December 12, 2023 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Session of the Mountain View City Council of December 12, 2023. We are on item two. Roll call. The assistant city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:00:14] Unknown Speaker: Council member Abi Koka?

[00:00:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:00:17] Unknown Speaker: Council member committee. Council member Metachek.

[00:00:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here. Council member Ramirez.

[00:00:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here. Council member Ramos?

[00:00:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here,

[00:00:25] Unknown Speaker: Vice Mayor Show Walter.

[00:00:26] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Sure.

[00:00:27] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Hicks.

[00:00:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Here, thank you. So we have a quorum. We're now on item number three, which is the study session, entitled Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Historic Register Update, Scope of Deliverables, and Analysis. We will have Chinese and Spanish translation services for this item, and we'll now hear from our Chinese interpreter. [non-English speech not transcribed]

[00:01:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. Well, now hear from our Spanish interpreter.

[00:01:27] Unknown Speaker: Interpretation en Español, pulse el boton interpretation en zoom, is lecione, el idioma, a de cuado, pada escuchal, la reignon, en esse idioma.

[00:01:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. The purpose of this study session is to provide an update to the city council on the historic preservation ordinance and register update project, and receive direction on the project's scope of work, including goals, deliverables, scope of the historic survey, and outreach plan. Uh, Senior Planner, Ella Caracciung. Did I pronounce that right? And advanced planning manager, Eric Anderson, will present the item.

[00:02:30] Senior Planner Ella Karachian: Good evening, Mayor, and council members and community members. I am Ella Karachian, the project manager. I'm joined tonight by Eric Anderson Advanced Planning Manager. Tonight, we are discussing the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update Project to receive direction on the project's scope of work, including goal, develop deliverables, scope of the historic survey, and outreach plan. The city has a historic preservation ordinance and register since 2004. Together, these tools help the city preserve historically and culturally significant buildings as well as their character defining features. The purpose is to preserve the integrity as well as the look and feel of historically important buildings and neighborhoods. There are several reasons to update the ordinance and register at this time that are shown on the screen. At the April 12, 2022, city council meeting, city council reviewed and approved the project scope of work and consulting contract with Paige and Turnbull to update the zoning ordinance. Senders and procedures for the designation and preservation of historic resources. Um, in Mountain View register. The city council also directed the staff to review 8 buildings in downtown precise plan area age that can be nominated for national register. and develop historic historic district standards that could be applied to downtown area age. Staff held a Zoom community meeting on September 9, 2022 to go over major tasks and seek input on cities history and significant places that are important to the history of Mountain View. Staff held a hybrid community workshop on October 30th, 2023 to go over project goals, process and requirements. More information about this meeting is on the next slide. Yeah, sure. Key teams during the recent workshop include the following. Community members had a lot of questions about the process and requirements. There were some concerns raised by property owners, about excessive property owner obligations, and proposals that the incentives should minimize their financial impact. There were requests for clarity about who is affected, and what they can do with their properties. Attendees largely supported the downtown approach, but there was also lots of discussion about preserving Eichlers neighborhoods. Lastly, there was some support for the voluntary process. This table and the next one summarize the difference in the process for different projects depending on their historical status. This is light focuses on single-family homes and duplexes, which are treated differently in the city that other uses. This is because typically only a building permit is required to demolish or build a new single family home, while other uses need planning permits. Houses in downtown precise plan also need planning permits. The ordinance requires a HP permit for modifications to properties that are on the city's local register or eligible for a state and national register. In addition, sequa requires additional review for those projects. However, if the property is not historically significant or only eligible for low color register and opted off, then alterations to single family homes generally requires a building permit and sequel does not apply. In the middle column, you can see the process for historic resources on the local register, or houses that are eligible for estate and national register, or houses located in the downtown precise plan. On the right hand side, you can see the process for other single family homes, including those that are eligible for local register, but not on the local register at this point. This table shows the comparison of the process for non-single family and duplexes. Because all these properties require planning permits, the only distinction is whether or not the property is eligible for any listing. Um, in the middle column, you can see the process for... National, estate, or local register, and on the right hand side, you can see the process for not historically significant properties. Even if the property is not under register, sequel, acts as additional preservation measure for properties, because it requires historic assessment to see if they meet historic criteria. If a project site meets a historic criteria, and the project may significantly impact those structures, the city must prepare documents on their sequa. This may include an EIR. And if the ERR analysis shows the project's impact on the historic structure is significant. After all feasible mitigation is applied. The city council may still approve the project. But must adopt a statement of overriding consideration for the project to do so. Projects that would require sequel at this point include all projects on commercial, industrial, multifamily, and mixed-use sites, single-family, houses, and duplexes in downtown precise plan, and properties requiring HP permit under register or eligible for a state or national register. One of the major issues that we have right now is that it is not clear for property owners that may want to come in for a development project. What their obligations might be under sequel. Now I hand it over to Eric to go over Eric Anderson to go over the city council questions.

[00:09:52] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you. Thank you very much, Ella. As Ella described, there is not currently clarity on the existing requirements. Based on the previous council direction, as well as existing issues and community member feedback, staff is proposing these goals to clarify and streamline the process and to provide incentives and to create a downtown preservation district. The first question for the city council tonight is to get feedback on these draft goals. This next slide is regarding the list of project deliverables. The historic context statement presents an overview of the city's history. It identifies important periods, events, themes, and patterns of development, and it identifies integrity and significance characteristics for determining eligibility for the local register. The project team will also update the ordinance based on city council direction, including updates to the incentives offered to properties on the register. The historic survey has two parts, a reconnaissance survey and an intensive survey. Before finalizing these surveys, we're seeking council confirmation on the scope of these surveys, which is discussed later in this presentation. In addition to these other deliverables, staff is also proposing the creation of a historic marker program. This would help recognize local historic resources, increase awareness of the city's local history and showcase the importance of certain buildings, features, and locations in the city. Lastly, the consultants will prepare national register nominations for select buildings. Also provide more information about this later in the presentation. Staff is also proposing a robust outreach plan outlined here. Staff has already conducted some of the elements of this plan that are shown in blue on the slide. including stakeholder meetings, with historical association, Livable Mountain View, the Chamber of Commerce, and other advocacy groups. In addition, staff has held two community workshops to go over the project deliverables, the goals and requirements. Staff intends to continue stakeholder outreach, and targeted engagement with affected property owners and downtown businesses. Staff will continue the regular updates and dialogue with the Environmental Planning Commission, city council, and downtown committee, as well as additional meetings and workshops as needed. The second question for tonight is to get feedback on these deliverables and the outreach plan. One of the key questions for council tonight is the intensive survey scope. Conducting the citywide intensive survey is a highly sensitive process. Many property owners, tenants, and potentially neighborhoods could be affected, and many cities choose not to conduct citywide surveys, and choose to focus on specific neighborhoods or specific resources for protection and analysis. Council may be able to minimize impacts to single family and duplex property owners who are not now subject to historic permit or sequel requirements by not conducting a citywide survey. Once the city conducts a survey, and properties are identified as historically significant, sequel requires the city to evaluate the property as such, even if the city council ultimately decides not to place the properties on the register, due to property owner concerns. The following tables show the intensive survey scope options. The Project Tomb will use this direction to determine which sites from the reconnaissance survey will be subject to intensive survey. Staff is seeking counsel direction individually on the options. Council can select one or more of these options. Staff recommends scope A as shown on the screen. These are properties that are subject to development review and see what today. So historic analysis would be required. As noted on the table, this scope option supports all the project goals. This option includes all the commercial, industrial, multifamily, and mixed use sites, single family homes and duplexes in the downtown precise plan, and state and national eligible single family homes and duplexes. Scope B includes single family homes that have been on the local register, but the property owner requested removal from the register. These properties are not eligible for the state or national register, so they would not be required to go through a historic review process if they propose development. This scope would affect approximately 17 properties. Staff does not have a recommendation on this scope, since it does not support most of the goals. Scopes C1 and C2 are related to properties that have not been identified, single family and duplex properties specifically, that have not been identified as historic resources yet, and are not subject to the planning permit process. These properties would not need to go through the historic review process, if they proposed development. Scope C1 would allow properties and neighborhoods to voluntarily nominate themselves to the register. Scope C2 would study all single family and duplex properties in the city. Many of these properties may not wish to be on the register, and they would not otherwise be identified through the development review process. Staff recommends scope C1 based on the community input in the process. So this summarizes the 3rd question for counsel, which is to provide feedback on the scope options presented. Based on the city council and community feedback about Area H, staff is proposing the following approach to identify significant properties with local, national and state integrity in downtown Area H, as well as create a local downtown historic district. Scope A would include an assessment of all of these properties in area H, since they are all subject to planning permits. However, many buildings in Area H may not be individually eligible for state or national, or possibly even the local register. In 2020, for example, a study found that the area would not qualify for a state or national historic district. However, council has expressed interest in special preservation measures for this area. Staff is recommending developing local criteria for a downtown preservation district. Criteria could include existing physical characteristics, age, buildings roll in downtown, or other criteria that contribute to the historic feel of the area. Buildings that meet the criteria would be contributors to this district. We would also identify specific standards, procedures, and incentives for facade modifications of contributor properties to improve their integrity. Question 4 is whether counsel would like staff to move forward on this downtown preservation approach. At the city council meeting on April 12, 2022. Council directed staff to study 8 buildings in downtown in the downtown Precise Plan Area H that could be nominated to the National Register. Only 3 buildings listed on this slide have been identified to be eligible for national register nominations. Other buildings, such as the Ames Building or the Wildheimer Store, which contains orange hummus, or the Farmers and Merchants Bank, which contains red rock coffee, have had significant character modifications over time, and they were not deemed eligible for national register list. We have budget for five more nominations, and staff can go back and look at additional properties for nomination after council direction on the scope of the intensive survey at this meeting. I'll not turn it back to Ella to close the presentation.

[00:18:08] Senior Planner Ella Karachian: So next steps in 2024 include preparing the draft historic context statement for public review, national register nominations, additional outreach, study sessions, and completing the intensive survey. We will hold more study sessions in 2025 to go over the project deliverables. We expect to bring the project back for final council review by 2026 at the latest. Here is the list of the questions that the staff is seeking council direction on. These include, this include, uh, includes a conclude our presentation, and we are ready to answer any questions. Tonight, our consultant, Christina Daikis, with Paige and Turnbull. is also available to answer any questions.

[00:19:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. Now, as is our protocol with a study session like this, we will go to public comments on this item, and after we will start with people in person. So if you want to speak and you're here in person, please submit a blue speaker card if you haven't done so already. Then we'll go to virtual speakers. So if you're here with us virtually and want to speak, please raise your hand in Zoom. And after that, we'll be coming back for council questions and then comments and decisions. So in terms of in-person speakers. Uh, and I'll give everyone two minutes for in person speakers, first, we have Robert Cox.

[00:20:05] Robert Cox: Can you hear me? You can't. Can. All right. Hi, Mayor Hicks, Vice Mayor Showalter, and members of the city council. I'm Robert Cox, speaking for Livable Mountain View. We've already sent in a letter with our recommendations, so I'll just touch the highlights. We thank you for continuing work on this item, helping preserve the historic core of our downtown restaurant and realtail district, is the key goal of our organization. We are grateful that the city council has made it a top priority this year. We support the staff recommended scope. A and scope C1, as you just saw. And we also support the review of other properties where the owners wish to know the historic status of their properties and would like to take advantage of incentives, to restore and maintain their properties. Finally, we strongly encourage council, to move forward on a downtown preservation district based on area H. Finally, we thank staff for acknowledging the 3 area H buildings that are worthy to be included on the California National Historic Registers. But we would also like staff to reconsider some of the other buildings that have been evaluated. In particular, the farmers and merchants' bank building, Red Rock, and Wildheimer's store, or on hummus. The evaluation of historical value should not be limited to the examination of the building society. The association of the building with historic people and events that occurred there must also be considered. We would be happy to discuss with staff in detail before the next study session on this topic. I would like to mention the facade of the Ames Building was redone many years ago to restore its basic historic features. This could be done with other area age buildings, which illustrate our city's heritage. Thank you for listening to our views on this important subject.

[00:21:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next we have Nazanin Dashtara.

[00:22:08] Nazanin Dashtara: Okay, thank you, city council, mayor, vice mayor, and thank you for your time. I wanted to ask for your special consideration for a collective historic preservation of our buildings, especially downtown, as things rapidly change, and are built around us. The small area is what we have left, to the rapid change of pace that is taking place at this moment in time, to appreciate our history, and what has brought us here at this moment. And it's our oasis of sorts, and protecting and preserving any building, structure, tree, or green space is extremely valuable, but doing this in cohesion with one another. In cohesion with each other, every building, related to the other building, every green space relating to its surroundings, is imperative to creating a harmonious space for the citizens of Mountain View. I also wanted to add that each structure brings a story. And once the structure is gone, the story is gone, and the story goes with it. So to preserve them, it is invaluable to our history and to the history of our town. Thank you.

[00:23:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Louise Katz.

[00:23:46] Louise Katz: Thank you, mayor and counsel, also representing Livable Mountain View, per our letter, we're very concerned that the staff report seemed to focus on the visuals of the buildings downtown, and not, it was not sufficient in terms of telling us how they determined the historical value of these buildings. We pointed out, briefly, that the Red Rock Merchant Farmers and Merchants Bank was part of the massive wealth created by a young German immigrant by the name of Isaiah Hellman. And he came here around the same time as the Wilheimers, and he and his teenage brother went to the little Pueblo of Los Angeles. He died a billionaire in San Francisco. In between, he partnered with not only he not only created multiple banks, He was considered the primier banker in the state. He financed the bringing of water from private ownership to public, the railroads, he partnered with Henry Huntington, he created massive amounts of real estate wealth. He donated the land for USC. He also was the major owner of Wells Fargo, and created the Wells Fargo, Nevada Bank, and Wells Fargo, as we know it today. He was even consulted by the federal government in the creation of the Federal Reserve to regulate our nation's currency system. I wanted to point out that we would very much appreciate a holistic approach to preservation. One, that it not be confined to this one time in our history, but that we continue the effort to have buildings preserved, including having consultants that can be made available to homeowners and property owners to put their buildings back into historical context. Architectural preservation is extremely important, and we should be using our city's resources to guide owners in this direction. We should have high visibility of the kinds of showcasing of preserved buildings.

[00:25:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Louise. Thank you. Next, we have Peter Katz.

[00:26:05] Peter Katz: Thank you, Mayor, and his team members of the city council. I'm Peter Katz, CEO of Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. It is great to see the city embrace our history and our historic buildings. These structures are not only important to help us celebrate our heritage. They're good for business, too. They make our commercial centers more inviting and interesting. They bring visitors, shoppers, and residents alike downtown, and more foot traffic is always welcome. So we applaud the efforts to identify historic buildings and to clarify the requirements for designation and maintenance. As this process proceeds beyond the study, We respectfully ask the council and staff to consider two things. If designation is bestowed on a building which in turn places hardship on the owners, please be fair to the owners and make the incentives and compensation commensurate to the economic burden placed upon them. I offer the example of Shea TJ, whose owner was no longer able to recognize his original plan to sell the building for development. As detailed in the 30, excuse me, in the December 30th article in the Mountain View voice, the sale value dropped dramatically when it was designated as historical site, which the owner never agreed to, and the owner has no recourse. This feels like insufficient compensation for an unplanned change. Second, we recognize that historic buildings were built to support activity that were appropriate for the time in which they were built. Well, times have changed, and so have uses. In addition to health and safety requirements, which means that quaint, small interiors of intriguing size and shape may not offer attractive or cost effective alternatives to potential renters and owners. We ask the council consider reasonable, remodeling guidelines, an adequate incentives and compensation to make these changes. Having empty storefronts does not serve the community well, nor is it fair to the owners or to the general public. Let's preserve our historic buildings and properly assist the owners to make the transition viable. Thank you very much.

[00:28:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Richard Rathbun.

[00:28:12] Richard Rathbun: Mayor Hicks, council members, thank you for the opportunity to be here to talk about something that's very dear to my heart. My son, part of it is my son just graduated from the Mountain View school system, a fantastic education, the last two years spent at Freestyle Academy, as part of Mountain View High. And out of the many opportunities to go to college, she selected Cal Poly, with a major in experience innovation, experience creation, and experience management. And I didn't know much about experience, but I've learned through that department, and its department had that experience is becoming the fastest experienced oriented people, are becoming the fastest growing demographic in the United States. Demographics, particularly post COVID are showing people opting for experience over material. And to me, that's a super hopeful sign. Recently, I took my family, and we built a truck, and we traveled to South America for three years, and on that journey, countless people would say, where are you from? And I would say Mountain View. And they go, Where's that? Even Californians. would say, Where's that? And it wasn't until I claimed Google, as part of Mountain View, that they go, Oh, Mountain View is actually a global phenomenon, but it's not presenting itself to the world that way. So I've had lots of conversations with neighbors and friends about our feeling that the downtown is kind of decaying, and mountain view could be an experience. And I'm here to support the idea of historic preservation, because past, present, and future is part of our human experience, and if we don't reach back into the past, and preserve some of our roots, We lose our identity, because our identity is all of that, our history. I grew up in Palo Alto. I've been here for 83 years. Mountain V was sort of an agricultural town when I was young. And now it's the home of Google, and surrounded by Facebook, and Apple, and all these globally, global institutions that are actually on the cutting edge, the cutting frontier, cutting edge of the, creating the future. So, Mountain View is at the center of that. It's the nexus of all of that, and to create experiences, that include experiences about the historical part of Mountain View, and the present part of Mountain View, and forward looking parts of Mountain View, would be crucial for the city to develop. I'm super proud of you.

[00:31:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Mr. Ralphin, I think your time has expired.

[00:31:05] Richard Rathbun: My time expired. Well, I want to say one more thing. I, uh...

[00:31:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: One more quick thing.

[00:31:11] Richard Rathbun: I don't think, uh, I can get chat GPT on the agenda. I could probably speak for GPT, 'cause one of the conversations we had was let's ask Chat ZPT about revitalizing downtown Mountain View. And it came up with a wonderful description of a process for revitalizing downtown. So maybe I'll just enter this into the record in some way.

[00:31:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sure, you can give it to the city clerk.

[00:31:35] Richard Rathbun: I can pass it on. to it later, 'cause I'd like to write up a few additional comments.

[00:31:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, you can... Thank you later, and we can read it.

[00:31:40] Richard Rathbun: Thank you for considering historical preservation as a key element of going forward. Thank you.

[00:31:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Uh, next, Hala al Shawani. Sorry, I mangled your name.

[00:31:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: I think this is yours.

[00:32:00] Hala al Shawani: Oh, thank you.

[00:32:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: You're welcome.

[00:32:03] Hala al Shawani: All right, good evening, mayor, council members and city staff. Thank you so much for your continued effort. And pursuing the preservation of our downtown. It is really important for us local people who've been here for a long time. since 1984 for me. I want to applaud you, because I attended the jury and building design review this last week, and they mentioned that they recognized that the building is going to be historically designated, you know, historic building. So they're working with the city on what they can do to modify the design, so it accommodates the historic designation. So I'm really pleased to see that. It's already getting some impacts on the current projects. I do want to also join my colleagues and saying, please consider more of the eight buildings that were on that list. A lot of them give the characteristics and the feel of our downtown. It certainly goes beyond the three buildings that were chosen. So I urge you to consider reconsider, I guess, classification, or maybe you can do it through the city ordinance, which can be updated, and hopefully preserve more of these wonderful buildings. And finally, I was wondering if you can extend the scope to include all the commercial buildings on Castro Street. And I'm thinking of the Chase Bank, because that has a lot of interesting artistic and architectural features. It is 50 years old, and from what I understood from the consultant, is anything that's 50 years or older can be considered for historic designation. So I'm hoping you can consider that and maybe add it to the list. Thank you very much.

[00:34:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next is Maureen Blondo.

[00:34:08] Maureen Blondo: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and the city council and the city staff. Mainly, I'm here today to promote the position that Robert Cox already explained from Liverpool Mountain View, and also to support the positions that some of the previous speakers have made about farmers and merchant, bank building, which, of course, has its own modern history of so many startups that were incubated in that building. And the Wildheimer store, and of course, the bank. Lastly, I would like to say that I particularly support the preservation district for area H. Thank you.

[00:34:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now we go to virtual speakers. Um, and the, uh, first virtual speaker, I see is David Lewis. David?

[00:35:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Hi, David, are you there?

[00:35:19] David Lewis: I'm here. I'm, uh... a little bit slow. Uh, I just had a few things that I wanted to say, uh, about this. I will take her by two minutes, I think. But there's a lot of us here in Mountain View who came to Mountain View because of what Bound View is, and what it used to be. And that's why we came to Mountain View. We didn't come here, uh, because of some future vision of Fountain View. So there are a bunch of us like that. The other thing is, some other people have alluded to is that, uh, a lot of us are aware of the history of mountain people. You know, how we got to be where we are now, what it used to be, uh, and we have this vision of things, and we really appreciate the history about you. And we would like to remember the history of Mountain View and how they got to be here. And it'd be a shame if the whole place were just demolished, and a bunch of sky rises went up, you know, very, very, pretty modern stuff. And people forgot what Mountain View was and where it came from. That would be a real shame. So, I'm in favor of preserving our history, and making people aware of it. I think that's probably enough. Thank you.

[00:36:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, I see no more virtual speakers, and I think no more in person speakers, so we will now take this item back for questions from council. Do council members have questions?

[00:37:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Council member Ramos.

[00:37:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I have a quote quick question. I had a conversation with a constituent today. Um, it's interesting how, um, 2 different sides of the historical preservation ordinance concerns. I actually also went to the stakeholder meeting. That one was very lively. But one of the constituents asked me a question of how does SB 330 play into the historical preservation ordinance. Essentially, can adding more design requirements functionally act as down zoning.

[00:38:05] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So, um, there are a couple of things going on. One is that, um, uh, Sequa, uh, so SP330 does not affect Sequa. And so, um, any requirement that a project would be subject to under Sequa, uh, is, um, uh, can, uh, can reduce the, uh, feasibility of a project or, um, you know, this city can, can, So mitigations under sequel, for example. A general approach such as the downtown preservation district approach, that may be something that we'd have to look at with respect to SB 330, because it would be a general approach that applies across multiple properties. But we can do that as we are kind of putting more meat on those bones. I don't know if Assistant Community Development Director Bazinski or Assistant City Manager, Shravastova, would I want to add anything?

[00:39:32] Amber Blzinski: Hi, Amber Blzinski, assistant Community Development director. I'll just add, yeah, to reiterate. So under SV 330, there's no exemption from Sequest. So we have to still evaluate a project. based on, you know, sequa components, which includes historic resources. And so, uh, there's a balance that you have to do in order to make sure that your mitigation measures or, um, you know, the results of your sequa analysis, uh, are still, you know, may may still enable a project or may, you know, ultimately result in an alternate project that is able to reduce some of those impacts. And I think it's really a case-by-case basis where you'd have to look at that.

[00:40:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So maybe don't sit down. I think I have a follow-up question. Um, so, which you may or may not know the answer to, you recently worked in Sunnyvale and Sunnyvale has a similar situation to our downtown in that it has, that has one block of, um, I think, you know, our historic, uh, ordinance and associated policies. So, how do you know, I don't know whether you interacted with that. But you did. Okay. Well, luck. Do you know whether SB 330 has that come to play at all in Sunnyvale and how it's been handled there?

[00:41:00] Amber Blzinski: Yeah, so it doesn't come into play there at all because Murphy Historic District is a commercial district. So there isn't actually residential that is allowed in that area on that street. So we don't actually have to weigh those items. The other piece of Murphy that is different than, you know, Area H is that, um, we, in Sunnyvale, the, there are, you know, pretty significantly low height restrictions on Murphy because most of the buildings are only 2 stories, um, and that doesn't result in being able to, you know, tear down and rebuild into something that's, you know, more massive than that. So I think those are the things, you know, that you really have to weigh when you're creating these districts. But I've seen other successful district examples. Um, where there is more growth allowed in an area and you just have to really balance how that works. And within your district, some buildings are going to be truly historic and original and the, you know, the foundation of the district and other buildings in that same district are just going to be like accessory pieces to that district. And so sometimes you can find that balance by allowing development in some of the more accessory pieces versus those buildings that are truly significant and, you know, original and have a lot of their, um, significance still intact.

[00:42:31] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And do you remember the names of any of those other cities you?

[00:42:35] Amber Blzinski: I'm drawing a blank right now, unfortunately, but when I worked on the Murphy Avenue design guideline, document, the update, I did talk with other cities, then it would be easy for me to find that and have that information in the future.

[00:42:48] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you so much. I'm sorry, council member, I asked you one question. Um, I guess it's falling back to the question of when we mentioned the, uh, this was relating to the scope of the intensive survey, um, and you mentioned, what we talked about this in in my one-on-one with you about like, how if, if we do the whole city wide, and there are properties that we find that are under the guidelines, then like whether or not we want it to be deemed historic, it is going to be historic anyway, I still have trouble grasping that. Um, if you, is it like a sequel designation, is it a, um,

[00:43:33] Amber Blzinski: So part of it is, uh, the, there are the criteria for the state and national register, and there's also precedent, so similar properties that have been identified, uh, in in other communities that are similar. I think I'll throw it over to Ms. Dicus, who's our consultant, to put more on that about how they identify properties that it wouldn't be up to the city, about whether they are deemed historic.

[00:44:18] Christina Dikas: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Christina Dicus from Page and Turnbull. I'm project manager on the side of the preservation consultant. Um, We would be looking at properties that are all at least 50 years old, which is considered age eligible for potential historic significance. The idea behind that is based in the national register of historic places, and that there's enough kind of time and distance to be able to objectively, consider buildings for potential significance. With the survey, we would identify whether properties are eligible for listing, whether they meet the criteria, for the National Register, California Register, and the local mountain view register, that doesn't necessarily mean they would be designated, um, but that they would be shown to be eligible, which then could be useful information if properties, um, if projects do trigger the sequet process, then people would already know that they have a historic historic resource. They wouldn't have to do that kind of study on the fly. I think it's up for discussion as to the designation process for the local mountain view register, and how that might be undertaken as part of this project. Eric, does that sound about right to you? anything else you'd want me to add?

[00:45:46] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I think the key point there is that there are criteria that are outside of our control. And those criteria are part of the state and national register, and currently our current ordinance puts protections on those properties that are eligible for the state and national register. Um, and, uh, you know, historic preservation permit is required for those properties, whether they're on the local register or not. Uh, and so that, um, whether a property meets those criteria or not is outside of the city's control. Does that answer your question?

[00:46:28] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So basically, there are things that are on our historic register. And then there are things that are eligible to be on any historic registrar, and then those still have historic designations to them.

[00:46:42] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: They, they would not necessarily be designated, that would have to be up to either the city council to designate them by putting them on the register, uh, or if somebody wanted to nominate them to one of the other registers, then they would be designated, uh, but they would be identified, and in being identified, they would then have to go through sequa process, no matter what. And so that is, that is a constraint that is basically equal to being on a register, but you have no benefit of being on the register. Being on the register gives you access to the incentives that the register has. So it's kind of all cost, no gain for the property owner.

[00:47:31] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So if we don't do a comprehensive study, and there's a house out there that if we had done the comprehensive study, we would have found that it was, um, eligible for a historic register. And so we didn't do the study in this, in this hypothetical world, we did do the study and then the homeowner wants to redevelop it.

[00:47:53] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Nothing's going to trigger anything. If it's in the R1 zone and it's a single family home, nothing will trigger that historic review because it only requires a building permit.

[00:48:06] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So the only thing that could trigger it is if we do a citywide survey and find that it has is eligible for historic register.

[00:48:15] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's correct.

[00:48:16] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay, thank you. That's all the questions I have.

[00:48:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice mayor.

[00:48:24] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: It sounds like I had a similar discussion with you yesterday, Eric, as Emily did. Okay, well, I'm going to go a little further with that. You keep talking about the incentives for being on the register. Now, I personally see the advantages to the community of having things on the register. But if I am an independent property owner, you know, it's a different viewpoint. So what are the incentives to the property owner of being on the register?

[00:48:58] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Currently, there are property tax incentives. So the Mills Act is an example of that, so you can have your property tax reduced, if you are on a register. There are other incentives related to permit processing fees and exceptions to development standards and being able to use, you know, a historic building code for your code compliance. So there are a range of incentives, but later on in the process, we're going to be brainstorming and identifying additional incentives that the city could adopt.

[00:49:40] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, because I think that that's one thing at this point that we're not very well educated about. And we really need to understand better.

[00:49:48] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Absolutely, yes. And we know that it's a council priority to further develop that, but it's something that we're going to be working on as we develop the ordinance.

[00:49:59] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, and then another thing we talked about that I think is important to talk about is the problem of demolition. That's really, you know, when these historic, it's one thing to have it remodeled. That's, or, um, the color changed or something like that. But demolition is really serious for a historic resource. So, how does the eligibility for a property to be on either the state or the federal register impact their ability to demolish the site?

[00:50:38] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, all Landi's decisions, ultimately, lie with the city and the city council. So, whether something is on the state or national register, or eligible for the state or national register, it's still up to the city, whether if a property owner wants to demolish that building. But they would have to go through the sequel process. And ultimately, they would have to convince the city council that it's an overriding reason to do so. And so that's the process that would have to go through to demolish.

[00:51:18] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So it's the protection of being on the sequa checklist, essentially, that the city has to preserve these eligible sites.

[00:51:28] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right, in addition to additional permits that might be required under the ordinance, for modifying or demolishing properties that may be on the local register, or like our current register has permit requirements for, or sorry, our current ordinance has permit requirements for properties that are eligible for the state and national registers. And so that's an additional layer of review and discretion that the city has to deny projects that are demolishing historic resources. But hopefully, further along in the process, we will also be identifying incentives and assistance, we can give to those property owners to make them not want to demolish their property, but to preserve it.

[00:52:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Council member Mattech.

[00:52:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, on attachment to, um, besides people opting off of the register. What other changes have been made to this? Or is that it? We had the original list from 2014. They had till April of... I'm sorry, I said 14, 2004. Sorry. They had till April of 2005 to remove them. themselves, but they still could continue to remove every, was it 10 years? So besides that, has anything else changed to this list?

[00:53:01] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there have been a few changes. A couple of properties, have presented analysis that they were never eligible for the register in the first place, and so they've been removed through that process. One property was approved for demolition by the city council. And then there may have been a few other properties that have been, there may have been one property that was added by the city council. But minor changes like that, you know, fewer than 10. I will add that there are other properties that we are tracking based on, for example, the 2008 survey that was started, but never completed. And so that list that you're holding is not the only list of properties that we're tracking.

[00:53:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. And what were the top reasons that people wanted to opt off of this list?

[00:54:09] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, Primarily just for the flexibility to do with their property, what they would like to do with the property.

[00:54:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, So let's see. We heard mention of the Chase Bank building, and I'm wondering, um, that would have, there's a development proposal, it would have to go through the sequel process. Um, and I don't know if we can you can share, but has that been done and has it been deemed historic?

[00:54:45] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the sequel process is ongoing, I'll defer to the assistant community development director to provide any more detail that can be provided.

[00:54:54] Amber Blzinski: Hi, Amber Blasinski again. So, it's ongoing, as Eric said, um, we've found, we have enough, we have enough of that process done to have found that there are multiple pieces of art on that building, uh, that actually then make the building itself because of the art pieces a historic structure. Um, and, you know, at this point, we're working with the applicants to, you know, come up with solutions on where, you know, potentially those pieces of art could go or alternatives to the project, you know, that, um, potentially reduce those impacts, um, but we're still in that process now.

[00:55:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So if the structure has been deemed historic, Um, But you talked about what to do with the art, does that mean the building could be demolished?

[00:55:54] Amber Blzinski: So that is something that, you know, we are still flushing out, and, you know, ultimately will come to the council. The building itself without those pieces was not deemed historic. It's the, it's just everything is a whole is what, you know, led to that designation. So um, We just have not flushed that out completely yet.

[00:56:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um, for the, um, buildings downtown that were looked at the eight, um, and three were, um, deemed to be historic, uh, and the others weren't. When we looked at those, did we look at more than just the architecture, like the people, the events, and, um, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about that, because we heard that some members of the public think that there's more to them?

[00:56:50] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'll defer to Ms. Dicus on that question.

[00:56:57] Christina Dikas: Hello again, Christina Dicus, Paige and Turnbull. We looked at 8 buildings that had been suggested for potential eligibility and prepared a report for the planning staff. We did consider the historic context of each building, so we conducted historic research. We identified the people involved, the businesses, the associated context with each. Something to keep in mind, though, is that for national register eligibility, you need 2 things, both historic significance, and what we call integrity, which is the physical characteristics of the building that date to the period that's recognized for significance that still exists, that can convey that era of the significance, and thinking ahead to the process of how a national register nomination is processed. It goes to the state office of historic preservation, who has a department that reviews it, and determines whether it meets the thresholds of eligibility, and then they work with the author of the nomination to make sure that that nomination is the best it can be. And then it goes to the state historical resources commission. Also in Sacramento. And if they approve it, it goes to the keeper of the national register. So with all that in mind, we examined both the historic significance and the integrity. And for the other buildings that we looked at, in particular, the 2 that were mentioned tonight, that have the Red Rock Coffee and the Wildheimer Building. While they do have significant people and events that are associated with them, They have been changed enough that they don't have enough of the aspects of integrity. It's sometimes kind of hard, if you just look at the buildings, but if you compare them to historic photographs, as an example with the former bank building, the Red Rock building. The corner entry has been changed over time, the windows along the side facade have been altered, doors have been moved, and that's all in addition to an addition on the top. And with the Wildheimer building, Um, there was a rehabilitation project in the earlier 2000s, um, but it was undertaken in a way that we would call, um, false historicism. It doesn't, it looks similar to the original facade, but not exactly a restoration of what the building looked like in its earlier period. So these were things that we considered and summarized in our report, um, that we didn't feel that the Office of Historic Preservation would, um, would agree that the buildings met the criteria to move forward.

[00:59:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: We also look at the interior, so I think it was noted that the bar at the Red Rock was the original one, and it is really cool. Do we look at that, or is it just the exterior? Some interior features? Could be considered.

[01:00:10] Christina Dikas: I think, um, both have had, uh, some alterations over time in the interiors as well. Certainly, the change of use in the Wildheimer building from a store to a restaurant has significantly changed the interior.

[01:00:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[01:00:27] Christina Dikas: You're welcome.

[01:00:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, let's see here. I think that's it for now. Thank you.

[01:00:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Abbot Koga.

[01:00:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So, um, just following along the, um, questions that Counselor Romata checkhead, I was hoping you could just help me understand or clarify. So those buildings like the Red Rock building, they didn't qualify nationally statewide, but we are still able to put it onto the local if we wanted. Okay. So then that actually goes to a more fundamental question I had is for the local registry. How do we or how will we decide what is historic? And, yeah.

[01:01:14] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we'll come back at future study sessions with that information once we have kind of the list of properties that meet our current criteria, and the council may have an opportunity to further refine that list based on potential changes to the current criteria. So right now we do have significance criteria. And, um, the significance, they're very similar to the state and national significance criteria.

[01:01:47] Unknown Speaker: The draft historic context statement is developing some draft high-level integrity criteria for the city of Mountain View as well. And so that will all come back through the study session process as well, so that council will have a chance to review that.

[01:02:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: The reason I asked that is when I looked at the current list, I noticed it's a certain period of time and heavily favors, I would say, like the mainstream history of our city. But when I look at it from, you know, my perspective, a multicultural perspective, um, and that 50 years has passed, um, in, you know, specifically, I think about, um, for instance, the Asian American, Japanese American community, uh, during World War II. And as I've learning more and more about some of the significant places and buildings that community had here, and when I think too, I think there's some that some buildings, one in particular, it's on the corner of Dana and view, I think, that had some architectural features, and it's no longer there. It was allowed to be renovated or remodeled or redeveloped. And so how do we incorporate that, that, you know, beyond just our average regular history.

[01:03:31] Unknown Speaker: No, we definitely recognize that that's really important, and especially in a community like Mountain View that has such a diverse history from lots of different immigrant groups and lots of different other groups. So, it's an ongoing process. So we've reached out to a lot of groups to try to ask them, you know, Spanish speaking groups, you know, tracking down, you know, kind of the old folks and Asian immigrant groups tracking down those people. We're still in the process of doing that. And so we intend, before we bring back the historic context statement, we intend to complete that process to make sure that that is telling the complete story or as complete a story as we can with the research that we're doing. you know, subject to further review and iteration. And that can also inform what you're talking about, identifying those locations, where the buildings themselves may not have integrity, but the location itself may need to be identified or promoted either through a marker program or potentially through some kind of historic design depending on the criteria that the council adopts.

[01:05:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And then in terms of restoration, It sounds like some of these buildings have, we're not restored, preserved integrity, but is there a way of building being, I guess, restored, like, restored back to its original look or architecture, and, like, and could then we can we then add them. And how do we incentivize that?

[01:05:38] Unknown Speaker: I believe so, but I'll let Mysticus answer that question.

[01:05:47] Unknown Speaker: Uh, we've talked about potential strategies, particularly downtown to provide some, uh, design guidelines that could help guide property owners to do restoration so that perhaps they could be eligible in the future, even if they aren't right now, um, and would certainly help to, um, uh, to, um, right now, I think there's a sense of historic, uh, fabric along Castro Street and in some of the neighborhoods based on the scale and the materials, certainly storefronts change a lot of the time, and that's to be kind of expected. But I think that there are some steps that the planning department could take to provide some guidance and that's a very definite thing that could happen. And I do think that occurred with the Murphy Street downtown district in Sunnyvale. And we've worked in downtown Napa and done the same kind of design guidelines that help people to repair and conduct maintenance and restore if they're interested.

[01:06:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, thank you. Yeah, I was reading about, I think it's Boston or Cambridge, and they even have like paint, color, paint, guidelines. So I would, we would then have to just go through and establish that ourselves. Okay. And then how do we incentivize maintenance? So I think about the Wellhammer House and, you know, I was part of the council that had to decide what to allow for the redevelopment of that. And part of the reason, I think, of, you know, some of us approved it was because it was a very dilapidated house. So how do we incentivize, you know, owners to maintain the historic buildings so that they don't get to that state where we just, you know, have to say, okay, and let it go? Yeah, so that is something that we're going to be bringing back.

[01:07:50] Unknown Speaker: I think the main one is the Mills Act property tax adjustment. And that's intended to provide those additional resources for maintenance and upgrades to a property. And then, um, we also looking at potentially like, um, a grant program or I see other cities have that. We could bring that forward. Okay. as an option.

[01:08:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Thank you. Council member commit.

[01:08:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Great. Thank you. Um, so I think, um, My my question just takes it a step further that my colleagues have been asking about the um, ordinance incentives and I think given the feedback from our business communities. So it sounds like we are pursuing, you know, some ways, um, within what we're doing tonight. Would this also be something that we could look at with like our economic vitality strategy and or, you know, could it live in both places? I'm just wondering, it may take what you're talking about with the property tax incentives, education on the Mills Act, but it also, you were just saying, the grant program. I wonder if there's a way to kind of do some things tonight in the ordinance and then do some things with the economic vitality strategy. It's something I've been thinking about.

[01:09:21] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'll defer to the community development or the assistant city manager on that. since it's a different division. Thanks.

[01:09:30] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for the question, Artisha Vastva. That's actually one of our plans. And an example of that is you would take, um, we would provide design resources to update storefronts, for example, through a storefront program. That will dovetail with the requirements in the downtown precise plan so that when those improvements are made, they're made in conjunction with those standards and guidelines. That way, we're not only providing resources, but we're also helping people meet the requirements, and then, of course, the city gets the benefit of keeping the downtown preservation district going. So through this combination, we expect there to be a lot of synergy.

[01:10:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, great, great. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. And I think that'll be something we'll be able to share in the community outreach and meetings and such. My 2nd question was about the historic marker program, the plaque program. So within the downtown currently, we have lack of better description, kind of a hodgepodge of our historic markers. I think some have been privately done, some have been done by the city. And as we go forward with the historic marker program, is there a way for us to encapsulate what has already been done with the design guidelines or the criteria with which we'd like to go forward. And I don't know if that was something similar that's happened.

[01:10:56] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we're at the very beginnings of developing that program. And part of, I think, question two, is what feedback can the council provide on those programs so that we can develop them to your liking?

[01:11:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.

[01:11:15] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Okay, so my questions, many of them have been asked. Um, I just wanted some kind of do a summary question. It sounds like a lot of council members and members of the public, we're interested in local criteria, in incentives, um, and in adding, um, maybe additional buildings that are not your traditional turn of the century pioneer buildings, but may, uh, be buildings that were built by, uh, other immigrants, not your European pioneer immigrants. But those are all things that we, my understanding, and this is the question, those are all things that we can discuss a little tonight, but we will be working on over the next year or two. Is that true? I just want to make sure that people...

[01:12:07] Unknown Speaker: Yes, absolutely. Okay, yeah. That people in the members of the public and council members, who have further things, can say, know that there's room to do that, because that was my understanding. Um, then the my second question is that, um, you know, often when we talk about historic preservation, there's a lot of state and national law, and it becomes very bureaucratic. Um, and I'm wondering, but at the same time, it's something that's, like, close to people's heart, and as people have several people in the public, uh, I think, like, Mr. Katz, for instance, said, it's one of the things that, um, makes our downtown more vibrant. Um, I'm wondering, is there a way, is there a place where we can put kind of the reasons we do this? Is that the historic context statement, or is that just a web page, or, you know, where would you suggest, you know, the things people were talking about, you know, keeping our, you know, like, I know that Sunnyvale and Palo Alto have historic districts that draw in people, and Palo Alto's looking at their, um, they're doing economic development, to try to make sure that their downtown remains current, and they're but highlighting their historic buildings. So I'm imagining we're trying to keep competitive in the same way. But I feel like sometimes the way we talk about this doesn't really reflect some of those things, is there a place to put kind of the why, the compelling reasons why, not just the bureaucratic, how, you know, to get on the California register and all that sort of stuff?

[01:13:46] Unknown Speaker: Absolutely. And I think, you know, one of the big things that we've heard from the community is better transparency from the city about what does it mean to be historic? And I think a big part of that is the messaging about the why. So, uh, currently our, you know, our current project update website, we can we can update and to add more of that, uh, what you're talking about. But in the long term, I think you're absolutely right. Having a, um, a kind of persuasive argument about the cities, the city's goals for historic preservation being front and setter on this, you know, this messaging to the community about everything historic. and having that be a coherent, um, and and user friendly, uh, and, um, um, telling the story, right, for the project. So I think that answers your question. Did I miss anything?

[01:14:51] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, well, do you have any idea for where that would be housed? It's just, or maybe you're saying it's housed every... Is it in the context statement or is it more just all of our communications and web pages?

[01:15:03] Unknown Speaker: So, the ordinance itself can include, uh, you know, a purpose statement. The historic context statement generally includes a, um, kind of a background around the purpose of the document. It doesn't talk so much about why historic preservation in Mountain View. So there, The marker program could include a kind of branding program as well. And so there are lots of different ways that that information could be included. I think maybe the assistant director would like to say something.

[01:15:46] Unknown Speaker: I'll just add to that, you know, one of the things we would potentially be looking at with this area H idea in a district idea, it would probably, you know, have a supporting document to that, and that's another place where you can put, um, that type of information. So let's say you have a, you end up with a document that's adopted, um, and it has like design ideas or this restoration concepts, things like that. Um, that is another location where, um, you know, you would you would include some of that information. Did you want to add something?

[01:16:28] Unknown Speaker: So as you can see, there are various documents that go to sort of creating the sense of history. And, um, we could probably come back to council with some ideas and examples of how cities have done it is, you know, when you update the journal plan. You can put a language about historic preservation, for example, or we can have a website that talks about the importance of historic preservation, all the different documents, including the historic context statement, our ordinance, our marker program, our downtown district, and our guidelines that go towards creating that goal, and maybe we could start with that. And as we update documents, we can start looking at sort of pushing out that story at a higher and higher level. Um, so a web page that kind of brings everything together, and then each document speaks for itself and tells it's part in the story.

[01:17:23] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I think I'm getting a more complete picture. Thank you. And my next question is, um... How, how to include, um, so, we're talking about area H and 8 buildings that you looked at, honestly, I can't remember which 8 buildings we told you. Um, but I'm wondering, uh... whether there's a way or whether there's a way to include other commercial buildings in our city center, um, outside of just area age, like the Adobe, the Spangler's Mortuary, Shay TJ, Tide House, were you... how do they relate to this? Area H?

[01:18:16] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so Shay TJ and Tidehouse have already been nominated to the national register. So that process is, we would be duplicating efforts if we did that. There are certainly other properties, not just in the downtown area, but citywide that we may be able to also nominate. So we just wanted to get council confirmation on studying all of these properties before we go down that path. It's, you know, um, we didn't want to presume council direction, for example, on scope A, um, before we uh, before we identified those other properties.

[01:19:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, thank you. So those are all my questions. Did anybody come up with additional questions? Anybody on council while we were talking? I guess not. So now we're going to go into the portion of the meeting where we make decisions. As mayor, I will, um, as is the tradition, I will speak last, but I wanted to say that I, I, um, want to thank staff. I think this is a potentially kind of very confusing topic that, and I think it was boiled down in a way that was comprehensible, at least for me, and that you convinced livable Mountain View, who are a bunch of very, they read the fine print. So, um, so you convinced them that your staff recommendations were good ones, and, uh, that that's a big accomplishment. So, oh, they're signaling, they think it's a big accomplishment, too. So, you know, I will be supporting most of what they, all of what they recommended, but I'll keep that until the rest of my colleagues speak. And, um, yeah, I just wanted to highlight that I think this is important to some of the things that, uh, members of the public and staff have brought up as we've been talking, that, you know, it's not just about keeping old buildings, but it's about keeping our downtown a special place, keeping it vibrant, keeping it competitive with other, uh, with other commercial districts. It's about remembering the history of not just kind of the typical pioneer families, but of the multitudes of people who've come here. Over the decades and centuries. So, with that, I will let council members comment on the four questions. Vice Mayor.

[01:21:11] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes. Um, I like to get started. So feedback on the council project goals. I think basically the project goals are really sound. Um, and, uh, I, um, I particularly like the one provide incentives that support preservation, maintenance and integrity improvement. I think that we want to make a balanced system that, you know, is valuable for the community as a whole, but also helps the owners, you know, of these properties to make them consider, you know, keep them historic. Question two, what feedback does the council have on the project deliverables?

[01:21:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: I really am interested in a strong marker program. I was struck this summer when I toured Paris, at how enlightening their markers were, about things that had happened that they were proud of, and things that they were very ashamed of. And, um, I thought that that was really, really valuable. And I would love to see that here. And the other thing, I think, is that we have, we're sort of, in a sense, going through a period where Mountain View is creating a lot of history, because of all the businesses that are started here, and the innovative technologies that have sprung from this area. So ways to kind of get that incorporated, maybe work better with the marker program than many things. I'd also like to suggest the evaluation of 444 Castro Street and the two worlds development on the list.

[01:23:04] Unknown Speaker: Okay, which of the scopes?

[01:23:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: The staff recommendations.

[01:23:09] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I mayor. I know 444, but which is 2 worlds.

[01:23:12] Unknown Speaker: Two Worlds is 100 West El Camino.

[01:23:19] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um,

[01:23:20] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: And, uh, It's an early, um, was an early mixed juice development.

[01:23:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah. Okay. So question three, uh, staff recommendations. Thank you for those. Um, and, uh, move forward with the preservation district.

[01:23:40] Unknown Speaker: Very good idea. Thank you.

[01:23:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Just confirming you were saying A and C one for question three, right?

[01:23:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, council member committee.

[01:24:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Yes, echoing thanks to staff and to our consultant who was able to be with us tonight. It's really exciting to be knocking things off the list that we talked about so long ago and be able to move forward. I think we talked about this back in 2019. So I'll go through all the questions as well, um, with a little bit of feedback in between. So for question one. Um, yes, um, I think these project goals are great and kind of similar to what uh, the mayor was saying earlier, perhaps in the his the citywide historic context statement. We're echoing these goals and providing that clarity. I think the clearer we are, the better things will be for residents, property owners, et cetera. And then really appreciative of staff for being forward thinking and already, um, um, providing ways for the incentives and the downtown precise plan, the economic vitality strategy to all incorporate these these goals that we're talking about, um, in particular, number four. For question number two, um, the feedback that I have is just the question I had earlier, which was for the historic marker program, being able to map and identify what currently exists within the city, and then, um, just so we we have that. I don't know that going forward, the criteria we have will match what already exists, but I would love to find a way to include it in the fabric going forward, particularly as we're looking at our own citywide markers. So I know there's been discussion about, um, maybe updating like the veterans memorial. And then I think updating the marker for our historic Chinese and Japanese districts. So it would just like all of that to be included. Um, and I am open to the other buildings that colleagues in the community are talking about. Um, as um, historic nominations or our own local criteria. For question three, yes, staff recommendations, scope A, and then scope C one, yes. And then for question four, uh, yes. Thank you.

[01:26:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice mayor, do you have a small comment on your?

[01:26:32] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, just one thing I wrote down and I forgot to mention it. I would also like to make sure that we continue to coordinate, and we sort of roll into this process coordination with the Mountain View Historical Society. They've gotten to be, you know, sort of a great institution in our community, and we want to, um, we want to, um, put them to good use.

[01:26:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Council member Ramos.

[01:26:59] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I'll just start going down the questions list. When it goes to the project goals, and it says number two, provide clarity about historic status and requirements. I want to go step beyond that. I want clarity and accessibility. Like, people should know, like, have an easy way of finding out if their home or their property is on the historic register. What does that mean to them? I really want to make it really easy for people to know that. One of the things, as I mentioned, I was at the fun outreach meeting that was in the library. It was a little spicy there. Um, and there was like questions of mostly fear, a lot of fear being like, well, how do I know if I live in one? And, um, I couldn't easily tell them. Um, I mean, other than like, when was it built? That's that's a starting indicator kind of thing. But it should it should be really easy for people to know those kinds of things. And, and, like, as you, there was attachment, was it attachment to that had the listing? And then it was like on register, off register, people really need to understand, what does that actually mean? Like in in easily terms? What does that mean for the average person? There, like, we have the information as we, what we need for us as policymakers, but I think when we, when we have that information out there, like, people, we want to make that as easy as possible.

[01:28:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos? for a point of cla clarification on my part. So are you saying that, um, you would like to add, you endorse the goals, but want to add an additional one, which is clarity and accessibility.

[01:28:43] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[01:28:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I did understand you. Thank you.

[01:28:46] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I think that was just my really long winded way of saying it. Sorry. Um, so now for question two. Um, I... So for the historic context statement, like what of the vice mayor mentioned of having, um, points of pride in our history, but also points of not so pride, basically points that we might be ashamed of. There are, um, for example, I, uh, I pulled out one of my fun books, color of law. Um, and I remember reading through it and like, I expected to point at some of our neighbors being like, we don't have that problem. And then I was shocked to see our name in there. So those are the things that we should know more about our history. And it's actually kind of sad when they mentioned what Mount View officials told him they would never regret the necessary approvals. And this was approval for a integrated project, which would mean, like, for those who are black and white to essentially, like, live side by side together. And a past city council, a council. Well, maybe not this building because this building wasn't back then. But there was a council, our predecessors at some point did not want black and white people to live together. And that is something that we should, we should face in our history. Not to mention the level of discrimination and hate against the API community and early on. Um, in 1920. When we were looking up, um, past things, um, to find like a localized color of law, um, they had some of us in the historical association, go through some of historical articles. And I literally pulled up one of the old articles that I found and like it was shocking. Literally, it was an op ed on January 30th, 1920, and it was done by the senator, the U.S. senator that represented this area. Actually, I guess it's U.S. editors. the whole state. But literally, the op-ed was called a Japanese problem. Some alarming statements concerning the activities of these aliens in California. Like it's, it's, it's horrifying, but we need to face it. And I think those are the kinds of things that we need to see as we look in our history, the good and the bad. Um, I think we had a discussion about when the shoreline interchange came in and a displacement of Latino families, um, that happen at that structure. I think those are the kinds of things that we would want to see. The mayor and I, we spoke about this before, but maybe having the race equity and inclusion subcommittee, have a crack at some of this stuff and in the outreach. I, We're going to have a new committee, or we might have a new committee, depending on how the new mayor does the appointments for our subcommittees. But, like, that would be something that I think would be interesting for that subcommittee to take on. Next, um, historic marker program. And that also goes to the historical context. But one fun thing, um, as we look at our historic market program, what if we made it available online, we have a great GIS open, uh, data portal that, um, I've seen things like a, a public art map. What if we have a historical marker map that's that's put up by the city. I think that would be actually really fun for us to go through. And, um, I think question 3 is like a mediaist that the questions,

[01:32:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: council member Ramos, can I clarify? So number two, for deliverables. Am I hearing you endorse the staff recommendation, but adding that you would like information on good and bad history, and also possible on not just physical markers, but online, some online history markers, something of that sort. Okay, that's what I have in notes. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:32:51] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So question three, the scopes and tens surveys, I support stack recommendation of scope A, and scopes and scope C one. When it comes to scope B, if there's a voluntary aspect to that, that would be something I'm interested in. I don't know if my colleagues are also interested in that. I don't know if staff can handle the capacity of that, but having a voluntary aspect for scope, B. Uh, when it comes to uh, scope, uh, C one, I think about one of the freeback that we got a lot when we did some outreach and in that stakeholder meeting, there was a particular Eichler neighborhood that was really interested in getting historic status. And I think I think they could pull it off. Um, getting essentially their whole neighborhood on board with that. And I would love to enable that. Um, and then question four. Ah, wood counts? Yes, I would love to move forward on a downtown preservation district for area H. That was my lung. Oh.

[01:34:06] Unknown Speaker: If I would just clarify, Scope C one would encompass any property owner or district that wanted to nominate themselves. So people on the list B, or in the C2 list could nominate it voluntarily through C1. So if councils are already included scope C one, then you would see voluntary nominations.

[01:34:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Huh, perfect. Oh, and I don't know where this actually goes, but I did like council member Kame's idea about connecting some of this historic preservation work with the economic vitality strategy because history is actually a really powerful tool for placemaking. And so, I thought that was a great idea. So I'm just like, +one to that. Um, And I think that that covers all of it. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:34:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Um, Council member Abbe Koga.

[01:35:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, staff, for bringing this to us. It's much anticipated over many, many years and actually, I remember one of our neighbors in old Mountain View bringing this up that we had actually, apparently, we had agreed to do this back in 2013 and then I left council and don't know what happened, but here we are almost 10 years later finally talking about this in detail. So I appreciate that opportunity to do so. Um, I agree or going down the questions, um, when I agree with the goals, um, I would just reiterate some of my questions I had. And I guess it would be under 2 providing clarity. And that, including design guidelines for maintenance, restoration. And then as I looked at other cities, um, definitely they have their websites have very robust, um, pages and pages of all, um, their programs and and so I would expect that we would be doing the same with this, um, as our program. Um, to project deliverables, uh, I guess actually, I don't know if it's forward too. Well, I guess it would be goals. So going to 4 incentives. I really am interested in creating coming up with a way to create a grant program. I think the Mills Act is an incentive, but I've questioned in the past, whether it's really enough. And, um, you know, if we really want to make preservation, I mean, with a priority, I think we, as the city need to, also invest in it. And so, I would like for us to look into how we can potentially fund some of these restorations and preservation projects. Um, and then, Now going to two, three, two, two, uh, two. I don't have any really anything to add. I'm definitely interested in the marker program. I think that really gives us the opportunity to designate places where things happened and not just buildings. So very much interested in that. And then as I also brought up in like questioning, expanding out what our, um, our, I guess our definition of historic is to make sure that it is inclusive of all of the different, um, peoples and populations and communities that have been a part of making Mountain View what it is today. Um, Question three, I agree with staff recommendation, A, and C, and I did notice he did have the voluntary opt-in, so, um, very much support that. And for, yes, on the downtown preservation district. And then in terms of adding more, uh, buildings, uh, to nominate, um, It would include, look at, including the other buildings that, um, have been brought up in public comment. I guess we have 8 we can do. So adding the 5 more. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:38:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Matt.

[01:38:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I am really happy that we're doing this project. I think it will be really nice when it's completed. And I can see why there is confusion in the community. I had to read this staff report several times. and talk to staff a couple times, and talk to members of the community, because this isn't an easy topic. And, um, I appreciate that the staff report, um, has so much information in it, and it was pretty clear, as long as I read it a couple times, because it was like, so much to absorb. But thank you for everything that you've done on this. really, really good. In terms of the questions. I do like the project goals that are listed in the staff report. And as others have mentioned, I'm really happy to see that the marker program is so supported, because I thought that is gonna be a really great thing to have. And, um, I agree that, and I'm not sure if it would fall here or under a different question, but folks have mentioned about making sure we have a broad definition of history to have it the multicultural history. I think that's really important. I kind of just assumed it would, but let's make sure we say that so it doesn't get lost. Uh, I also, um, am supportive of the downtown preservation district. That's another question, but it was also listed in the goals. So, I do support that. In terms of 2 the deliverables and the outreach plan, I thought the list was great. Um, I would like to, though, make sure, as others have mentioned, we leverage information, perspectives, uh, that uh, the Mountain View Historical Association and Livable Mountain View have, both have spent a lot of time looking at the history of Mountain View. And um, I don't want anything to sort of slip through the cracks on this one. So I want to make sure we meet with them and hear what they have to say about the different properties that are being considered. And actually, I'd like to revisit the 5 that were not deemed to be historic enough, to make sure livable Mountain View hasn't identified something that we didn't see when we did the analysis. Let's just do a double check on those. In terms of the scope, I do support A, I also am supportive of C1. Um, But I also feel like I'm tempted to also support B, but I haven't heard anybody else say that.

[01:41:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Actually, council member Ramos did say.

[01:41:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, did you? Oh, you said B?

[01:41:42] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Volunteer.

[01:41:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah, voluntary, I feel like. Of course, we should do that if somebody wants to voluntarily do this. Um, I guess for me, um, since the properties were previously identified as being historic. Um, and it's not a whole lot of them. And the property owners might have changed from when this was originally done that I don't see a lot of harm in going back, um, and taking a look at those, um, because they might be something we really do want to preserve. So I would support, including B. Um, and for question four, yes, I support the downtown reservation district. And I had, oh, and then folks had mentioned other things that I thought were good. Um, I do, I think we should look at doing a grant program, and also the design guidelines. Both of those were great suggestions. Thanks. Thank you.

[01:43:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez, do you want to come?

[01:43:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, you want me to go first? Okay. So much has already been said, leaving it pretty easy for me. Um, council feedback on project goals. Um, I agree with them. I'm going to, I'm not going to say things that other other council members have said because maybe I'll do straw poles for those, so I'm not going to necessarily repeat them even if I agree with them. I've taken notes. So, um... Yeah, I think the council goals, I agree with what staff has recommended, and I've kind of commented on how I want to kind of suffuse our goals with, you know, good reasons that we're doing this. For two on the deliverables. I also agree with the deliverables and have a few, you know, I'll be voting with the straw votes on a few extra things. Question number three, I agree with the two staff recommendations, scope A, and scope C1. I have a question, though, on B, because two council members have mentioned it, and I think also livable Mountain View mentioned it. And I think what livable Mountain View said, if I got them right, is that for structures in particularly houses that may have opted off the list, can those people be given information about, can it be information, can they be included in an informational way? So what I imagine that might include, and I don't have this fully thought out yet, but it might include something like, you know, the incentives we've developed, which would be maybe different from, you know, if we have a grant program, for example, would be different from when they originally opted off. Or so it would be that. And I know when I was working for the city of San Jose, I would give people a list of architects, that people that specialize in historic homes and other buildings, that they could work with. So, I think we could do, and maybe, council member Ramos talked about clarity, maybe, you know, a list of facts frequently ask questions. Um, so a list of things that would allow somebody to look it over, and if they wanted to opt back on. I'm hoping we can at least do that, which I think is what livable Mountain View was recommending. And, um, Question four, would counsel like staff to move forward on a downtown preservation district? Yes, for Area H, and possibly more if, you know, if that made sense. I know that, uh, illustrate the sort of villa in Castro was the 1st subdivision in Mountain View, and it was originally called Villa Lands, you know, maybe it's more than area H, I don't know where that might go. So, I think that's, I think that's my comments. I guess the other thing I'll say is everybody else around us has this, so I'm really happy that we're moving forward, you know, Sunnyvale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, et cetera. All our neighbors have it, and I want one too.

[01:46:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez?

[01:46:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'm glad. You spoke before me because I appreciate the straw pull idea. There were a lot of really good ideas, and I'll probably be supporting many of them. But I'll share a couple of quick thoughts, generally speaking, I support the staff recommendations. And I agree, that there's a lot of very helpful material in the reports. The only thing I would suggest or caution, and the staff report does touch on this, is that we approach this, um, sensitively, um, because I'm, I'm concerned about 2 possibilities. Um, I also, you know, have familiarity with, with, uh, historic preservation efforts in the city of San Jose. And, uh, in some cases, if we're not thoughtful about this, you could end up with, um, bad actor property owners who don't take care of their properties. And there have been some high profile examples, even recently, of severe blight in high profile areas, where the city is largely disempowered to take any meaningful action. And we had one of these in the district I work in. And even worse, we've had examples of property owners who basically burn down their buildings. Um, you know, that it's an extreme example of of bad behavior, but I do worry that if we aren't very thoughtful, um, in, uh, providing flexibility with uses for these buildings or uh, thinking of uh, some financial uh, benefits for preservation, that there are people who do bad things. Um, and we have examples of that in our county. The other issue I'm concerned about is the, what I'm, there's, I guess not everybody agrees with this, but from my perception, abuse of historic designation to try and circumvent state law. And so I'm reluctant to spend a lot of staff time to establish processes that could enable that, in part because I don't think it's going to last for very long. We're already hearing from the state interest in intervening and establishing objective criteria that would make it impossible for neighborhoods to sort of self-designate as historic and then disallow SB9 developments, for instance. So I'm personally not supportive of the 2nd part of scope C one, voluntary self-nomination of properties I'm okay with, but the establishing a district. Um, I did not go to the community meeting, so I didn't hear that input. I haven't heard any particular interest in, you know, a neighborhood establishing itself as a historic district. So I'm sorry, I don't have that benefit, but I do worry that, you know, we can go through a lot of work in establishing that process. One, not everybody may agree, and there's going to be some contention, and we'll have to eventually participate in that and pick one side or the other. But two, I think eventually state law will catch up with that and just make it kind of a worthless designation. Um, unless there are things that I'm not fully understanding about the value of establishing a historic district, um, through a process that staff may recommend through Scopes C one. I'm very comfortable with Scope Bay. I'm very supportive of the project goals and the project deliverables. I think they're very good. I am interested in many of the ideas that members of the council brought up. And while I'm supportive of moving forward with a downtown preservation district for Area H, I do agree with, or I share staff's preliminary concern that we might already be preempted in some respects by state law. And so I'm interested in looking into that, but I think, you know, the council and the community need to really understand what the limitations are, in establishing a preservation district, if part of the intent is to discourage or preempt state law. just don't think it's going to be successful. But if the intent is to provide strong incentives to preserve buildings, absolutely. I'm very comfortable with. Thank you.

[01:51:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so for now that we've all given our opinions on the main questions, Does staff have enough? I got, for most things, I got general agreement with staff recommendations on question one about project goals, question 2 regarding project deliverables. Question three, the 2 staff recommendations, except that council member Ramirez said not C one for districts. Um, and, um, I'm going to talk about scope B in, uh, scope holes, and then question four, I got every, I had down everybody interested, um, except council member Ramirez wanted to caution us, uh, about conflicts with state law. Is that an accurate summary? Okay, if that's accurate.

[01:52:11] Unknown Speaker: Mayor?

[01:52:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:52:12] Unknown Speaker: Um, I would ask staff to summarize the other items that we heard regarding the goals and deliverables. For example, the markers, making sure that we're open to other buildings. There were various other things that several council members said. And so I would like to hear staff summarize that just for the record.

[01:52:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sure, I have a bunch of those, but do you want do you want staff to do it, or I can read what I have, and people can vote?

[01:52:42] Unknown Speaker: Um, did staff take, yeah. Why don't we have our staff summarize it? Because I think that we heard general consensus. I don't I don't necessarily think you need to take straw polls.

[01:52:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Drop polls. Okay, let's hear it.

[01:52:56] Unknown Speaker: Sure. And I'll be honest, there was, um, sometimes things were brought up under goals, if there may be deliverables and vice versa. So I'll just kind of go through and talk about the main ideas that I heard. So from council member Ramos heard desire for accessibility of information, as well as making sure that our documents, address points of history and points of maybe shame or less pride, need to face past racism, and there was the thought of maybe going to the REI subcommittee from the council member, and adding the marker program online. Uh, from council member Mattachek, um, uh, uh,

[01:53:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Eric. I'm sorry, excuse me. I think what I would be looking for is not to summarize the individual feedback, but instead the general consensus feedback, because that's the direction from council that staff is gonna go with.

[01:53:57] Unknown Speaker: Gotcha, yes. Okay. So, um... let's see. So, certainly, yes, support from for the staff recommendation for both of those. The points that were brought up by more than 4 council members, um, you know, include emphasis on things like the marker programs, um, making sure that we have multicultural, uh, history identified. And...

[01:54:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'm gonna, the problem I'm having is that I've all, all year I've been doing straw polls, and so I didn't mention my agreement with other people because I thought it was coming back for a straw poll, and I think other people may be expecting that way of rolling forward as well, because I hear, see some heads nodding. So, I mean, I think these are pretty, I don't think they're gonna engender a lot of disagreement, but I think I should just read them off. Let's, so, uh... There was talk of, uh... of looking more thoroughly at a historic marker program, including, and this was several people, rolling several people's comments into one, sort of looking at all of them throughout the city, consolidating and updating them, and then maybe doing, rather than just physical markers, exploring, possibly doing, um, some, uh, call it what you will, historic markers online, or, I would say, also through a phone survey, but something else in not just physical form. So exploring those if those are feasible, all those in favor. I'm sorry, not survey, phone tour. Sorry, thank you for the clarification. So that's one. Another one is, um, Another one. was leveraging information from the Mount View Historic Association and Livable Mountain View, using them as information sources. Okay, that passes, um, this one is by council member Matachek, and maybe you can clarify. You said, revisit 5 buildings not deemed historic. I took 4 notes on that.

[01:56:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, the 5 buildings on Castro of the 8 that we listed that were deemed not eligible. I just want to make sure the information that, like, livable Mountain View collected on those was considered. So revisiting that just to make sure nothing slipped through the cracks.

[01:57:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, and council member Abbe Koka said something that may be similar, you said, include other buildings. Is that... Okay, so take a second look at the ones that were not deemed historic. Is that what that means? Council member Ramos?

[01:57:35] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I just had a quick clarifying questions of staff. If they weren't deemed historic for, and because it was certain reasons, is there a way for it to like fix those reasons? Like, is that a thing? Can they, like, is it reversible, kind of?

[01:57:55] Unknown Speaker: Just for information, we can go back. We can get information from Liverpool and revisit and come back to you. As the consultant said, it's not just people in advance, but also the physical features. So currently, if they don't meet it, they won't be on the list. But as you know, we're creating a downtown preservation district, with standards and guidelines. So when they come in for improvements, and we kind of, we do plan to do sort of a public information campaign, letting people know about the incentives, then when they come in, we, through the standards and guidelines, are going to incentivize them to go back and correct those features to provide integrity. At that point, they could be eligible. So this is kind of one of those programs where we look at what it is today, but there's a plan for the future, so that when they come in, they go back to restoring that integrity.

[01:58:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, council members, Madam, check in, Abbe Koka, do you want us to vote on that, or do you feel that what Ms. Travostova has just said is what they're doing is enough, or would you just like confirmation through a vote?

[01:59:11] Unknown Speaker: If I may add, I think staff would like confirmation on exactly what we should do with the five buildings. What we heard, and we didn't see a majority, and maybe it's good for a straw vote, is there was interest in revisiting the 5 buildings, going back to livable, you know, hearing, hearing them on any additional information they could provide, and then go back and reassess as it stands. And when we come back, for future study session, we'll report back on what the assessment is.

[01:59:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I hear 2 processes. You have one that is in place, no matter what we vote on this.

[01:59:47] Unknown Speaker: Right, the standards and guidelines, we know as part of the downtown preservation district. I was just explaining what would happen. But our question tonight is we didn't see a majority vote on going and revisiting the 5 buildings. Right, so one of those processes we know you're going to do, and the other one is just to talk to folks in livable Mountain View and see if they have additional information. Is that what it is? Right. That might provide additional information, and then, you know, does that then bring us to that level or not?

[02:00:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Right.

[02:00:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: A question for the assistant city manager. Um, so, pardon me if I'm dense. I mean, first of all, do you need direction to talk to livable Mountain View? Because I feel like we have no problem sharing information with us.

[02:00:33] Unknown Speaker: No, no, I think the question is not to go back and talk to Liverpool, which we do plan to do. Does council want us to revisit the five buildings?

[02:00:41] Unknown Speaker: Yes. So the question I have, then, is I have a recollection when we first provided that direction. Staff shared concerns about the workload implications, that it would delay the broader work on historic preservation. And I think it would be helpful to understand what workload implications there would be from this direction, whether it could delay the broader work on preservation. I'm reluctant to direct staff to redo something you've already done, so it would be helpful to understand. What would you do differently that you didn't do the 1st time around if there are significant workload implications?

[02:01:18] Unknown Speaker: I believe it's just 5 buildings, and we'll be using our consultant to go back and look at it. Um, you know, and we would meet with livable to see what additional information they had, it wouldn't significantly impact, um, the work. So we could, we could include it. We don't know if we're going to end up in a different place, but we could just go and find out if there's additional information that we may have missed. So we don't expect to do redo all the work. This is more assessing, oh, we have some information. We didn't have that before. Does this change anything?

[02:01:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so would the council members like a strong note? Okay, so, uh... So, this is about... There's another process, but in addition to that, would we like them to go back and review those five buildings and talk to Livable Mountain View about whether there's additional historic information that might inform that? All those in favor. Okay. Then we have others about looking into a grant program. Do you want to vote on that? They were going to do incentives. A council member, Abbe Koka, do you want that voted on or?

[02:02:39] Unknown Speaker: Uh, the direction provided now will be carried carried forward. Because that's part of the incentives, I imagine. So if you if you want to provide that direction now, we'll carry it forward and look into it further when we get to that point in the process.

[02:02:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. I'm assuming we don't have to vote becau- or you want us to?

[02:03:00] Unknown Speaker: If it's council direction, and I don't believe we heard it from a couple companies.

[02:03:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, then I'll ask. Uh, would, okay, so Stroppel, who wants to explore a grant program? Okay, now it's clear. Um... So the on, the another one I have is, um, Scope B, Livable Mountain View, had said, provide information, information only to people who had dropped off the register, or dropped,

[02:03:36] Unknown Speaker: Yes, wanted to be delisted.

[02:03:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: It was my reading of their letter to us, um, not forcing them back on, um, but, um, giving them information that may compel them particularly if they're new owners. So all those in favor of that. Oh.

[02:03:56] Unknown Speaker: What information would we give them? So if we had, it might be... I mean, that's to be determined, but I would think it would be a possible list of historic architects, a possible if we have frequently asked questions, which are part of council member Ramos's, you know, make it clear on a website, but if I just bought a new old house, I might not be reading all of our web pages. So giving them information that would, and what incentives are, like, right now, we don't have a grant program, but maybe when I buy this new old house, we would have one. So giving people information so that they can make a decision about, you think that's already in here in some way? Maybe a question for staff.

[02:04:48] Unknown Speaker: I have a recollection of the staff report that we were already planning to conduct outreach to the property owners that would fall under scope B. Is that correct?

[02:05:03] Unknown Speaker: We were going to conduct, we were going to reach out to the property owners who were included in the scope of work. Um, the, what we did not hear is a majority of council members, um, and we were not proposing to go and contact everybody on Scope B, C to everyone. So we would just reach out to the scope A people, the downtown preservation district people, C one. And then generally people who are interested and have joined us providing them information. What we heard is a couple of council members express interest in staff going out to the people on the list for Scopi, not necessarily, including that in the scope, reaching out to them and letting them know we're conducting this process. We're going to be providing incentives. Here are some examples of incentives. You could also kind of get back on the list and self nominate if you find these are valuable to you. And that's a separate thing, which we had not proposed to do. It's 17 properties. We could just reach out to them, let them get involved in the program, just be interested and tell them, C one is available. You can voluntarily get back on the list if you wish. So that's essentially how we would see it. Just reaching out and letting them know they have the option. And as we develop the ordinance, they could get involved in incentives. So just reaching out.

[02:06:32] Unknown Speaker: So I'm assuming you could mail them. Maybe, you say, 17 properties, we could sell some information to 17.

[02:06:39] Unknown Speaker: Right. And so that's essentially what we would do, but we didn't see a majority of council go there, so we would want a straw vote if you council wanted to do it. So.

[02:06:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice Mary?

[02:06:54] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just have a question about how is this sort of going over into your project contact list. I know there's always a list of people who are interested in the project, and you send them regular information. Wouldn't this just be included in that?

[02:07:13] Unknown Speaker: So, we have a website, email list, so anybody that goes to the website can sign up for an email list. That's something that people have to actively sign up for. At key points in the process, we have sent letters to everybody who was on the register and opted off the register, so that would include Scope B. And so they, assuming that they read their mail, they are presumably aware that this project is going on. But if they, They haven't read their mail or if they haven't logged onto the website and received the signed up for the email for the regular updates and things like that, they may not have gotten that some additional information that we send out through email.

[02:08:04] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Right, but going forward, presumably they will read the mail. I mean, we don't, we can't control whether people read their mail or not. Um, and so, I just, this seems to me to be an extra layer, and I don't want us to have extra layers, and I also, I want people to feel like if they're involved in the process they're involved in the process. You know, that we're not excluding others. So that's why I'm a little... I'm a little hesitant about this one. But I mean, I do think we, but we should have a very robust list of people who are, have said they're interested in the process, and we continue to, um, you know, correspond with them, just like we normally do.

[02:08:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I guess I'm not, I'm not totally aware what the, what the process is for that particular set of people, and I also don't know, you know, did I opt off, but now that you have a grant program, now that I have that information, do I want to opt out gone? Or did the previous owner opt off, but I'm a new owner, and now I might want to opt on?

[02:09:08] Unknown Speaker: I think those are the people... I think it's a big deal, but I think those are the people who it captures... Okay. It seems like a minor point.

[02:09:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so all those in favor of, uh, Scope B contacting, uh, the people who've delisted themselves, the properties who've delisted themselves with updated information. All those in favor. Three, four, five. Okay. I'm not seeing much else, uh, if council members feel they've been ignored, that they said something that I didn't take a straw pole on, please tell me. Council member of Matterchick?

[02:09:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I did hear, um, people mentioned specific addresses of properties that they wanted to look at that were not on Castro, and, um, I didn't keep a list of them, but I don't know if I don't know what they wanted to, uh, have done with those. So maybe folks who said that could share.

[02:10:20] Unknown Speaker: Sure. Oh, yeah, you did. I mean, it was two worlds. And that was also brought up, I think, in several of the comments we got, an email. And then the other one is the is the 444 Castro Street. And I'm not sure if that is one of the five buildings.

[02:10:40] Unknown Speaker: Well, in terms of taking a look at them, Scope A would involve taking a look at them. So they would be included in scoping. So it's kind of redundant.

[02:10:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Right. Got it. Thank you. City manager?

[02:10:57] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. So I would like our community development director to just speak to the length of the review process, given that we are looking at scope A, B, and C1 now.

[02:11:12] Unknown Speaker: just to set expectations, because the review process will be longer now.

[02:11:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I don't think we're reviewing NB. We're just mailing them something.

[02:11:24] Unknown Speaker: Mailing them updated information. Correct, but there will be work to do if 17 property owners are interested, or if there's further meetings or conversations that have to take place. So perhaps just some insight as to how that's going to link with the other two. A and C one. Right. If we were to include B, you're right, it would be a lot more work, but there will be questions from the property owners, and our intent in meeting what council wishes us to do, is to send them a letter to say, you know, we know you were on the list, you opted off, but we're looking at a new ordinance and new incentives, we want you to get involved. You know, please contact the city if you're interested, and leave it at that. A handful might be involved or all of them might want to know. And that does increase the amount of, you know, sort of back and forth the staff would have to do, while it wouldn't take as much time as including Scobi. We do know that it would be more time than just doing scope A and C one. Just wanted to let you know.

[02:12:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: In terms of a timeline, I think we'd estimated bringing this back in 2026.

[02:12:40] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, for adoption, for adoption. And that would give us certainly a lot of time during 2024 to do the survey and to do additional iterations during 5 on the ordinance.

[02:12:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Right.

[02:12:52] Unknown Speaker: Some of the things that could happen as part of scope B, is people might come in and say, I'm interested in relisting my property, and that would mean potentially a reassessment of the property, because they could have done remodels in that time. So that does add to the scope by reaching out to them. But we don't know how many. So I would estimate another 3 months, maybe, back and forth trying to assess this. Um, and uh, I think we're scoped to do uh, the properties in terms of our consultant, but certainly it would add staff time.

[02:13:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: So would there be a way of timing it? So that the, so that we're essentially complete, so that we're, after we have whatever incentives and so forth in place, then we send out the label. We might be sending it out in 26 so that the work is spread out over time, and that it, well, I guess, have said, spread out over time and not all coming at once.

[02:13:55] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think it makes sense to send it out early just to let them know if they want to get involved in the development of incentives, because there might be people who are interested in the program and the development of the program. So we would suggest sending it out early. And then eventually, sometimes people lose interest. They tend to not like it when you go to the end because they would have said, well, we would have wanted to get involved in the program. So we would suggest if we do it at all, we do it relatively early when we're reaching out to the other target groups so that they become part of the process. Either way, it would add time because that work that we would need to do in terms of meeting with them, reassessing their property, taking another look at that, is still going to be part of it.

[02:14:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, do other council members have additional comments? I'm not saying more comments. So I think that this process is complete. Council member Ramirez.

[02:15:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Just to clarify, we are, the council did not change its mind on proceeding with Scopi. I didn't hear anybody making comments like that, but if you're bringing it up again, they still have the opportunity to. I remain opposed. But there were a number of ideas that Council member Ramos brought up. I'm not sure if they were small enough to just, sort of, get included, but, um, I didn't.

[02:15:28] Unknown Speaker: Sure, you want me to take a second look at those?

[02:15:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If no straw pull is necessary, then I'm fine with that, but if you do need a straw pull, I just wanted to make sure we had an opportunity to...

[02:15:38] Unknown Speaker: Mayor?

[02:15:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. Council member.

[02:15:41] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So we are working on one of council's priority A, work plan projects is to look at an update the REI action plan. So staff is taking a really deep comprehensive look at the items that remain on that action plan. And one of those is looking at some of the historical markers that we had explored before, like the Chinatown and Japan town, which we're talked about some time ago. So I think that there is a nexus to what we're working on and we can just add that to what we're already working on. And we're actually hiring a consultant to help us with that as well and just really taking a deep dive. So I think it's not necessary to do a straw poll because I do see a nexus with the work that's underway already with the Priority A project.

[02:16:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. But that's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear if anybody felt like some of these things were, we didn't, I didn't name them and take a straw pull. I mean, for instance, there was one that we should have an inclusive definition of history. People said that in various different ways. Do we need a straw pole on that one? Would be quick. No? Yes. Okay, who wants an inclusive definition of history, all those in favor? There. Okay. People said that, that's the only one I'm finding in, you know, said in multiple ways. And now we have it voted on. Are there additional comments? Council member, Ramos.

[02:17:24] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Just one quick comment to alleviate a fear, I think, council member Ramirez had. There was a very, um, not so great article on the Mercury news about historical preservation. And I think this is kind of what alluded to it. When I was thinking about at the stakeholder, Maine, there was this one neighborhood, apparently they actually have a single story overlay. And like, I do feel that if they actually have enough buy in from their community to actually get a, like, actually do a single story overlay, because I do think our requirements are really strict. And I anticipate maybe having strict requirements if we are things like a district because I really want significant levels of buy-in for a neighborhood to have that. Like, I don't want, like, I don't know, 3 houses in a neighborhood wanting a historical district and then the whole neighborhood's historical district and all the other neighbors are like, what's going on? We don't want that. So I'm anticipating that if we do do something like C one, that there's just going to be a significant threshold and buy-in from that neighborhood in there. Um, So I hope that alleviate some of that fear.

[02:18:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: So is that a question on process or just a comment?

[02:18:41] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I don't know. It's just a comment.

[02:18:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Let's speak of the comment. Vice mayor says it's a comment.

[02:18:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, so I think that wraps it up if I hear no additional comments, and we will take a 10 minute break and then be back for... major portion of our meeting. Okay.

[02:19:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the special meeting of the Mountain View City Council of December 12, 2023. We are now on item two, which is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. pledge allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

[02:20:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: We're now on item three, which is roll call, the assistant city clerk, will take attendance by roll call.

[02:20:06] Unknown Speaker: All council members are present.

[02:20:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. 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, may be grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period.

[02:20:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: Now we're moving to item four, which is our consent calendar. The items on our consent calendar will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove... item for discussion... If you would like to speak on this item or the next item, or communications on non agenda items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

[02:21:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Would any member of council like to pull an item?

[02:21:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: So... Oh, Council member Abi Coco. Oh,

[02:21:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: thank you, Mayor. I actually don't need to pull it, but I just wanted to speak to item 4.4.

[02:21:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sure, opportunity arises. Would you like me to do it now or later? Oh, you can do.

[02:21:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So should we pull it then or no?

[02:22:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Actually, I guess we don't need to. Should we pull it for speakers? Or

[02:22:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: beat to it.

[02:22:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So we can pull that one and vote on that one separate separately and all of us speak on it as well. So,

[02:22:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the consent calendar items? This would be all of those except for 4.4.4. If so, uh, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or submit a blue speaker card.

[02:22:34] Unknown Speaker: We have nobody for the regular for the remaining item, either in Zoom or in person.

[02:22:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, um, For all the items, with the exception of 4.4. I will now bring consent back to council for action, and note that a motion to approve the council calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinance, and resolutions attached to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, and 4.11. So, we have a motion by council member Ramirez and a 2nd by council member, Matachek, council member Ramirez.

[02:23:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve the balance of the consent calendar, including item 4.1. Adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, approving a development agreement between the city of Mountain View, and CM Evelyn Station, LLC, to construct a 4 story commercial building, containing 28,090 square feet of office, and 6,500 square feet of retail with a rooftop terrace, and no parking on a .26 acre site, located at 701 to 747 West Evelyn Avenue, to be read entitled only for their reading waves. 4.2, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View authorizing the city manager or designate to amend the city of Mountain View's salary plan for hourly employees to ensure all classifications reflect Mountain View's minimum wage to be read entitled only for their reading waived. 4.3 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, appointing Cool Deep Ambasta to the Board of Library Trustees, reappointing Joe Mitchner to the Parks and Recreation Commission, reappointing a lot of Adamic to the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee, reappointing Jamil Sheikh to the downtown committee, appointing Brian Oganowski to the senior advisory committee, and reappointing Glyph Bryant and Tutu Thompson, and appointing Lacy Rathbun to the visual arts committee to be read entitled only for the reading waived. 4.7, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving a plan of finance, including the issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $55 million, to finance, and refinance a qualified residential rental project for the benefit of Montecito, LP, a California Limited partnership, and certain other matters relating thereto, to be read on title only for the reading waived. Item 4.11, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending the fiscal year 2023 to 24 budget to appropriate $31,190 from the general non-operating fund for consultant services on the economic vitality strategy to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and adopt a resolution of the Shoreline Regional Park community of the city of Mountain View, amending the fiscal year 2023 to 24 budget to appropriate $3,810 from the Shoreline Regional Park community fund into the general Non-operating Fund for consultant services on the economic vitality strategy to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[02:25:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now, council can vote. Passes unanimously.

[02:25:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Now, Council member Abbe Koga, you pulled item 4.4.

[02:25:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I pulled it not for really anything. other than to just highlight it. And I saw some folks in the audience, I thought, might want to speak to it. So, um, that was really it, but I would just say um, for just a few comments on my own. Um, I appreciate, um, you know, Wendy Mahaney Garahu is in the audience and she's been leading this effort at the county. We had the opportunity at our city's association to receive a presentation. And our council, our city, has a long history of supporting expansion of childcare options. So I don't think there's any controversy in supporting this, but I just wanted to, you know, say that we, I appreciate that our city does, has been committed to providing opportunities, including having our own childcare center that the city built in partnership. The challenge there, and we offer low income, families spots. But I, over the years, I had, um, researched, um, you know, we had, um, I think, I don't know where it is now, but there was a time when we couldn't fill those spots, and the challenge has always been finding subsidies, um, other opportunities for funding to be able to, uh, for families to be able to use those spots. And so there's this, you know, obviously a continuing need for that kind of, um, those types of resources. So even if we have the spots, we need to be able to help folks use them. And so, I appreciate, again, the community, the county, President Ellenburg has been a big supporter of this. I know several of us joined a Zoom call. I think it was in the summer to talk about this issue. So, I appreciate that this is on our agenda and we're able to vote for the resolution. And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

[02:27:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Are there other council members who'd like to make comments? Vice mayor.

[02:27:56] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I'd just like to say that, um, I've worked in two organizations that had on site daycare, and, um, I can't tell you how significant a difference that amenity was. It was just really important for retention, and it created a community among the parents who had kids in the daycare center, and was just really a wonderful amenity. So I hope that, um, you know, this program that the county is getting started will help many of us get on site daycare that will, um, really help a lot of a lot of people.

[02:28:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member command.

[02:28:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I love that we are in a city where our edict is being a community for all, and something like this, which is childcare for all can be on our consent calendar, and that we can move forward because of the unanimous misupport we have in the community. So I want to thank Wendy and those who are here to speak on it, but know that this is something that's a priority in Mountain View. And I think that's such a testament to what makes our community so great. Thank you.

[02:29:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I want to just 2nd what my colleagues have said, I think this is, we have, um, this city has always supported expanded childcare, but I think there's a critical need at this point, and I think that's what, like, more than ever before, and I think that's what this effort is about. It is, it's not about the city becoming a childcare provider or a, uh, grant maker, uh, for childcare, but it's about the kinds of things that cities can do, which is zoning, encouraging as the vice mayor said, uh, our, uh, companies to include childcare and other measures like slew of other measures like that.

[02:29:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: And with that, I will go to public speakers in person first. First, we have, I'm going to mispronounce your name. Wendy Mahaney Garahu?

[02:30:06] Wendy Maney Guru: Time, I make sure, uh, my name's difficult, so I appreciate both of you saying it as best as possible, and it's Wendy Maney, Guru. I am the project leader of Build the Future. It's a nonprofit, uh, community-based, um, program funded by folks that want to donate. Of course, we have Educare as our fiscal sponsor. Our co-leaders are as president, Susan Ellenberg, and Maria Noel Fernandez, a CEO of working partnerships. We really wanted to bring 3 things together, policy, big business and a way to think about investing in childcare. You are our policy. So you will be, if you do pass this, the 2nd city to pass, and we aim to hit all of them, to pass a childcare resolution. So we want to thank you in advance, should it pass? We also want to point out a few the statistics. For infant care, it's $26,400 a year, if you have one baby. And there aren't enough slots, even if you could pay for it, you'll be on a waiting list for a year. We have families with vouchers, 20. We have right now 2,000 families with vouchers and nowhere to go. And the reason is, we had 2,000 childcare providers before the pandemic, 600 close their doors, and now we were already in a deficit with 2,000. We are in a crisis now. So, we want you to be the policymakers to say, yes, we know the cities can't solve this as an operational function, but we sure can get behind the policy and the will and the might to say that childcare is infrastructure. It's how working families go to work, and it's how quality care helps young youngsters become great citizens. This is a role you absolutely can take. And so we appreciate your partnership, your thought leadership, and your work over time on this particular issue. I will also say that the childcare workforce is significantly underpaid. We are the third worst paid industry in the world. We cannot raise rates. It's too expensive, and so we can't pay our people. So we have a fiscal issue, and we will have to come to terms with that some way somehow. So the 2nd part of our work is with big business. And we are working with them around, what does it take to have a quality workforce where you have retention, and you have people that are happy to be at work, and they know that their kids are in a quality environment. And that's a strategy that we want to partner with with you as we work with our big business partners. You don't need to convince the educators and advocates we're already here. But we sure do need you. And so we appreciate any vote you do in the affirmative tonight. Thank you.

[02:32:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Paula Perez.

[02:33:02] Unknown Speaker: I'll be translating for her. Good evening to the respectable Mayor Hicks and respectable members of the council. My name is Paula Perez, and I've lived in Mountain View for more than 20 years. I'm a community leader, and a member of parent voices.

[02:33:36] Paula Perez: Oy estoy aqui, para gradecer ustedes, por a pollar la resolutión de cuidado infantilas se cable para todos.

[02:33:45] Unknown Speaker: I am here today to say thank you to all of you for approving a resolution for childcare for all.

[02:33:54] Paula Perez: May I say, muy feliz, escuchar, que todos ustedes, estangaciendo un gran, trabajo, y que banga poner, mucho interes, para que el cuedado infantile, en montebio, sea mejor.

[02:34:10] Unknown Speaker: It makes me really happy to know that you are all participating in playing a part in making sure that there is quality childcare for all here in Mountain View.

[02:34:21] Paula Perez: Por favor, les pido, que realmente en el futuro, el cuidado infantile, se a se quible para todos. Las familias de diverso nibelle soce economicos. Especialmente, que las familias de bajos ingresos se en contadas en es se futuro de cuidado infantile.

[02:34:45] Unknown Speaker: And I'd like to say, um, that you please take into consideration, um, the reality that child care for all is truly needed, but making sure that it remains affordable, and that means affordable at all economic levels.

[02:35:06] Paula Perez: en hablado tambienso en la resolutión en mensionado sobre el qui el centro de quidad enfantile que se abrio en el dos mil nocho. Um, gracias, por eso. No estanga el cance de la familia de clasé trabajadora. En mi experiencia, yo tengo cuatro hijos, y en un treso cacione yo as, acudia es centro de cuidado, la primera vez, medicieron questaba, serada la la lista despera. La segunda vez, Medicero.

[02:36:03] Unknown Speaker: I also realized that in the resolution, you mentioned the child care center that was opened in 2008 near the community center. And I just want to let you know that the reality is that centers like that are not affordable for working class. In my personal experience. I have 4 children, and I attempted 3 times to try to register there. The 1st time, they told me the list was closed or the wait list was closed. On the second time, they told me there was a space, but I did not qualify due to my income. And I continued to persist and requested that I remain on the list, hoping that my income would change, and I would be able to get in, but that never happened.

[02:37:01] Paula Perez: Espereencia de muchas familias de nestra comonidad. Me preocupa, y de seo, de todo corazón que la familias.

[02:37:12] Unknown Speaker: No, super important. And it's been my experience, and also for many in our community, and I hope that this does not continue. with many of families like mine here in Mountain View.

[02:37:34] Paula Perez: Thank you so much for all the work that you're doing to better childcare here in Longview. Good night.

[02:37:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Uh, next, we have Liliana Camacho.

[02:37:52] Liliana Camacho: Good evening, everyone. I'm Liliana Camacho. I'm with Param voices of Santa Clara. I'm supporting Build the Future. I have lived in Mountain View for 20 years. I'm a mother of four children, ages between 10 months and eight years old. I have looked for childcare both inside and outside our city. so that I can go back to work, but it hasn't been a possibility, because childcare is quite expensive, and it's hard to find in our city. The waiting list is so long. I have all three of my younger kids on a waiting list since they were born. I want to say thank you for considering this cause and I hope you guys pass it. As many of our families would be benefited.

[02:38:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. So, next, we go to online speakers, virtual speakers, and we have one at this point. So anyone else who wants to speak, please raise your hands and Zoom now. Our speaker is Mary Lou Cuesta Flores. Mary Lou?

[02:38:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: I believe she'll be speaking Spanish.

[02:39:00] Mary Lou Cuesta Flores: Honorable city council members. My name is Marie Lucuesta. I'm speaking in support of pattern voices of Santa Clara County, advocating for affordable childcare football. I would highly appreciate it for city council adopts the resolution in favor of supporting affordable house, affordable childcare, for all. Thank you very much.

[02:39:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And seeing I'm 99% sure, yes, saying no more speakers. Um, we have emotion by council member Abe Koga, and a 2nd by council member Metachek. We can now, I think I have to read it, actually.

[02:39:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, you have to read it. Okay, thank you very much. But I would like to make an emotion to adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mount View, declaring support of childcare for all, to be read on title only for the reading waived. I wanted to, I don't need to make it a part of the motion, but I would like to request a status update. It could just be a memo on our childcare facility. I know over the years we've had updates, usually when it's to renew the contract, it's come up in the past, when we do the budgeting, because we do provide, I think it was $100,000 in subsidy to try to help folks fill those slots. And in light of what we heard, I would just like to know what the current status is and if we want to revisit, what we're doing, um, and providing subsidies and if there's potentially a need for more, but, um, just the status of where we are and those, um, reserve spots would be very helpful. So a memo would be great. Thank you.

[02:40:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so we're voting on the resolution plus a status update.

[02:41:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Passes unanimously. Thank you all for coming out. So now we are moving to item number 5 on our agenda, which is oral communications, and this portion of the meeting is reserved for people wishing to address the council on any matter, not on our agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council's subject matter jurisdiction. For up to three minutes, 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, please submit a blue speaker card, and if you'd like to speak during oral communications, please raise your hand in Zoom. Um, we have, at this point, one in person, public speaker, who is Bruce Kearney.

[02:42:09] Bruce Kearney: Thank you, Mayor Hicks, city council members. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. As you began your evening, you were looking into the past, into the history of Mountain View, and now I'd like to ask you to look into the future. Earlier, you were dealing with historic preservation, and I'd like you to ask, I'd like to ask you to think about planetary preservation. You've listened to the needs of the mothers of small children. I'd like to ask you to think about the planet that those children will live on when they're as old as I am in the year 2100. Will that planet be one that has a climate that you and I and the rest of us have grown to know and love? Will our climate be best by government test, or almost that good? So, over the last 10 years, Carbon Free Mountain View has worked in a variety of ways to try to make Mountain View a more sustainable city. And we've been with your help extraordinarily successful in that effort. We have clean electricity from Silicon Valley clean energy. We were one of the first cities to adopt a strong reach code. We have grown the staff of our sustainability and resiliency department to be a model for all medium sized cities in California. But there's another step that it's time to take, and that step is to enact an ordinance at some point in 2024, to ban pipe natural gas in Mountain View no later than the year 2045. By 2035, California will no longer allow fossil fueled cars to be sold, but we'll still have fossil fuel in many of our homes and apartments. Over the last two years, carbon free Mountain View has, from time to time, asked residents to sign a petition, saying that they support banning pipe natural gas no later than 2045. And so tonight, I'm here to give those petitions to the city clerk. I did send you a scanned image of the document yesterday. So if you want to see if your friends and neighbors have signed. You have the ability to do that. Why is it so important to say now what the carbon infrastructure of Mountain View will be like in 2045? Well, the simple answer is, it's going to take us a number of years to replace all the natural gas burning appliances. And we must let people know that any investment in a natural gas appliance is going to be a stranded asset. The Bay Area air quality management district is doing a great job trying to send that message, and we hope that they will adopt strong ordinances about heat pump water heaters, heat pump air conditioners. But Mountain View can do a lot on its own. You can follow the lead of Half Moon Bay and Los Altos Hills, and adopt a ban on natural gas. I hope you will do so. Thank you, Bruce.

[02:45:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I see no more in person speakers, and virtually, I see Maria Cuestaflores, but Maria, you may be, your hand just may be up from the previous item, but I want to make sure you don't want to speak during item five. Maria, would you like to speak? Oh, she's put her hand down. So. So, that's it for oral communications from the public. We are now moving on to our study session. It is item 6.1, review of the below market rate Affordable Housing Program. Chinese and Spanish translation services are available for this item, and we will now hear from our Chinese interpreter. [non-English speech not transcribed]

[02:46:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. Well, now hear from our Spanish interpreter. Hmm. Well, I'm not sure if our Spanish interpreter is available. So, um, moving on, uh, the purposes of this study session are for the city council to receive one, receive the review of the city's below market rate affordable housing program, and two, provide direction on policy changes for the program. Housing director Wayne Chen and Housing Specialist 2, Anna Reynoso will present the item.

[02:47:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Great. Thank you very much, mayor and council. I also do want to know, the city's consultant, who assisted in the phase 2 modifications from a few years ago, economic complaining systems is on the line. Should questions come up and they also assist us with our three-year review. Thank you for allowing us to be your last study session of this calendar year. Mayor, you already read the purpose of this item. So we'll just jump into it, briefly providing a background of the program. The BMR program was 1st established in 1999, operated for about 20 years before we went through a 2 phase update process. That process was informed by 2 study sessions held by council in 2017, as well as the passage of state assembly bill 1505, which restored the ability of jurisdictions to implement below market rate housing programs. The high-level goals of the program are to increase the diversity and supply of affordable housing, to deliver integrated BMR units along with market rate units in mixed income developments, and therefore creating inclusive, economically sustainable, and complete communities for a wide range of families and households. At the conclusion of the phase 2 process, council asked us to incorporate periodic reviews of the program, and then we were also able to incorporate those reviews into the recently certified housing element that the city was able to complete. And so that's program one. and there are 5 criteria, and that's the criteria we will be using to evaluate the BMR program. This is the 1st of such reviews, and the housing element also indicates another review in 5 years. With that, I'm going to pass it over to Renoso, our day-to-day excellent BMR program lead to go over the BMR current requirements.

[02:49:05] Anna Reynoso: Thank you. I will begin by reviewing the current BMR requirements set for all residential projects that create one or more units. There's currently a 15% requirement for all ownership and rental projects and a 25% requirement for row home and townhome development. All BMR units remain affordable in perpetuity. Currently, rental projects have AMI levels designated from 50 to 120% with a weighted average of 65% or less, while ownership unit projects have AMI levels designated from 80 to 120% of the area are median income with a weighted average equal to 100%. Rowhome and townhome projects have an additional requirements with higher AMI limits to meet their 25% requirement. Housing costs are set at a maximum of 30% of the income level designated for the unit. And the units are of proportional mix to the market rate units and dispersed throughout the project. Alternative mitigation options are currently discretionary and will be discussed later in the presentation. The evaluation criteria, the housing element evaluation criteria was utilized for this review. Each of the 5 criteria will be discussed throughout the presentation. On criteria one, we wanted to provide data on the efficacy of the current phase 2 requirements. We want to know that current project data is based on pipeline projects. These projects will have to be approved and built. That being said, the pipeline data suggests phase 2 modifications have been effective in creating more BMR units. Staff compared BMR units created under the 1999 program. To those subject to current BMR program requirements, as demonstrated by the chart, BMR rental units in the pipeline are significantly greater than the existing number of BMR rental units. Currently there are 46 ownership units in the pipeline, which is significantly greater than the existing 14 units. Evaluation 2 has 3 elements to examine the diversity of BMR units. The 1st element is unit type. As mentioned, the total number of onsite units in the pipeline exceeds the number of existing units. And there are proportionally more ownership units, which help address council's interest in middle income and ownership housing. The next element regarding the diversity of BMR units is regarding special needs housing, including accessible units. Two ways to think about special needs housing is one, housing with supportive services that is available, and 2 units with physical design features incorporating accessibility. The BMR program is not geared towards supportive services. Market rate developers and property managers do not have the expertise to provide supportive services. This led staff to recommend the evaluation of program requirements to increase physical accessibility of the BMR unit. The final element regarding diversity of BMR units is the affordability levels. The specifics of several pipeline projects, subject to phase 2 requirements are still being determined. However, the distribution, by units and income levels. However, the projects must meet the AMI requirements of the BMR program, such as the weighted average and include at least 2 different AMI levels. Phase 2 appears to be effective in diversity of units, as it will result in BMR units at different AMI levels versus the 1999 program, which mostly had one AMI level. And I will pass it back to Housing Director Chen.

[02:53:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you, Anna. So moving on to Criteria 3 in the housing element, which includes evaluation for the BMRs program, efficacy regarding mobility and access to opportunity. These are 2 concepts really related to affirmatively furthering fair housing, and the concepts related to AFFH, stem in part from AB 686, which was passed in 2018. And it included various housing element requirements that have been incorporated into our recently certified housing element. The basic premise of AFFH is to increase housing choices for lower income households and families, to sort of reduce historic patterns of segregation, to reduce barriers to housing, to increase access to housing. And so mobility refers to the concept to be able to move in areas that have higher opportunity, typically defined as having proximity to resources, retail, amenities, infrastructure, like transportation, jobs, et cetera. Mountain View doesn't have, what's defined as sort of low or really low opportunity areas, unlike perhaps other cities, but there are still distinctions in Mountain View in terms of middle to high opportunity areas. Based on evaluation. We do believe that the BMR program itself by creating more on-site units is the primary way to achieve mobility and access to opportunity. Onset BMR units lead to mixed income developments. And the development themselves allow social interaction. Markway projects also typically go where there are amenities or where there will be future amenities. And so the 3 provisions in the current BMR program with the objective standard of on-site units, a distribution of the BMR units relative to the unit size of the market rate units, which allows more opportunities for perhaps larger households to live in affordable housing, and to equitably distribute, locationally speaking, where the units are in the project, are key ways that the BMR program achieves mobility and access the opportunity. Once we move into alternative mitigations, which is required to be provided by state law, it can be more challenging to create mixed communities and development simply because there are no on-site BMR units. So staff is recommending that there are B modifications to add AFFH criteria generally to the alternative mitigation section. And then depending on the options, council wishes to have in terms of by right options, we will talk about in a moment. We would add specific criteria to each of those items as relevant. So as illustrative examples, if council wishes to have land dedication to the city as a by right option, we would look at developing language to say where the land dedication should go, should it be in a high opportunity area, should it be close to the primary market rate development, for example? Another item that the staff is recommending is to create incentives for affordable housing to be developed in areas south of El Camino. There is a housing element program 2.6 that has this as a goal. And this is one way to create alternative mitigations that can incentivize achieving that particular program. So moving on to criteria for potential policy changes. The primary area for changes really do relate to alternative mitigations and better aligning and meeting the requirements of AB 1505. So let me kind of walk through those, and some of these pieces will connect to the mobility and AFFH components we just talked about. But the 1st one is whether council wishes to continue allowing alternate mitigation options for all projects, rental and ownership, or just for rental projects. This question is being asked because AB 1505 only requires options to be provided for rental projects. It is up to the city or cities to determine whether they wish to extend it to ownership projects. As Anna showed, our current BMR program, with the on-site requirement, is really leading to a significant increase in the number of BMR units relative to what we currently have. So the question for council is, keep it available for both types of projects or keep it offered just for rental projects. The 2nd item is the value of alternate medications. So the way our current BMR program has it set up is that the requirement, the ultimate mitigation needs to be of a greater value, a benefit than the on-site units. And as we were reviewing AB 1505 again, it really should be that the alternative mitigation can be no less than the value of the on-site units, but cities can't mandate that it just be greater than the on-site units. So staff is recommending that the BMR program be modified to state that, that the value of the alternate mitigation be no less in the value of the on-site units. The 2nd and related recommendation is that we use the in lieu fees as a way to streamline the calculation of value. Now, the reason why we're suggesting this is the BM Martin Luth fees, when it was updated in the 2019 phase 2 requirements. We used economic equivalency methodology that EPS helped to evaluate. And the value of the Indian fee was set at a point where developers would be indifferent to providing the fee versus providing the units on site. And so that provides a nice way to have a dollar value to determine value more quickly. The next item regarding potential policy changes is establishing 2 nondiscretionary slash by right options. So currently, as Anna mentioned, RBMR program, has the program set up in terms of all options are discretionary, even if the criteria are met as stipulated in our guidelines. AB 1505 really does require a minimum of 2 options, though, that are on the menu that are by right, that if a developer can meet pre-described standards, that it would be able to be granted to them. Um, So, council is asked to consider, um, two, a minimum of two by right options. And staff is recommending at least beginning with the 3 options currently listed in our BMR program. Those current options are in Lou fees, land dedication to the city, um, and development of units off site. We are recommending council consider a 4th option, which is acquisition and preservation of units. This is being recommended because we have done a project where an alternative mitigation for acquisition of preservation was implemented and implemented successfully, and it can also help address tenant displacement. And then whatever council wishes to include, whether it's 2 or more on the by right menu, we would come back with more detailed provisions and options. So that's the 2nd question. which options, a minimum of two. A couple of additional considerations for you to keep in mind as you think about the by right options. For land dedication, this has kind of come up over a period of time. We would recommend that this definitely have those AFFH criteria added to land dedication if council wishes to have that on the menu. Um, we would ask and recommend that there be some additional provisions in terms of realistic parcel sizes and reasonable density assumptions. Some of the projects that we may have seen have included density assumptions that are quite high, and I think we could take a look at maybe some trends in terms of going that direction, but there should be some reasonable some trending and basing on densities that can be developed. Also, the value of the land dedication often is not enough to meet the value of the on-site units, which can create a financial gap, and it would require the city to select the developer through a land dedication RFQRP process to actually develop the site. And so SAP is recommending that a financial contribution, in addition to the value of the land, be part of a land dedication request to help offset the subsidy needed for that development. Finally, because the city would have to undertake an RFQRFP process, there is staff time and consultant costs to undertake that process, and we would recommend also a contribution of cost recovery fees to be able to implement the RFQRP process, essentially, the city would sort of be responsible for creating those units or realizing those units. The 2nd item for additional considerations is regarding development of units off site, and we have seen that as well. Again, we recommend AFFH requirements be added, and that the projects are not dependent on city contributions. It should be developed without any city contribution. We also do want to note that if this option were on the menu, it could compete with the city's own pipeline project. We have 12 in the pipeline, even if the city were not to contribute funding for that alternative mitigation, that project might compete for tax credits or state funding, which would be the same funding that our pipeline would compete for. So that's just something to keep in mind. Finally, regarding alternative mitigations, council can, but does not have to include discretionary options in addition to the by right options. We currently have a flexible catchall option to be able to respond or evaluate innovative approaches that are not on the list. And so the question for counsel is, do you wish to keep a flexible kind of catchall option so we can respond to innovative approaches? And or does counsel wish to specify any specific discretionary options that might be in addition to or instead of a catchall option? And then finally, just to note that because evaluating, you know, term mitigations is usually a lot more complex and can take more time, that we do plan to start charging hourly staff rates of value alternative medication requests, and just to note that projects that meet the BMR requirement, requirements, they also have to meet various state laws, whether it's SP 330 or state density bonus law. Those units, if they meet those laws, can also count towards the BMR requirements, if it meets the BMR requirements. The 5th and final criteria is potential cleanups and staff have identified a few. The 1st one is to clarify that the requirements are based on the income levels that are connected with the BMR unit, not the household's actual income, and that's not always clear. So we just want to clarify it through the program. We are also recommending to update the AMI levels and the associated income ranges. As an example, 80% AMI is part of the low income definition, but it's also part of the modern income definition. So sometimes there's the question, is 80%? Is that a moderate income unit? or is that a low income unit? So the definitional changes we are proposing makes it very clear, 80% is part of their low income, moderate begins above 80%. And so that's what that's about. We do want to explicitly state in the program that there is a 3% annual cap for rent increases for tenants who are in the units already. That's how we are implementing it through regulatory agreements, but it's not stated in the program, and we just want to make that clear. We do want to clarify that the HOA reserve requirement is, um, for units at 50% AMI, and it's not uh, clear in the program that it's applicable for 80% AMI unit. So we want to clarify that. Finally, the last three. For ownership projects, we would like to clarify and update the program to say that such projects can meet the weighted average requirement, if it's equal or less than 100% AMI. The reason this has come up is some projects have ownership projects have density bonus units in them, and then that makes it difficult for them to meet the equals to 100% weighted average. And so they ask for a concession. We want to make it clear. don't have to ask for a concession. We want to change it so that if they don't hit the 100% AMI, that's okay. It can be lower than that. And also as long as they provide an HOA reserve for those lower income units. We want to clarify that the HOA reserve is not paid to the city. It's just not clear, in the program, it should be paid to a 3rd party administrator, the city's not seeking to administer those funds. And finally, the administering department should be updated to the housing department, as that is the administering department. So this is a summary of the recommendations. There are 3 of them. And this is a summary of the council questions related to alternative mitigations, and then the 4th question to council, which is, is there anything else that you would like to see as we bring back the code amendments? In terms of timing and next steps, we would start the modification process in terms of both the ordinance and the alternate administrative guidelines based on your direction. It would include EPC hearing because it would be modifying the ordinance. And we are estimating that we would bring the code amendments back to council sometime in Q2 or Q3, depending on what the next steps are. We may bring back a study session to provide feedback as we get into some of the details and seek your direction if needed. And then the next review would be in 2028. So that concludes staff's presentation and happy to answer any questions.

[03:07:18] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[03:07:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. So, again, because this is a study session. The 2nd one of our evening. We start with comments from the public. So would any member of the public, joining us virtually or in person, like to provide comments on this item? If so, submit a blue card, or raise your hand. Raise your hand in Zoom. And I will check that now. So I have one virtual speaker, with the name Mina, attached to it. Nina?

[03:08:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Mina, are you there? Hmm, I'm not hearing from Mina, perhaps this is not the item she wants to speak on. So not hearing from her, we will move on.

[03:08:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, council member. Okay. Council member Ramirez?

[03:08:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Questions, yes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, staff, for the presentation, and for the comprehensive report. I have one question about staff's assessment of the viability of the alternative mitigations that we're exploring, the concern I have is, when I think about the fees that we're collecting, realistically, you know, will they amount to a meaningful development off site or, you know, a meaningful amount of land dedicated to this city? Since land costs are so high, the cost of construction is so high. And I'm thinking typically we're in the low $1000000 range, maybe? Are these alternative mitigations actually going to produce outcomes that are desirable for the city?

[03:09:40] Unknown Speaker: I think we would start with the requirements of AB 1505, and starting with that, and then everything is built around the 15% on-site requirement, and using the in lieu fee as a way to determine the value and what would need to be part of an alternate medication request. And if we can meet those standards, then we would have a BMR program that would comply with AB 1505 even better, and if those are not options that the, an applicant would wish to entertain, they can always just provide the units on site.

[03:10:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: asking the question in a different way. I'm thinking, for instance, the we have a small apartment complex on central Avenue, I think, it's like 20 units. If they were to pay, you know, if they were to provide an alternative mitigation that's equivalent to the 15% BMR, it's going to be a very small project. And I'm wondering in cases like that, um, you know, big projects will have more meaningful alternative mitigations, but for a small project, You know, if somebody comes in with, you know, a tiny parcel, you know, that they're dedicating to the city, um, or, you know, two, I don't even know how they would achieve some of these. Is there a way we can structure this so that small projects, if they take advantage of the alternative mitigation, are actually helping us achieve our housing objectives?

[03:11:18] Unknown Speaker: To unpack that a little bit, for example, if there were um, a land dedication, uh, consideration, you're probably right. It might be something where a larger developer is really taking advantage of certain alternate mitigations that a smaller developer may simply not. Currently, there is a minimum size requirement for land dedication to the city, which is 0.75 acres. And then we are recommending some additional criteria in terms of suitability of the site. Um, The other potential option is, for example, if there's a small project, um, and part of the small project is also related to acquisition preservation, um, and council wants to have that as a by right option, then we would bring back some criteria for what would be, uh, requirements for an acquisition preservation, for, uh, strategy. For example, would it be more than a one for one requirement to the on-site units and based on looking at other cities that have that? We, uh, anticipate having a higher than a one point one requirement. But I do think if there is a small project, the BMR program requires projects with a, with 7 units or more, that's where the on-site requirement does kick in. And at that size, it would be more challenging for a small developer and applicant to really tap into an alternative mitigation. Probably what would happen is they would, um, make a request under a catchall option that is flexible and there's some other, there is some other alternative. The alternate mitigation that we've seen in sort of gatekeeper projects have been the larger projects that can either contribute sizable funding or partner with a developer or do an acquisition preservation program.

[03:13:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[03:13:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[03:13:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. There may not be an answer to this, but I'm actually quite curious, especially having some discussions about it over this past weekend. What would a BMR program look like without relying on AMI levels? Do you have another version of mine that you would like to offer? Actually, that's why I was asking you. Um, Because, uh, we've heard, I've heard discussions, um, as recently as this weekend about, um, say, if a family of four, They were living in a BMR unit and a family of 4 and there's a threshold there and it's like a mom, dad, 2 kids, kids are growing up, one kid that gets a job, bam, over limits. Um, But the function of the family is kind of the same. Um, I think about, I actually used to live in a BMR unit when I 1st moved to Mount View. I had a roommate. Our incomes together combined, made exactly between the 50 to 80% AMI. Um, and then, um, the text credits expired, but, and that was fine because she married shortly after that. And bam, we were over the AMI limit. Um, and I wouldn't have known what that meant to us because it expired already, but, like, it would have been interesting and, um, What is, is there a mechanism for a BMR, for affordable housing that doesn't rely on AMI levels?

[03:14:49] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for that question. Some things to think about the BMR program in terms of how it's set up regarding the ownership. Um, just some context, um, back under the original program, the AMI levels were 80 to 100%. And then through the phase 2 requirements, it got expanded to 80 to 120 to help address middle income. And then for townhome row homes, it's, uh, an even broader band up to 150%. And so that came from a council priority in terms of creating more ownership in middle income. So that was the principle behind that. And if council had a different principle and a different set of AMI levels, what we would likely do is to test that and to see what it would mean in terms of a supportable, a supportable percentage requirement. Would it be 15% or could it be? You know, the higher the AI levels go, the higher the on-site requirement could feasibly be because the AI levels are higher and it could support a greater on-site requirement. And the deeper the MI levels that you go, the lower the percentage requirement that a project could support. And then on the rental side, the old program was 50 to 80%, and it got expanded to 50 to 120%, again, for more moderate income units. In our market, and actually in most markets, about 95 to 100% AMI is where the kind of the public benefit starts to taper off and beyond 95 to 100%. You're starting to look at market rate rents. And so the BMR program, you know, has that weighted average of 65% AMI to get more of the lower income units. And it's a way to deliver those units without city funding. And so those were some principles that went into designing the current program. So there is flexibility for the council to determine, um, other criteria. I think it would be more challenging to implement if there were no criteria, and we're sort of open and a developer can propose whatever mix of units with whatever AMI levels. So having a program with a structure allows staff to evaluate it, and then to set a programmatic setup requirements that everyone can understand. But the slide can, it can definitely, you know, scale up and down in terms of counsel's interest.

[03:17:11] Councilmember Emily Ramos: That's all my questions. Thank you.

[03:17:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So council member Matachek.

[03:17:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I believe there is a construction cost index, and I was wondering if we have ever considered using that instead of CPI to scale the in Luffy's.

[03:17:32] Unknown Speaker: We haven't used that, but I think that can be part of your direction of how we inflate the costs on an annual basis as part of the master fee schedule and the budget process, and if council has a recommendation of that, or there's also another CPI, you know, index related to housing costs, so there's there's different ways to look at it, and we are also recommending reviewing the in-loof fees. programmatically, at least on a three-year basis. So that's a way to, you know, catch up or update the fees, um, you know, at least every 3 years if our annual adjustments are not quite capturing it. So we can definitely take a look at other indices to use.

[03:18:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. And um, let's see. On page 13, um, I just wanna make sure, uh, I understand what this is saying here. Page 13, the 3rd bullet, the words in bold, this applies to, um, when it says property owners, that means ownership housing, right? We're trying to facilitate ownership housing south of El Camino. size plan.

[03:18:45] Unknown Speaker: That one, that one's more an, uh, planning and community development staff here to further explain, but that's really not so much ownership housing, but property owners who could contribute their land to develop, uh, either ownership or rental housing.

[03:19:06] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. So the housing element identified potential areas south of El Camino. I see our advanced planning manager, Eric Anderson here.

[03:19:14] Unknown Speaker: Yes, thank you, Councilman of Immandercheck, Eric Anderson, advanced planning manager. So the intent of that program was to provide incentives for affordable housing south of El Camino. And so, um, there may be opportunities for property owners south of El Camino to make their land available for affordable housing that would be an offsite mitigation to a project elsewhere in the city. And it could be rental or...

[03:19:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Could be rental or ownership, yeah. Thank you.

[03:19:48] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, and then let's see. I read in the most recent, um, council update that we have to uh, certified access specialists here at the city, which was really nice to hear. And, um, I was wondering what would be their role in the review of HCD's Universal Design Model Ordinance.

[03:20:11] Unknown Speaker: We do anticipate connecting with the building division and probably doing some outreach, um, with margaret developers to talk about, um, uh, standards. There's also a model ordinance that HCD has provided, so we would certainly look at those resources, see what would make sense and what would be feasible in terms of a set of requirements. And so we would do some definitely internal conversations and some external outreach as well as review of resources that are available.

[03:20:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so they would be involved.

[03:20:42] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we would involve the building division, and if it is appropriate to include the CASP inspectors, we would do that.

[03:20:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Uh, thank you. That's it.

[03:20:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abicoga.

[03:20:58] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the presentation. I, uh, let's see, it's, uh, slide seven, I think it is. It's page 7 on the handout. The chart is looking at the numbers of units built BMR units built from the 99 program and the current program, and I appreciate the data. I think I asked offline. The question was, wasn't sure if the answer was going to come tonight. But I think this is helpful, but, um, what I... What I was trying to contrast it to was the, um, the impact, the fees that we collected, and in the previous version of our BMR program, because we allowed for the in-loo fee, uh, we were able to accumulate a pretty large amount of funds that contributed to us being able to build mostly 100% affordable housing projects. And so that was my question is how how many units were created as a result of in the fees in comparison to now, um, because looking forward, I know we have a funding gap. And so I was hoping, and you don't, I don't expect exact numbers, but have you had a chance to look at that and would you be able to provide that later on?

[03:22:39] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we were able to take a look. I think we're gonna take a 2nd to see if we're gonna pull up some of that information in terms of of, um, the the fees that were collected. So you're right that most projects under the original program, debt and up pain fees, and we have 20 projects that ended up with BMR units. So let us see if we can pull that up and circle back during this item if that's okay.

[03:23:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, that'd be great. Thank you. That was really my one question, I think I had. Thanks.

[03:23:25] Unknown Speaker: Um, Anna is, it looks like there were over a 100 projects that paid fees. It looks like we have, at least data that shows, we collected about 90 million. I'm sorry, I have old eyes now, so 55 million.

[03:23:42] Unknown Speaker: Yes. And then we can we know that the projects have funded a variety of pipeline projects over the last few years and we can see if it's connected to the number of units that that was able to fund. And of course, those units were then also leveraging a lot of external funding, of course.

[03:24:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, yes, and I understand the leveraging and that's really the beauty, right, of the funding is that we can leverage other funds and potentially build more units. And that's what I was curious to see if, if, had we collected the fees, would we have potentially built more BMR units or, yeah, they would be BMR units. So I understand the interest and the value of having them included in market rate developments, but the flip side to that is, you know, for me, I had interest in just getting more units built. So that that's really the kind of the balancing act, I think we have to consider as we move forward, this was my thought.

[03:24:49] Unknown Speaker: Interest to show. into comments instead of trying to buy some time.

[03:24:52] Unknown Speaker: So staff can look up the numbers. And that certainly it can be part of where the council is wanting to include inloof fees as part of the buy-right options. Uh, the current inloof fees are, um, much higher than the previous fees. It was about $17 a square foot. Now it's, for example, $111 a square foot for rental projects. So under the current fee structure, that can certainly bring a lot more resources as well than in the past.

[03:25:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so there's continuing research. Are there more questions or should we move on to comments? I don't see I don't see any more questions. So I'm going to kind of take the temperature of of the council as to how we move on on this because we have, three, recommendations and four questions. I don't know whether you want to just do the typical rundown all of them, or I could do it quickly. You want to do it quickly? I thought maybe everyone could, and we could just take straw poles, but we can do it that way.

[03:26:07] Unknown Speaker: We could just take a poll on each one, unless you want to remodel some of them. Is that okay?

[03:26:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So I'm going to do that, but I'm also, this will be what we're remaining with. It will be, um, three recommendations, and then the fourth question is, does counsel have additional input, and I'll let you all comment on those. And if your comments are extremely profound and convincing, we can go back and do the straw polls over again, if you change our minds. So, the first, 1st we have this would, in your handout, it's page 18, summary of recommendations. The 1st recommendation, the staff recommendation, which I would like people to, um, vote, yes, if they're in favor of is regarding universal design. In particular, it's evaluate program requirements to increase the physical accessibility of BMR units. This will include HCD, universal design model ordinance, to develop a checklist of design requirements. Options will be brought forward for council consideration as part of the BMR program ordinance update. All those in favor. Okay? Any additional comments on that? Uh, Council member, Matt.

[03:27:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Just have one additional comment. And, um, I would like to make sure we pay attention to washers and dryers. Stackable units seem to be the thing nowadays. Those are not very accessible. They're not even accessible to people who are on the short side. So, let's make sure we pay attention to that. Thanks.

[03:27:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: The 2nd recommendation is that we is to modify the current BMR requirements to state that the value of the alternative mitigation shall be no less than the value of providing the required number and type of BMR units. All those in favor. That's all seven. Any additional comments on that recommendation? No. The 3rd recommendation is to use the BMR, in the MR, in lieu fee, to calculate the value of the alternative mitigation, all those in favor. Here we have a comment.

[03:28:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I really thought that, um, it was very interesting to think about the, I mean, the BMR, um, to think about using the the building index instead of the CPI. And I, I don't know if we need more information to make that decision tonight, or we should, we suggest staff look at it. But I thought that was really interesting. So that would be my vote, is that let's have staff look at what's the best index.

[03:29:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I am having that... So, the vote we will take, unless people want to make additional comments, is to use the BMRN loo fee to calculate the value of the alternative mitigation, but also to look into the building index.

[03:29:32] Unknown Speaker: There was also, well, we got a housing cost index and a construction cost index. Do you want us to look into various indices?

[03:29:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I would say, you know, the one I mentioned, but there's probably others. I would just ask staff to come back with an evaluation of the different options, of course. Appropriate index.

[03:29:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So that's, um, so we're now voting on whether to use the BMRN Loofy to calculate the value of the alternative mitigation and also to explore various other, um, inflation indexes, all those in favor. Everyone's in favor. Okay. So now we move on to recommendations. Um, this is on. It's number 19 on your handout. So number recommendation, number one, well, it's a question. Does council wish to continue allowing alternative mitigation options for both rental and ownership projects or only for rental projects? So I'm going to take a poll on how many people want to do it for both rental and ownership projects, all those in favor. See 2 people who want to do it only for rental? Do you want to speak to that just in case you can convince us?

[03:31:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: My feeling was that, uh, the, um... There are just many more rental options. And, um, I felt like this would be a, um, I think the ownership ones with the exception of condos are typically very small, and, um, they're just, are, are, it would just add, make the situation very cumbersome. Whereas for the rental projects, I feel like those are typically bigger projects, and it just makes more sense. So that was mine. It was just kind of the cumbersomeness of actually implementing them. I mean, when we look at the number of rental units we have and the number of ownership units we have, you know, there's just, you know, the ownership's a tiny fraction. And somebody gets into an ownership unit, and they stay a long time. So those ownership units don't come up very often. So I don't think having the ownership, as part of this, would add very much, but I think it would just make the ownership implementation of the program much more cumbersome. So that was my thought pattern.

[03:32:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I was gonna ask, uh, staff, is it cumbersome from your point of view?

[03:32:32] Unknown Speaker: Just to clarify, I was vice mayor, uh, thinking cumbersome for the, for the city to implement or cumbersome for the developer to meet. I was just kind of thinking of everybody, the bite of everyone involved. The intent of the alternative mitigations is to provide developers flexibility and flexibility for something different than the on-site units. In that regard, it can provide the flexibility. It does typically require more analysis and more discussions with the applicant to figure out what the alternative mitigation would be and are they able to comply with the criteria and the requirements. So from that perspective, it typically does add a little bit more time and discussion with city staff and applicant to figure out how they would meet the alternate mitigation. But it does provide flexibility as well.

[03:33:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Also member Ramirez.

[03:33:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. My concern is, I think inclusionary housing advances of value that is not likely to be achieved through alternative mitigations. It's already pretty rare for us to get any type of entry level ownership housing opportunities. And I think the elegance of the BMR ordinance, as it exists, is it requires not only inclusionary environments where you have, you know, affordable and marker rate in the same development, but also ownership opportunities targeted at different incomes. And I just don't see that being likely with alternative mitigations.

[03:34:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I just categorically don't support the Aloofy option. And what I worry about is, you know, with a land dedication or with, um, you know, offsite development, what what it may more likely result in is additional ownership or sorry, additional affordable rental projects, which have value, but I feel like what I want to achieve is affordable ownership opportunities, and I just don't see that occurring with any of the alternative mitigations that we're exploring.

[03:34:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: So are there additional comments?

[03:35:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: One, just one.

[03:35:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, do we, with, with those additional comments, I'm going to take that straw poll again, um, because people have been able to explain themselves. So, does counsel wish to continue allowing alternative mitigation options for both rental and ownership projects? That's, or I'm saying, not as a question. The answer is both rental and ownership. In other words, if you vote for that, that's what you're voting for. If you don't vote for it, you're voting for rental only. So all those in favor of both.

[03:35:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: I guess we're... Okay, so that passes. So number 2 is more complicated. So it's which by right alternative mitigation options, a minimum of two? Would council like to include in the BMR program? And there are 4 of them listed. Do people want to comment on this one rather than me crafting some?

[03:36:12] Unknown Speaker: There are multiple, maybe everybody can say which between 2 and 4, which they want to include. And...

[03:36:26] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay, I can do it that way. Sure.

[03:36:35] Unknown Speaker: And ownership on the rental.

[03:36:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Um, Okay. So the reason I was having people go, people comment is that they could then tell us why, if they had a strong opinion.

[03:36:53] Unknown Speaker: Right. So they would apply to both, is what you're thinking.

[03:36:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, do you have a comment on this?

[03:36:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I do. So I just don't support alternative mitigations for ownership, but I think for those who do, I think it would be helpful to provide alternative mitigation options that achieve a particular and clearly defined objective, because for an ownership project, For instance, if there's a dedication of land, are we saying that land must only be used for affordable ownership opportunities, or could it also be used for affordable rental? So, I'm professing no opinion other than alternative mitigations for ownership projects. That's a bad idea. But for rental projects, and again, very similarly, I don't, if we allow a fee option, 95% of the time, the developer is going to pick the fee option. because it's cheaper. And I have strong concerns with that because while there is, there is a value to fee collection. It loses purchasing power very quickly, and we're not likely to, you know, it doesn't advance the inclusionary goal, which I feel like we're already weakening with the allowance for alternative mitigations, but, you know, it's going to result in units that are constructed probably in areas where we're already starting to see concentrations of affordable projects. So I have a strong concern about inloof fees if we allow it, that's what developers are going to do, and we lose out on inclusionary opportunities. The other options are challenging because I think, I appreciate council member Matachek's idea to provide an escalation that allows for the fee to retain some purchasing power, I think, given the escalating costs and construction. But even then, you know, I think what I what I foresee is for a lot of projects, the fee that the equivalent value is not likely to result in a meaningful dedication of land or in a meaningful offsite development. And so I'm really struggling with this. I think this is actually a really tough decision because all of this, in my opinion, is generally not as good. as inclusionary housing. Um, of these options, I think the equivalent value would probably be the most successful with an acquisition or preservation of existing units program. Um, But, uh, if I have to pick more. So that's the one I would support. If I have to pick another one, it would probably be the development of offsite units because it also helps us achieve the additional housing element program that staff has identified. So I, those are the 2 I would support, but they're not strong. They're not strong recommendations. I don't think we have good options here.

[03:39:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, Council member Abaikoga.

[03:39:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So I'm gonna argue the opposite, um, because over the years we've had some issues with the MR ownership, uh, there was a time. I think I've brought up this example in the past. It was during the Great Recession where we actually had a BMR ownership unit, or I think we had three. And the market had dropped solo that the market rate units were actually cheaper than our BMR unit. And so we had to the city, we had to buy that unit from the owner because she couldn't sell it on the market. So there's a lot of challenges, and I can't remember where it was, but I was just in a seminar talking about the MR ownership, and this came up that they're not as attractive because of that challenge, because there's a cap to the appreciation of them. If you want to keep them affordable, You can't let someone sell it and make a profit. And so there's really the, you know, the, the, the benefit of having an ownership property is not achieved with a BMR ownership unit. So because of that, I think we had made some of those modifications in the past and really focused our BMR program towards rental units. And that's what I've been really, you know, leaning towards because of these experiences we've had in the past. And, um, you know, I've also brought up over the years many times and haven't had much interest for my colleagues, but my hope was if we were to allow the collection of in lieu fees, and I don't know when we can talk about this, but I hope we can, uh, starting a down payment assistance program or an equity share program where, Because I see when you see rental units and how much they're going for, I question, sometimes, you know, if you can afford those types of rents, maybe you can afford the monthly mortgage, but it's really the down payment. That's the challenge if you're, you know, required to put down 10, 15, 20%. So could these in lieu fees start to fund a down payment program and then the equity share is when the it's time to sell, that you would share the profits, half of it would come back to the city, half would go to the owner. So there would be incentive for the owner to go into this program. And the housing trust has had that, but the challenge is because of the prices of the housing units in our city, very few, if anyone, has been able to take advantage of their program. And that's why I've always felt that we needed to look at creating our own. So that's how I would prefer to move forward because of just the challenges of having BMR ownership units. I would like to give that flexibility. And, you know, I actually think there's value to collecting fees because we can start a program like that. There's leveraging options. I have a sense with $900 million. We've been able to leverage a lot of money and probably built 100s of BMR units from that. So, you know, if you're looking at just sheer numbers, which is, you know, for me, really important. I want to house as many people as possible in affordable units. It's definitely a strong option to look at. Uh, Counselor Roberto.

[03:43:48] Unknown Speaker: If I could circle back on the question, just based on the data that we have, we just used projects that looked like they were built after 1999, which is when likely BMR fees could have funded them, and at least just kind of eyeballing, there are probably around 9 projects, those 9 projects constituted 578 units, and if we were to just roughly assume that the 55000000 went towards helping to fund those, then we're looking at about 95, a 1000 a unit in terms of the BMR contribution, those projects may have used the housing impact fee as well, but at least that was the way we look globally here. So that at least gives a kind of an order of magnitude.

[03:44:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Can you repeat that number again? What did you say, 95?

[03:44:39] Unknown Speaker: 9 projects that are, I would say, more recent, likely built after 1999, 9 projects about 578 units.

[03:44:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: 578 units. Thank you.

[03:44:56] Unknown Speaker: Correct. Yeah, the 172 are the integrated units versus the standalone projects.

[03:45:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so to, um, Sum up, unless, uh, council member, Abbe Kokey, you had more to add. So, to sum up, we're talking about question two, which, by right, alternative mitigation options, pick a minimum of two, would counsel like to include in the BMR program, and we have council member Aba Koga picking in lieu fees and land dedication, and...

[03:45:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Actually, you know, so the... Sorry, if we're going through all the options, the other one I like is the preservation option.

[03:45:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. the 4th added option. So far, our council member, Abi Koga is picked in Loo fees, land dedication,

[03:45:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: and preservation, and council member Ramirez has picked off site units and acquisition and preservation. So, now we have council member Kumei.

[03:46:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Sorry, I thought we were only picking two, so it was, like, taking...

[03:46:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: You can pick all four if you want. Oh, we can pick.

[03:46:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, well, I guess that's where my challenge is. So, I think of the four, the only that I feel interested in is the acquisition preservation of existing units. I think for myself, one of the things I've been trying to focus on on my five years on council is middle income housing, and, you know, opportunities for that. And so that's why with question one, I was supporting both rental and ownership opportunities. I think that we, given the AMI ranges, you know, really need to create as many opportunities. And so where the number might seem low for the ownership opportunities, to me, that's at least one ownership opportunity versus zero. So I really feel like that's something that the city needs to prioritize. I think that for the others, for the in Luffy's land dedication and development of offsite units, the city has kind of, we've attempted those 3 with various projects that have come forward. And I'm not sure that I am called towards any of them as what I would say successful. Um, you know, the only thing that I feel like council has had unanimity on is the preservation of existing units to make sure that tenants can stay in mountain view. But the others have had so many challenges, whether it's the fees structure or with the inflating cost of construction and what a unit is, with the land dedication of land, but then the city needing to figure out how we're going to fund, um, the housing, the development of offsite units, being most likely displacing existing tenants. So I feel like those other three, I struggle to find the minimum of two. So if staff can bear with me, I think that of the four, the acquisition and preservation of units is the one I'd like to pursue. And then I, I'll say, actually, I'll save it for question four. Thanks.

[03:48:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so council member Ramos.

[03:48:26] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I actually like 3 options, but so it's a minimum of two, so that's great. So, um, like, uh, with uh, council member Kamei and council member Ramirez and and council member Abakoga, uh, I do like the acquisition preservation of existing units, that it, the, what we did with 6, I say we. What council did with 660 Mariposa, I think, was a really big win, I think, overall, just to ensure that people can stay in their homes. Um, I like both land dedication and development of offset units for different reasons. For land dedication. We could see it just on the horizon essentially with us, this growing movement of community led development. And I think land vacation may play a big part in that. Um, where you have CLT, CDCs. I think as we have land dedication, we have more options to really start encouraging those kind of locally, um, local, locally sourced, locally um, led, uh, community development or developers, actually, in that case. And then on the opposite level. I like the development of off, it's this odd site, you know?

[03:49:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Do you mean offsite?

[03:49:45] Unknown Speaker: It means offsite.

[03:49:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah. Okay.

[03:49:48] Councilmember Emily Ramos: off-site units, because we get the units and how we get it is not really our problem. Um, they, yes, we may compete against each other for state credits and whatnot. But I also think that as on local level, when I look at like the land dedication, we might actually look at things beyond uh, the state light, low, low income tax credits for projects that that we would want to use our land dedication on. Um, so I think I want all 3 because they all 3 kind of have some options that I would be quite interested in.

[03:50:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member matter check.

[03:50:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'm interested in 2 of them. Those being the acquisition and preservation of existing units and the development of offsite units. Thanks.

[03:50:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice mayor.

[03:50:46] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I'm not going to choose, since it's, you have to choose two. You can choose more. I'm gonna, um, I'm gonna go for all of them. I agree that acquisition preservation of existing units is something I would like to see us do a lot more. I think that's very important. And I'm also interested when we talk about preservation of units. I'm also interested in upgrades, seismic upgrades, which I know isn't something we're talking about tonight, but it's always in the back of my mind as something we need to be working on as a community. And then the other thing is, you know, when I think about the inlu fees or the land dedication, and how they translate into more 100% affordable projects, which it's true, we do have to come up with money to assist with. I mean, but at the same time, we're able to leverage other sources of money. And that has, we've gotten very skilled at that. Thank you very much, staff. You're doing a great job. Keep it up. But the other thing, I think, is important about these 100% affordable versus the BMR units. They kind of feel a different need. And that, um, 100 of a percent affordables can have services on site for people who need them, uh, for, you know, for disabled people or for, um, uh, you know, people who need a little help, um, they, you know, they provide services that a BMR doesn't. So, and those things are needed in our community as well. They're very important, kind of, for the whole mix of having a community for all. So for that reason, you know, I'm really supportive of all of these options.

[03:52:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I go last, and I've been keeping tabs. I'm gonna vote for all four of them. Also, my main comment is that, um, that I've been, I've been convinced by everybody's comments, even though people are saying things on different sides of the issue. I feel like, you know, how this plays out is really complicated. I really appreciated, the, um, you know, the report that the phase two modifications were effective, and we're producing more, and I'm, you know, I... However we go forward, we have more questions to answer. You know, I'm really looking forward to, you know, taking a seeing how this plays out and taking another look and maybe, you know, saying that I was completely wrong and should have picked other options. Um, so, but with that, what it ends up, we end up having a majority, four or more people voting for land dedication, off site units, and acquisition, or preservation, and not all for, not for more, only three. for inloo fees.

[03:53:55] Unknown Speaker: So... Excuse me, Mayor?

[03:53:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes?

[03:53:57] Unknown Speaker: I have four for the inloof fees.

[03:54:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: You do?

[03:54:00] Unknown Speaker: Just the council.

[03:54:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Who are they?

[03:54:02] Unknown Speaker: Remember Ramirez said that he was in favor for rental units only.

[03:54:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, categorically opposed to in lieu fees by right?

[03:54:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sorry for the confusion. It was confusing. Okay, so that said, um, now we're moving on to uh, question number three. Um, which is our last specific question, and the question is, discounts will wish to continue, including a discretionary catch all provision. And does counsel wish to include any specific discretionary alternative medication options? So, first, I'm gonna ask if people have specific comments on this, and then, um, I'm going to, I expect to be asking for a, doing a straw poll, saying that we wish to include a discretionary catchall provision. You can vote that up or down. Um, unless, uh, somebody adds so much commentary that I change the way I call. So, Are there any comments on, uh, specific discretionary alternative mitigation options, or on why one would or would not want to include a discretionary catch all provision? Vice mayor, you have a question.

[03:55:35] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes. I have a question. We have been hearing a lot in our community about the desire for community land dress. Is there any way that an alternative mitigation, supporting a community land trust as an alternative mitigation?

[03:55:49] Unknown Speaker: So, one example could be a developer partnering with a CLT to deliver the units off site. And as comes to member, Ramos was also alternately suggesting there could be a way to have the city partner with a CLT if we receive land. So that could be a couple of different options regarding how a COT could play a role.

[03:56:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: I really like those ideas. Thank you. Okay, so I hear one specific discretionary alternative mitigation option. Are there others or other comments people want to make on, um, question number three?

[03:56:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, marriages. So I appreciate and support the vice mayor's suggestion. I was initially interested in the catch-all, but I think now that there are 3 by right options in addition to the inclusionary, I guess, option now. I'm actually pretty comfortable not having a catch all since that's, you know, 4 options plus now a discretionary option as proposed by the vice mayor. I think that's a really good starting point.

[03:57:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I'll say I agree with you and that's how I'm going to be voting, but, um, council member.

[03:57:21] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, I want to back up for a 2nd to question two. Who are the 4 people who said land dedication? I only had three. And dedication, I had, um, council member Abbe Koga, um, council member Ramos, the vice mayor, and myself. Okay, thanks.

[03:57:36] Unknown Speaker: You probably I said I voted for all of them, but I did not give details.

[03:57:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: No, actually, um, it was council member Abi Koga, because I thought you said, um, you changed your mind. But I got that wrong. Thank you.

[03:57:54] Wayne Chen: Actually, if staff could request clarification based on a little matrix. I think what I have is all council members, entire council will like acquisition preservation. I have 5 who support offsite, for land dedication, and 3 for fees.

[03:58:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So it looks like so it would just be the 3 then that we have. right? Okay.

[03:58:21] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[03:58:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Um Okay, so we have no more speakers on, um, number three. I'm going to say, um, Who wants to include raise

[03:58:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: your hand. If you want to include a discretionary catch all provision, Nobody does. Or... Okay, nobody does. Yeah, right. And then, uh, Vice Mayor, can you word the, um, the specific discretionary alternative mitigation that you had proposed or should Mr. Chen describe it?

[03:59:11] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I think we should let Mr. Chan describe it? That was specifically regarding Community Land Trust? Yes.

[03:59:20] Wayne Chen: Would counsel wish to just have that be something that an applicant can propose as part of land dedication or offsite, or is counsel wishing to include something specific in terms of very specifically working with a CLT? Vice mayor? were you thinking?

[03:59:38] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, I think to get this started, we should be flexible on that. Does that make sense, or is that too open?

[03:59:46] Wayne Chen: What staff could do is if a developer were interested in offsite or land education, when we meet with a developer to talk about options to meet those requirements that could be part of the conversation.

[04:00:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: I think, yeah. Okay, I think that would be appropriate. Does that make sense to everybody?

[04:00:10] Unknown Speaker: So I, I, what's important to me is that this is discretionary, because we have no examples of community land trusts, and I do think it's important for staff to really vet the idea. Somebody could propose it, but I want staff to, you know, tell us that it's okay before I support it.

[04:00:25] Unknown Speaker: I'm not comfortable allowing that as a by right option right now. I don't think 3 is by right. Is it? Oh, so I can...

[04:00:41] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I get it. So the land acquisition is one of the buy rights. So this would be an option for people who were interested in the land acquisition to consider a community land trust. It wouldn't be the only thing you could do with land acquisition, it would just be one of the possibilities. I think that's what we're talking about.

[04:01:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council app. Remember, Abby Coco, do you have a comment?

[04:01:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I just had a question. So, earlier, we said the value had to be equivalent, not less. So how does that work with, um, Like a CLT. It's usually a certain amount of funding that the private partner would put in. So if it comes under, then would they be required to come up with some other other option too, because, you know, let's say there aren't enough CLTs out there for a developer to make that equivalent. What do they do?

[04:01:43] Wayne Chen: So some thoughts, I think it is true that in our area, we actually don't yet have a CLT who's operating here or has a capacity, but I know there are interested parties, highly interested folks, and we're sort of helping to you kind of assist with that. Um, it could go a variety of ways. So, for example, a developer could say, we would like to contribute land and funding, and then the units would be delivered by the CLT. So the COT might not have a financial contribution, or it could be, we would like to partner with a COT and a philanthropic organization who could provide funding. So it could be flexible in that way. Um, it could be we would like to partner with a CLT in terms of an acquisition preservation. We would like to have a building already there. The COT can operate it in a, you know, co-op style or whatever it might be. So that could also come into play with acquisition preservation as well. So I think it can be quite flexible as long as it, um, included the financial resources to make it bear. However it is, whether they're contributing or whether they're partnering with a Funder.

[04:02:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, so we have this last discretionary alternative mitigation. So tell me if I'm phrasing it, right? that we would be voting on whether, uh, a CLT would be a possible option that you would bring up under, um, was it, 2 of the, 2 of the other, um, options which were, uh, land dedication. Was land dedication on off site units?

[04:03:31] Wayne Chen: Yeah, for land dedication, and also an acquisition preservation, and

[04:03:35] Unknown Speaker: I think... I think a CLT could come into play with for all three.

[04:03:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah I think so. So that you would bring it up under as a possibility under any one of those three.

[04:03:48] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[04:03:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: All those in favor. Okay. So that passes. So we are now on question number four, which is, does council have additional input on policies, which is to consider as part of this BMR program review and code update process? Council member committee.

[04:04:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, and and apologies to staff. I've been learning more about this and just thought this would be the place to bring it up, which is some jurisdictions, um, are working on their own BMR, uh, home ownership program, and I think this was something that Cosmo Robert Coco is touching on a little bit. So, um, it says, you know, homes are not subsidized by the city, but prices are restricted by the city. I think there's some jurisdictions, they're like tying in with the with the county programs that are out there. Is this something that I could put here for a policy to explore sometime in the future? So for example, like in the city of Sunnyvale. They have, um, a scale where it is, um, apologies. They have maximum incomes, they call it ARU, so affordable rental units, they have BMR rental units, and they have a BMR home buyer program. Um, It's, you know, just became effective in August of this year. So it's a new policy, something that I learned about because I know somebody who just qualified for a BMR ownership unit. So, yeah, so it's really exciting. And I said, oh, through the county and they said, no, through the city of Sunnyvale. So, um, anyways, I would be interested in, it's just as policies, it wishes to consider as part of the program review and code update process. And maybe something we can just look into for the future. since it's so new, but I thought I'd share with colleagues that this seems like an exciting opportunity. Yeah. Thank you. So is that

[04:06:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: something like a straw polon? I don't know.

[04:06:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, that it's a strap. you know, the question just says discounts will have additional input on policies it wishes to consider as part, I don't know. I just thought I would share the information.

[04:06:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I would love to learn more.

[04:06:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I don't know if you want to do a straw pull to see if other colleagues are interested in learning more about this program. I'm happy to put that forward if that's what's necessary. Um, but it's, you know, and I can also send the link that I've found with all the different information. I remember we'd like to go forward. Thank you.

[04:06:43] Wayne Chen: If Sunnyvale's program is similar to ours, what we have right now would be, for example, working through our BMR administrator house keys to select a qualified home buyer when we have BMR units available. So a recent success story, you know, with Anna working with house keys in terms of being able to qualify an existing BMR renter into a BMR homeownership unit. And so that actually just occurred. And so they were able to go through the process and qualify for the BMR homeowner, a homeownership unit. Um, a question regarding Sunnyvale's program. Is that a more like a down payment assistance program or is that a BMR unit that folks are getting into?

[04:07:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I don't know the details. I just, you know, I learned about it yesterday when I visited my friend who said, I qualified for this. Oh perfect. And they told me about the program. So I, myself, am a novice to this, and that's why I just said, when it said additional input or policies, I thought, oh, okay, this is something I recently learned about, I think it'd be great to get.

[04:07:50] Wayne Chen: What I would suggest, it sounds similar to our program, but what we can do is always bring back the code updates. We can just take a look take a closer look at Sunnyvale's program to see if there might be anything that we could implement as part of our BMR homeownership program.

[04:08:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, because I didn't see anything on our website that looks like theirs. So if we're doing something similar, I think too, maybe the maybe the update is for the communications, for on the residence side, for them to know about these exciting opportunities, this is really straightforward. It has income level program guidelines, all the different programs that you can click. It's very user-friendly. When we go to ours. I'm sorry, it's a little bit, it's not as forward facing with the information. So if that is a recent success story, I myself did not know about it, and so part of it might be the communication and the education to the community, that that's a program that exists now. But I don't think it needs a straw poll unless other colleagues do.

[04:08:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so it's information to pass on and consider. Okay. So now we have an answer to question number 4 from council member Ramos.

[04:09:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, mayor. This is kind of where I, when we looked at the council questions, There was like a question, number five, is 6. I agenda, good time to talk about those situations. And if not, wouldn't be a good time. I did not submit that question, but I'm glad someone else did, so I have some. Um, one of the things I do want to, uh, say thank you to staff on the addition of explicitly stating the 3% annual increase for in-place tenants, I think that's, that is something I've been hearing about, nonstop about people who are living in BMR units. Um, I would like to make an addition to that of, in, this is, it's a different type of unit. It's a CSFR in terms of CSFR agents and I get completely different from BMR. But, um, when you take away an amenity, that is considered an increase. I would love for people who live in BMR units to have some protections on their amenities. I've been hearing stories about people being locked out of their laundry rooms. Um, I I can't stand for that. So I would love to see what we can do to have those kinds of protections for the amenities that they have when they 1st sign on. Um, The other ones is other things I would like to touch on. is more of the front facing. access to applying, and you talked about the house keys program. Um, uh, I want to know if we have any movement on alternative documentation for those who who are applying for these units that, um, maybe undocumented, mixed status families. I know that this was a topic that was covered when people were talking about the housing element. This might not be in the thing, but I was kind of curious if that was part of the feedback to be thrown in. Um, and like alternative documentation in terms of salary. Sometimes people don't have access to a W2, in between jobs, stuff like that. So that's the kind of feedback that I want to also put in. I'm not entirely sure if this side of the code or another side of the code. Um, but those are what I love to. Flag.

[04:11:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: So it, Is that, is that something that information you're passing on or something that you want a specific?

[04:11:32] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So the amenities one definitely want to be added into the policies, the protections that amenities can't be essentially taken away from those who are in BMR units? I don't know if that's, if I'm being clear about that. Like, if you are in a BMR unit, and you have certain level of amenities when you signed onto the BMR unit, and 3 years later, they're like, yeah, you're not, we're, we're tearing down the pool or something. I don't know. But things like that. Um, I, that. The laundry room one is the big one. Um, that I've been hearing a lot of complaints about a lot. Um, and then just access so that people... like staff has a comment on that.

[04:12:19] Wayne Chen: So on the amenities piece, I think what we would want to do is just, um, uh, continue to work with housekeepers to make sure that the property management is making sure that the community amenities are available. I think you're thinking, right, a reduction of services or that concept, but in this case is really a matter of restoring the amenities as quickly as possible or being able to communicate to the residents why something might be a lot offline, maybe for repairs or some such, but making sure that the amenities are available. And so we can definitely include that just as part of our administration of the program. Uh, regarding, I think.

[04:12:59] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Is that what you want?

[04:13:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. Thank you.

[04:13:02] Wayne Chen: And then regarding, for example, undocumented residence, I'd like to see if, I know Anna's been working, has worked with house keys and property manager on this, the BMR program doesn't require that documentation, but Anna can describe a little bit more of what's typically part of that application process.

[04:13:19] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So as Wayne mentioned, the program eligibility, when applicants are being underwritten by House Keys, our 3rd party administration, it does not require any documentation as it relates to their legal status. Um, on the property management side for the tenant screening process. Sometimes there will be something asked for as it relates to a social security number or those types of things. For those items, we have been having discussions with several property management and, um, talking to them about what are the alternatives that they are um, willing to accept as part of the tenant screening process. We have had a few property managements who are no longer even asking for a social, but that's been like a few, one or two.

[04:14:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[04:14:13] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I think that's fine. So that's sufficient. Okay, good.

[04:14:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: And more? You don't have more? Okay, Council member Ramirez.

[04:14:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I appreciated the staff responses to those ideas because I've heard similar things and I would actually be more aggressive in pursuing the, the rent, what do you call it, a downward adjustment of rent based on reduction in service because I've, there's one particular case I'm aware of where the, I think it was the same one you probably heard about the, the, on-site laundry facilities were not available for an extended period of time. At a certain point, I think folks need to benefit from a rent production as an incentive to the property manager to actually, you know, correct the issue. But the idea I wanted to, so first, I support all of the staff recommendations. I think they're very thoughtful and I don't have any comments on anything proposed by staff. One that we had talked about in the briefing, though, is we've gotten outreach from at least one property owner that I remember clearly, but maybe others who have wanted to consider you know, one additional unit, other property, for, you know, family, for elderly parents, and they're subject to the, um, the inloof fee. And most of the time, you know, I'm fine with the inloof being assessed for smaller projects, but in that case, if you're adding one unit, and, you know, particularly, particularly in the case of a, you know, a small property owner. So, you know, I think in this case, it was a family that had a home on a property zoned R3, and they wanted to build a 2nd home for their elderly parents, you know, assessing a fee on that, I think, is disproportionately impactful financially to that property owner and very de minimus for the city, right? We're getting, you know, a tiny fraction of the cost of actually developing one affordable unit. So I'm hoping staff can assess, you know, do some benchmarking with other jurisdictions. I think you've done some of that already. But if most jurisdictions exempt one unit projects, then I would be interested in exploring a similar type of exemption. Thank you.

[04:16:44] Wayne Chen: Thank you. Yes, there are cities in the broader Bay area that have thresholds of one, but more of the cities do have higher thresholds, whether it's 2 or 3 or five. Um, and so, so, yes, there are cities, but there are other cities with higher thresholds. We have, it looks like we have about 16 projects under phase two, small projects that are subject to the fees, and, um, and then we have sort of a portion of them who who've paid so far, and then we have another portion who that are pending. And so there are different projects at different stages, but we have, we currently do have a separate projects that are less than 7 units that are, and have been subject to the fees.

[04:17:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Do you know how many are one unit, I mean, the 6 unit 5 unit, I'm okay with the and Luffy, but for projects with just one unit, do you know how many we have?

[04:17:44] Wayne Chen: You know, looks like we have 8 projects.

[04:17:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So are you wanting us to say now that for one unit, we would no longer... you just want staff to explore. Okay?

[04:18:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, do we need a straw pole, all those in favor of exploring? You want to say this? Was that a question I said waiting for?

[04:18:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so how does that relate to the ADUs and I think we've taken away the fees on ADUs, right? So could these units potentially just be become ADUs?

[04:18:22] Wayne Chen: ADUs are excluded from any fees or any requirements. So it would really be the primary residence. So would this, in your scenario, accounts, remember, Ramirez? Could that be an ADU? Is it an equivalent size?

[04:18:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I guess I'm not really clear on what... I'm trying to think of the types of projects that would, so the, I mean, the clearest one that comes to mind is the example from that property owner, I think maybe 2 years ago, who was constructing a, it would be a primary residence, right? It was much bigger than an ADU. Um, and, uh, I'm struggling to think of other... I can imagine that this would apply to, it sounds like there are only 8 projects like this. So it doesn't sound like a huge number, but I'm guessing most of them are probably like that. They want a larger home than what you could get with an ADU.

[04:19:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So then is it, would they have to clearly state their intention because, you know, if we were to give this waiver, but then they just created, built another unit and then went off and sold it, they would have, right, benefited from not paying that fee. So how would you qualify it? So that it's... And maybe that's why you're asking to explore it.

[04:19:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I'm not clever enough to, because I, it's not intended to be a boon for developers, but, you know, so I'm open to staff's recommendations for how to implement something like that.

[04:19:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, okay. Okay. Yeah, okay. Although it's in favor of exploring it. That's the majority of us. Um, Council member of a Koka, do you have a different?

[04:20:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Just when going back to the ownership issue, I don't want to take up too much staff work, but I really am interested in seeing if there are other ways to encourage or offer ownership opportunities that would just be a better program than what we have. So, and again, the equity shares one model that I have been really interested in. But if you know of others or, you know, if you could just do a quick review of what other cities offer, that would be really helpful.

[04:20:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so all those in favor of that, is that of exploring that? Okay. You have a comment?

[04:21:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, I'm interested in this. does this live in the BMR ordinance or is this is this something that would be done outside of that context?

[04:21:14] Wayne Chen: I think there's overlap, but this definitely would fall squarely under the kind of middle income work item that we have any way.

[04:21:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Okay. I'm seeing no additional comments. Are there any last minute comments? Are we done with this item? Um, Okay. So, um, we, I think we're at the point now where, do you, um, Mr. Chen, do you need an additional summary or? Do you have? Do you have the, have you taken the notes? I think we have all the information, I think, is taking notes about the discretionary option.

[04:22:02] Wayne Chen: So if I could ask counsel just to confirm its position on any discretionary options, I think it was not having...

[04:22:10] Unknown Speaker: The ones that we voted for?

[04:22:12] Wayne Chen: Just, um, the question three, whether counsel wanted to have any discretionary options in addition to the by right. And I think it was, no. It was just regarding talking to people regarding CLGs.

[04:22:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, and I think we're gonna try to fold that into the by right.

[04:22:27] Wayne Chen: So other than that, it sounds like there's not an interest of any discretionary options, even a casual option. Is that correct?

[04:22:34] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that's correct.

[04:22:36] Wayne Chen: I think with that, we have, um, gotten all of your feedback, and we'll go off and do the work and bring the item back.

[04:22:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. Okay, so now we move on to item number 7.1, which is selection and appointment of Randall Housing Committee alternate member. Assistant City Clerk Mary Monux will present the item.

[04:23:06] Merry Monlux: Thank you, Marion council. So this is the final item for consideration. It's a selection. El comite.

[04:23:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Maybe we have unplanned translation for this item, if we'd like to give them the opportunity to make an announcement.

[04:23:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, it sounds like we have translation for this item. Um, and I imagine we may have it both in Chinese and Spanish. Um, so, uh, if, uh, translators can announce themselves. That would be helpful.

[04:23:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I apologize. I being informed now. We do not have translation for this item.

[04:23:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: We do not have translation. Okay. Thank you. Okay, sounds like we do. Okay, so again, Ms. Monlooks?

[04:23:56] Merry Monlux: So moving forward, we are considering appointment of a member to the alternate member for the rental housing committee. So to provide a little bit of background, we had an unscheduled vacancy on the rental housing committee earlier this fall. We held an open recruitment, and as of September 28, we had received 5 applications. Those candidates were all interviewed in October. Um, and after that process, The council selected somebody, and they were appointed in November, and that candidate happened to be the current alternate member of the rental housing committee. So now that they have assumed a full member position, now the alternate member position is vacant. Of those 5 candidates, one was appointed, and we held an additional open recruitment for the unscheduled vacancy that occurred, and we did not receive any additional applications. Of the 4 outstanding applications, only 2 of the applicants indicated interest in the alternate member position. So at this time, staff is not recommending that we do another interview process considering these 2 candidates were already considered and interviewed in October. So we have the option tonight to take it to a ballot and vote unless counsel would like to propose an alternative.

[04:25:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, at this point, um, do any members of council have questions?

[04:25:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: I'm not seeing any questions from council members. Um,

[04:25:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: So now we go to public comment. If you are here in person and you want to comment, please submit a blue speaker card. And if you are with us virtually, please raise your hand. Um, and we will take in-person

[04:25:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: speakers. First, and I will mispronounce names. Uh, so, 1st we have Hongzang.

[04:25:57] Hong Shang: Yes. Hello, good evening, everyone. My name is Hong Shang. I'm a house provider in Mountain View, and I know, uh, Lee, uh, quite a few, uh, yeah. I know her knee is a non-time resident in Mountain View, and she does a lot of volunteer in our city too. She is well-known and well-respected in our community, especially in our immigrant community. She is really passionate about rental policy in mountain view, hope she can help create the housing policy to benefit both house provider and the renters. She can be a great addition to the rental housing committee, and I hope the council will choose her tonight.

[04:27:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. Mm. Next, we have Dan Pan.

[04:27:23] Dan Pan: Oh, hi, uh, Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, thank you so much for your service to Mountain View. You serve Mountain View because you love Mountain View and have a passion to make Mountain View more beautiful. Today, I want to recommend Nijong to you, who is just like you waiting to serve a mountain view and has passion to rental housing issues. My name is Dan, a board member of BHN, a non-profit organization representing 1000s of moms and public housing providers in California. Nee is really passionate about housing policies in mountain view. She spent a lot of time to talk to BHU members to know current housing policies in mountain view. She really hope she can help Mountain View to create a house and friendly policies, to create affordable housing for renters. We need, we need, need to serve uh, Mountain View, uh, as a good volunteer, and she's a longtime resident, and the volunteer really known in our community. So all members in Mount VHM members in Mountain View highly recommend Neejong to be the rental housing committee member.

[04:28:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. So now it's Linda Wang.

[04:29:03] Linda Wang: Hello everyone. Um, I'm uh, instance, and the house provider in Mountain Vale, and I did not know uh, Lee Zhang long time, but since I know her, um, last year or somehow, I know uh, a lot, those uh, um, warranteer works, it's uh, we can, we can see her. So I think she's very good, um, uh, service, uh, people to, uh, she wish to just uh, spend her whole 3rd time and uh, uh, to help uh, uh, uh, our residents in monthly. So I wish, and you can choose her to work with you or serve our monthly view, make a monthly view, uh, city. It's more beautiful and more comfortable and very good for us.

[04:30:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. So now we have a number of virtual speakers. The first is Jared.

[04:30:24] Jared Backlands: Hi, can you hear me?

[04:30:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: I can, yes.

[04:30:28] Jared Backlands: Great. Hi, I'm Jared Backlands. Um, well, in Mountain View since 2016, um, I, too, am here to, uh, endorse sleazang for, for this position. I encountered Lee at the United Effort Organization. Uh, we're nonprofit focused on, um, helping on house individuals gain self-sufficiency and find homes in our community. I'm the CFO of that nonprofit and Lee is one of our board members. And she and I have actually worked really closely together. Um, on some of our financial wellness initiatives and I've seen the work tirelessly to help those, um, particularly around the housing, uh, situation in Mountain View and find the right solutions. And I've seen her be an incredible advocate for some of our clients and fight for our, I think, strong principles and really try and balance the needs of the client with what the community has to offer. So, I just wanted to offer her just incredibly strong support for this position.

[04:31:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Hala.

[04:31:42] Hala: Yes, good evening, Mayor, uh, council members and city staff. Um, I am also here to um, support uh, the nomination of uh, Leeds in for the rental housing committee. Um, my support for her actually is uh, based on her advocacy for uh, sustainability and uh, lower uh, uh, greenhouse gas emissions in the interview that she conducted with this city. Um, one thing she brought up that the other candidate did not. Uh, was that she would look into electric vehicle, um, charging stations at the multifamily, uh, rental housing. And I think that would be a great project to delve into and see if there's any support. Um, funding or uh, project wise that can be implemented or at least start to, you know, look into it. Uh, I have several actually, uh, relatives that live in multi, uh, multifamily unit housing. Um, and, uh, because there's no electric vehicle charging, there. Of course, they're very hesitant to purchase the electric vehicle. It's a big hassle for them to have to go outside of their building, to recharge the car every time they need it. And beside all that, there are many qualifications that Lee has, she's, you know, has a great education background. She has a great finance background. She's lived in Mountain View for a long time, and has served a community in many different capacities. So, um, I am here to support her, and I urge the council to nominate her as well.

[04:33:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Gizelle.

[04:33:42] Gizelle: Hi. Uh, so my name is Chiselle, a local resident who's known for Lee Ziang for 15 years as a friend. And we have boys around a similar age. Over the years. I've witnessed her dedication to our community. Um, she has served school PTA in Boy Scout entirely to contributed to their activities. Now she serves Los Alto school districts, citizens bond oversight committee. And she also serves the United Effort organization where she helps the homeless to get back on their feet. Um, as for our background, we have both rented and owned, um, homes in Mountain View. Um, she has rented over 10 Well, she has, um, saved and rented, um, money and and saved and rented over 10 years before, um, she 1st had her, um, ownership of home in Mountain View. And after that, she has gained some property management experience. So understanding both sides of renting and managing property in Mountain View. Um, gives her the ideal perspective for this position, I believe. And she's also a very successful corporate manager at Tesla where she had been promoted over the years for her abilities and delivering results. I support for these candidacy for this position and she's, uh, she deeply cares for this community. Thank you for the time and consideration.

[04:35:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next we have tutu.

[04:35:25] Tutu: Hi there. Hi. Hi, everyone. Good evening to you all. Um, I prepare a little speech, but after listening to the previous speakers, I think they cover all the all the grounds and they say everything that's better than I could have said. So I'm just adding myself to the number of people that's here to endorse Li Jong and hopefully Council will consider her. Thank you very much.

[04:35:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Leona. Yana, are you there? Okay, well, I don't know if Leona is there. Maybe we can move on to Linda and come back to Leona later.

[04:36:32] Linda: I would have to agree with Tutu that, um, A lot of positive has been uh, stated about Lee, and I agree with all them. Um, anyway, my name is Linda. I'm a housing provider in Mountain View. Lee is a long time resident and volunteer in the city. She's well known and well respected. Um, in the community. She is, uh, really passionate about rental policies in Mountain View. I hope, uh, she can help Mountain View create housing friendly policies. To benefit housing providers and renters. She'd be a good addition to the rental housing committee. And I hope the council will choose her tonight. Thank you for your time.

[04:37:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Bruce England.

[04:37:32] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. I will also be brief. I agree with pretty much all the points that have been made by speakers so far for Lee. Um, I'm somebody who idealistically speaking, would like housing to be considered a human right, but it's not the way that we handle housing today. It's, uh, their business transactions involved. And so I feel strongly that it needs to be fair. And it needs to be local. And Lee, in addition to my knowing her through, um, volunteering community organizations, such as Green Space's Mountain View, um, looking at her profile, the property she owns is right here in Mountain View. And given the 2 strong candidates you have for the position, uh, it appears to me that she has the strongest ties to the community, and as others have pointed out, she's demonstrated her interest, and, um, and has participated in various kinds of community activities for some time. So she seems to be the logical choice, and I hope that you will go for that. Thank you.

[04:38:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I see no more speakers at this point unless Linda is available. Leona? Well, okay. Oh, and now I'm seeing more. Leona, is Leona available?

[04:39:01] Leona: Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. Thank you. I was momentarily away when you called. So I'm sorry for that. I want to really say that I'm impressed by Li Jang. Um, I very much like her belief in installing electric chargers in apartments, and allowing people who live here to buy electric vehicles. It's a very sustainable, uh, environmentally healthy, um, policy to adopt, and I hope, you know, I'm very much impressed that she wants to do that. And she really wants to electrify more partners. And I'm also in favor of that, as well as the fact that Lee, who has come from China, and lived in Beijing, has learned so much being here in the United States, is committed to democratic civic government, and wants very much to serve the city of mountain view. And I believe that as an alternative member of the rental housing committee, she will have an opportunity to serve the city, that she likes so much. So I hope you will consider her and appoint her as an alternate member to the rental housing committee tonight. Thank you.

[04:40:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'm seeing no more speakers. I did see a Timothy briefly, but he seems to have dropped out. So if they're... So I'm saying no more... Oh, Timothy's back. Timothy?

[04:40:53] Dimasahi: Hi, my name is Dimasahi. Uh, I had a house in, um, uh, in Mandavu. And Lee is my friend, and we have been together doing volunteer work for the community, and she has a pretty good leadership. She has a good heart to help people, and if she is selected appointed by you to the rental housing committee, I believe she will have people and lots of people will benefited. And I think on our community, we are also benefited, especially for us, the new immigrants. So I hope you can get her appointed into the rental house committee and appreciate that. Thank you so much.

[04:41:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay, now we have no more hands on Zoom, no more uh, blue cards from speak- in-person speakers. So the processes, each council member has a ballot. We mark off who we're voting for, fold it up, and hand it over to the assistant city clerk.

[04:42:45] Merry Monlux: Mayor, we can take a brief recess while I tell you and then we'll come back for the results.

[04:48:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I think where, I think the votes are most likely tallied. I also have gotten a request from somebody, the assistant city clerk. Apparently, there's conversation going on among members of the public and other members of the public cannot hear. What council is saying? So, um, it's a request to go outside of the chambers if you want to hold conversations. With that, we have, uh, Ms. Monlocks. Do you have a tally?

[04:49:01] Merry Monlux: The results are displayed on the screen. We have five votes for Mark Bouch, and two for Le Zang.

[04:49:16] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so with that, we now move on to... Excuse me, we move on to... item number eight.

[04:49:33] Merry Monlux: Mayor, emotion will need to be... Oh, somebody read the resolution.

[04:49:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Do we have a emotion and a second? Okay, council member Ramos.

[04:49:47] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I move to adopt the resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, appointing Mark Balch to serve as the alternate member of the Rental Housing Committee to be read entitle only, further reading waived.

[04:50:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Is everyone voted? Council member Abbe Coco, please vote.

[04:50:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Passes unanimously. Now we go on to item 8, council staff committee reports. Vice mayor.

[04:50:37] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, um, last week, we spent a considerable amount of time talking about the gatekeeper um, uh, program. And um, there was one, and one of the things that we voted on was whether, or we did a straw poll. We didn't do a regular motion. We did a straw poll, was whether or not we should go forward with having a gatekeeper hearing in 2004, under the current process. 2024. Isn't that what I said? Sorry. It late. Hearing a 2024, under the current process. And so on a future, you know, and then in the future, we would give the staff time to get the new process ready. And that way, we would meet the, you know, we would meet the housing element requirement. So anyway, tonight, I would like to, I've asked about a motion to reconsider. If we had done a formal motion, we could have done a motion to reconsider because this was a straw vote, a straw pole, that doesn't fall under that policy. And so, I would like to ask, uh, majority support to place the question of whether to hold the gatekeeper hearing in 2024 under the current process, under a future agenda, under... So that's what I would like to ask for your indulgence on. I voted against it. And I have had time to think about this, and I think it would be, in the city's interest, to go forward with the current process just for one round. And then we would use the new process that's being developed a little later.

[04:52:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Perhaps I've misunderstood. I thought that was what we were doing. And did I not understand? Okay, explain to me what we're doing, and then I'll know...

[04:52:43] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So what we agreed to do was we, you know, we voted down going forward with the existing process. It's

[04:52:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: 4 to 3. Council member Abbe Koga, do you want to address that?

[04:53:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so I thought we voted to make the revisions, but still stay on track to do the gatekeeper. forget it. June is the cutoff or deadline and then bring it in the fall, I think. And I know there was some talk about some of the added items, maybe delaying that, but it wasn't clear that that was gonna happen. So my understanding was we were just moving forward as planned. So, yeah, maybe we could get clarification because my understanding was that the majority voted for, for a slightly differentiated process, but that we wouldn't be able to get that done in time, so we were using the current process this year, which sounds like... what I'm saying.

[04:53:49] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, but I thought we voted.

[04:53:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I have something different. Okay, well... So after... We all discussed it, and I think we might have taken a straw vote. I believe Arn Andrews said that why don't we leave it with staff to come back to us with what's possible? So. We all have a different recollection, and I don't have my notes with me. Otherwise I'd have it in there. So I hear two opinions. One, or two opinions, one is that we were gonna use the immediate pass process this year, and the slightly amended process next year. And the other is that that is, uh, Council members, Mata, Council member, Mata Tech's comment. that, in addition, staff said we were going to see what we could do, what's possible. So, in either case, those sound somewhat... So what I'm thinking we need to do to move forward, and I would, oh, uh, city manager, I'm thinking maybe we come back to the next meeting, with a definitive answer, unless you have one now.

[04:55:07] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, so thank you, mayor council member. So, um, council member Mattachek's recollection is where staff landed, which was essentially that they would come back. However, when you all took the straw poll, there was a vote on whether to, basically, ensure that there would be a process brought back to council in 2024. And so you kind of landed in a gray area. So if I'm to understand what the question would be for you all, it is whether you want to formalize directing staff to proceed with the current gatekeeper process and bring something back in 2024. So that would, that question would be agendized at your next regular meeting, which would be the 2nd meeting in January, and then it would be just a simple question for you all, too. answer yes or no. Because otherwise, as it stands, staff is just going to bring back, um, an agenda item, which may or may not be in 2024, to hold the gatekeeper hearing.

[04:56:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I thought I saw other comments, but they've disappeared. Council member Abby Code.

[04:56:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Question. Can we have some indication as to whether staff can bring the changes back in 24?

[04:56:41] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I've discussed this briefly with staff, and so they were prepared to bring back an item, as you all had directed at that time. Um, I would need to talk to staff about it further. I know that we could bring back a very simple one page report, one to two page report just asking you all the question, if you want to hold it in 24. I know that initially, uh, they had thought that if you all wanted to do that, it, we would hold it in 24, that is, what, um, staff was expecting, it would not be early 24, but it would likely be towards the end of 24, just because that's how long the process takes to release the, um, release the criteria and have applicants submit and go through the applications, bring a study session, do you all? So I would say that they could do, could do that if that is what you wanted, but not necessarily with a new process. And I think that's where you all landed. But I would need to revisit it since I was not present last Tuesday. I would want to talk to staff further in more detail, but if you all do want to give that direction, Again, we would just bring an agenda item back on the 23rd and ask you that question. Do you want to have one in 24, under the current process, for certain?

[04:58:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'll take comments on that, and then I guess we'll take a straw pole. We have... Council memoramus.

[04:58:23] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I guess, um, the the, the main concern I have is just making sure that we meet our obligation under the housing element, which was promising to open a gatekeeper before a certain amount of time. Um, and my memory matches more of vice mayor show Walters, um, memory where the ask was, is like, um, staff was like, we don't think we could have this, these new updates in time to open a gatekeeper. So we can do a certain gatekeeper, uh, under the old requirements by this time. And that was a, uh, 34 vote. And I recall, uh, counsel, vice mayor, showalter did not vote for it, and that's why, in my understanding, she wants to change it.

[04:59:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member committee.

[04:59:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. So, I mean, I don't I would feel more comfortable if we had clarity on what's happening. So I, like, I feel like, um, We're gonna take another straw poll on something that staff is gonna get back to us on, that we, there's 4 different recollections of what happened. I don't feel comfortable doing a straw poll at this moment. And so I would say, maybe we can bring this item or staff can look into it and then get back to us with an off agenda and then we can decide if this needs to become an item 8. I look for for staff to weigh in. I just, I feel like they're, there isn't clarity on, what occurred, and then it's, nebulous to me how to go forward if there's not clarity on what the consensus was at that point. So I don't feel comfortable voting on anything right now. So I think whatever we do, we're gonna have to vote on it because even if we get an off agenda memo, we probably are gonna...

[05:00:35] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, I should clarify, staff was clear on what their next steps were. When I talk about the gray area, It just means that where they landed was that you all gave the direction to staff to bring back the new process. And from my review of the meeting, And again, I'll talk to staff about it further. Um, staff had indicated that they would essentially try to bring something back, but there was some discussion about whether it would happen in 24 or 25 and the housing element, uh, deadlines were brought up, and you all did discuss that for a little bit. But right now, we do have directions from you while I have a summary right in front of me. The question, though, was whether you all wanted to for certain have a process under the current process in 24. If you wanted to make sure that a hearing occurred in 24. That's where the vice mayor's vote is, where she's talking about that vote. So you did not land on having a hearing in 24 under the current process. So staff's bringing something back. It's gonna be a new process, and it may or may not be in 2024, depending on the workload.

[05:02:07] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Epicoga, do you have a comment?

[05:02:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I just had a question. Yeah, I had my, I had a question because I don't recall the how, a saying in the housing element. We will have a gatekeeper session, process, whatever session in 24. I thought it was, we will review it in 24 or some something like that. But I don't think we ever committed to actually reopening the gatekeeper in 24, that someone could, if someone, clearly, my recollection is not always the same as others. And I do recall the conversation that the new process would come back, but with the added elements, it would be, I was, I'm pretty sure Arn said, like, maybe a three month delay. So the original timeline was we would take applications by June, I think, before the summer and then have a gatekeeper in September. But if it were to be delayed by 3 months, then we're looking at December. So it's still 2024. So I don't see. Yeah, so that's and then we'd have the small projects and the big projects separated out. So we can still do it in 24, but what I would prefer is that we have staff come back to us with an update at the beginning of the year, letting us know what a better indication of what their timeline is. And at that point, we can decide if we want to do a gatekeeper. I mean, because we may be able to do it in 24. But if we can't, then we can decide if we do one under the current process or not. to be honest. I mean, I'm not really inclined to do the current process because we've, you know, we spent a lot of time talking about revising it and I'd rather see us see that happen. And I don't want to delay that process by throwing in a gatekeeper with rules.

[05:04:16] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so vice mayor.

[05:04:19] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, well, there is some confusion here about what exactly was decided. Council member Ramirez is looking up the housing element right now. I... Or you have... Okay, Emily has it. But I was just gonna say that, uh, it seems to me that in this short memo, and given that there's all, um, you know, a month, and before we have our next meeting, um, that's time for staff to check in on what exactly was really said, and also to probably make the evaluation of, um, whether or not we'd be able to go forward with, you know, of developing the new regulations in a timely manner. And if that's the case that we can't, then I really would like to reverse my straw vote. And that's kind of one of the problems with taking these straw votes. They don't fall into our procedure. But, um, they do function as direction to staff. So that's where we are. I think we, you know, I don't see why we can't really combine having staff check on this, and if they find out that, indeed, there isn't time to do a, you know, under the new process, we wouldn't be able to do this in 2024, then we should go forward with the existing process.

[05:05:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Council member Ramirez?

[05:05:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I found the language, it's under program 1.3, page 48 of the PDF, has it on PDF, the milestone that we have committed to is to hold an annual gatekeeper meeting, which may be limited or focused on residential or residential mixed use projects at council discretion, and begin accepting gatekeeper applications before June 30th, 2024. And. We, I would imagine logistically would be challenging to complete the policy work in time for us even to begin accepting gatekeeper applications before June 30th. Because they would have to submit applications based on our policy, which is not adopted.

[05:06:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[05:07:01] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I think a lot of the unfortunate thing is there's no actual process of reversing a straw poll vote. And we may all have different recollections on what the vote was, but it is the vice mayor's desire to change her vote. So I don't know how we necessarily move forward from here, but I would love to give her that opportunity to change her vote.

[05:07:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Ms. Logue.

[05:07:37] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I think, um, probably at this point it's best for me just to explain the whole process and and the references to the policies and all of that. Um, in your policy, you, in A13 and council policy A13, there's a section governing motions for reconsideration, and there's a section governing study sessions. And in the section governing study sessions, it makes it clear that study sessions are not council meetings, the sole purpose is for you to take preliminary action and consideration of items that will be later brought back to a regular or special council meeting. And sectional that section specifically prohibits a council from taking official action during a study session. So it is just for you to talk and take straw polls on what you would like to see, come back for formal action at a regular special meeting. The motion for reconsideration process is for action that is taken at official council meetings. So when you take action on an item like you vote to approve a resolution, or you make a motion and support, then, um, pursuant to the policy, a council member on the prevailing side, may make a motion to reconsideration, motion for reconsideration of that vote. And so what you have here is a straw poll taken at a study session, which isn't a council meeting, so you don't, the motion for reconsideration process does not apply. But you have a council member who would like to change their vote during a straw poll. So to provide the best way forward was to say, we can just put that single question to counsel, at a council meeting, and you can take formal action on that question. So it even raises it. It's no longer a straw poll, you will consider the question, and you will make a decision, you will vote yea or nay on whether or not you want to hold a gatekeeper hearing in 2024 under the existing process. And so it was just to try to find this path forward to get that question before counsel and to allow council member Show Walter to change her vote or her position on that.

[05:09:57] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: It seems like in the discussion right now, some additional things have come up. One being that, um, although we've had some maybe difference of opinion, um, that it would be difficult or impossible to meet the requirements of the housing element, um, if, if we don't, um, if we don't do it using the process that's already in place, is what some people have discussed. So, Mayor, where you all landed, and I understand you all did discuss this, that staff did tell you that, um, yes, it's in the housing element. There's a lot of things in the housing element. We will get started, but June 24 is not doable with a new process. It's just, it's not going to happen. So that right there means that we are not by the letter of what we have in there. going to meet it. Although we are on the path forward and we're trying and we're moving. There was not majority support by council to use the current gatekeeper rules for the upcoming mandatory gatekeeper application window in June of 24. So there was not majority support for that. Where you all landed was moving with option A, having various qualifying criteria, which I won't get into all of them. Um, and having two separate council authorization hearings. One focused on the large projects, the second focused on smaller project and zoning text amendments, and that you would have a review of the new updated gatekeeper process two years after it's implemented. So, staff was going to come back to you, but we hadn't landed yet on the timelines since your meeting was just last Tuesday. They haven't met yet about this. So, but if you want to essentially change, your direction...

[05:11:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt, but I thought the vote was council member Mattachek, Mayor, Kamei, and me to not do the current process, not vice mayor. So there were the 4 that voted to not to wait and do the new process, or if, are these, of these 4, then unfortunately Vice Mayor has no way of changing her vote, or it wouldn't, I mean, it would change towards our the winning side. But maybe, I know we took a number of straw votes, so I don't, I can't remember which one was which, so I would like someone to give us a recollection of that.

[05:12:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: But I would, yeah, I'm pretty clear. I know there was one vote when it was the fourth. Yes, it was the 4 that we voted for A. And then my memory is, but I don't want each of us to be telling our memories, we could go on all night. But my memory is that then we said that we couldn't do it. We couldn't do it in time, so that we would do, I mean, the new process. We couldn't get it together in time, so we would do the current process next year, and then after that, um, so, yes, I voted the way you said on that particular question, but there was another question.

[05:13:21] Unknown Speaker: For the current process, then?

[05:13:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: That's my memory, but I'm, you know, at this point, I would want to look at the, I would want to look at the notes before I would start swearing.

[05:13:31] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So option A to council member Abbe Koga's point was the 4 votes, Hicks Kame, Abbe Koga and Matachek for the staff recommendation. That's the review options, but apparently at the end of the agenda item, there was some discussion about whether to at least hold a hearing. with the current process while staff would be working on the new process. And there was a straw pull about that. And that's what I believe the vice mayor's referring to.

[05:14:02] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Right.

[05:14:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Who are the four?

[05:14:04] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: The the three, I guess. The 3 were Ramirez, Hicks, and Remo.os. And they're looking at me.

[05:14:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. All right, all right. Just wanted to make sure. So we can vote on whether to bring that back on at the next meeting, which would be in January. Um, Okay. So is that clear?

[05:14:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Do you want to restate it, and we can vote voted up or down, and it will come back or not come back?

[05:14:48] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, I seek majority support to place the question of whether to hold a gatekeeper hearing in 2024 under the current process on a future agenda, the next meeting's agenda.

[05:15:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. All those in favor, raise your hands. Oh, it's emotion. Okay. Okay, we can vote.

[05:15:42] Unknown Speaker: But it said something.

[05:15:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: It did?

[05:15:44] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[05:15:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: What did it say you voted for??

[05:15:50] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay, you're right. I went really best. Bam.

[05:16:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, so it passes.

[05:16:04] Unknown Speaker: That's okay.

[05:16:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so you're abstained or you're left out.

[05:16:07] Unknown Speaker: I was like, yeah.

[05:16:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Are there more council staff committee reports? Uh, Council member Abbe Coca.

[05:16:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I just wanted to report that at the Bay Area air quality management district. We have a new chair from Belmont, Davina Hert. So, uh, in our vice chair is Linda, County Supervisor, Linda Hopkins from Sonoma County. VTA. We have a new chair. It's a county supervisor, Cindy Chavez, and vice chair is Campbell council member, Sergio Lopez. And then, um, we had an MTC committee meeting. You may have read in the news. There's some talk about a consolidation of Caltrain and BART, and this is all tied to the regional transportation measure concept that is being discussed for 2026. There's a lot to be discussed still. But I think overall, our state delegation, our federal representatives are against it and have sent letters. I don't, at some point, we may want to take a position on something like that as a council. Um, there's still a lot of discussion to be held in, um, at the VTA meeting. We actually discussed whether we want to take, or that we should probably take a position, um, from VTA on this issue. It's a, it's quite an entailed discussion. It's just mainly about reforms and transit and, um, how to, uh, put forward a measure and, um, with some reform or ideas so that the voters can feel that there's, um, you know, some movement happening, advancement happening. There was a survey, a polling poll that was conducted, asking the voters what kind of reform measures they would like to see, and one of the questions that was put up was this idea of a consolidation of Caltrane and Bart. But most of us, and I think, um, in this area, would not support that, were very, um, were very, you know, supportive of Caltrain and what they're doing and moving forward with electrification, and Bart has many problems, as you may have read. And, um, so we're not really interested in taking on those problems. Um, but I just, uh, it's an ongoing conversation, uh, may come to the council at some point. But I just wanted to share what's being discussed. And so, please, if you can. Um, and I'll, I'll update as we go. But if you read things in the news, and if you have any questions, please let me know.

[05:19:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thanks. Council member, Matt.

[05:19:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We had a council finance committee meeting on December 6th. There were a number of topics on the agenda. One of the very interesting ones was an economist presented his view on the economic forecast for Mountain View and touched on the Bay Area as well. Mary distributed that presentation to everyone. So you could take a look at it. I think she distributed it yesterday or today. I can't remember which, yesterday. Um, we also reviewed the... um, the Akfer, the annual comprehensive financial plan, and that will be coming to council. We also looked at changes to 3 council policies, A10, which is basically the signature authorization for different people at the city, A11, which was to update the financial and budgetary policy to what we are actually doing now. It had been a while since that had been updated. And then the 3rd one was B5, which is the liability claims procedure. Um, All of those will come to council. And then we looked at a budget in brief document, as well as a video about the budget. That one's already online. Um, It's really nice to see um, a very high level, clear um, description of the budget. Very easy to digest, I guess I would say, presented very well. So, I'm looking forward to having everyone see that. And then we also talked about the budget timeline and process. So the video is already online. I think they needed to make a few tweaks to the budget and brief document itself. But I think that should be done shortly and online. Yep. And that's it.

[05:21:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thanks. Okay, so seeing no more council staff or committee reports, um, we're on item nine, uh, city attorney lobe, do you have a closed session report?

[05:21:17] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No, there is no closed session report this evening.

[05:21:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Then we're on item 10, Adjournment.

[05:21:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: The next city council meeting will be held on January 9th of 2024, and this meeting is adjourned at 1038.

• ← Previous
• Next →