Nov. 19, 2024 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:56] Mayor Pat Showalter: Good evening, everyone. I welcome to the special meeting of the Mountain View City Council of November 19th, 2024. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice raw. Very good. Maybe we have a roll call? Council member Hicks,

[00:01:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: here.

[00:01:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Counce member Kamet.

[00:01:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here,

[00:01:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Ramirez.

[00:01:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:01:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Ramos.

[00:01:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here,

[00:01:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Matachek.

[00:01:39] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:01:40] Unknown Speaker: Here,

[00:01:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: the wheelchair.

[00:01:41] Mayor Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:01:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum with, um, council member Abby Kog got absent.

[00:01:44] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. All right. So the next item is two, closed session report, City Attorney Log, do we have a closed session report?

[00:01:53] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, we do. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, members of the council. In closed session on November 12, 2024. City council approved, settlement of illegal dispute, with respect to the applicability of SB 330, the Housing Accounty Ability Act, including Builder's Remedy, and the city's ability to condition approval, of the Housing Development Project located at 2645 through 2655, Fayette Drive, on compliance with certain development standards and requirements. The settlement became final today, November 19th, 2024, and the general substance of the agreement is that if the city approves, the project entitlements subject to the agreed upon conditions of approval attached to the agreement, the applicant, octane, Fayette, LLC, waives its right to challenge the city's imposition of those conditions of approval in court. A copy of the settlement agreement, with the agreed upon conditions of approval, has been posted online with the agenda, a hard copy of the settlement agreement is available for review by members of the public, over by the table, on the table by the city clerk. And, um, a hard copy can also be attained through um, request under the Public Records Act.

[00:03:11] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Thank you. That's good news. All right.

[00:03:16] Mayor Pat Showalter: So then we move on to item three. Presentation. Please note, this is a presentation only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation. If you would like to speak on this item in person. Please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. And we are happy. Small business Saturday in Mountain View Proclamation is what we're going to have a presentation on. And, um, we're happy to be joined this evening by Gene Bolingjoire, um, manager of Red Rock Coffee to accept this proclamation. Gene, can you join me at the lectern?

[00:04:02] Gene Bolingjoire: Hi, everybody.

[00:04:04] Mayor Pat Showalter: You Oh, good to see you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for coming. All right. So, why don't you come on the site so people can see us. All right, whereas, the city of Mountain View, California, celebrates our local, small businesses and contributions they make to our local economy and community. According to the United States small business administration. There are 34.7 million small businesses in the United States. Small businesses represent 99.7% of firms with paid employees. Small businesses are responsible for 61.1% of net new jobs created since 1995. And small businesses employ 45.9% of the employees in the private sector of the United States. And whereas 68 cents of every dollar spent at a small business in the United States stays in that local community. And every dollar spent in a small business creates an additional 48 cents in local business activity, as a result of employees and local businesses, purchasing local goods and services. Whereas 59% of consumers aware of small business Saturday, shopped or ate at small, independently owned retail or restaurant on small business Saturday, 2023. And whereas the city of Mountain View supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost local economy, and preserve our communities, and whereas advocacy groups, as well as public and private organizations across the country, have endorsed a Saturday after Thanksgiving, as small business Saturday. Now, therefore, I, Pat Shell Walter Mayer of Mountain View, California, to hereby proclaim November 30th, as small business Saturday in Mountain View. And I urge our residents and our community across the country to go to small businesses and merchants and spend their money there. So, thank you so much. I wanted to, I wanted to give this to Jean, because her business, Red Rock Coffee, really kind of epitomizes what is fun and valuable for our community. Not only does she provide great coffee and pastries, um, in a nice atmosphere, but she also provides a meeting place for people and activities that many people of our community enjoy. And it's a very welcoming space. So, that kind of mix of an area where you can have an activity, as well as buy something, is what we think is going to last much, much longer than anything we can buy from Amazon. It's so important to our community. So, Gene, thank you so much. And go ahead and say a few words, if you'd like to.

[00:07:06] Gene Bolingjoire: Sure. Yeah. Well, thank you to Pat and to everyone on the council for considering me for this. I'm, um, really grateful to have been in my role as general manager at Red Rock for 17 years, um, on behalf of our owner, who, um, just four years ago, purchased Red Rock and rescued it, um, I'm very grateful to receive this. Also on behalf of our staff, who have remained employed throughout the pandemic, and now, as we move into this new season, Thankful for the downtown improvements that have happened, and the ones that are yet to come. And I'm most of all grateful for anyone that has come through our doors as a customer, or as someone in open mic, or come to the game nights. We welcome you. We are thankful that you're here, and, um, keep coming. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[00:08:10] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, would any member of the council like to say a few words? Council member Hicks?

[00:08:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I'm just going to give you a short thank you. It's certainly a labor of love, and I'm glad we've been to, hopefully, we've showed a little love back here. And when is the next open mic?

[00:08:31] Gene Bolingjoire: Every Monday, so next Monday.

[00:08:33] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. Some of us should be there. Is there any public comment? Anybody in the council chambers? Uh, I see. Mr. Peter Cat's coming forward.

[00:08:55] Peter Cat: Later. I just would like to echo all the kind words that were said, and, um, you know, I just think it's so appropriate when Gene walked in, she was waving to everybody, because Gene really is one of the true faces of downtown. And when you talk to people about, what does downtown mean to you, what local business mean to you, Red Rock always comes into the conversation. And I would be remiss if I didn't come to the mic and thank Gene specifically for all of her work with the Downtown Business Association, as well as with the Chamber, and making sure that our small businesses have a strong and powerful and meaningful voice. So thank you.

[00:09:36] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. All right. George Markle,

[00:09:42] George Markle: that was a wonderful attribution, and I share the feeling, the, uh, the wonderful, um, uh, business that she has is so welcoming and caffeine. And, um... I'll probably see you tomorrow.

[00:10:07] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, do we have any, um, any speakers on Zoom, uh, clerk?

[00:10:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You do? April Webster.

[00:10:17] Mayor Pat Showalter: Oh, okay. April. Please join us.

[00:10:21] April Webster: Thank you very much, Mayor. I just want to reiterate what I've heard from other speakers. Uh, I think small business, diversity of small business, um, fun, um, valuable experiences is really important for a vibrant, connected and healthy community, um, you know, I might speak to this later, but, um, at the, uh, community meeting for, uh, Moffatt precise plan, that theme came up a lot. Um, and, you know, I think I was actually one who, um, the people who put forward the thought of having more coffee shops, as, you know, for placemaking and having, um, opportunities for people in our community to socialize and connect, um... So I just, I love going to Red Rock, and I think we need more experiences in businesses like that in our community. Thank you so much for letting me comment.

[00:11:17] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, um... That brings our, um, presentation section two to an end, and we move on to item four, which is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration or comment. If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it would be considered separately, following approval of the balance of the consent calendar. If you would like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non agenda items, in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. Would any council member like to pull an item? I see Vice Mayor Manachek has...

[00:12:05] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'd like to pull item 4.2, please.

[00:12:10] Mayor Pat Showalter: So do you want to pull that for discussion or formally? Okay, all right. So, what can I have a motion for the remainder of the consent calendar item?

[00:12:30] Unknown Speaker: A mayor, do you want to take public call for public?

[00:12:33] Mayor Pat Showalter: Oh, you're right. Sorry. We should take public comment on the consent calendar items one and three. Is there anyone who would like to speak on items one or three? Seeing none? I'll bring it back to council, and we need emotion. I'm not sure that our... Look, we're having a little technical difficulty. Looks like the mover, first, is Alison Hicks, and who was the seconder?

[00:13:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay, council member Ramos.

[00:13:22] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. All right. Or maybe this time there isn't anything to read. Oh, we lucked out. Okay. All right. Then let's take a vote. The motion passes unanimously. All right, so now we move on to item 4.2.

[00:13:51] Mayor Pat Showalter: Vice Mayor Matachek.

[00:13:52] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I thought we should revisit the dates of a couple of the council meetings in 2025. Well, I won't be sitting here at those meetings. I thought maybe some of you would note that the March 11th meeting is during the NLC conference in Washington, D.C. And the November 18th meeting is during the NLC conference. that's in a different city every year. And so maybe we want to consider moving those. Since it's really hard to participate, or it's more challenging to participate virtually than it is when you're sitting here, especially if you're the mayor, and somebody else sits in for you. So the March 11th. I was thinking maybe that should be moved to March 5th before the meeting, before the conference, I mean. And then November 18th. That one's a little tricky because it's in November, when there are some holidays. But maybe that could be moved to November 25th. Which is the 3 days before Thanksgiving, but it is before the Thanksgiving holiday. But, hey, I'm open to other dates if folks want to consider it. Does staff have any comment about fits?

[00:15:26] Mayor Pat Showalter: Assistant city manager, Ramberg?

[00:15:29] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: One consideration is moving meeting dates off of the typical cadence does create a special meeting, and that could impact the types of items that can be brought, as there are some items that can only be brought on regular meetings. I can't speak to whether that would actually be. a challenge on for March 5th and for November 25th, the proposed alternate dates, but it is a consideration.

[00:15:54] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, another consideration is how many people are going to go to NLC, because we have to have a certain number of people here for the quorum. What is that number three or four? Four.

[00:16:07] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And then I would also note that March 5th, the Wednesday, is a scheduled EPC meeting. Sorry, I misspoke. I must have been looking at 2024 instead of 2025. So it's actually March 4th.

[00:16:20] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Tuesday.

[00:16:21] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Yeah. Um Well, what do other people think about this?

[00:16:32] Mayor Pat Showalter: Actually, I thought having, um, doing the, uh, the meeting remotely last week worked well. Part of the reason was because it was a fairly light meeting. And then the other reason was because, um, former mayor, Alison Hicks, kindly agreed to chair the meeting. And I think it would be difficult to do it in a, you know, in a hybrid situation. But, um, what are other people's thoughts?

[00:17:03] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Hicks.

[00:17:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So we're going to have a lot of experienced council members, so maybe the chairing won't be a problem. I'm not probably going to the conferences, so I would let other people speak as to the dates, how that impacts them, how they feel about attending these meetings virtually.

[00:17:30] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council Mabor Amos?

[00:17:32] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I hope to attend the one, and I generally don't mind doing things virtually. Half my work is practically done virtually. But, um, one of the things to consider was making sure that we have quorum here, and I know council member Kame kind of took a, took the hit for the team by coming a little later so she could be the quorum person. Um, so, but that's just, I think, something everyone can figure out.

[00:18:04] Mayor Pat Showalter: Health member Ramirez.

[00:18:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm not certain if I will be attending the conferences, but we have 2 colleagues or incoming colleagues who are not represented who may want to attend, and I don't want to deprive them of that opportunity, especially if the conferences on the east coast, that 3 hour time difference is very painful, and we can never anticipate when a council meeting will end. And so I appreciate, the vice mayor looking ahead, because I didn't catch that, and I think it would be a good idea to select alternative dates right now rather than be burdened by that necessity later.

[00:18:58] Mayor Pat Showalter: Ms. Ramberg, do these, the dates suggested look like the best alternatives?

[00:19:04] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I would be concerned about the Tuesday, the week of Thanksgiving. as that sometimes there are travel plans among council members, including, you know, incoming council members. We may not know what those intentions are and staff as well.

[00:19:20] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, well, council member committee.

[00:19:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks, Mayor. I feel I'm comfortable with the proposed schedule, and perhaps when our new colleagues arrive in January, it can be revisited and staff would have the opportunity to evaluate the other dates that Vice Mayor Matachek mentioned, and we can see their input.

[00:19:46] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, so is that a motion to go forward with the staff recommendation?

[00:19:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I looked, Ms. Ramberg, in that we can improve it tonight, and then allow staff the opportunity to look into the regular meeting, special meeting, the dates that were proposed by the vice mayor, and then when the new council is seated, you know, we would be able to re review. So that is my proposal to go forward, give staff the opportunity to evaluate, to revisit.

[00:20:16] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, I think that that is a good approach, and this keeps it more or less with all of the meetings, with only minor exceptions being regular meetings, and I think it's easier to to change and add a special meeting, and we could certainly assess the interests of the incoming and continuing council members and how we view the tentative agenda looking out those months and come back to council with any any changes.

[00:20:50] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, so we're going to consider that emotion. And, um, council member Ramos is signaling a second. So I think we can vote. Oh, wait a minute. Vice Mayor Matachek has one more thing she wants to share.

[00:21:12] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I'll support that as long as it is revisited when the new council members come in, because I'm pretty sure both of them will be attending the meeting in March. March. Um, and, um, it makes it a challenge then for for people to be here. So I think doing it proactively is better than waiting till the last minute. Thanks.

[00:21:36] Mayor Pat Showalter: All right. Okay, it's time to vote.

[00:21:39] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, did you want to call for a public comment on this item?

[00:21:44] Mayor Pat Showalter: Doing that tonight. I'm sorry. Um, yes, is there any public comment on, um, this schedule item? See anybody in the chambers? No. Is there anyone online? No. Okay. So we don't have any public comments so we can go ahead and vote. So this passes unanimously. Thank you. I think that was a good outcome. All right, so now we move on to item six. Our study session, Moffat Boulevard, precise plan visioning framework, and boundaries, and, um, uh, we're going to have Chinese and Spanish translation services. Did we have world communications on items on the agenda? I'm a little stuffed up, and it kind of gets to your brain. Yeah, we have oral communications, and I think we have some people who would like to speak, so this portion of the meeting. is reserved for people who want to talk to us about a matter that is not on the agenda tonight. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. If you would like to speak on this item or on the next item in person, Please submit a blue speaker card to the city council now. Would any member of the public like to speak to us about this? Is there... I don't see anybody... Mr...? No, this is five. This is non, um, non communications. I mean, non agenda, oral communications. Anybody? No? Okay, is there anyone online? No. Okay. So that brings us to the end of item five, oral communications. And now, we're moving to this study session, which is 6.1, Moffat Boulevard, precise plan visioning framework and boundaries. We're going to have Chinese and Spanish translation services for this item. We will first hear from the Chinese interpreter. [non-English speech not transcribed] Thank you. Thank you.

[00:24:32] Mayor Pat Showalter: And now we'll hear from our Spanish interpreter.

[00:24:35] Spanish Interpreter: Para las personas que de facitan interpretation in persona, tenemos auriculares disponibles. Oyo freseremos interpretation in persone de manera virtual. Para queos que nefecitan interpretación meriantesum, Fabor dia cerclique en el botonde interpretación, y despues el lijalidioma de superferencia. Tambien estaremos of fresiende interpretatión durante los commentarios publicos and personae virtuales. Las personas que necesiten interpretatión consecutiva, por favor hable neblo ques de tresoraciones, luego tome una pausa para que nosotros interpretemos, y asi que se consecutivamente marfasil interpretato das sucideas.

[00:25:13] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you very much. The purpose of this study session is to review and provide recommendations on the draft Moffat Boulevard, precise plan visioning framework, and consideration of the properties at 500 West Middlefield Road, APN 158 50 001 through 8PN 158 50 193, Willow Park Mountain View Homeowners Association Rental Condominiums, including the SFPUC property, 555 West Middlefield. So that's APN, 158 49 001. Avalon Bay Community Apartments, and 500 Moffat Boulevard. 8PN 153 24, 21. Shenandoah Square, a federally owned property, also known as 928 Mariner Drive, within the precise planned boundaries. Advancement, Planning Manager, Eric Anderson, and Community Development Director, Christian Murdoch, will present the item. Welcome.

[00:26:16] Eric Anderson: Thank you so much. Okay, good evening, Mayor Showalter, members of the city council, this study session, as you said, is regarding the Moffat Boulevard precise plan visioning framework and boundaries. My name is Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager. I'm joined by Christian Murdoch, the community development director, and Aki Snelling, the project planner, is in attendance as well as Amber Blizzinski, the assistant director. And we also have Martin Alkire, a consulting planner and consultants from MIG. The purpose of this item is to ask the council for feedback on the draft Moffat Boulevard precise plan visioning framework attached to the council report, and to consider inclusion of properties located at 500 West Middlefield, 555 West Middlefield and 500 Moffat Boulevard, also known as Shenandoah Square. This map shows the core properties along the Moffatt Boulevard corridor, in the general plan change area. It also shows the 3 properties to be discussed at this meeting. As a reminder, council directed the creation of a Moffat Boulevard precise plan as the zoning regulations for this area. similar to other precise plans in the city. It will include vision, goals, and policies, land uses, development standards, densities, and intensities for development, as well as streetscape standards for Moffat Boulevard. It implements three city plans. The 2030 General Plan, which specifically identified Moffat Boulevard as a 20 acre change area, the 2023 to 2031 housing element, and the 2023 to 2025 Council work plan. One important note about the housing element, it requires Moffat Boulevard to be rezoned at up to at least 1.85 FAR, floor area ratio, or approximately 72 dwelling units per acre. The housing element has set a deadline to adopt this new density by December 31st of next year. Moving on to the projects outreach efforts. When the city began the precise plan. There were substantial efforts to inform the community about the project and ways to participate. The city mailed over 3200 notices to property owners and occupants in surrounding in and surrounding the precise plan area. The city also emailed over 1250 notices to persons who signed up on the web page. For the visioning workshop, staff hand delivered notices to all open businesses in the study area and provided handouts and staffed information tables at the National Night Out and the Mountain Views Farmers Market. As part of these outreach efforts, the city held a community visioning workshop on August 28th, 70 attendees participated. Two focus group meetings were also held on September 4, 2024, one for business and property owners in the precise plan, and one for mountain view-based community organizations and associations. An online visioning survey was also conducted. The text on this slide summarizes the key points that surfaced from all the community input regarding questions related to identity, assets, challenges, opportunities, and the vision. Greater detail about each theme is provided in an attachment to the council report. From this community input, a draft Moffat Boulevard precise plan visioning framework was prepared. Five key vision themes emerged along with corresponding potential strategies. These 5 vision statements include a unique identity and destination for residents, businesses, workers, and visitors, a thriving hub of economic activity and uses for the surrounding neighborhood for the neighborhood and surrounding areas, a revitalized neighborhood that embraces a range of housing, businesses, and community amenities, an accessible, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly, multimodal corridor, a placemaking center of the gauging and unique activities, events, and opportunities. First question for the council. Does the council agree with the draft precise plan visioning framework, and is there anything the council would like to add or modify? The EPC recommended general support for the vision statement. There was discussion around 2 major themes. First, the EPC emphasized that Moffa Boulevard is separate from downtown and should have its own set of uses, activities, and identity. It should complement downtown, but not compete with it. Second, the EPC emphasized that Moffat Boulevard is its unique identity should not rely on signage and wayfinding. Rather, unique identity should come from strategies of incorporating architectural design, a new name, physical improvements, and small businesses. The next 3 questions are regarding the 3 sites, the council previously directed staff, to further study for inclusion in the precise plan. 500 West Middlefield is a condominium site with 192 units, 555 West Middlefield is an apartment site with 402 existing units, an approved entitlement with 323 additional units proposed to replace existing parking and amenity areas of the site. Shenandoah Square is a federally owned site with 126 existing rental units. These are all large sites that could have a significant effect on the remaining precise plant area. These 3 questions are, does council have a preference to include any of the above 3 properties in the precise plan. There will be several opportunities for including 555 West Middlefield in the precise plan. For example, new standards could provide better streetscape integration, more clarity in the standards and procedures. In addition, Shenandoah Square is a large, underutilized site, and the city has had multiple previous interagency discussions about it. On the other hand, including them in the precise plan, would also present challenges for 555 West Middlefield related to their limited opportunity for change. The Willow Park HOA has multiple ownerships. Avalon Bay has the existing entitlement, which was recently extended to 2026, and major changes to uses and density is not contemplated in the general plan, could result in delays and budget increases, in part, due to the uncertainty associated with development opportunities of these sites. Shenandoah has more significant challenges, including that it's not in the city's jurisdiction. It's under federal government and army control, and there's uncertain disposition by the federal government. New uses and or densities not contemplated in the general plan would increase budget and delay the project. And this is largely due to federal ownership of the site, including potential need to comply with some federal regulations. At this time, staff is only asking whether the council would like to include any of these sites in the precise plan study area, not about any new densities or uses. At a future meeting, we will ask the EPC and council to select a preferred alternative, which will include land uses, densities and intensities for these sites, along with the rest of the corridor. This process will ensure that the vision for the whole plan area is unified and internally consistent. A preview of that future question can help the deliberation at this meeting, however. These sites could be considered as future study areas, if existing allowed uses and densities are maintained. The precise plan could establish procedures and minor standards for the sites, as well as crafting policies and triggers for future review. This would allow the precise plan project to stay on schedule, and within the existing budget, and it would also acknowledge the uncertainty associated with these sites. The EPC recommendations on these 3 questions included recommendation to include all 3 properties. They noted that Shenandoah is the most important piece, but other sites create contiguity from the change area to Shenandoah Square. Including all three also provide better transparency and predictability for the community. The map shown on this slide is from MVMB and the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, suggesting a larger effort that would include surrounding residential neighborhoods. There were two failed straw votes at the EPC responding to this map. One recommending council consider an expanded boundary and one recommending council consider if there's curiosity to look at expanded boundaries. For next steps in this project. In the 1st quarter of 2025, the city will continue its outreach efforts by holding another community workshop and talk to key stakeholders about conceptual land use alternatives. In the 2nd quarter of 2025, we'll bring back preferred land use alternatives to the EPC and city council for endorsement. So in conclusion, staff is seeking the city council's direction on the questions on this slide. We'll be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. And, of course, also joining us as our project team from MIG, Dan Amstin and Mishi Doti, and this concludes our report. Thank you.

[00:36:11] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. So, um, Because this is a study session. We have public comments first. And I see that we have, um, several people who have put in for public comments. First would be George Markle.

[00:36:40] George Markle: That was a spectacular presentation. It summarized beautifully the input that we got from the outreach, the excellent outreach from the city before, the community center was full, standing room only, and my understanding from Aki is, is that since that meeting, a lot more, uh, far more Mountain View residents have expressed interest in participating in this. So we're looking forward to any future meetings. regarding the, um, The businesses, we, uh, one of the salient points that came out of that meeting was, yes, we would very much like to promote businesses. Right now, it's a very relatively cold area, very little pedestrian traffic, nothing to draw pedestrians to the area. We would love to see residents, restaurants, shops, and particularly that coffee shop, if we could clone gene to bring a Red Rock II over onto our side of Central Expressway. We would love to do that. And regarding the consideration of deferring of restarting the talk and restarting the precise plan discussion, My sense is that it would be better to stay within budget and proceed as we originally did, acknowledging that weaving in a future study of the areas north of Middlefield would be the better way. That would allow us to proceed, give guidance to the development that's already taking place on Moffatt, and while acknowledging that eventually, we would like to have another study, to integrate wisely the areas, the Shenandoah areas, and the areas north of Middlefield. So that is my input, and again, Aki and the city have done a wonderful job, and we would like to commend the city on their outrage, which has been very effective. Thank you.

[00:39:07] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you very much. Eli Robles. Welcome, Mr. Robles.

[00:39:21] Eli Robles: Um, good evening, city council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Eli Robles, and I am a filled representative of Carpenter's Local 405 here in the South Bay. I am here to address the critical need for labor standards in the upcoming projects planned for our city under the precise plan. Whether the project is public or private, labor standards should never be overlooked. A fundamental standard is healthcare for construction workers. Construction is one of the most dangerous occupations in the U.S. and I find it deeply concerning that healthcare is often not guaranteed for those putting their safety on the line every day. Workers deserve to know that their health and well being are prioritized. Another essential labor standard that should be adopted is the requirement to hire workers from an accredited apprenticeship program. These programs help cultivate the next generation of skilled workers ensuring that the workforce remains strong and knowledgeable. prepare for the challenges ahead. is not just about building projects, but about building a future for workers. Mountain View has an opportunity to get this right, and I urge you to consider these labor standards seriously as part of your visionary plan. Thank you for your time.

[00:40:37] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Armando Murillo? And after Mr. Maria, um, James Guzimal.

[00:40:52] Armando Murillo: Good evening, Mayor Shellwater and fellow city council members. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to address the council regarding the project located at 2645 Fayette Drive. Once again, my name is Armando Murillo. I'm a field representative.

[00:41:06] Mayor Pat Showalter: Excuse me, sir. This one is on the Moffat Boulevard, the...

[00:41:11] Armando Murillo: Oh, yeah. No, you know, I submitted my card for 7.1.

[00:41:14] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes. This is 6.1?

[00:41:17] Armando Murillo: Yeah, okay. Okay, I'll wait for the next. Okay. item. Sorry.

[00:41:22] Mayor Pat Showalter: Um James Kuzamal.

[00:41:28] James Guzman: Good evening. My name is James Guzmo. I am speaking to the Mountain View Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning letter that was referenced previously. One of the, I mean, first off, we generally think the vision, stated and laid out in the staff report, is good. We think that the goal of turning Moffat, the Moffat area into this more vibrant, better community place is excellent. A lot of the feedback in our letter is about trying to make it so that we can better achieve that goal. And one of the key things that we mentioned, which was referenced in that, uh, lovely drawing on that slide earlier, is making the boundaries of the precise plan better reflect the realities of the, um, area, which is that, that area, especially near the downtown transit center, is not, is not just the lots along Moffat Boulevard that are critical for making that area successful. And so we would encourage council to try to include at least some scope beyond literally just the loss in that current change area, so that it is at least some of the area around the transit center. If not, I mean, those more expansive boundaries are sort of what we view as the overall Moffat area, but even just the more compact area would be excellent. Um, It's one other thing we called out in that was more explicitly considering some changes to the Moffat Boulevard streetscape in the precise plan, which, because the streetscape will very tightly interact with how that area feels, whether it's as an extension of downtown or as a sort of separate, unique neighborhood. The scope of those potential changes could vary, but especially given the future plans in the transit in their master plan, it would make perfect sense to be considering what we want out of that stretch of right of way as part of the precise plan. And then just as a personal note for why, sort of, I'm motivated about some of this. I grew up in a single family home, in one of those, in that block that's, like, nearest to this intersection of Central Expressway and Moffat Boulevard. And I was able to, when I came back from college, move into the shoreline village apartments that are practically next door, and I would hope that we would have more opportunity to build more housing, to make it so that more people can live in that area. I mean, it's an area where I can live there. I can easily participate in council meetings. I am near the transit center. I have been able to use transit to get to multiple different jobs readily. It's near the same script shell. I can get around Mountain View easily, go to parks, recreate all that stuff, and it would be amazing if more people could live, work, start small businesses in that area. Thank you.

[00:44:04] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Max Mozelle. Welcome.

[00:44:10] Max Bozel: Evening, counsel, and Max Bozel, I no longer serve as your police chief, but I do miss you. And I am a, uh, still a 20 plus year proud resident who lives adjacent to and travels through the Moffat Boulevard Precise Plan area. I'd like to compliment staff for their various efforts to seek community input. And with this visioning, and I would also like to call the council's attention to exhibit 3, the visioning workshop meetings and survey summary, specifically the emerging themes of adding community gathering spaces, improving pet and bike infrastructure, as well as the challenge and opportunities with noise caused by the train crossing and honking. As we accept this input in the plans development, I would ask that the council consider as part of the next steps that there is a comprehensive review of this precise plan along with the Mountain View General Plan 2030, the Transit Center Master Plan from 2018. The Mountain View Transit Center, Great Separation Station Access Project Urban Design Guidelines of May 2020. The Castro Moffat Great Separation Project is currently proposed, and possibly other related plans, such as the Moffat, or excuse me, the Mountain View bicycle transportation plan. A comprehensive review will ensure the vision and intent of these various plans and projects are congruent, or in the inconsistencies, how they might be mitigated or resolved. For example, the general plan, change area for Moffitt, the goal, LUD, 23's vision of outdoor amenities, is consistent with the precise plan's direction. However, the general plans outdoor noise environment guidelines might prohibit or impede the vision near the train crossing. The same could be true, with how the general plan's goal, NOI1, noise level that support a high quality of life, the outdoor noise environment guidelines, which informs acceptable and unacceptable development, and policy, NOY1.9, reducing the effects of noise, and vibration impacts from rail corridors, and form them off that boulevard precites plans visioning, framework. While the Great Separation Project could mitigate these policy concerns, as it is presently recommended, the project would not have as positive of an impact to improving the quality to Malfu Boulevard and adjacent areas. A comprehensive review of these interconnected plans could better align their goals and potentially identify opportunities for near term solutions, for example, adopting a quiet zone at the Castro Street Mothed Boulevard and Caltrain Station at Grade Crossings, could enhance pedestrian and bike safety, while also significantly reducing train noise, addressing key community concerns and advancing shared objectives. Again, thank you to staff for their quality work, and for your consideration and resourcing a comprehensive review of the benefit of Moffat Boulevard downtown, the transit center, and the city as a whole. Thank you.

[00:46:57] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Next, we have Lada, um, Adamic. Welcome.

[00:47:03] Lada Adamic: Thanks. So I've heard praise of solicitation of community input, and I just wanted to express that it would be nice for precise plans, and things of this sort, where bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the city are, in fact, impacted, that the outreach be broader. For example, the survey just had 18 responses, but it was a great survey, an interactive map, where you could click and say, The sidewalk here isn't wide enough, or we need more bike parking here, and so on, but you weren't getting people to actually fill out the survey. And the way that I learned about how important precise plans are for bike pet infrastructure is, for example, with the San Antonio Shopping Center. Multiple times, I asked, you know, why is pochetti way just, like, a car canyon? Why, when I want to walk from Trader Joe's to Safeway? Am I on this super narrow sidewalk that's just on one side of, like, a different canyon? And I was told there was very little that could be done because the precise plan is like this, and that's how things are being further developed. So then I thought, Okay, the next precise plan, I really want to give input, and there was Moffatt, but I only stumbled on the survey because I checked the project page, and I think you could get a lot more valuable feedback if you solicited it. I also learned, you know, it's just my understanding that the current Moffat project for completing the street and making it actually bikable and having sidewalks extends from, um, middle field up to 101, but not the blocks that would be included in this precise plan, because any progress, or some progress is dependent on the precise plan being finished first. So clearly, this precise plan is really important for bike pet infrastructure. And so I would just say, in general, if we want a walkable bikable city, that means that we have a network throughout the city, it means that we should get feedback from the city as to how they would like to move into and through these spaces in the future. Thank you.

[00:49:24] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you, Mr. Peter Katz. Welcome.

[00:49:32] Peter Katz: Thank you, and thank you, mayor, and thank you, members of the city council. I actually had more comments prepared. This is Peter Katz from the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and I had more comments prepared, but a lot of great comments have already been made. So I will keep it much shorter. And that is that, first of all, I want to thank the staff for a really great report and a great vision as well. I think that all of us can see that there's such wonderful potential for the area. My one ask, and it was just alluded to a few moments ago was to ask that the boundaries be expanded north of Middlefield. And it has to do both with the fact that it is a gateway to downtown, it's a gateway into mountain view. It's a major artery in terms of entering our city, and it needs to be that way, for bikes, for pedestrians, as well as for cars. And unless we think about it as an integrated system, we will fail because we will build something, and then we'll have to build something else, and they won't necessarily match from the get go. Not only is Moffat Boulevard a gateway into our city into our downtown, but it is also a separate district. And so the comments that were mentioned about giving it a separate identity, I think, are super valuable, as well. And there are things that we can do to give it its own personality. I don't know that Gene is opening a second red rock, but I do think there are things we can do to bring in that kind of personality. And I also want to just make a shout out to the Ameswell Hotel, because the Ameswell is kind of a jewel of our community. They are working very hard on being a community hub, and yet they're kind of a forgotten outpost, if you will. And unless we think about Moffatt as a complete entity. It will continue to be kind of out in this desert, if you will. So, thank you very much.

[00:51:20] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Next is Alex Brown. Welcome.

[00:51:27] Alex Brown: Your friends. Sorry that you're, uh, congested. It's that time of year. Uh, okay. Uh, you've heard this before from me about several of these things. Uh, you know, I want to go bigger, uh, in most things, but especially when it comes to the precise plan, I feel like I see this as kind of an ecological argument, where in order for development to work. Oftentimes you need several things to align at once. You need the people to patron the businesses, you need the businesses to draw the people. Like, it needs to be an integrated holistic entity. And right now, the proposed scope is very narrow. We know that there are already several projects that are happening, that are gonna block, like, denser, larger development that could otherwise kickstart, like, what would be a full, like, development for the area. So, the more parcels that you have available for development for consolidation for to grow out, the more chance you have of that one kernel starting to be able to actually let the precise plan become buildings and become a neighborhood, become a community. I don't want this to end up, you know, like North Bay Shore has kind of where we, it hasn't really happened yet. We haven't had that one thing that works successfully. People start moving in. And then from there, the things around it become, they have more reason to develop. You have an ecosystem where, you know, things will grow out from the initial developments. So I don't want to constrain it by saying there is one narrow strip of the area just alongside Moffatt. I think that there's a lot of opportunity, like east and west, and north, but I'd rather just see it, you know, from central up to 85, that triangle, to become like a whole thing. And yeah, we would have to start from scratch in a lot of ways, but I'd rather do that early than have something where, you know, people can't really, they would have to go into 4 gatekeepers to be able to do something that's slightly outside of the thing because they want to work into the new area, but can't otherwise because they're not accommodated by the precise plan. Anyway, thanks.

[00:53:47] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. And then, um, that's all the speakers in the council chambers. Yes. So, next would be our virtual speakers, and we'll start with Bruce England, and after that, Robert Cox. Bruce, are you there?

[00:54:00] Bruce England: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mayor. And everybody. Good evening. Bruce England Wisman Station Drive, this is gonna be fairly short, because a lot of what I wanted to say has been raised by a lot of Adamek and Peter Katz. And that is, to start with, I agree with the points that are made in a letter from MVCSP and Mountain View MB that James worked on. And um, so that's a starting point. But what I would like to see is the range of this precise plan scope go further north than 85 or 2 reasons. There's an important crossing to the Stevens Creek Trail just north of Highway 85. And, um, that means expanding the scope just a little bit to take that into account, but the public works project, the Complete Streets project, or Moffatt Boulevard and Middlefield, goes all the way up to Clark Road. And that might be a heavy ask, but it also makes things consistent. You've got a public works project. And then you've got a precise plan project and why not make the 2 align. And Peter Katz's comment about making things contiguous and going all the way along there to me really makes sense. We have an ongoing problem in Mountain View where it especially affects people who are riding bikes and walking, where you're in one part of town. You go to another part of town, and infrastructure is great in one place, and then lousy in another place. And getting things to tie together so that Mountain View is a place that really makes sense as a whole is something that we should strive for in my view. And stopping this precise plan project halfway up Moffat Boulevard, to me doesn't make sense. So more money, more time, I get that, but I really urge you to extend this further north and hopefully up to Clark Road if at all possible. Thank you.

[00:55:58] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you, Robert Cox.

[00:56:03] Robert Cox: Hello, can you hear me?

[00:56:04] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, we can.

[00:56:05] Robert Cox: Okay. Mayor, show Walter Bice, mayor, Mad Checking members of the city council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the mock of precise plan. It's a longtime resident in our old Mount View. Neighborhood, I attended the Moffatt precise planned community outreach, and have a strong interest in seeing the Moffatt area, becoming more vital, complementary neighborhood connected to our downtown. But I would advise against adding the Willow Park condo complex, the 555 West Millfield apartment complex, or the Shenandoah Square area, to the current precise plan area scope, as a stab report notes, adding these additional areas could extend the precise plan. Timeline passed the intended December 2025 completion day required by the housing helpment. All these areas have specific characteristics that make open ended planning in them a challenge. As Eric Anderson just mentioned, the condo complex is likely unlikely to get support from many owners for redevelopment, the part and complex already has approved active redevelopment plan, and Shenandoah Square is not even a part of Mountain View. Now, as for our, uh, extending the precise plan in a Broadway, to include all R one, R 2, and R 3 properties, from the surrounding neighborhoods, I agree with the majority of the ABC, this should not be done. Doing this would provide a lot of uncertainty, the homeowners and those neighborhoods. I know many of them, and none has ever told me they want this, and many have emphatically expressed an opinion to the contract. So thank you for considering my views on this important subject. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you.

[00:57:46] Mayor Pat Showalter: Next, we have Mark Ciatola, and then Louise Katz. Ms. Tersiatola.

[00:57:51] Mark Ciatola: Hi, thank you, Mayor. My name is Mark Chotola, and I'm a resident. I'm in Montreux area. I wanted to speak first on the NXT extension of the plan to specifically Shenandoah Square and Willow Park. It's hard to, as a member of the public express, whether I would support that or not, without really knowing the city's intentions or Shenandoah Square, whether it was going to create a park or high rises, that sort of thing, but the same thing for Willow Park. If it's, they're going to want to put retail there or tear down the condominiums or whatnot. Another issue is the water pipeline. That's kind of involved in there too, and that probably should be part of the plan. It could be a trail, it could be a right away. It could help with making the neighborhood more vital. I would argue that the Moffatt Boulevard area. It isn't unvital. We're just talk about revitalizing it. I think it is a vital neighborhood. The one thing that's probably hurting the top hood, and effective more is that there's hopes of great developments and great profits from the developments. And so I think that putting pressure on landlords to hold properties vacant in terms of the types of rents that, say, a cafe could afford, because why rent out to a cafe when you can sell it for a whole bunch of money or great potential rents down the road. Another issue, um, that would make it ironic to bring in more territory, such as Shandu Square and Willow Park, is that the new train station, the renovations of the mountain view train station, the great elevation, things like that, I'm seeing that almost make the area, um, north of that, more of an island. It'll literally create a barrier between Castro Street, which does have a lot of vitality and indie vitality that might spill over to the precise boulevard. So I would try to make that less of a boulevard. I think that it might be more of a important issue as removing that barrier than extending the precise plan further north. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you.

[01:00:07] Mayor Pat Showalter: Louise Katz? You there, Louise?

[01:00:19] Louise Katz: Can you hear me now?

[01:00:20] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, welcome.

[01:00:21] Louise Katz: Okay, thank you. Yes, I apologize for that. Yes, mayor and counsel, thank you for this opportunity for everyone to speak. Um, I wanted to, um, enforce the uh, statements of the last speaker and Robert Cox. Um, I think the staff has made it quite clear that there is a very important time issue to, if this, uh, plant is extended. We have a very, very specific deadline and specific consequences, if we don't meet that deadline, and they've indicated how difficult that would be, to stay on schedule, not to increase cost, not cause delay, is, to me, the most logical way to go. And we've heard over and over, with projects and things that we advocate for, that staff resources are very limited. And suddenly, it seems as if that's not an issue anymore, but I think we should listen to staff, that it is a problem, and that the consequences that we would face, for not updating the precise plan to work with the housing element, is something that nobody wants. I also wanted to mention that I think an example of the problem of starting this process over with extending properties is, for example, the years of work and public input that went into the 555 West Middlefield permitted project. And I think to simply discard that and say, Well, we just may have to just redo everything or give the developer new options after they have already had their permits and extensions. Basically, I think it's a violation of public trust. If we want the public to be part of this process, I think we need to acknowledge how important it is not to be changing things, without equal amounts of public input. The, um, a statement about the condos, I think, is completely accurate. And in essence, we really don't know what the future is going to hold. Google dropped 20,000 jobs from its San Jose site. We don't know exactly how well our transit system is going to develop. We don't know exactly what kind of state assistance we will get to meet our obligations as our population increases. So I would respect the staff's statements that it should not, that the problems for expansion are quite overwhelming, and the consequences for our city could be far beyond what we would be comfortable with. Thank you.

[01:02:57] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. The next speaker is April Webster.

[01:03:02] April Webster: Hi, thank you, Mayor. April Webster, I've been, um, a resident of, um, that neighborhood. I live on Cyprus, um, Central Avenue for over a decade now, and, um, I... There are two things that I want to comment on. First is just emphasi, uh, reiterating what a few a number of the speakers have said about expanding the plan area. And I attended the outreach at the Rengstorf Center, and there were quite a few residents who were in support of this expansion. I recall, one couple in particular, at my table, who live in the house with the rubber ducky, across from Jackson Park, who were very keen on scene, the expanding the expansion of that. And, um, I'd like to sort of think about it in terms of, you know, other speakers have said this, but looking at just the street itself as an isolated piece, is really doing the service to the community, to the neighborhood. I think Alex mentioned something about thinking about the entire ecosystem, others have talked to, thinking about a more holistic plan, and the entire context of it. I think it's really important to expand it just beyond that one street, and think of the entire neighborhood as a single piece. You have Stevens Creek that you connect. to a major artery for the bike, the bike community, getting to Google, et cetera. You have businesses on the other side of Moffat, there was a mechanic shop over there. You have community services. It is growing, and you have to think of these things within its context, not be so myopic as a think about the street. In terms of thinking about the priorities in vision, Others have spoken to this, but thinking about a unique identity, creating a very vibrant, healthy community, um, that has a lot of fun and value, those are other comments people made, I think that's incredibly important, very community forward. Some of the other themes at that meeting were green spaces, making, you know, talking about fade, being very comfortable, enjoyable environment, traffic calming, making it very walkable and bikable. Small business was a huge theme. And that's all of these are things that are important to me, obviously, as well. But keeping some of the small businesses are that are there, the diversity, the variety, keeping the small grocery stores. Looking at multi use and having that first level, have a variety of different businesses for the people, um, place making, places where the community can meet, and, um, you know, keep that develop a very, like, more healthy, um, uh, framework, um, et cetera. So I just like to reiterate, you know, some of those positive things that a lot of people had to say about building a community. Thank you so much.

[01:06:01] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um... We'll go to Halla's iPad. Ella, are you there?

[01:06:16] Hal Al Shawani: Yes.

[01:06:17] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes. Welcome.

[01:06:18] Hal Al Shawani: Sorry about... Sorry about it. Being Hal's iPad. This is Hal Al Shawani. Thank you, Mayor. And counsel for taking input from the community on Moffat precise plan. Um, uh, many of you probably remember my involvement, uh, and giving input about the 555 uh, middle field project. There was a spent about a year and a half of the community meeting with the developer and the council, giving guidance on what we would like to see in that area. I have family on Cyprus Point Drive and I live just a few blocks away from that. So I walk there all the time. Basically, I would really like to see that area, um, embrace the streetscape guidelines. We would like to have walkable, uh, bikeable, uh, area with lots of green canopy. When we were in discussion with the developer, uh, 555, we urged them to make it, um, uh, uh, you know, straight safety, safety was a big issue, make it safe, uh, Keep all the green canopy that uh, was uh, aligned at the back of the property with uh, the highway, that was a big thing. Unfortunately, we couldn't save that, but I don't, you know, I'd like to have that in the precise plan, saying that, uh, the precise plan will advocate for keeping, including, uh, as much as the heritage trees, um, existing as possible when new development is proposed. The area can complement or can be an extension of downtown, um, complement is fine too, if it wants to have its own characteristics. As long as it's, um, it's viable. It has, uh, buildings that are attractive, that are complementary to their surrounding, that have wide street, uh, sidewalks, uh, that is bikeable, uh, with definitely much more green canopy and parks. And as long as those guidelines can be in there, I think would be a good, would be a good thing to have in the precise plan. I would ask that 555 not be included in it because it was really almost 2 years process where the surrounding community living there worked very hard with the developer and the council members on coming up with compromises. Taking all that away would be extremely unfair. Um, and just breaks away all the things that people had hoped to get out of all those meetings and times that we spent, giving input on that. Um, so keep that out and hopefully the rest of it can be um, included homogeneously. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:09:25] Mayor Pat Showalter: Now we have somebody who's just listed as iPhone, that's, do you know who that is?

[01:09:32] Dan Shane: Yeah, hi. This is Dan Shane. Can you hear me?

[01:09:35] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes. Okay. Hello, Mr. Shane.

[01:09:39] Dan Shane: How you doing, Mayor, Pat Show, Walter, and hello to the city council members. Um, I just wanted to uh, mention one of my, my concerns about uh, the precise plan. I agree with most of the people that have talked about having a vibrant, beautiful, landscaped, um, a place, a community, where the community can go and have fun, eat out, and have services. That's, that's what we want. And that's what I want. Um, one of my main concerns is that there are a lot of closed buildings right now. I'm off at Boulevard. And there are plans for development. And the plans that we've been seeing submitted to the planning department. Um, have not necessarily been, the project plan designs don't necessarily are aligned with the city's environmental sustainability goals, or the climate action goals, to protection of public health, uh, and to uh, environmental protection. Um, So, if these projects are built, Um, and they don't align with our vision. And it could be a lot of development. before the end of the year, or next year, I mean, 2025. Then, um, we got a real problem. Because the precise plan will have nowhere to go. Because it will, a lot of it will always be developed. So what I'm suggesting is, is that maybe we need to quickly evaluate our housing and commercial, the city's housing and commercial development policies. Um, and ensure that developers who submit plans are, at least, at the minimum, in line, and would help to achieve the city's environmental sustainability goals, and the climate action goals, the public health goals. 555 West Middlefield has been approved. But it is an example that we use quite often to show that there is a vibrant urban forest there, with a lot of biodiversity, that has a highway vegetation barrier that meets minimum, actually meets the, all the EPA criteria for an effective highway barrier. And that barrier is to protect us from pollution and emissions from vehicles. So, yes, I'd like to include 555 and I'd like to re- revisit. You know, saving that highway vegetation barrier because of public health. Uh, consequences of, uh, removing all those trees, 100s of trees, and the barrier is unacceptable. and it's unnecessary. Thank you.

[01:12:36] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, it looks like our last speaker is Edie Keating. Edie?

[01:12:42] Edie Keating: Hi, thank you. So, when people talk about vitality, I think they have a pretty common agreement that vitality is something that Castro Street has and that Moffatt Street has little pockets of but doesn't have the same level of vitality at this time. When I think about, um, being on Castro Street, as opposed to Moffatt, uh, one big difference that won't, I presume, be changing, is that Castro Street, at least big sections of it have lost its cars. And that makes it, you know, immensely abundant for walkability. And since that will not be happening on Moffatt, I would just like to put in a pitch for however you fit this in to have a standard of wide sidewalks. I think that really helps the sense of, you know, this is the place I'm going out, and I'm part of community in, that, uh, you could be walking and not have to go single files suddenly if you encounter someone in the other direction. Um, so wider sidewalks. The other interesting difference to Castro is, where is the parking versus the retail? And I think it's a benefit that mostly, and now more with the closures on Castro, that parking is behind where the corridor of retail is. And I don't think, um, that's as much possible, but, um, you know, it depends how quickly and what pieces change, but having a, a vision of parking somewhat separate from the retail entrances, I think, is more desirable. And it would allow for, perhaps, you know, in that one plaza where the market and Shauna Tai are, um, to encourage, you know, again, private property, but how can you, um, encourage things, um, to have a plaza? And, you know, that is another and different anecdote to, um, having everything be so close to traveling cars. Uh, when I look at, hear people comment about, uh, should the area being included? I don't feel as strongly as some about including it, although they're, uh, are, you know, interesting parts of Moffatt, that are far down, like Rogers and the other little retail area at the far end of Moffatt. And So, you know, better pedestrian and bike access is good. The place that says increase that density to me the most is the R1 areas near Sterling. Those just seem a little out of place. It seems they're already transforming into retail along central, and change won't happen overnight, but I think allowing some increased density there would make sense. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:15:47] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. So that brings our public comment on this to an end. So we'll bring it back to council. And I think, first, we'll have questions for the staff, and then we'll go into deliberations and answering the questions. And I think it will be valuable for, when we do get to the answering the questions, because the topics are so different, to, let's talk about the framework as one group. And then let's talk about the change of the boundaries as another. So, um, Council member Hex. Did you want to separate the questions?

[01:16:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: 'Cause I had just some general questions. So, I would, members of the public brought up some questions that I thought would be, you know, they seem to be on a lot of people's minds, and I thought maybe staff could clarify. So several people brought up the 555 property and not losing what was achieved when we finished the gatekeeper process. And I just want, I don't want to state what I think happens. But my understanding is that if we include that property in the Moffatt precise plan, the current developer will not lose what we already agreed on with that gatekeeper unless the time, unless they don't develop in time. But maybe, since multiple members of the public brought up the possibility of losing that, one person said we should lose it and redo it, but other people said no. Maybe you can clarify for people who are curious what would happen if we included it, what would happen to the current accepted gatekeeper?

[01:17:44] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, thank you, Council member Hicks, Eric Anderson, advanced planning manager. Yeah, so that project was approved back in 2022, they have an entitlement that is now good through, I believe, June of 2026. Um, That approval was for a planned community district, what we call P zoning, and it's a P zoning without a precise plan. So what applies there is really the zoning is, what's approved. There aren't specific standards in that approval. Um, and if the, um, did you want to, uh, answer the question that she she asked about what happened.

[01:18:32] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Oh sure. So, uh, Canadian Council, community development director, Christian Murdoch. So I think there's 2 parts to address the community's concerns. The 1st as Mr. Anderson indicated, The project as approved has, through June of 2026 to commence construction, and to be carried out in the way that the city approved it. The second factor is, even if that project didn't proceed, as Mr. Anderson indicated, the zoning has been set, essentially, through that precise plan, the P zoning process. And so we wouldn't lose that community input, essentially. And so, whether or not this property is included in the boundaries, the currently approved construct would remain viable, moving forward until the project expired and some alternative zoning or precise plan provision is put in place in the future.

[01:19:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[01:19:24] Unknown Speaker: That multiple people ask. So I wanted to clarify it, that's consistent with my understanding that we don't lose it. Possibly if it expires, we could redo some things, but we don't automatically lose it if we were to include it. Another question people would ask, was, how will this coordinate with all sorts of adjacent plans like the transit, the transit center, and, I think, Mr. Bosel asked about a number of other adjacent plans, and how, or at what point, do we coordinate this area with those areas?

[01:20:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Sure, yeah, that's certainly part of the process right now, we are compiling, we have already compiled a number of existing policy documents and programmatic documents that we are using as the foundation for the planning work for this. I will say that precise plans have a different timeline than these kind of capital project, master plan, you know, the transit center master plan and other things, those can be changed more easily over time based on the needs of the project and council direction. The precise plan is the the legislation, you know, the zoning for these properties. So we want to be very careful about making sure that what we're taking from these documents is the kind of long-term policy, the legislation, the zoning information, rather than maybe some specific details that might get modified through implementation of the project. Thank you

[01:21:28] Unknown Speaker: Then also, um, the term active ground floor uses is used, this was actually a written question that I submitted to you, but your answer triggered more questions for me. Um, so, the term active ground floor uses is used throughout the staff report, and also, um, as you said in your answer, in different precise plans, and other city documents, um, and I think this is kind of at the core of what a lot of residents have been asking for certain kinds of active ground floor uses. Those would be like a coffee shop. Different things that the public could interact with. And the answer, when I asked about active, how you define active ground foiler uses, the answer was that they are uses that support pedestrian interests, transparency, and, well, it goes on. I won't read the whole thing. But also, uh, retail restaurants, but also hotel lobbies, amenity areas like leasing offices, lounges, gyms, and office space. So, I think one of the things happening along Moffat is that, uh, for example, the 100 Prometheus Project. The active ground floor uses are all gyms, leasing lobbies, and a community room, none of which are open to the general public. So it's this long, very beautiful, in my opinion, glass area that you can look into, but it's often vacant, and it's, I mean, it's one kind of active ground floor use. Um, but, um, but it's not a permeable. It's not open to the public. So I'm wondering what, whether they're, I've seen documents that define it a little more. I think it's a problem you're working with when you're thinking of how to define it, because we can't make every street in Mountain View into the first three blocks of Castro. On the other hand, maybe we don't want every street to be, you know, you're walking along glass with an office lobby in a gym that nobody's in, and, you know, so, is there... Do you think there's a way of refining that a little, somewhere between the two, or is there an answer to that, you know, walking that tightrope and not getting too far to one side or the other?

[01:24:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Yes, absolutely. And, you know, we are very interested in, you know, council finding, you know, working with council on finding that tightrope. Um, I will say that, uh, Um, we are, 0 gosh, I was going to say something. Um, that. Sorry, I lost my train of thought, if you want to step in. I think we can just maybe end the point there until we can circle back on it, but as Mr. Anderson said, I think we are interested in getting that type of feedback and continually refining what that means for particular parts of the city. If we didn't get it quite right in a particular area, and you've cited an example of something that's nice, but maybe not the right fit for the precise plan, that's really valuable feedback for us as we continue this process.

[01:24:55] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I know it's early for that, but since it's the main concern of a lot of residents, I wanted to bring it up. Um, and let's see. Okay, my, another question is, for the housing element deadline, um, I'm sorry, I haven't memorized the numbers, there's a certain density that we have to get to. I'm wondering, uh, with that density, and also with the, um, you know, recent legislation, if we, does any of that preclude, or make... I'm concerned about the currently viable businesses, particularly in one of the shopping plazas in some other places, um, is, does that, do any current housing legislation or the housing element? Would they make it more difficult for us to save those, um, businesses, or can we require... Can we still put in the teeth to require some of those things?

[01:26:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Just to clarify your question, are you asking about like business preservation or relocation assistance?

[01:26:10] Unknown Speaker: No, actually, I can see how unclear my question was. No. I mean, um, can we require... can we still require ground floor, um, you know, businesses as we, as we do that rezoning, or does any recent legislation sort of override that I'm not familiar enough? Maybe you know how to ask my question.

[01:26:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Sure, I think understanding the question to mean, can we require mixed use in, for instance, ground floor retail, um, active pedestrian scale uses, I think the plan can require it. I think one challenge specific in state law is state density bonus law. There have been examples in the state where developers have used state density bonus law and the waivers and concessions to get out of commercial requirements because of the detrimental financial impact that has for some projects. And so, I think that is a potential risk that we would have limited opportunity to protect the city against, but we can certainly set the vision through the requirement for mixed use development, if that's the desire.

[01:27:27] Unknown Speaker: You got it. That was my question. that I didn't ask very clearly. Um... Let's see. Um, and then, somebody had also, a resident had also asked, how, is there gonna be any way for residents outside Moffatt to give input, particularly on, uh, biking pedestrian circulation?

[01:27:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Yes, absolutely. We are going to have another round of outreach in preparation for the alternatives discussion. We are already brainstorming ways to get broader, more citywide input through that process. And so, um, that input will kind of take direction from the vision, but also take it another step further, and and we'll be able to get, um, possibly even more targeted and specific input through that process as well.

[01:28:26] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Those are all my questions.

[01:28:29] Mayor Pat Showalter: Very good. Next week, go to Vice Mayor Manachek.

[01:28:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I do have a few questions. In the general plan. There is a vision that's stated for this area. And so I'm wondering, how are we using that vision? Are we getting rid of that vision? Does it interact with a vision framework? How do these all fit together?

[01:29:01] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Yeah, so the general plan vision is higher level and intended to guide policy and actions by the city council. So it does inform this precise plan process. Now, the, for example, when we did the East Wisman precise plan, we changed quite a bit about what the general plan said about East Wisman as a change area, because we added a whole new set of uses and a whole new set of and vision for the area when we adopted the precise plan. So through this process, that it is, if there is something that the council wants to amend about the general plan, that is something that's inconsistent, we can look at doing that as well.

[01:30:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And I am still confused about this term visioning framework. We haven't used it before. And so when I look at these 5 visions, how do you have 5 visions? Do they all go together, or are we picking one, or how does this really work?

[01:30:31] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: So, these vision statements are intended to address different topics that we heard from the community. And so we are asking for council endorsement of all five. as different kind of ideas, different separate and compatible ideas that can help guide the future of the Moffat process.

[01:30:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Would we have one overarching vision, or is that what's in the general plan, and we would potentially update that, to incorporate these five statements?

[01:31:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: I don't think there's any inherent hierarchy in these statements, although if counsel wants to provide that direction. We can certainly do that and reformulate the vision to include that hierarchy. But in general, we find that it's best to kind of lay out the goals and lay out the vision statements and figure out how they can work synergistically, with one another, as we're developing the, alternatives and the precise plan language.

[01:31:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, let's see. Was Livable Mountain View? One of the organizations that was notified about any of the community input meetings, like the ones that maybe MVCSP attended?

[01:32:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Um, I would have to, I was out during that time. I will have to defer to Miss Nelling.

[01:32:12] Ms. Nelling: Yes, they were notified of the workshops.

[01:32:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and I did read in the staff report about, um, the streetscapes, and whether or not you include these properties or not, um, and I just want to clarify. So we can, if we don't include those properties. The streetscape plans we could come up with only apply to what's in the cities. Uh, okay, I see head shaking. But if we wanted to include private properties, they have to be included in the precise plan, even if it's just to do that, and then evaluation of how we want to change them is later. Is that correct?

[01:33:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: That's right. That's how we envision it. There's sort of two parts. There's a more narrow public right of way only option, and then there's the more holistic, sort of street profile, if you will, that could extend into the private property and better integrate, with inclusion of the parcels themselves in the precise plant area.

[01:33:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And, um, I know we're not quite there yet, but when we get to the questions about the specific properties, and it says, you know, do you want to include them, but, uh, fur, um, an analysis of them, or is it include them, and delay the precise plan, because we've included them?

[01:33:46] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: I think that variation on the question is, part of the feedback that we're seeking tonight, I think we've put forth perhaps a preference from staff, to maintain the project's timeline with a future study approach, but we need to hear from the Council if that's something that has support or if the interest is to do a more robust planning process now with additional cost, timeline, and the consequence of not meeting the housing element deadline.

[01:34:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. I think that's it for now. Thank you.

[01:34:14] Mayor Pat Showalter: Great. Council member Ramirez.

[01:34:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. First, my apologies, ordinarily. I'm pretty good about submitting questions in advance, and I failed to do that this time around. So, I will understand if you don't have responses at this time. First, I want to make sure I understand. There's a small discrepancy, but it was noticeable in the housing element program. This is one GC, I think. The intent is to rezone Moffat Boulevard to conform to the general plan, and it says up to at least one.85 FAR or approximately 72 units per acre. The response to question 3, submitted by a council member, says one.85 approximately 60 units per acre. And I'm struggling to understand why there would be a difference. So can staff help explain why there's a discrepancy.

[01:35:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: So when we adopted the general plan, we, uh, the council direction was to take an FAR based approach in these mixed use areas to define density. And so we established those FARs, and then did some analysis, very high level about the expected average density. You know, many projects at those typical FARs. And that's the 60 units per acre that you see in the general plan. A typical average density, average dwelling units per acre, for a project at one. 185 FAR. Then when we just did the housing element, we have a much larger set of projects, actually using these FAR standards to inform what the actual dwelling units per acre of typical projects in Mountain View are at one.85 FAR. And we found that it is typically on average 72 units per acre. So we are finding that developers are being creative in finding ways to fit units into the FAR that we are not anticipating as a function of the fact that we're not regulating dwelling units per acre. We regulating FAR. So that's really where the discrepancy comes from. The housing element data is far fresher, has a larger set of projects that inform it. And, uh, but ultimately, per the general plan, we are, um, uh, we are, uh, regulating FAR as the kind of density metric rather than dwelling units per week.

[01:37:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. And then I want to understand also, at least one point, 85 FAR is the benchmark in the housing element program, is staff essentially constraining us to one point. 85 FAR with the direction we're going. In other words, because we're not suggesting modifications to the general clan land use designation, which caps out at one. 85 FAR, if we wanted to go above one. 85 FER, we would need to provide additional direction to amend the general plan land use designation to allow for that additional capacity.

[01:38:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: Yeah, so that's that's correct. However, during this meeting, if we do get feedback from a majority of council that you're interested in alternatives and seeing alternatives that are greater than one. 185 FAR. We will bring that back in the next round of study sessions.

[01:38:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thats helpful. Thank you. And just to complete the thought, today, a developer can develop up to one.5 FAR because state law says that when there is discrepancy between zoning and general plan, whichever allows greater residential capacity prevails, right?

[01:39:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdoch: That only applies under state density bonus. So if a project is not uh, proposing state density bonus. then the, I believe, the lower, the zoning can still apply, um, uh, I think there may be a broader set of instances where what you describe, uh, Katsu member Ramirez, is the case where if there's a conflict between general plan and zoning provisions, the general plan provisions would prevail, and in the interest of providing uh, greater housing opportunities, for example, where some communities have sought to use zoning to further constrain. development potential for housing beyond what the general plan indicates.

[01:39:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. But just to be explicitly clear, if we took no action and we suspended work on this developer today, could submit an application for a project that exceeds 1.85 FAR, using state density bonus law, and we would process it without going through gatekeeper or anything like that, right?

[01:40:10] Unknown Speaker: I'm a little reluctant to kind of say certainty under hypothetical certain circumstances, but yes, state density bonus clearly says that the bonus is applied on the higher density of zoning in general.

[01:40:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. I want to delve pretty far into your memory, Banks, here, and go through the opportunity sites in the housing element in Moffat. So I did some quick math, and feel free to check me on this if you're in a position to, but I'm finding 82, sorry, 80 moderate income units in several different opportunities sites, and then 400 Moffat, which has 82 lower income units assigned to it. But there is currently a project under review at 400 Moffat. And do you happen to know how many lower income units are proposed?

[01:41:14] Unknown Speaker: I don't have that number in front of me, but it's something that I could probably figure out pretty quickly.

[01:41:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, it would be helpful because it would the next question would be, if it's lower than 82, and I'm pretty sure it's much lower. What does that mean for this opportunity site?

[01:41:32] Unknown Speaker: Well, it certainly is much lower than 82 that's for sure. So maybe I can answer the question without giving you the specifics. It does not mean anything for the opportunity site. The developer can still proceed. We, you know, the number of units identified in the housing element cannot be a constraint on our approval of a project. There is a no net loss law that applies to housing elements as a whole, which means that we need to be constantly recalculating the number of units in our site's inventory for every new project that comes in and determine if we are ever at risk of going below our arena based on the, you know, a project coming in at fewer units or fewer lower income units than are identified in the housing element. If that ever happens and we ever approve a project, then we only have 6 months to rezone per state law to get more opportunity sites for the housing for to stay in compliance with the arena. We have a program in our housing element that prescribes exactly how we do this, and we are giving ourselves significant buffer and heads up. You know, like we're going to be reporting to council and identifying rezoning opportunities when our buffer goes below 5%. So that's the program that we have in the housing element that is going to keep us from getting into this kind of dire 6 months scenario. I will say that we, you know, like I said, we are doing this analysis on a provisional basis before we approve projects and then on an official basis, once we actually do approve projects, and we are not at risk with this project of getting down to even 5% in our buffer.

[01:43:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. Thank you. And for moderate income, does the buffer exceed 80 units?

[01:43:47] Unknown Speaker: Well, so the way our program works, and this program was approved by HCD. Obviously, they approved it as a program. Because there are more constraints under state law as what qualifies as a lower income site than what qualifies as a moderate income site. We are actually allowed to turn lower income sites into moderate income sites in order to backfill our requirement for moderate income sites in Mina. And since generally what happens, we have a lot more lower income units that get built. That ends up being fine, right? Because we get this, this, uh, plenty of lower income units, and then we take some of those lower income, those moderate income sites that get redeveloped, and we just turn some other lower income sites into modern income sites. So, uh, we're not in any jeopardy with 400 Moffatt, even though far fewer than 82 of lower income units are proposed, and if we eliminated all of the other opportunity sites, which total 80 moderate units, 80 moderate units, then we would not be in any jeopardy, either, because the buffer far exceeds them.

[01:45:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. A last set of questions. So I want to better, I'm trying to find in the housing element, where it says explicitly that we have to complete the precise plan before the end of 2025. Can you help me find where that requirement is listed or that deadline is listed.

[01:45:46] Unknown Speaker: It may take us a moment to find the position. I actually have it right in front of me. It's just, uh, my computer is not, uh, sometimes Adobe doesn't open for me right away. But here it comes. Okay. Um, so in one. one, it says, um, a job zoning updates needed for any sites included in the sites inventory by December 31st, 2025. So some of these sites in along Moffat Boulevard are in the site's inventory. So it would need to be updated by December 31st, 2025.

[01:46:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. But there's more to that. Provision, right? It says, if a pipeline rezoning project is not approved at this time, those units will be removed from the buffer, right? So those are the opportunity sites, when it says those units that refers to the units and the opportunity sites, right?

[01:46:42] Unknown Speaker: No, a pipeline rezoning project is defined elsewhere in the, the, um, the housing element, as a project that's in the pipeline, like is proposed, and also needs a rezoning. And actually, I believe those were mostly, if not all approved in January of 2031 or 2023. I mean...

[01:47:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Can you can you help me understand the connection between the 1st that 1st sentence and then the 2 additional sentences and the same bullet?

[01:47:33] Unknown Speaker: I think the 1st sentence is really just a general statement about sites in the site's inventory. There are pipeline rezoning projects in the site's inventory. And at the time that this was drafted. Not all of them, and maybe even now, not all of them, have had their rezonings completed. I believe they have all had their rezonings completed. It's something that we'll have to double check. But, um, the, uh, So this is a the pipeline rezoning projects are, uh, are a subset of, uh, of sites in the sites inventory that need to be rezoned.

[01:48:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, for the benefit of my colleagues, this is the complete bullet. So under milestone and time frame. for one. one, which includes the Moffat Boulevard rezoning. The milestone and time frame would be adopt zoning updates needed for any sites included in the site's inventory by December 31st, 2025, right? That's the deadline for the Moffat Boulevard precise plan. If a pipeline rezoning project is not approved by the state, those units will be removed from the buffer. If there is no buffer remaining, then additional sites will be identified through the no net loss process. So I'm struggling to understand why these are connected in this bullet, if the sites that are contemplated to be rezoned by December 31st, 2025 are the sites inventory sites, right? which are the opportunity sites in the housing element. what you're suggesting is that's unrelated to completely separate from pipeline rezoning projects.

[01:49:34] Unknown Speaker: So the site's inventory includes opportunity sites where there are no projects proposed, and it includes pipeline sites, where there are projects proposed. Some of those pipeline sites needed rezonings, as of January 2031, or 2023. I'm sorry, January 2023. Um, and so the uh, we need to ensure that those projects that need rezonings, that that rezoning happens. as in order to complete our site's inventory, right, in order to make sure that our site's inventory is complete, and including both the opportunity sites and the pipeline projects.

[01:50:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Is there a reason that's connected to a December 31st, 2025 date?

[01:50:29] Unknown Speaker: It's a fairly arbitrary date that was set by a kind of aggressive expectation for moving forward, and that is the, it was put in in order to help support HCD approval. of the housing element. Customer Ramirez. trying to help maybe understand more about what your question's trying to inform. I think if we're looking at this program, there needs to be a deadline. for this, and I think there are 3 options for what that deadline is. or perhaps four, 3 or four. March 31st, 2024, for AB 23, 39. That's not this. December 31st, 2024 for general zoning updates. I don't think this fits in a general zoning update category, given the structure of the program. I think that leaves us with December 31st, 2025, or ongoing for zoning updates necessary for future changes in state law. I think if you look at the options and the 4 bullets under milestones and time frame and read the full text of one point G, these areas are specified to be rezoned. It's in the same bullet as inventory and pipeline projects. I think that leads most logically to the adopt zoning updates for any sites included in the inventory, and then the following sentence about pipeline projects. It's not clear where else it would go, but if you see a different way to do that, it would help to know if the concern is whether the Moffat work would go beyond the applicable deadline, whatever that is, what's the consequence, or some other policy consideration that you're weighing. I'm not sure. I mean, the text is the text from this program and the deadlines are the deadlines that were set, often the drafting was imprecise in housing elements, there's so much work to do in such a short period of time. So looking at it in the light of day, I think it's easy to pick it apart, but we're trying to reasonably interpret it and apply the deadline, which we've understood to this point to be December 31st of 2025.

[01:52:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, this gets into comments, but just to share the confusion, I guess, I'm experiencing here, that it, the, uh, deadline, um, appears to have an out, right? It doesn't feel like a firm deadline, because my, the reading I was understanding this deadline was if we do not complete the rezoning for these sites, inventory sites, then we would simply remove them from the buffer. And because we have a significant buffer. It doesn't feel like as firm a deadline as, I think, we're potentially operating under, because all we would have to do is say, well, maybe we're interested in achieving a little bit more, and helping, you know, whatever the council ends up deciding to do, but if we're looking at expanding the boundary or considering different intensities or have additional objectives for the precise plan, we wouldn't need to adhere so rigidly to the deadline because the deadline appears to say, if you can't complete it, that's okay. Just remove it from the buffer. which we're able to do because our capacity is very significant. The deadline doesn't appear to include greater jeopardy than that. In other words, it's not like we'll be found out of compliance with the housing element, and then subject to severe penalties under state law. That's why it's hard for me to, because it's all in one bullet, right? If that were a separate bullet and it pertained to a different, you know, set of rezonings, I would understand what you're suggesting, but because it's tied together, it's hard for me to read it any other way. So I'd have to understand staff's perspective on that.

[01:54:30] Unknown Speaker: That's helpful to understand the context in which you're interpreting this. And I need to confer with Mr. Anderson for a moment to hopefully try to answer your question. Do we need to take a break?

[01:55:03] Unknown Speaker: Again, back to the imprecise language in the drafting. So I think we're trying to put this Moffatt Boulevard area rezoning into a bucket, right? Is it a pipeline project? Is it an opportunity site? Is it something else? I don't think it fits into the pipeline or the opportunity site, even though the Moffat Boulevard area prescribed to be rezoned has housing element opportunity sites in it. And so I think we're talking about more than one thing. I think the particular language of this program, indicates that the following areas will be rezoned. And I think most appropriately fits into the December 31st deadline for doing that. But the consequence of the overall area rezoning not being completed, I think is different than the particular housing opportunity sites not being rezoned or pipeline projects therein not being approved. So I don't know if that's a satisfactory answer, but I think it's muddled by the sort of imprecise drafting and the mixing of 2 or 3 different types of sites or projects, housing element opportunity sites, pipeline projects, and then other areas directed to be rezoned.

[01:56:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, one last question on the same theme, and then I'll conclude my questions. It says adopt zoning updates needed for any sites included in the site's inventory by December 31st, 2025. So that's what we're, that's the deadline we're setting for Moffat Boulevard precise plan. So, uh, it says, zoning updates needed for any sites included in the site's inventory specifically. So, if we said, you know, okay, those opportunity sites are no longer our priority focus, and they, you know, are removed, and then we just deduct those units from the buffer, does that mean the December 31st, 2025 deadline no longer applies, because there are no sites in the sites inventory in the Moffatt Boulevard precise plan area.

[01:57:05] Unknown Speaker: I think we're talking about 2 things. One is the particular housing element opportunity sites that, if not rezoned by December 31st, 2025, may be removed from the buffer, and the other is the directed rezoning of the Muffin Boulevard area, which is a broader area than just the housing element opportunity sites. So we would have the December 31st, 2025 deadline, in my opinion, anyways, to complete that rezoning for the corridor, which is distinct from the opportunity sites themselves and subtraction from the buffer.

[01:57:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, those are my questions. Thank you.

[01:57:44] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, so, um, council member Kame.

[01:57:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I have 2 questions. Um, I can ask the one for the consultants first. How about that? So, um, on page uh, nine. It was stated that of the staff report. I think it was something like 90 businesses and property owners had outreached them. Am I reading that correctly? It said 70 and then an additional 20. Is that correct, but only 4 attended the meeting?

[01:58:20] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I believe that's correct.

[01:58:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[01:58:26] Unknown Speaker: Hi, good evening again. I just wanted to clarify, um, correct. We did outreach to several dozen businesses as well. All of the businesses we that were open. I actually handed out too. So, but when we had the focus group meeting, I think we had about 4 people who showed up for that.

[01:58:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, um, just to follow up on that, so, uh, as we proceed forward with the process, is there thought, or will there be further thought on how we can engage? It seemed like a really large number of property owners and businesses with which we did not receive feedback. And just wanted to ask staff? I can add this to comments later, but I just wanted to ask staff reflecting on that. number if there was going to be more engagement or ways that perhaps we can meet. I know some of the businesses may, it's pretty diverse. And I know that we've been doing translation services. I don't know if that might help for some of them. So I just wanted to ask staff if the thought isn't there yet, no problem. I can add that to my comments, but just wanted to ask that question.

[01:59:41] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we've actually definitely been looking at different ways to do greater outreach, and our consultants were working with them as well. They have some pretty good ideas. And, um, especially as well, you know, including those, um, notices out in different languages will help.

[01:59:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. All right, thank you. And then a question for staff. So when we're looking on page 4 of the staff report, figure two. So when we're talking about, including the 3 sites, 500 West Middlefield, 555 West Middlefield and 500 Moffatt, my understanding was that was for incorporating streetscape, being able to look at multimodal connection, and that, including those 3 parcels into the precise plan, would also allow us to continue to meet the December 2025 deadline.

[02:00:38] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[02:00:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I just wanted to clarify that. I think there's been a lot of discussion. There were some questions and public comment, so I just want to directly ask the question.

[02:00:47] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. This kind of future study area approach that we presented is certainly the best path for meeting the timeline and budget for the project.

[02:01:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. There are existing uses on 2 of the, or all 3, and should anything come up, there would be ample opportunity for residents and the community to be able to provide input, correct?

[02:01:19] Unknown Speaker: Absolutely. So we are, you know, with this direction, we will kind of formally include those properties in the precise plan process, if that's direction that the council wants to give. And so that will create more, I think, transparency in the further outreach that we do on alternatives. I think in the previous outreach we did, we showed these 3 properties as kind of colored differently on the map or something like that, and that may not have been as transparent to the community about how to interpret these areas in the visioning part of the process. And I think there's a 2nd component. So not only will there be the additional outreach for the ongoing current process, as contemplated the future study area with the triggers, approach, would actually prompt an amendment to the precise plan in the future, which would have its own community engagement and planning process for input into land uses and other aspects of development or redevelopment of those properties at that future time.

[02:02:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. And just one last clarification for the community. The work done, for example, on 555. What we do with the precise plan. It wouldn't override what's already been decided for 555. As you said, they can go through their process until June 2026. And so this would be an and, not a but. is my understanding. And I just want to clarify, clarify that for the community and staff could just reiterate that or further clarify it, that would be great.

[02:02:59] Unknown Speaker: Yes, it would be to the extent that they do actually pursue their entitlement. Correct.

[02:03:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you.

[02:03:11] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Hicks has a question, I think, and then I have 2 short ones.

[02:03:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, just a short follow-up question that some of the questions that council member Ramirez asked triggered. So, we would be, according to the housing element, we would be rezoning to a minimum of 1.85 FAR, which could be something like 60 to 72 units per acre. Do you also know, because that's what you found, 72 has been typical. Do you also know how many stories that has typically been? Because I often have trouble picturing this.

[02:03:51] Unknown Speaker: Absolutely. Yeah, so we've had a number of projects on El Camino, even the 100 Moffatt Boulevard project, built to 1.85 FAR, and they've all been typically four stories.

[02:04:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Four stories is typical. Okay. And do you think the narrow parcels along some of Moffa does that problematic for this kind of development?

[02:04:11] Unknown Speaker: It certainly would not be the same development type that you see at 100 Moffatt or projects that we've seen on El Camino? So we have as part of this scope to look at what are the development types that we would see on those that might work on those small parcels. So we don't have much to report yet about that. It could be a different height than 4 stories. Um, but that's part of the part of the project to come. And to your point as well, the general plan policies for this area indicate that parcel assembly would be preferable to provide more flexibility in the development type and site planning.

[02:04:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[02:04:57] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, I have a couple. One, I'm looking at the visioning framework. In the last box, I'm a little confused by what that means. It's a place making center of engaging and unique activities. What's a place making center?

[02:05:19] Unknown Speaker: Um, I'll start, and then I can, um, maybe defer to, uh, other staff or consultants that, uh, kind of work. Or wait a minute, maybe I could just say, it's basically a center of activity that functions as place making for this area. Is that what you mean?

[02:05:40] Mayor Pat Showalter: I think that's a good paraphrase, yeah. Okay. All right. Got it. Okay. And then the other thing I wanted to talk about is a little bit about the phasing of this precise plan. Clearly, if we're going to add some extra properties and we're going to make the deadline, then you have in mind that we're essentially going to do some phasing. You know, you've described this as areas of future study, which I think is a great, you know, a great description. So, essentially, during this first phase, we'll be looking at the narrow corridor of Moffatt Boulevard itself. And then in the subsequent study phases, as development came up, we would be looking at them. Is that appropriate?

[02:06:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, and I would add, um, 1st off, that, that, you know, middle field is another corridor that could be looked at in a future phase, uh, as far as the frontage of the 555 and 500 as well as Shenandoah Square. But I would also add that one of the benefits of including these properties in the precise plan, which we can do in the project timeline, is establishing some minor development standards for minor modifications, including frontage improvements. So, things that don't change the overall intensity or densities of the sites. That's really what kind of triggers environmental review and other issues that can prolong and complicate the project. So really, what we're talking about with that is things that would increase the walkability and bike ability of the corridor. That's really, and making it consistent throughout.

[02:07:40] Mayor Pat Showalter: So it would be a smooth ride or walk. Is that what we're shooting for, right?

[02:07:46] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and the aesthetic character of those areas, correct? And trees, yes. We wanted to be shady.

[02:07:52] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, well, with that in mind, what difference does it make in terms of your timeline if we go all the way to the Ameswell hotel, or the intersection of Stevens Creek with Moffatt? You know, where it comes out, just on the other side of '85? Does that upset the timeline, or is that, can we include that as well?

[02:08:19] Unknown Speaker: I would say going to Stevens Creek is a trivial change. I mean, it doesn't change any properties that are included in the precise plan. Including going all the way out and including Ameswell is not a trivial change. That is something that we would need to have a much larger conversation with the community about because it wasn't part of our previous round of outreach. Um, and so that would be, um, uh, that would certainly add add time and budget to the project.

[02:08:57] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, but not the Stevens Creek. connection. You think that would work? Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. We've had a lot of questions. So I think we should power on through this, not take a break, maybe take a break after this. All right, so now we want to go into the discussions of, first, the framework and then the boundary. And question one, I believe, was, are we on board with the framework? I'm sorry, I don't have the exact wording in front of me.

[02:09:34] Unknown Speaker: Oh, yes, I do. Does the city council agree with the giraffe precise plan visioning framework? Is there anything the city council would like to add and modify?

[02:09:42] Mayor Pat Showalter: So, we're going to answer that question first, and I'd like to see some people push the button. Okay. So, Vice Mayor Manachek. Thank you.

[02:09:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I think there are a couple things that I would suggest we modify or add. In the first box, and I'm looking on page 8 of the staff report. To me, a couple of the things in there are kind of not unique to this area, and that we're looking to do those across the city, and that's streamlined development.

[02:10:23] Mayor Pat Showalter: Excuse me. Can you put that slide up for us to see? That'd be helpful. Keep talking.

[02:10:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Streamlining development, requirements and regulations, and then property assembly strategy. And so I'm not sure I would include those in this. They don't seem like they're describing our vision for, um, what this would, the land uses and what it would look like. Um, so I would take those two out. Sorry, are those in the same orders in the staff report?

[02:11:00] Unknown Speaker: Okay, well, I'm gonna use the Stafford part. It would be helpful if they were in the same order. And... Too late. Yep.

[02:11:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: The 2nd thing is, I think there are some things that I would want to include, but I'm not sure which box they would go in. Um, and one is, We mention in there, improved landscaping and tree planting in the 2nd box. But to me, that also has a lot to do with, um, an accessible pedestrian and bicycle friendly multimodal corridor, where we want shade, and an attractive area to walk and bike. So, if something's in one box, but not another, do they have to be in both boxes or?

[02:12:00] Unknown Speaker: No, I don't think, um, the framework is as rigid as that. I think, as Mr. Anderson indicated earlier, what we're trying to capture in this visioning framework is what we want the outcomes to be so that when we're working on alternatives or policies in the future, we can draw a line connecting back to what the community in the council's vision is. And so as long as it's represented in this framework, it can carry forward in the appropriate capacity into the future planning work. So, uh, It's helpful to have it in the sort of most closely aligned box, but it isn't necessarily required to carry forward.

[02:12:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Because I do want to make sure that the trees are not just like in a development, but also along the street. Um, so however you want to take that into consideration. Um, I also want to make sure we preserve historic resources. And we talked about historical information and markers, but, um, to me, there are, there's at least one historic resource, and maybe there's more that we would want to, um, preserve. We also heard about noise. from the trains in this area does get a lot of that. And so somehow... Uh, we've sort of gotten some aspects of the trains in the transit center built into this, but we don't specifically call out having, like, a quieter neighborhood. Um, and I think, we had one comment here tonight, but I feel like we get a lot of emails about train noise. So, um, if that can be incorporated into a more quiet neighborhood, that would be good. And the other thing that, um, I'm not sure the community would have said this as much as I think they would if they had more information, and that is, um, parks. So we do have in here, uh, now I lost it, outdoor activities. But, the need for a, and we have community gathering spaces, but I think we need to specifically call out a large bark. And there might be an opportunity at Shenandoah to do that. Um, and other parts of the city have large parks, and yet this part of the city does not. So I think it would behoove us to specifically call that out. And I think that's all I have in terms of, um, question one. Thanks.

[02:15:04] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. All right. And next we go to council member Kame. I'm sorry. Um, Council member Hicks.

[02:15:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'm generally supportive of the visioning framework. It reflected when I talked to residents and read the residents' comments, a lot of the things that residents have said. Um, the, uh, only thing is, I listened to the EPC meeting, and one of the EPC members, uh, remarked that the box, the draft vision element, uh, labeled, uh, unique identity and destination. There are four different things under that. And three of them are signs and markers, entry signage, wavefinding and navigation signage, historical information markers. And she said that, you know, identity of a place is not really just a bunch of signs. And I thought that point was well taken, so I wanted to... So I wanted to make that comment my own here. And I think some of the things, when I think of what's unique about this area, and when I've talked to residents, there's a resident in the audience now, who taught me about the history of some of the architects, of some of the buildings around their mid century modern apartments that are kind of in these woodsy areas. I know Moffatt doesn't, at this point, extend to those, but I think that kind of reflects. That's a large part of what that area is about. And I would like to learn, actually, more about those architects and kind of think about how that feel, how it relates to the rest of the area. So, there's that, the mid century modern, the history, the tree canopy, there's the sort of industrial area that, um, lends itself to kind of buildings that are more of a blank slate and an opportunity for murals, for me, that's one of the characteristics of the area. There's things like, there's lots of trails, and kind of a unique set of backyard all... Am I going to say it, right? Alleys running through the area. So there are a lot of, you know, there's the, is it a PG&E easement. There's like a lot of that kind of stuff running through the area. PUC, thank you. And then, what, the vice mayor said, there's some historic buildings that, you know, some of them jump out more, like the adobe and some of them, like the former manufacturing place for the, for the Disney rides, don't jump out at you as much, but that one might be more, uh, might need a marker. So those are some of the things that, to me, give the area a unique character that is nowhere else in Mountain View. And I thought that, um, Joyce and the EPC member who brought that up, I thought, you know, she kind of made a good call on that, and that we could flesh that out a little more. Yeah, and then in terms of placemaking, I think it's a good list of things. I think there could also be more outdoor gathering spaces, pocket parks, linear parks. I think I talked to Marilyn Ponte, who's the, um, I can't remember her title, but she's heading up the development, the Prometheus development at 400 Moffatt. And she said they're trying to make the front of that more of a gathering space with chairs and benches and landscaping out along much of the frontage. So I'm hoping we can encourage other developers to do that as well. And as long as I'm saying that, I might as well say, she also said there's one of the, they have, uh, if you look at the plans for that, one of the spaces is labeled Office, but she says, they're actually looking to put something, possibly a coffee shop, possibly something else that would could lend itself more to community gatherings. So, um, you know, so that's another kind of thing that I would like to encourage what she seemed to be talking about there. So those are my comments on the visioning. Thank you.

[02:19:37] Mayor Pat Showalter: Now, Council member committee.

[02:19:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks, Mayor. Um, so, uh, I agree that, uh, I can see where the original Moffat Boulevard change area of vision was, um, taken from the general plan and put into this framework. I can kind of see it threaded throughout. Um, I think there's just a couple things uh, that I have comments on. Um, so I don't, So I think the 1st box on this, right, is. So the unique identity. I was thinking rather than destination, maybe community, I think, um, that's what this area is. It's a community. And so that's something that I had thought about. For the next box, really thinking about, the 1st 2 listed. So the existing small and diverse business support and then new business attraction. Actually, there have been a couple new businesses that have opened. I know that there's Opus one, and then I think crave yoga. It was like redeveloped. So, I was interested in where council member Hicks was going in terms of how we might be able to retain those businesses. Um, the, the produce, um, is very popular. I know that when I lived in the area, we would go there for our groceries all the time, and we know how difficult it is to attract a local grocery store. So I really want to find ways where we can celebrate the businesses that exist currently and have them know that they're going to be part of what's coming with the precise plan versus that they would be displaced. I really, I don't want that to happen. And skipping to the 4th bullet, some thoughts that came in, to my mind, are, I believe there's shuttle stops along Moffatt. I know there's the VTA stop in front of the mobile home park. And so I'm thinking about that. That's, I don't know if that's what's meant by bus transit accessibility. It already exists, and so I don't know if it's preservation, um, and then really interested, as was mentioned, in incorporating the Stevens Creek Trail. I don't know if that would be as part of the multimodal corridor, but, um, I also know middle field is slated as, uh, a thoroughfare we're looking out for the active transportation plan. I know that we got comments on the plans earlier. So just wanted to include that. Um, and then for the last, um, box. I think when it says, I don't know if it's a place making center or creating a destination. I do feel that there's already existing destinations to go to that I mentioned some of the small businesses. And so I feel like it's really about, um, bringing a little bit more walkability, bikeability, one of the things that's in the original vision for the change area, said, it's easy for people to walk or bike across Central Expressway and get to surrounding areas. It's a well lighted street with a respecting character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and it's a gathering place for people. I think that is the spirit with which I'm thinking about not necessarily needing to reinvent, but more to reinvigorate. And so, I don't know if there's, I haven't wordsmith that final box, but that's the spirit with which I'm approaching that. And I believe reading the comments and all the attachments, that's, it exists and we just need to, um, uh, add a little bit more, I guess. Thanks, there.

[02:23:53] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Lucas, uh, council member Ramirez.

[02:23:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. First, I want to start by strongly agreeing with council member Kame and prioritizing the preservation of existing businesses. And in particular, the grocery store because that's if it were to be displaced, it is probably unlikely to return. And then I also appreciate council member Hicks and working proactively with Prometheus to try and encourage where we ordinarily wouldn't have much of an ability to include uses that better serve the neighborhood. So thank you for having that conversation with them. When the council 1st discussed the Moffatt boulevard area in a meaningful capacity, the conversation that we had was whether to merely rezone the corridor, to conform with a general plan, or to think a little bit bigger and develop a precise plan that articulates and tries to implement a more comprehensive vision. And we chose the latter, which I think was the right decision, because I think we all recognize that there's a lot of opportunity in this area. And there are services and amenities that the neighborhood is seeking and that we're hoping to achieve with the precise plan. I had the opportunity to attend the community meeting that was mentioned by George, which I agree was very well attended, and I really appreciated the energy and enthusiasm that many folks, and Christian, I know you were wandering and engaging each of the tables, a lot of excitement about the opportunity to introduce new uses or concepts that many neighbors felt, you know, were absent in the area. The concern I have, There's nothing I object to in the visioning framework. The concern I have is the achievability of the vision, though. And I feel like we're at risk of overpromising and delivering because there is a little bit of a mismatch between what we're hoping to achieve and the tools that we have at our disposal to actually achieve those objectives to achieve or implement the vision. And I've been thinking a lot about what have precise plans afforded us historically. And some of those tools include voluntary community benefit requirements or packages. Voluntary requirement, I know, is sort of contradictory, but what we say is, we don't like to use the term quid pro quo, but that's essentially it. If you seek additional FAR height density, then you must provide a community benefit to help. either mitigate that impact or introduce something to the neighborhood that's beneficial to the residents. And that's challenging to do here, especially if we constrain ourselves to one.85 FER. We've already given away the store because the general plan already allows one. 85 FAR. So we're not going to be able to, in a meaningful way, require community benefits unless we go beyond that. And so I think that's something that the council will need to consider very seriously. Or another approach might be to explore robust office development, which I think may not be the preference of the council. Another way we can think about this, though, is recognizing a lot of opportunity outside of the very strict boundaries that we've established of ourselves. And so that's getting into the next set of questions, but it's something I'm hoping the council will consider very seriously. If we expand the boundary or we think about other concepts that could help us achieve the vision, right? Either extract some additional investment from development that occurs in that area with a community benefit framework, for instance, or maybe there are other ideas that we will learn from staff. If we don't do those things, the risk is we have a fantastic vision that I think all of us would like to achieve, but very few tools to actually help get that investment or to produce the outcomes that we're hoping to achieve, right? If, again, you know, if development standards or regulations can also help, you know, lead to certain types of outcomes. But if what we're saying is you can't go above one.85 FAR, what many developers will do, is, I think, as staff had suggested, just use the state density bonus law and waive their way or, you know, get concessions to bypass some of those things to get what they are already entitled to under state law, right? I was trying to find, and I think I found it 730 Central Avenue, which was a project that never came before council. It was approved at the ZA, on a 2.24 acre site, within the mixed use general plan land use designation along the Moffatt Corridor, was entitled at 2.2 FAR. So well above what the general plan requires because they can already get that with state density bonus law, which is why, and Eric can speak to this better than I can, we've started including community benefit approaches that say, if you want to benefit from some of the additional capacity or incentives provided by the city, you cannot use the state density bonus law in East Wisbon, for instance, right? So there are ways we can get around that. But we have to find incentives that are meaningful in order to get the outcomes that we're seeking. It's a long winded way of saying, I think the vision, visioning framework is very good, but I think we're missing a little bit of information about how we can realistically achieve that vision. And when staff comes back to us, it would be helpful to understand what tools are available to us and what types of trade off. we might need to consider in order to get as close as we can to the vision that we're articulating. Um, so... I think that's everything about question one. So generally comfortable with this, but in the next set of questions, I'm hoping that council will consider expanding the boundary, including incorporating other areas that are, you know, either immediately to the east or west of Moffat that are not contemplated in questions 2 through 4, because I think that will be an essential component to achieving the vision that we're articulating here. And then also providing direction to go above 1.85 FAR, if it includes a community benefit framework, so that way we're allowing more interesting development, providing development capacity, but in exchange, for helping us achieve the vision that we're articulating in the precise plan. If we don't do those things, the risk is that the precise plan won't be very meaningful. It will sound good, but there really won't be a pathway to victory. The last thing I'll share is I'm, you know, I'm reading and rereading the housing element program, and I don't believe this deadline is a severe constraint for us. I think if we don't meet it, that's okay. We should plan for what we want. We shouldn't plan, you know, with a gun held to the back of our head, and introduce constraints that deprive us the ability to meet the expectations of our community. Let's do the right thing, right? Let's create a precise plan that helps achieve the vision that is expressed by our community. Thank you.

[02:31:58] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. And now we move on to council member Ramels.

[02:32:03] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I don't have much to add other, from what my colleagues have been saying. Although, in response to council member Ramirez about the using community benefits and making sure that they are more worthwhile, so that they don't take the density bonus just automatically. That's something that we always have to be careful of, because you can't, um, I've seen other cities. Mostly through the framework of their housing element where they tried to have their own versions of density bonuses, and it was actually stricter than what the state allowed in the state was just like not happening. So as we do that, we can't use it as a way to limit that, the density of that. When we think about the deadline, I think about, um, the primary goal of the housing element was for us to show our plan and how we're going to get more housing. Um, if we are essentially, um, pushing out the deadline for reasons that would not give us more housing or provide the opportunity for housing, then I can see how that could be a problem. If we are pushing out on that deadline, because we want that opportunity for, for, um, development and more housing, that's that's the kind of thing that HCD seems to forget. a little bit more, especially, um, when we have such an active comedian, likes to send in letters to HCD, uh, when we aren't following, um, those, uh, things. So overall, I just want to be kind of mindful of that. I actually live pretty close to where that Moffat precise one, but like not close enough to Rick use. Um, and I view, I view, I've largely viewed that area when I 1st moved to the area of like a, not necessarily flyover, but like a driveover kind of area, unfortunately, because like, it's not as pleasant of a walk as you would think, because there's, you, you go down and you see like 500 Moffat, which is, grass, which is great, I guess. Um, but it's not exciting as you walk down. Then you pass by a gas station. And then you pass by parking lots. And then after a while, you pass by downtown. Um, so as we imagine like a fun walkway, um, uh, throughout those areas, I appreciate uh, council member Kame's, um, view of changing it from destination to community. Like, just not as a thing for you to just walk and like, oh, this is the place where I wanted to be, but like, if I'm dawdling around and going around in this area, like, this is a nice place to sit and stop and check out. Um, so that's kind of how, um, I like the the term community versus destination. That's a really good change. Um, The shuttle is stops right there at Moffatt and, um, Moffatt and Middlefield. And it stops you right in front of that gas station. Um, which I learned because I just took it a couple weeks ago. And that area has a lot of opportunity, I think, because it's a gas station there right now. And they tried to, uh, make it more exciting because there's like a food truck there. Um, but like that, that, that does have, that is a very high potential corner. Um, so those are the things that, um, I would like us to think about. the historical markers as a vice mayor Matachek, talked about. I believe the one site is the Adobe Building. Is that what you were referring to?

[02:36:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I wasn't talking about markers. I was talking about the resources themselves. To me, markers are signs or placards or something that just says this was a historic place because of whatever. But I'm talking about preserving the actual resources themselves. But the one resource was at the Adobe Building, or was there another resource you were looking at?

[02:36:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And then, um, council member Hicks mentioned another one. The Disney manufacturing company. Yeah, I don't know whether you would preserve that, but, um, but that one you might preserve, you might, you know, you don't preserve something with a plaque. You might mark it. Okay.

[02:36:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: With public art, yeah, with public art or a plaque of some sort, but I agree you shouldn't confuse preservation and markers. They're 2 different things.

[02:36:50] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yeah, different things. But we should preserve what resources we have, although I do think that, um, the, I forgot what it was called, um, arrow, arrow, industries is the place. That's the Disney place.

[02:37:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: think you're right. Unfortunately, I don't think that building still stands.

[02:37:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I think it does, but I think it's not terribly remarkable.

[02:37:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay.

[02:37:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: But those are the kinds of things that we are looking at. So I think that's all I have for the visioning.

[02:37:25] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, um, I don't have a lot to add. I guess what I would add is under, um, the 4th box, um, multimodal corridor, I would just add tree lined streets. I mean, I think we're getting at it, and a number of other ways that it's stated, but I think we should just be clear. That's really what we're going for as tree lined streets. And I love the idea of, including the Stevens Creek Trail, as part of that. I think that's really an important part of our community. And, um, parks.

[02:38:02] Mayor Pat Showalter: And then I just was going to go over the generalities that I heard and see if that confirms... that confirms with what you heard. I don't really think we need any straw poles, is that? Do you think we do?

[02:38:19] Unknown Speaker: I think I'm prepared, uh, when appropriate to go back and synthesize key points that staff heard, um, to confirm.

[02:38:27] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, you want to just...

[02:38:29] Unknown Speaker: I mean, I heard one was about the retention of businesses. That's a very strong goal. The streetscape. We've all talked about the value of the streetscape and the improving it and extending it. That's a very important concept. We've also heard quite a bit about destination, community, and also from one of our public speakers that this is a gateway. You know, if you get off of 101 onto Moffatt, this is a gateway to Mountain View. And, um, so it's all of those things. And, um... Then the, uh... Moving toward the unique identity of the area. It has some identities we've talked about, but I think kind of cementing them, particularly in that streetscape plan is what we're shooting for. So is that... does that sound... right? What was that?

[02:39:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, yes, and also preserve historic resources. and not just put up plaques. Although I think putting up plaques is also a really good thing to do, because, um... I mean, they're different, but, um, uh, you can't always preserve the resource, or something happened there before, that is now gone, and it's good to remember. And I think I did say important, incorporate Stevens Creek Trail. Okay, so is that what you need? That's a question one. Okay, you... Parks. Oh, yes, several people mentioned parks. And the idea of it would be nice to have parks, and a large park. And, um, that, I think, leads us into the next question, right? Mayor, if I could, I do need to circle back to some remarks from Vice Mayor Matachek to confirm this direction. And so, there were two statements made. The first, both related to box number one, the thriving hub of economic activity. The first was to remove the streamlining mention. I think the notion was it wasn't unique enough to the Maffa Boulevard area. It's more of a citywide approach. I understand the comment. I think what this is trying to get at in relation to thriving economic activity maybe could be restated as clear development standards and regulations in the precise plan to allow the businesses to know what they're able to do and to do it quickly.

[02:41:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But isn't that also a citywide thing we're working on?

[02:41:16] Unknown Speaker: It is, but I think the unique emphasis through the community feedback and from the council on the strengthening of small business opportunities does lend a unique angle to that citywide issue that's of particular importance here.

[02:41:31] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: That's okay with me if it's okay with my colleagues.

[02:41:34] Unknown Speaker: So a rephrasing of that. And then the property assembly strategy, I think your remark was to remove that. I think we did encounter in this area, the fact that the small parcels do present some complications in a property assembly strategy or incentives to assemble properties could provide more flexibility to development. And so I just wanted to confirm if that is the council's direction to delete that, or to keep it, or to refashion it in some way.

[02:42:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No, I'm not again, I'm against deleting that. I think that's important. What do other people think? Do we have incentives to do that? Um, in other areas like El Camino? Or do we just encourage it?

[02:42:18] Unknown Speaker: There are incentives that have worked to varying degrees, things like minimum lot sizes for certain types of development or certain incentive opportunities that could be available. Um, and, uh, they, uh, occasionally, you know, projects will come in to take advantage of them, but it's often unclear whether they would have done the assembly anyway, um, because there are just benefits of assembling parcels just for economic feasibility reasons as well. So it's something that we can continue to look into innovative solutions for. A big part of it is just the messaging too. And just having somebody there at the counter, somebody coming in and saying, hey, you know, I'm interested in doing something in this area. And we say, you know, we've got this policy to encourage parcel assembly, maybe talk to some neighboring parcels too. And that can, that can help as well.

[02:43:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I'm not against assembling parcels. To me, it just feels like we do that throughout the city. So I didn't see what was unique about it in this area.

[02:43:32] Unknown Speaker: And then I think the one other point, just to confirm if there's broad council direction relates to the exploration of opportunities to go above one.85 floor area ratio, and whether community benefit framework, is something that might be a tool that's explored, is one of the alternatives that we bring back in the future.

[02:43:53] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Hicks has a response to that?

[02:43:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I feel like that one, I don't have a clear enough picture of that one. I feel like it belongs more when we talk about densities and land uses. I feel like I'd be getting ahead of myself to put that in at this point.

[02:44:08] Unknown Speaker: Sure. I think maybe to rephrase the question, um, is there any reason we would want to limit staff's exploration, uh, to a maximum of one.85 FAR?

[02:44:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I think we can explore various options if there are such to figure out what outcomes that higher FARs might help us to achieve, whether housing, ensuring mixed use, or incentivizing parcel assembly, and what have you, there's not a limit at this point.

[02:44:39] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, personally, I thought that's more the direction we were going in, that that would be that all options were open to tell us, to come back and tell us what would help us achieve our goals, but not making a commitment to a particular density at this point. Great. Thank you. Okay, so with that, we will move on to question two. And that is about the boundaries. Uh, we have, and I think we can answer the three questions together, so I'm going to call them question two, even though there's two, three, and four. Um, and, uh, I believe that, um, council member Kameh.

[02:45:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. I'll kick us off. So for two, three, and four, yes, I think we've had quite a bit of robust conversation, about things that we'd like to achieve, and I think being able to enable that is of interest. I also think, um, should anything happen, we have ample opportunity and time to work with our residents and our community to receive their feedback. Um, so I am in support. Thank you.

[02:45:52] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Next is Council member Ramirez.

[02:45:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Council member Kameh. I think it's important to provide staff the latitude to return to us with some ideas for what would be possible in these locations. I agreed with one of the speakers, Daniel Shane, who said, well, this might be an opportunity to revisit the development standards at 555, which, I know we're a source of consternation for many in our community, and, you know, we could start talking about things like the, um, I always forget the term he uses, but the, uh, you know, yes, thank you. So I think this is a good opportunity to explore what development standards might look like, because a lot of development will be occurring adjacent to 85. The only other direction I would like to explore, if there's council majority support, is not limiting ourselves to just this boundary with the inclusion of these properties. But, um, and I know this is difficult. I don't I'm not immediately prepared with what an alternative boundary would look like, but if staff needs some firm guidance tonight, then, you know, I would be happy to suggest some ideas with the full council. But going a little bit beyond to the east and to the west of the boundary, close closest to the transit center, to see, again, what types of opportunity exists, whether expansion of the boundary can help us achieve some of the objectives in the visioning framework, and then also to create additional capacity for housing and affordable housing in particular. So, yes, to two, three, and four, but also openness to exploring, expanding the boundary beyond that, maybe not quite as far as the MBCSB and EMB letter, that does feel more like the absolute maximum that you could include within an understanding of the neighborhood. I know that's a very large undertaking, but maybe something more tactical and appreciating what proximity to the transit center affords this area. Thank you.

[02:48:14] Mayor Pat Showalter: Vice Mayor Matachek has a clarifying question.

[02:48:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So earlier this evening, I asked when you're asking us if we want to include these properties, is it for future study, or for inclusion, and therefore a longer time period, for the precise plan? And we're answering just, yes, we want to include them so far. But shouldn't we also clarify if we mean... I think I heard Council member Kame indicate that inclusion of the three parcels with the future study area approach with triggers to be developed for appropriate community involvement and planning at a later date. But when I asked questions earlier, I did ask to clarify if we included the three, would we still meet the December 31st 2025 deadline, and staff answered yes. So, including these 3 would not, um, lengthen it. My understanding was, it would be lengthened if we went beyond these three areas.

[02:49:21] Unknown Speaker: I think that's generally correct. And again, there are variations of each of these scenarios, and, I think, exploring them and getting some clear direction is necessary. So, including in area, in and of itself, isn't particularly impactful, if it's designated for future study, because nothing's changing, changing. And we don't need to engage the community, we don't need to come up with alternatives and plan for various outcomes. If we begin to direct study and planning and new policies and direction for these areas, the smaller the area, the less impact, the greater the area, the more impact. And so, um, you know, there was a variation from Council member Ramirez, to maybe look at areas closest to the transit center, that's a new variation, but a narrower scope than the entire Yimby area, for example. So, um, you know, we just need clear direction on what the council majority would like us to explore and bring back. So sorry, council member, may maybe I misunderstood your question, but I thought the answer was, if we include these 3 projects, and we look at the land use and the intensity and stuff as part of all of this, it would delay it beyond December. But if it's just future, yes.

[02:50:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I think initially, I think, as I understand it, what we're talking about now is looking at the streetscape is really, those are the requirements that would be finalized within the first year. Isn't that what we're talking about?

[02:50:59] Unknown Speaker: I think we were, and then council member of America is trying to expand it. That's what I think happened. So when I was speaking, I was merely talking to the three questions, with the idea that they would be included forced to escape as future study. And then, I believe, when council member Ramirez took, um, went, he began saying he agrees with that, but he'd like to do additional. So that is my understanding.

[02:51:29] Mayor Pat Showalter: So I... So next is, um, Council member Ramos.

[02:51:43] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with council member Kame and including all for 2 through 4, all three. I am open, similar to council member Ramirez, to expand it more. I understand that probably causes some heartburn to staff. So I don't know exactly if that will go through or not. Um, uh, and I would prioritize more of the areas closer to Central Expressway in the transit center. I, um, I have a little heartburn, including the mobile home park until we get more, um, protections there, um, before that would get, if, if that would get it, but it's not on there anyway. So that should be fine. But I am open and yes, 2 or four. Thank you.

[02:52:29] Mayor Pat Showalter: And next is council member Hicks.

[02:52:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, so I'd like to include all three additional properties. I'm assuming that that means, I guess it was the staff recommendation, for future study, except that the streetscaping can be done immediately. Um, maybe not immediately, but soon. Um, and I'm also open to including, uh, some other sites to the east and west. Um, I'm, particularly, there's a rectangular site bordered by, I don't know, either Santa Rosa or Moffatt and Central Horizon and Willowgate, which has a lot of kind of, um, older, old is not bad. I live in a very old house. But houses that are don't seem to be being redeveloped as much as in some other areas, and it's a mix of, I think, R1, R2 and R3, That, to me, looks, it's a mix of small cottages, old apartments, and a little commercial. It looks like one of the areas that might be most, my most benefit. I drove through it this morning. It looks like, you know, it's pretty near the train station. It looks like one that might benefit. You know, I want to know, is the community open to it or not? I'm sure that's what you'll be exploring. And there's also an area along Central Avenue from Moffat to Horizon that has some... It looks like just some very underperforming commercial that could really, and there's, like, there's a building kind of near there along Moffat, a very long strip mall that's for sale now. It just looks like that area might be. You know, I've heard many people say uses in this area are not gonna change, but some of these I see, you know, for sale, I see possible things happening in that area. And then I've also heard that to the West, there was some talk, some people at the community groups saying they were interested. I'm sure some people are interested, and some not, but I'm open to exploring that. Again, at a future phase, because I think that this area may, you know, people keep saying it's not going to change in things, then things are built that people don't particularly want. So I don't want to, you know, I do want to do the strip along Moffat as quickly as possible so that we get some, some of what residents want out of it. And I'm also a little concerned about the idea of what triggers, uh, revisiting those properties, 'cause I don't want the element that triggers it to be that somebody proposed a development, so it's really too late. I want, I want to make sure that our triggers... I want to do it immediately, 'cause I want to do the Moffat Strip first and get, make it more walkable, but I don't want to wait too late so that things are proposed that we don't want. And that's it.

[02:55:58] Mayor Pat Showalter: Vice mayor Mata check.

[02:56:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I'm okay including the three properties, just in terms of the streetscape for now. Um, and that their land use and any other changes would be in the future. Thank you.

[02:56:16] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, and I, I, too, am, I think that the idea of including the streetscape, and I would, and the three areas, I would, uh, I'm all for that. But I'm also interested in the idea of expanding both the streetscape, and the areas that council member, Hicks, talked about, all of those extra things, however, in the future study kind of point of view. Now, um, the streetscape, particularly if we could go to this, the intersection of the Stevens Group Trail, and, um, Moffat Boulevard, I think that that would add a lot. Would add a long consistency, which would be very attractive over time. So that's what I would really like to see. And I don't think that was in the question. Um, Council member Kamet talked about that when we were talking previously, but we didn't mention it this time, so maybe we need a straw pole on that. since I'm the last one. Show of hands of people who were interested in having the streetscape, go all the way to the Stevens Creek Trail. Yeah. Okay. So there's consistency on that. And then, uh... Steph, do you have some questions for us about what we mean, about considering the other areas? There are, um, one, two, three, four of us who are interested in that.

[02:58:25] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Kameh has a question?

[02:58:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So, um, the reason why I didn't talk about adding anything additional is that when I look at figure two, quite a few of these areas are zoned R3. And my understanding is council looked at the R3 update in April, and I would prefer, and hearing council member Hicks talk about phasing, I'd prefer to go forward, as proposed, include the 3 as future study, and then be able to address some of the other concerns with the R3 update. Just if you look, even the areas you mentioned, Central and Horizon, that's all R3. Um, looking into Cypress Point is R3. And so I feel like council is already working on that, and I'm not looking to make any of our work redundant. I don't know if staff would interpret those areas that were mentioned the same way, but I would say, and I heard Council member Hicks also mentioned not wanting to hold up the streetscape and moving forward. So I think it's, they complement each other, the work that we're doing with the R3 zoning update, and what we could be doing tonight. And I don't know if staff looking, and those areas will be addressed, correct?

[02:59:58] Unknown Speaker: That's right. Excuse me. I would need to go back and compare the specific areas to the map that council member Hicks noted, but as I followed along, I suspect many of those areas are 3 zoned. Let's see. But there's our one on our 2 in that area, too. If you look between, so a large part of it is R3, about, I don't know, over a little over half as R3, but there is a part that's our one on R2.

[03:00:36] Unknown Speaker: That's the Adobe Building.

[03:00:39] Unknown Speaker: No, the Adobe Building is right along Moffatt. It's the pink area. So I think to council member at Kame's point, one concern I do have is redundant work, and the fact that we do have this very large R3 zoning process underway, and I think one of the key objectives that we're trying to accomplish is figuring out how to achieve more housing development capacity through that R3 process. And so, it would be potentially redundant work and perhaps, um, deviate from the broader citywide approach, and it may be an opportunity to come back to them off the boulevard precise plan if the broader citywide R3 approach does not achieve those desired objectives, um, or if it would do so in a way that would be incongruent with the objectives of the Moffat Boulevard precise plan.

[03:01:33] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so that could be a trigger for it.

[03:01:36] Unknown Speaker: Exactly. So for those areas, if they were to be included, that could be the future study area trigger. You happy with that? Council member, Hicks?

[03:01:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure. Okay. Yeah, that could be the trigger, whatever happens with our 3 if we think it's not sufficient.

[03:01:55] Mayor Pat Showalter: I think there's another comment down the road there.

[03:01:58] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Ramirez?

[03:02:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So it sounds like this may have been resolved, but just for my benefit. So, uh, it sounds like there, we'll probably do a straw pull to test this, but a majority would be comfortable with the areas proposed by council member Hicks as a future area of study. And then the trigger would be, um, some check in point related to the R3 update. So it could be included, or it would be within the Moffat precise plan boundary. We're not going to ascribe heights or FAR, you know, immediately, but would continue work when it's, um, when that trigger point is hit. But it's a little broader than the R3 because it includes some of the additional, the area going up to, you said, horizon, I think, the southern portion.

[03:02:50] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, there's a rectangle about a 3rd of it is, something between a 3rd and a half, two-fifths, maybe, is R one and R two. My fractions aren't as good as they used to be.

[03:03:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But was there also, I can't recall. So I didn't get all of the suggestions that you were contemplating. Was there also a portion on the Western side of Moffatt, or is it entirely interesting?

[03:03:12] Unknown Speaker: Well, you and April Webster apparently were at a table at a community meeting where that, where several people from that table said they wanted their area included, and that's all I know about that.

[03:03:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That is true.

[03:03:26] Unknown Speaker: There were two gentlemen there who lived in that area, who asked to be included in the precise plan, but what you were suggesting was include that as an area in future study, and then we would work with the community to better understand the expectations.

[03:03:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Okay, I'm comfortable with that. Thank you.

[03:03:46] Mayor Pat Showalter: All right, so with that, staff, do you have what you need?

[03:03:54] Unknown Speaker: Um, let me just make sure I understand. That's always good. Um, so we have, uh, we have some direction to re-engage some areas for inclusion in the precise plan at a later date, uh, on, you know, on the east and west sides, close to the, to central expressway. Um, The benefits of including them in the precise plan, like, so the big 3 properties that we started this conversation with, there are benefits of including them in the precise plan at this time, and then studying future land uses at a future date. The benefits of including these other properties at this time are not the may not be the same. So you don't have the streetscape standards. You don't have the kind of addressing P district standards that may not be clear. So, I guess I want to make sure that the direction from counsel is to have a trigger that would maybe modify the boundary of the precise plan at a future date for these properties, right? While the direction for the big three, the 3 that were previously addressed is to modify the precise plan boundary now, but to address land uses at a future date. Then the alternative, which I'm not sure if this changes the scope and budget, because it would potentially change some fundamental data that we're collecting about the precise plan area, is to include them in the precise plan area, and then just say, you know, without change to regulations. right? And say, just reference R one or reference R three. within the boundary of the precise plan area. But I would have to check with our consultants to see if that affects any of the data that we've already collected and mapping work and other analysis. I think there is also a question about kind of transparency to the community about that and what as part of an outreach process. You know, we're changing lines on a map, but it doesn't mean anything right now. And what does that mean to the community and how to how do we communicate that to the community? There may be more work that we'll have to do in order to tell that story. Um, and so, uh, the direction to include it in the precise plan now, I can't say for sure that it wouldn't result in some some budget and time, uh, consequences.

[03:07:15] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, but you could get back to us with what they are in the future.

[03:07:19] Unknown Speaker: Well, the critical path right now is the project boundary. The boundary of the precise plan. That is the critical path right now that we need resolution on. I think my sense is, uh, there seems to be majority support for inclusion of those areas and finding the appropriate trigger, and so we may just need to include them, and then we can follow up later to indicate what those impacts were. I don't think that there's an opportunity to check back in again with the council on what those impacts might be and whether or not to include it in the planning area. And so I think we need to make some informed judgments tonight about the council's desire to do that, and we will just manage the timeline and budget impacts accordingly. It being a narrower area. My sense is it will be a smaller budget and timeline impact, but it isn't an area that we've contemplated thus far, including. And so I think it's realistic to expect there will be some degree of budget and timeline impacts.

[03:08:24] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, so, um, should we have a straw pole about that?

[03:08:28] Unknown Speaker: I think that would be a good idea.

[03:08:30] Mayor Pat Showalter: So everyone who's in favor of, um, moving forward with a slightly larger, um, area. question?

[03:08:41] Unknown Speaker: No, I'm just gonna say how I'm going to vote. So. Because I just, I'm not gonna be able to support extending the boundaries beyond the three parcels, and I just want to explain to the community why, which is when I look on this map, and I see the R ones called out, those are residential homes, and I don't feel comfortable expanding a boundary map area for people who already live there, in their single family homes. So, um, as I mentioned in the R3, those are going to be part of our R3 update discussion. But for those that are our one, having lived in this community for a number of years prior to the new community I live in the city now, those are planned communities, and if you've walked in those areas, you will see that. And I don't feel comfortable doing that at this time without understanding the implications of what it would be to our timeline and staff, as well as the residents that live there, who may read about it tomorrow, that we've incorporated their home and to our precise plan update without their knowledge. I don't feel comfortable at this time. Thank you.

[03:09:59] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay? Um, uh, vice mayor, manachek.

[03:10:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I would agree with that. Um, given that the noticing about this was about um, specific boundaries that did not include an expansion. I wouldn't feel comfortable expanding it without community input. I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's transparent. Um, and it just doesn't feel good to me to do that. And as part of our three, if we're looking at a portion of that. And actually, I thought the R3, so my understanding, maybe I've forgotten, we weren't looking to do this citywide. We were now going to choose specific areas. And I'm assuming we've looked at this area as well. And so I feel like this might already be incorporated into the R3 project. So I don't think we should include the additional properties at this time.

[03:10:56] Mayor Pat Showalter: Councilman Brix.

[03:10:59] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I didn't I didn't know that we had to include it at this point. I thought that, and I'm not comfortable, including it without noticing residents first. So, um, if that's the way it has to be, if we have to include it tonight, then I'm open to, including it in the future, but not tonight.

[03:11:21] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just on that point, I think, you know, as with any planning document, the council can direct staff to revisit the plan in the future to incorporate new areas, to expand the boundaries, to change the approach in the plan. So I think what we need tonight and what seems to be evolving is a consensus about whether or not to broaden the planning area and the boundary of the planning area, with or without some type of trigger, for future study, and change of regulations. It's important for us to know that, for sequel purposes, for budget and timeline purposes, for transparency and community engagement purposes. So, the ongoing discussion is very helpful for us.

[03:11:57] Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, one of the things that concerns me is I'm going to take a turn here. One of the things that concerns me is that particularly from sequel point of view, we will expect to have to do a sequel document on this precise plan before we're finished, right? And with Sequa, you can always make your area smaller. But if you haven't included in area, then you have to redo this sequel. So it's better practice to include a larger area, and then when it went down later, then vice versa, because that really messes up your timeline. So, and I guess the other thing that I think about is that when I look at the precise plans I worked on when I was in on the Planning Commission, we wanted to do the idea of considering the land juice in a whole neighborhood, and what we're thinking about with this is very much kind of a streetscape, which I'm not opposed to working on that initially. I think that is a way to phase it, but really, the value of precise plans isn't just in streetscapes. It's in being able to update and incorporate the whole neighborhood. And this adjacency to the rail, the rail line, and the transit center means that that whole area there shares that, you know, it shares those characteristics. It's not just along the Moffatt corridor pathway. So I really think that it's better to start a little bigger, and winnow it down in the future, if we decide, well, we don't need to include that anymore, because it's been dealt with in R3, that's fine, but it seems like we've been working on R3 for three or four years now, and we haven't made much progress. So I'm a little loath to depend on R3, as a process we can count on. Um, 'cause we, that has... anyway. So I feel like starting out a little larger is a wiser practice.

[03:14:27] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member, Ramirez.

[03:14:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with you, and I was looking for, I think, a reasonable comparison, and that might be the downtown precise plan, which includes a number of single family residence. And there are some mitigating factors, I guess. So I appreciate staff's note that we can, you know, precise plan is a nuanced document, and so we there isn't necessarily a set of development standards that apply uniformly, but can include sub areas as the downtown precise plan does or El Camino, right? So we can say in this area, reference R one, or reference R 2. So the community has assurance that we're not actually changing any development standards, and that they would expect a radical transformation of their neighborhood. But the other thing, too, is there are some additional, not overlays, but you have you have the downtown precise plan, and then you have general planned land use designation that's different, right? So there might, these are single family homes, you know, in the precise plan, but it's not necessarily the land use designation in the general plan, which has much more development capacity than, uh, what, you know, what you would ordinarily have with that, with that area, right? So presumably the same thing would occur here. You might see the single-family neighborhood or the, really a couple of homes included in the Moffatt Boulevard precise plan, but we're not changing the general plan land use designation. which means it will still be restricted to single family development. But it gives the council options down the road. Once we've figured out what the reasonable triggers might be, it gives us time to work with the community and plan for additional capacity or reasonable opportunities that help us implement the vision. So I would hope we don't constrain ourselves further, and that we might employ similar types of strategies as we do with the downtown area, providing the protections and assurances that the community, I think, would need. And then in the meantime, work with the community over time, to better understand what their aspirations and vision might be for the future.

[03:16:53] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Hicks.

[03:16:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I guess I'm just wondering, so I'm hearing arguments on both sides. And I guess I'm just wondering what the potential for... So I'm hearing arguments to include more, uh, because of sequa and so forth, and maybe take them out later. But I also am leery of, um, what council member? I said, people waking up tomorrow and hearing that their homes are in this plan, and they never heard about it before. Um, is there a way of doing that noticing that, um, that is clear and respectful in terms of saying, you know, it's been included, but there are no changes, and you have the potential to work on what those might be or not be. I'm just trying to figure a path forward that is basically respectful to people in terms of noticing.

[03:17:47] Unknown Speaker: Sure. I think there are a couple issues that play. Mayor show alters correct in that the conservative approach, in some cases, is to over include, and you can scale down later with more focus. I think squaring that with the policy implications of that, which could be to alarm residents unnecessarily if their areas included in the uncertainty that's associated with that, as to the outcome of their property rights, if you will, and the impacts on them and their families. And so that's a policy call that the council will need to make. think whatever the outcome is, if it's to include the R1 areas and the other associated areas, we can make focused outreach to those communities, send notices, and let them know. A decision was made to include you. Here's how you can follow along with the Moffat Boulevard planning process. I don't think we can give them any greater clarity or certainty than that because the council hasn't made policy decisions on triggers or land use or anything that is coming in the alternative consideration process next year. But what we can do is clarify, you know, you are wrapped into this process more particularly now, and we would encourage you to participate and stay informed, and here's how you could do that.

[03:19:07] Mayor Pat Showalter: Vice Mayor Manachek.

[03:19:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I have a question about that. If, um, we're saying you include those properties, but there's no change, then what would you study under Sequel?

[03:19:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Well, I think at minimum, we need to describe the area, and indicate how it fits into the existing baseline, and future projections for the background data that's part of the sequel process.

[03:19:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But you wouldn't be saying is changing from current density or FAR to a new one because we don't know what it would be.

[03:19:45] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: That's right. We wouldn't have any change specifically to analyze in the environmental review process at this time. I think with the understanding, if it's included, it's likely to be a trigger for future study, and existing conditions and regulations would remain applicable. The other point to sort of the approach outlined by Mayor Showalter, is that we would already incur those budget and timeline impacts with that conservative approach to include the area. And so if the council decided later, perhaps not to include it in the planning boundary. We would have already incurred, um, the consequences of the decision to over include, um, at this time.

[03:20:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[03:20:29] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, so with that, I think we're at the point where we just, we need to have a straw poll. Who is, um... The question really is, who's interested in having the, um, the rectangular neighborhood, um, described by council member Hicks, um, included in the, in the boundaries at this time? So if you are, please raise your hand. Okay, so that's four opposed. Okay, that's 4 to 2, so that passes. All right. So I think that brings us to the end of this discussion. Is that correct? Or are there some more questions that, with all these questions we've raised?

[03:21:18] Unknown Speaker: I think that clarified it, thank you.

[03:21:20] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. All right. Well, I need a break. So, um, let's take, let's take five.

[03:22:45] Mayor Pat Showalter: No, she's... Okay, um, since we're starting past 10, we need a, um, we need a resolution to continue.

[03:22:57] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Ramos.

[03:22:59] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I moved to continue this meeting till past 10.

[03:23:02] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you so much. We have a second.

[03:23:05] Mayor Pat Showalter: All those in favor.

[03:23:10] Unknown Speaker: You're gonna get the vote?

[03:23:18] Mayor Pat Showalter: All right. It passes 4 to one. All right. So now. We are about to start 7.one. The this is our public hearing for tonight, the residential development project at 2645 2655. Fayette Drive, our Builders Remedy Project. And the principal planner, Diana Pancholi, will present the item. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. Thank you.

[03:24:19] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening, Mayor Vice Mayor and members of the city council. I'm actually going to start this evening, the presentation. Um, because this is the 1st Builders Remedy Project that city council will be considering. We thought that it would be helpful to the council and to members of the public, to have a little background information about the Housing Accountability Act. Builders' remedy, and its impact on city council's consideration of this project and other builders' remedy projects to come before this body. To start out, the Housing Accountability Act, the intent of it, which is a framework for consideration of all these housing development projects, is to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing, for all economic segments of California, communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce, the density for or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. And the interpretation and implementation of the Housing Accountability Act states, it is the policy of the state that the Housing Accountability Act be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of and the approval of the provision of housing. So, with just the intent and the interpretation. It's clear that the states has a significant interest in increasing the development of affordable housing and housing within California communities. Next side, please. The builder's remedy is a provision of the Housing Accountability Act, and it applies to qualifying housing developments. Generally, housing developments, qualify when they submit an development application before a city has adopted a substantially compliant housing element. And at least 20% of the total units will be sold or rented to lower income households, or 100% of the units will be sold or rented to moderate income households. So, in order for a project to be considered a builders' remedy project, their application needed to be submitted before the city adopted their housing element, or it was certified as compliant. And then also, the project itself needs to be proposing, um, a 20% low income, or 100% moderate income, um, housing units. What is the effect when you have the builder's remedy provisions applicable to a particular project? The effect is pretty significant for cities. It limits a city's ability to deny qualifying housing development projects, and limits the city's ability to condition approval of qualifying housing development projects in a manner that renders a project infeasible for affordable housing development, and it prohibits a city from denying a qualifying housing development project based on inconsistency with zoning, ordinance and general plan, land use designations. And that's probably one of the biggest impacts of the builder's remedy. Next slide, please. So, although the builder's remedy does limit, um, local control, there are some remaining local control and enforcement authority, um, that is left. Under the um, Housing Accountability Act, it states that cities may impose objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies. But these, in the application of these policies, it cannot reduce the proposed density. So while the cities are still allowed to apply these policies, they need to do so in a manner that is not going to reduce the prose density of the housing development project. Also, it's important to understand what objective means. It is specifically defined in the Housing Accountability Act, and it states that it means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external, and uniform benchmark or criteria available, and knowable, by both a development applicant or proponent, and the public official. And so, it objective means, there is literally no decision making process on behalf of the public officials or city staff. The criteria is laid out, it's easy to find the criteria. You have to meet A, B, and C, and if you meet A, B, and C, you're done. So that's what objective means in this context. In addition, the housing accountability act, or provisions of the Housing Accountability Act, state that nothing in the Housing Accountability Act, shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees, and other exactions, otherwise authorized by law, that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to, um, the housing development project. This is an area of tension. Um, and it is uncertain how courts will rule. It appears that fees are, fees can still be collected, but these fees definitely need to be otherwise legal. And, um, how a court will interpret, um, authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project is still a bit of an open question. So while it seems clear that fees can be imposed, how much those fees can be, and what the criteria is going to be, to prove that the fees are justifiable is still a bit of an open question. Um, in addition, the Housing Accountability Act is not relieve local agencies from complying with the California environmental Quality Act. And then there's a couple of other things that local agencies can still do with regard to health and safety. If a proposed project will have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and that impact cannot be mitigated without rendering the development project unaffordable, then, um, you know, it's expected to arise infrequently, but a project could be denied under those circumstances. But the law makes it clear that that type of impact is not anticipated to be used very frequently by cities. So it really has to be a significant impact on public health and safety before a city could avail themselves of that. In addition, a project could be denied or conditions could be imposed if it's necessary to comply with specific state or federal law. And then there's also some special carve outs for land zone for agricultural or resource preservation. Thank you. Okay, now, a little bit of specifics of the project.

[03:31:44] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Well, good evening, Mayor, and the city council members. My name is Diana Pancholi, principal planner with the city's planning division, and I have with me tonight the project planner, Jeffrey Sumura. The item in front of you tonight is the residential development proposed at 2645 2655 Fayette Drive. A little over half an acre project site is located on the south side of Fire Drive between Del Medio Avenue and San Antonio Road. The site is currently developed with a single family home and 5 unit apartment complex and a 6900 square foot of a commercial building. The general plan designation for the site is high density residential, and the zoning for the site is residential only use, restricted area within the San Antonio precise plan. The surrounding uses include 3 to 4 story multifamily residential buildings to the northwest and southwest, a city park, Fayette Greenway to the southeast, and another city park, Fayette Park, across Fayette Drive to the northeast. The applicant is requesting the following entitlements for the proposed project, as shown on the screen here, it includes a planned community permit, a development review permit, a provisional use permit for a rooftop above the 7th floor, heritage tree removal permit, and a vesting tentative track map. The proposed site plan includes project frontage along the fire drive, an ad grade and a below grade level of parking, a striped accent paved plaza at the entry lobby, along fire drive at the project's southern corner. And trees and landscape areas along the frontage as well. Vehicular access to the parking garage is provided at the project's north corner, along Fayette Drive, and low water use ground cover in California native accent trees line the remainder of the perimeter, primarily along the shared property lines with the Fayette Greenway. The proposed multifamily residential use is consistent with the high-density residential journal plan designation, and the residential only use restricted zoning within the San Antonio precise plan. The project as proposed meets a few development standards in the precise plan, but does not comply with all the standards. However, pursuant to the builder's remedy provisions of the housing accountability act, the city may not disapprove the project based on the project's non-compliance with these standards. In terms of design, the project features a contemporary architectural design with materials such as stucco, lap siding, and thin brick inform neutral tones. The project uses balconies to provide vertical building articulation to break large spans of wall plane, as well as provide private open space for the future residents. In terms of landscaping, the project includes approximately 19,000 square foot of open area and landscaping, this includes ground level landscaping and pedestrian pathways, outdoor patio areas. upper floor courtyard, and approximately 3000 square foot of roof deck above the 7th floor. The landscape plan utilizes the number of low water use and native plans. However, it is unclear at this time whether the proposal will meet the city council's 75% native landscaping goal. The project site is currently developed with 16 trees, including 9 heritage trees and 7 non-heritage trees. All 16 trees are slated for removal due to their location within the project's proposed building footprint. Additionally, some of the heritage trees also show signs of poor health or structural decline. To mitigate the loss of these trees, The applicant will be planting 26 new trees across the side at a 2 is to one replacement ratio for the heritage trees, and a one is to one replacement ratio for the non-heritage trees. In terms of the affordable housing plan, the affordable housing component of the project includes 20% of the total units for lower income households. This exceeds the city's 15% BMR requirement, and qualifies the project for builders remedy. The project is proposing to provide at least 20% of the BMR units, including 4 units at 50% area, medium, median income, or AMI, and 10 units at 80% AMI. The city's BMR ordinance requires affordable units to be reasonably dispersed through the project and have a proportionate distribution of units by number of bedrooms to market rate units. The project includes 5 studio units and 91 bedroom units. Although the city and the applicant dispute whether this project must meet the proportionality requirements, this issue has been resolved through a settlement agreement, and the city staff recommends approval of the project consistent with the settlement agreement. In addition, the city's PMR ordinance requires a legal mechanism usually in the form of a deed restriction, that preserves identified BMR units at affordable levels in perpetuity. Under the builder's remedy provisions of the housing accountability act, the applicant must provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure that all affordable units remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years. But pursuant to the terms of a negotiated settlement, the applicant has agreed to a 55 year deed restriction for the project. The 6 existing dwelling units on the property are vacant, therefore this project is not subject to the city's tenant relocation assistance program, or ordinance, but 5 of these 6 units to be demolished are subject to replacement requirements outlined in the state law. The proposed 14 affordable housing units being proposed will fulfill this replacement requirement. In terms of parking, the project is located within one half mile of the major transit stop and is not required to provide any parking as per assembly bill, AB 2097. However, the project applicant is proposing 101 vehicular parking spaces, and 83 bicycle parking spaces on site. A multimodal transportation analysis or MTA, uh, to determine local level project impacts, including bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle movement study, was not prepared um, or imposed due to applicability of the builder's remedy provisions of the project. The precise plan also outlines a streetscape, including a 4 foot wide planter strip, and a 6 foot wide detached sidewalk. The proposed plan shows a 6 foot wide attached sidewalk with planting behind the sidewalk. Compliance with the precise plan standard would impose limitations on the site design and the safety and disable person parking provisions as well. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the builders remedy project, as currently proposed, notwithstanding its non-compliance with the precise plan. The project is subject to the city's Parkland dedication ordinance. This requires either the dedication of Parkland or the payment of an in-loo fee. Given that the San Antonio planning area is deficient in the parkland and given the proposed development is constrained to provide adequate parkland, a fee is being asserted rather than land education. These funds will contribute to the parking recreational facilities in or near the project area. As part of the city's ongoing efforts to reduce financial burdens on housing development, Housing Element Program one. 8 aims to update the Parkland ordinance to reduce in low fees by at least 20% on average across a range of typical projects. The time frame for adopting reduced in new fees to reduce cost on residential development is end of year 2025. Although the city and the applicant have different positions regarding the Parkland dedication in Loofee, this issue has been resolved through a settlement agreement and city staff recommends approval of the project consistent with the settlement agreement terms. City staff recommends that the Parkland dedication in new fee for this project be calculated by applying the lowest fare market value per acre of land identified in the fiscal year 2024, 25 master fee schedule, and reducing the fee by 60%. In 2020, the city council adopted an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for 44 unit residential development previously proposed on this site. Project impacts to the air quality, and noise impacts were reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation, with the inclusion of mitigation measures, and the application of the city standard conditions of approval. As part of the environmental review for this project, the 70 unit development, city has prepared an addendum to the previously adopted ISM and D in compliance with the sequel guidelines. It is found that the proposed project would not result in any new impacts which were not previously disclosed in the previously adopted ISM and D, would it result in substantial increase in severity or magnitude of any significant environmental impacts previously identified. The project is determined to be consistent with the city's vehicle mild travels policy and have a less than significant VMT impact. Typically, development projects of such scale and scope are encouraged to conduct a neighborhood meeting to gather community input during project review phase. Although staff strongly encourage applicants to host a neighborhood meeting to engage with the community, the applicant has declined to conduct a meeting for this project. Similarly, the applicants decline to attend a design review consultation meeting to discuss the project design. These meetings are not mandatory, but applicants typically participate as a way to get design feedback from the staff in the community. The Environmental Planning Commission reviewed the project and a public hearing on August on October succeeding 2024. The EPC express overall disappointment with the reduced parkland dedication in lieu fees, inadequate public outreach, and decision by the applicant to not adhere to the city's BMR requirements for proportional unit mix. Overall, the EPC was concerned that the project was taking advantage of the builders' remedy provisions to bypass city requirements and standards. Ultimately, the EPC voted 61 to recommended approval to the city council. Staff also received 6 common letters from the public and emails ahead of the EPC meeting. This included letters of support, another challenging cities in position of certain development standards, under builders remedy provisions, of Housing Accountability Act, and others focused on concerns with the proposed tree planting tree removals and the attached sidewalk condition. These letters are included in attachment fight to the staff report. Following the EPC hearing, city staff and the applicant continue to engage in further communications and meetings regarding their different positions on the applicability of the state housing laws, including the builders remedy provisions of the housing accountability act, and the legality and the amount of applicable fees and city requirements. To avoid the delay in the expense and the uncertainty of litigation over builders remedy law, the city and the applicant reached a compromise and have entered into a negotiated settlement agreement. Staff recommends modification to a number of standard conditions of approval in accordance with the settlement agreement as shown in the resolutions attached. In conclusion, the project is found to be consistent with the applicable development standards, achieves general plan and housing element goals by increasing the market rate and affordable housing opportunities in the city, and helps meet the city's regional housing needs allocation. Therefore, staff recommends that the city and the environmental planning commission recommend that the city council adopt a resolution, conditionally approving the planned community permit, development review permit, provisional use permit, heritage tree removal, and the vesting tentative track map, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the builders' remedy project attached to the staff report. With a modification to the page one of exhibit A, in attachment one, an attachment 2, to indicate that the development shall be substantially, as shown in project drawings, prepared by BDE architecture, dated October 3rd, 2024, and modifying the project condition of approval number 42, in the exhibit A, in attachment one project resolution, to require 75 long-term bicycle parking spaces, 8 short-term bicycle parking spacing, spaces adding up to a total of 83 bike parking spaces instead of the 89 shown in the condition of approval. This concludes staff presentation. Um, We did receive some public comments. I think around 4 public comments, 2 in support, 2 objecting to the project approval, um, that has been added to the legister entry for this project. And um, staff, along with our assistant community development director, Amber Blasinski, and our community development director, Christian Murdoch, are present here tonight. If you have any question, the applicant does have a brief presentation for you tonight. Thank you.

[03:45:53] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. So, um, time for the applicant to make their presentation. Welcome.

[03:46:09] Unknown Speaker: Good evening, counsel. Nurse Showalter. Vice mayor, Major Shack. Thank you very much for, uh, taking the time this evening. I admire your stamina as I've sat through the previous item. I'll just spend a brief moment talking about a little bit of the history of the project. Some of you have seen this project over its lifecycle. The property was purchased in 2014. In 2016. It was, it received a tentative map approval for a 1.05 FAR 25 unit development. At that council meeting. It was suggested by a council member, uh, that we consider applying for a gatekeeper to incorporate the zoning of the San Antonio precise plan, uh, be incorporated into that plan. And we ended up pursuing that. We were selected as a gatekeeper recipient. We pursued a 44 unit, 2.5 FAR building, which is very much comparable to what you see on the screen now. There was that process took about four and a half years. We finally received tentative map in 2020, on that, I think there was a lot of learning about CA density bonus law, the process of going through a rezoning like that. And, um, but, uh, we were successful in getting a tentative map for that. Relatively speaking, the time frame for a tentative map of two years, and in this case, there was only one additional year of extension, put us in a pretty unfortunate position, from an economic perspective, as the interest rate environment changed fairly dramatically, and it rendered the project somewhat infeasible to be financed at the specific time frame. And that was what motivated us to pursue a builder's remedy project. In doing so, the major changes that we made were to lift the building one floor out of the ground, so instead of two floors of underground parking, there would only be one floor of underground parking, dramatically reducing the cost to develop the parking portion of the structure, and increasing the number of total units. Next slide, please. This just shows sort of the general context of the project. It's in the high density area of the city. multiple apartment buildings surround the building. There are actually something like a thousand plus apartment buildings, just right in that area around the project, with I don't think there was really any ownership condominium projects there. And so we stand out in that regard and have always envisioned this as a stepping stone to ownership for many apartment dwellers to make a more permanent position for themselves in the city and mountain view. Next slide, please. This just shows the podium deck level floor plan for the units and some of the amenity spaces, both for, you know, barbecue and spa, as well as a small area in front of the lobby. Next slide, please. All that being said, we think it's a fantastic location, as I said before, of higher density residential, and, you know, easy walking access to shopping, employers, the parks that are both across the street and along the Het Hetchy, that linear park, transit opportunities, as well. And, you know, the consequence is the project, 70 units, total, 14 of which are below market rate. Um, 1.5 million plus in, uh, Parkland in Luffy's, um, you know, substantial increase to the stock of BMR ownership housing, uh, on site parking provided that, that, uh, we believe should be fully adequate for the units that we've got developed, and a 6 foot, uh, wide sidewalk, and there may be some, you know, discussion about, about, uh, that relative to the SAPP streetscape. And I'd say, bottom line, starting in 2014 until 2024, a 10 year collaboration with the city, and from our perspective, and hopefully, from the perspective, many council members, and community members, this is, I think, a great outcome. Adding 70 ownership units of housing to the city, 14 of which are below market rate, and that compares to the previous entitlement, which was 44 units, with only five BMR units. So we feel like we've achieved, really, a very strong outcome, and commend the city staff, specifically, in working with us over this period of time, to come up with what, you know, in some ways has some compromises. We recognize as we're described in the staff report, we think, ultimately, is a great outcome for the city. Happy to take any questions.

[03:51:39] Mayor Pat Showalter: Do any council members have questions? Um... They're not showing up, um... vice mayor Manachek.

[03:51:57] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. You mentioned these are ownership units. Were you planning on selling them right upon completion, or were you going to rent them first?

[03:52:06] Unknown Speaker: The plan is to sell them. That is the plan. If we'd been pursuing a rental. Uh, we would have pursued it that way, you know, and avoided the, uh, parkland in Luffy's, as the parkland in Lou, uh, fee is not being applied to rental units.

[03:52:24] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[03:52:27] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. Any other questions? Not seeing any? Okay. Thank you so much. Um, so now we have to open the, um, the public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on any item? Um, on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in person speakers first. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? I have two names. Okay? Start with Jonathan Razzo. And then after that, Armando Maria.

[03:53:12] Jonathan Razzo: Well, thank you, mayor, and counsel. So, I've been in this area, Fayette, for 21 years, so I have seen the Hoi Volution of the neighborhood, been some offices, but you could see everything, right? And then we have the dean, that basically changed the whole dynamics. As the Africa mentioned, is a high density. And that worries me, because in that little block, from Camino to California street, it used to be very quiet. Now it's very high density, that pajet drive, it used to be very quiet, you could drive, you had to worry about crossing the street. Now people rush. We have the exit from the dean. So equates a lot of traffic. So, the concerns I have was, like, this unit, essentially, adjacent to where I used to live, fajette apartments, depending on what the ex is gonna be, we're gonna have a conflict with the dean, where whenever the gates break, we happen almost every two weeks, we only have one exit point, and that's gonna be conflicting with the new building. So I was just asked to consider that traffic impact to the Korean population. The second one is, um, we didn't get any input, right? I found out because I got this in the mail. And I was curious to say, well, what's going on? And I was very interested when the 1st announcement that you guys posted outside, that said there would be condominiums, because I wanted to purchase one for my family, given I've been there for so long, but, like, the African mansion has been about 10 years of delays. The second concern I have is, now it's going from being pointed for units to 70 units, which means, it's even higher than indeed. And if you, I'm an astronomer. I like to see a sky be able to do my research. And now having all these units, it's really hard to see, even the mountain view is gone. So it's another impact. Those are very beautiful tree there. It's a pine tree. And I use it as a reference to look at the planets, to look at the camino. It does gone, unfortunately, it will have to be gone, you know, to build this. But that's environmental impact to the few trees that we have on the mountain view side. You cross the street on the Camino to those artos, the plenty of pine trees. We don't have that many here. So, I'm from MIT, there was an architectural department there, different ways are how to preserve certain trees that had, I would say, historical value. This is not just a heritage tree. This is probably 200, 200 year old tree. It's very beautiful, right? So, what I want to highlight also is, nobody's disagreed that we need more housing in California, especially in the Bay Area. However, instead of Iranic, the Mountain View has become the most expensive area in the Bay Area, even when the San Francisco. I have a family of four. I couldn't even afford living at the dean. My brain has quadruple.

[03:56:42] Mayor Pat Showalter: Could you please, um, think your time is up. Can you...

[03:57:03] Public Speaker: Have you read about this here? Thank you.

[03:57:10] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, the next speaker is Armando Maria.

[03:57:18] Armando Maria: Good evening again, counsel. Armando Maria, once again, I represented Northern California, Carpenter Jean, not a local 45, which covers the city of Mountain View, and I'd like to say that projects like this one, have the potential of being a great development, and is another example of the city of Mountain View doing the right thing when it comes to meeting the commitment to its residents' needs for housing. Doing the right thing also includes selecting a responsible contractor for the job, one who will commit to upholding labor standards, such as livable wage for its workers, state certified apprenticeship programs, accessible healthcare, and a local hiring practice. So this, again, is only possible when we encourage contractors and developers to do the right thing. So I'm not going to echo in again on what my colleague had spoken on earlier with regard to these labor standards. I just want to, um, again, just reiterate that, uh, and doing the right thing is uh, selecting a responsible contractor that will uphold these labor standards because uh, one thing when uh, young apprentices come to me and uh, or any young person for that matter, and uh, they don't know which direction to go in their careers or what kind of jobs to find. I always let them know. You know, there's 3 kinds of employment. There's A, B, C, types of employment. There's a job, there's a better job, and then there's a career. I always advise them to seek out careers and not just the job. So that's why we advocate for labor standards. Thank you.

[03:58:58] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, um, we've had public comment in the presentation. Oh, I should find out if there are any virtual speakers. Are there, there are, okay. Okay, good. So bring it back to council for council questions and deliberation. I would note that emotion do... Excuse me, to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title and resolutions attached to the report. So who has some questions or comments? Okay, we have a, um, we have a motion from Council member Hamirez, and a second from Council member Ramirez. And, um, would you like to read the motion?

[03:59:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I would, and I'll say, I do agree with the speaker who said, I am also disappointed that more of the below market units are not multiple bedrooms. I agree with that comment. Nevertheless, I move to adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, conditionally approving a planned community permit, and development review permit to redevelop the project site by removing six dwelling units, and a 6,900 square foot commercial building to construct a seven story, 70 unit condominium development, 20% of which will be affordable, above a subterranean parking garage, a provisional use permit for a roof deck, and a heritage tree removal permit, to remove nine heritage trees on a 0.67 acre project site located. At 2645 through 2655, Fayette Drive, and adopting an addendum to the previously adopted initial study, mitigated negative declaration for the 2645 through 2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in Title Only Further Reading Waived, and adopt a resolution of the city council, of the city of Mountain View, conditionally approving a vesting tent track map, to create a single lot for 70 residential condominium units at 2645 through 2655 Fayette Drive, to be read in title only for the reading waived. And if I can just remind, staff also had a modification, uh, for the record, do you have that up, would you like, if I can just repeat, is that okay?

[04:01:46] Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, they're very minor, so were you just gonna read them into the record? That would be fine.

[04:01:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: With a modification to page one of exhibit A in attachment one, and attachment 2 to indicate the development shall be proposed and develop substantially as shown in project drawings prepared by BDE architecture dated October 3rd, 2024, and a modification to the project condition of approval number 42 in the exhibit A in attachment one project resolution to require 75 long-term bicycle parking spaces, and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces, totaling to 83 bicycle parking spaces, instead of 89 spaces in the conditions. I accept those conditions.

[04:02:36] Mayor Pat Showalter: And the 2nd term? You accept them too?

[04:02:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:02:41] Mayor Pat Showalter: Great. All right. And then Councilman Ramirez.

[04:02:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to express my appreciation to staff in the city attorney's office for working on this project and also collaborating with the applicant to secure a settlement agreement that I think, as an effective job, adhering to the priorities of the council when we're working on housing development. I think it's this is not too far from where I live in the San Antonio area, and as the applicant had shared. It's a good location. I think that could support the density that's contemplated, not far at all from the San Antonio Caltrain station, close to amenities and services. And I think also at a scale that we've seen in San Antonio for a number of years now with the dean, the Lansby, and the Merlin Geyer project across the street. So grateful to Council member Hicks for reading the motion and or reading the language into the record and happy to support the motion. Thank you.

[04:03:55] Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you, Vice Mayor Manachek.

[04:03:57] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So like the EPC. I am disappointed in this project. Um, I'm disappointed that the applicant chose to use the builder's remedy to propose a project that doesn't meet our development standards and doesn't contribute to the creation of a great neighborhood. The biggest items for me are the lack of a significant contribution to the park fees. This is an area, the city that needs additional parks. The BMR unit mix. It would be better to have some larger units. Um, and the decreasing tree canopy coverage from what's currently there. I should add, there are a couple things I appreciate. I appreciate the applicant agreeing to having the affordable units deed restricted for 55 years versus the 30 that is required. And I also appreciate that you worked with the city on a settlement agreement. And because of that, as well as state law, I will very reluctantly support this project.

[04:05:06] Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, are there any more comment? All right, well, I would like to make a comment. First, I would like to thank the staff and the applicant for all the work that they have done to get to this point. Um, and, uh, I'm very pleased that we've reached this settlement agreement, and which does seem to bring together a good project, perhaps bigger, than we would have planned otherwise. And maybe we would have liked the mix of BMR units to be a little different, but all in all, I think it's a very good project. I did ask the question of the trees, about whether or not this would mean we would have a tree lined street. Were the number of trees adequate to do that? it turns out that they are. And I think that's really important. There could also be trees on the rooftop garden. Apparently, that hasn't been decided yet, and they would provide, you know, shade and some greenhouse gap gas reduction benefits, and that sort of thing, too. So I'm hoping that, you know, we can, um, they will be able to increase the canopy locally, 'cause that is something that everyone in our community is very, very cognizant of. So I'll be supporting the motion, and I see that, um, council member Kameh has a, um, comment as well. Great.

[04:06:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Mayor. I was fluctuating on if I should say anything or not. It's just, it's been a really long road, as was mentioned, it's been a decade, so it was a discussion on EPC, and now it's here on council. And I think there are many iterations of the project, I had really appreciated the last one. I think circumstances are where they are. I appreciate, um, a member of the public staying with us until late into the evening to talk about it. Um, and that there are some, um, the way that this, um, application came forward, typically there are community meetings and such, um, it's just a bit of a change. And so I just want you to know that maybe why you're not hearing from council about that. But one thing that's remained the same about this project that I've always appreciated is that it's ownership. And I will thank the applicant for always making that priority. This is, I think, the 3rd iteration of the project we're seeing tonight. I will be supporting it. I know that perhaps if circumstances were different, we would also see additional elements that you aren't able to give in the market, but you have stayed true to the ownership component. And while we would love to see larger BMR units, I am grateful for that commitment because that's one of the things that I've tried to push forward on this council is the opportunity to own in Mountain View. So thank you.

[04:08:14] Mayor Pat Showalter: Hey, so with that, let's vote. I'm happy to say that this passes unanimously. All right. So now we move on to item eight. Thank you very much to staff and an applicant, and we really appreciate all your hard work on this. So now we move on to item eight, council staff committee reports. Um, uh, Council member Koming.

[04:08:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I just want to report that I attended the National League of City Summit. It was their centennial celebration. I'm sure others will say other things, but just wanted to disclose that. Thank you.

[04:09:07] Mayor Pat Showalter: Vice for your Madachek.

[04:09:08] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Yes, I also attended the National League of Cities Conference. It was in Tampa Bay. As council member may mentioned, it was their 100th anniversary, and that was definitely celebrated throughout the conference. And as usual, it was a really good educational experience. Thank you.

[04:09:31] Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Amos.

[04:09:33] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Like my previous colleagues mentioned, I also went to the National League of Cities conference. It was really fun. Um, and I went to a lot of workshops that were major themes that were talked about, was housing, AI, AI was a big component there. And what was the other one? Oh, public safety. And so that was a very fascinating thing. I also did BTA pack this past week. Um, they most, it was mostly reports, uh, some relevant ones is that they just, uh, they granted their, uh, trans, their BTA has their own transit oriented communities grant. Um, and uh, a group in Mountain View, Arts Mountain View got the placemaking grant. So that's cool. So, yay, yay, art surmounting view. Um, there's various different types of rants, that one, the bigger ones are like the planning policy in the city of San Jose and Santa Clara got it, but, um, but yeah, yay Mountain View.

[04:10:37] Unknown Speaker: 2 attended the National League of Cities Convention, and it was. I did learn a lot, as I always do, and in particular, I enjoyed attending the energy environment and natural resources, policy committee. And we had a very serious discussion about how things will change, with the new administration, which, of course, is, it's very new information. People are you know, taking it all in. So there was a lot of discussion about how we will be pushing forward. But we will need to change our messaging. So I'll be reporting more back about that in the future.

[04:11:22] Mayor Pat Showalter: So with that, that brings us to item nine, adjournment. The next city council meeting will be held on December 10th, and this meeting is adjourned at 1049. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →