should be market. different. So that's why I made that choice.

[05:09:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks, for me, it just seemed like it looked, um, too similar to the, um, gastro station and the Mountain View station. I was looking for a little bit of differentiation. Again, with arches. I didn't view this as something that's trying to be faux historic at all. Um, I viewed it as just, um, a different style of architecture that I thought would complement what we have downtown, uh, very nicely, actually. So... To me, the Civic Americana is very busy. So I imagine we can work with it, that it's not going to be exactly the way it's... Is this the final product?

[05:10:43] Nathan Herrero: This is what we call the conceptual design, and, well, certainly undergo, um, you know, an evolution as we work through the detailing and the actual construction drawings, and so, I mean, these are, in any sense, sketchy by design, so that it's just to evoke a feeling, which direction does counsel, uh, prefer for the project to go. And so we didn't go with the highly rendered computer rendering that looks photographic, with the hand sketch. So I imagine you're open to additional comments, such as, uh, too busy or whatever council members want to make.

[05:11:26] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: Thank you for the comment. Etta Rango Assistant Public Works director. We are open to comments as, um, principal, um, project manager, printing and mentioned. These are, again, concept level designs. So it's sort of, it's this intent of the look and feel of the building. We will work with the design elements and the specific features as we go through the design. And again, these were sketches you weren't highly rendered as we developed four different concepts, and we wanted to bring that forward before we further developed any concepts to any specific detail.

[05:12:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, with that said, do council members have further comments?

[05:12:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Besides too busy. Well, I guess, my comment on this would be, um, I think it is pretty busy looking, but, you know, this is just a sketch. Um, I would like it to be a little bit more differentiated from the other buildings downtown if we move to the Americana. So some way, make it a little bit different than the existing buildings. And, um, I don't know if you can do this, if it would look horrible or not, um, but add some elements of, um, not square or rectangle. And then I would, um, switch the motion to the Civic Americana if we can make some tweaks to this. But, uh, Council member Komei, you were the seconder.

[05:12:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I'd be comfortable with that. I think too, my thought process was it's on Villa, and so you pass She TJ and Tide House, when Tide House is already, I think, a historic building, and Tide House has those arches and is as white from what I'm recalling, or that type of color scheme. So I thought as a user, whether walking or riding your biker, however, going to the public safety building, it would be kind of consistent with what's existing in that historic street. So that's how I approached it. wasn't really thinking about some of the other things that were mentioned by colleagues more in that this is, we're talking about doing historic ordinances. There's a section that has some historic buildings there, and how could we tie it into the public safety building, is what I thought. So I'm comfortable. I think no matter what, I'd just like to move forward tonight, and I think that the public art could be ways of maybe adding some accents that make it feel aesthetically pleasing.

[05:14:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so, um, yeah, modified the motion to be civic Americana, which they had different names. And really? And vice mayor?

[05:14:23] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, my initial response was really that I liked the classic California, just because I thought it was more attractive. And then, um, I, you know, a constituent reached out to me and talked about the oppressive nature of the mission style, but then I thought about the, you know, the more brick, which is very classic, um, Eastern. There was a lot of oppression with old brick buildings in the East, too. It was different than the mission, but, you know, I can't say it wasn't necessarily any better. So my feeling is that I just really, in the '70s, in the '60s and '70s, it seemed like governments, particularly the federal government, went through a phase of just making each building they built uglier than the next one. And what's the purpose of that? I mean, you know, it's not necessarily that much, you don't say that much money, and it's ugly forever. So, I think what we really want to do is make a building that is attractive, and that people in our community can always be proud of. So, you know, I'm sure that there are ways to make both of these styles that way, and that's what I care about.

[05:15:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I guess the only comments I'll add is, I think that most of our, well, I won't comment on the police station, it's actually pretty fun. It looks like it's made out of rammed earth. But our fire stations are all, I think they're fairly attractive. I think they're some of the nicest, among the nicer buildings in Mountain View, and with a lot of, you know, nice, authentic siding. So I would just, I would... I think, you know, the ones in particular that stand out to me, or Fire Station 51, and 2, and 5, they're really well executed, and they have materials. I'd like to go more towards authentic materials like those fire stations use, like tile, limestone, cast cement, some of those. So those are, that's where I'd move going forward. I think we've done a good job in the past and can do it in the future. As far as the art budget goes. I just want to say where I really want to see art is where people are, along the pedestrian mall, and I want to make sure that the grade separation is not, you know, just a dark tunnel, and that Moffat, as we go through the precise plan. I think that's where the preponderance of people will be. So if we're going to raise it to a million here, we have to raise it to over a million there. So I'm a little, because, to me, that really is the priority, you put the art where the people are.

[05:17:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: So with that, what does the maker of the motion want to reword it, or how are we, is that how we're going? You did already? Okay. Then we can vote. Okay, the motion passes. So now we're on item eight, which is council staff committee reports. Does anyone have Council member Abit Koga?

[05:18:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to report out that I think it was last week. I attended the Caltrain local policymakers. I forgot about the group. work. There's a workshop that was actually held here and the local policy maker curse group meets monthly to get updates on Caltrain's electrification project as well as great separations and even high speed rail, but we had a special workshop that, um, that evening and we talked about all of our great separation projects and how to move forwards. There's some interest in trying to combine all of the projects into one mega project. It was basically trying to discuss ways that the great separations could get funded more easily or more quickly. I will say, I express concerns. What I've realized in attending these meetings is that our projects are actually quite farther ahead than most of the projects along the line. And as much as I appreciate coordination. And, you know, I support that. My, you know, I express my concern that nothing slow us down from moving our projects forward as well as us competing or going out for grant funds that would help us fund the project. And I know that we'll be discussing down the road, the cost escalation of our Castro's street project. And, um, you know, I had to express with Caltrain staff my disappointment with that. And, um, you know, frankly, the, just the need for us to have more accuracy as we move forward, as well as, um, you know, asking for assistance in ways to find funding to make up the cost difference. So, um, just wanted to report out what we discussed. We also have a VTA ad hoc committee that I chair on grade separations, and that group will meet next Friday. So just a lot of different discussions going on, but I continue to say that I just want our projects to move forward and get funded as quickly as possible so the cost doesn't keep escalating. The other thing, just a reminder and request, our cities association, a holiday dinner is coming up on Thursday, December 12th. I'm sorry, December 14th. It's actually here at the Adobe Building, 6 p.m. reception 7 p.m. dinner. It's always a nice festive time for colleagues from across the county to get together and celebrate. I think we have this big celebration is celebrating our JPA formation. We will also be honoring Girish Balachandran from Silicon Valley Clean Energy as our partner of the year. He's also retiring next March, so we'll be honoring him. And then our legislator of the year is assembly member, Evan Loe. So I hope you'll join us. Thanks.

[05:21:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Matachek.

[05:21:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I attended the National League of Cities Conference in Atlanta. Um, Is that last week or the week before, I sort of lost track of time. And as always, it was a great conference. The general session speakers were great. They always are. But the one I really enjoyed was the founder of the World Central Kitchen. It was really interesting to hear how he approaches feeding people who are involved in some sort of, like, natural disaster or war, or crisis of some kind. You know, he says that people in the restaurant business have the skills to feed people. So they're going to use it. He was really interesting. The breakout sessions were also very good. Although I will say, there weren't as many as there have been in previous years. The one I really enjoyed was on technology for government agencies. And they had a, it was a breakout within a breakout, and I went to the one on AI, and it was really interesting to talk about best practices for governments when it comes to AI, to have a policy. And actually, they cited San Jose as a city that they think has done a good job of putting together a policy. And, um, one of the key elements they said you should have in that is, um, what should somebody, what could somebody do, um, and how do they do it? What's the process if someone feels like AI has mis, um, characterized something about them, or a project they, um, want us to work on or something? But what's the recourse if AI has, in their view, gone astray? Um, so that was really interesting. I also participated in the SVRIA, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board meeting. And the most notable item was a continuation of the discussion on how to fund the updating and replacing of equipment, as well as potentially expanding the system. There might be a couple of opportunities there. And that has cost implications for the reserve policy and funding, frankly, of the SVRA system. So, actually, the SVRIA director, executive director, is going to come to a Mountain View city council meeting and do a presentation on what SVRIA is. Um, be good to have everybody here as well as everybody. that lives in Mountain View, understand that system because it's really beneficial to us. We also had a CPPC meeting. Again, talking about the mayor vice mayor rotation. And we had a council transportation committee meeting. Um, And those meetings, as I would say, are chock full of products, uh, projects that, um, I mean, public works has really kicked into high gear here. And, um, I mean, it's 3 or 4 projects per meeting that we discuss. We did talk about the grade separation on Castro and the challenges of funding, and how we could potentially change our plans, and that will come to council. We also discussed, which I thought was very interesting. The recent speed limit legislation, and how the city is using that. Um, and that comes to council as well. Very interesting. Um, let's see. We also did discuss the public art at the great separation project at Castro. And I agree that's a very visible place, and the art should be fabulous there. And that is it for me. Thank you.

[05:25:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[05:25:51] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I'm just reporting that I went to the Avenidas board meeting. It was my subcommittee or one of my designated committees that I go to. They released a, um, they're moving forward on their strategic plan with key performance index indicators, indicators. And they had an audited report. They had an update on, we got an email a long time ago of someone who was concerned about Ebenezer's relationship with this other organization called La Comida. Basically, everything has been settled. Uh, La Camida is now at a church and with the help of Avenidas, feeding residents there. Um, and, uh, that's overall, yeah. That's overall. Oh, one of the interesting things, we had a great presentation from the California Department of Aging, and they had like key, um, key, uh, top priorities on on seat of seniors. And it turns out that usually you would think that the top priority would be like having to do with medication, health, and caretaking. The top priority actually turned out to be housing for seniors. So that I found that kind of interesting. And I could submit, I could send everyone all these reports if they're interested.

[05:27:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member commit.

[05:27:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I just wanted to report that we had a CTC meeting on the 28th. I was like trying to pull up the agenda. I think some of the things that were alluded to by some colleagues are going through CTC. We're meeting 4 times a year now to try to work through some of the projects on the long list. And so, um, we also adopted our meeting schedule for 2024 if the new mayor will allow us to be. on CDC again. But truly, that's to try to provide some initial insights and feedback before it comes to counsel. Um, and so, you know, the, we're looking at a couple different projects. Um, let me... Just wanted to name some of them. So one of them is the transit center, as was mentioned. Apologies. Just pull this up really quickly. Um, The transit center grade separation, the speed limit, legislation as well as the public art, and then going forward, talking about, um, We'll be meeting in, I think, January, May, September, and October. So more to come. Thank you.

[05:28:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So no more reports in that case.

[05:28:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: Item 9, close session report city attorney lo, do you have a closed session report?

[05:28:55] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No, there is no closed session report this evening.

[05:28:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Then we're on item number 10 adjournment. The next city council meeting will be held on December 12th of 2023. This meeting is adjourned at 1105.

• ← Previous
• Next →