November 4, 2025 City Council Meeting

Video

Agenda

• 1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION): 1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION) (00:01:37)
• 2.1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator (California Government Code §54956.8)-Property: City Lots 4 and 8; no street address (APNs 158-20-069 and 158-20-004); Agency Negotiators: Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager, Dawn Cameron, Assistant City Manager, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director, Amanda Rotella, Economic Vitality Manager, Angela LaMonica, Real Property Program Administrator-Negotiating Party: The Robert Green Company-Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of Real Property: 2.1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator (California Government Code §54956.8)-Property: City Lots 4 and 8; no street address (APNs 158-20-069 and 158-20-004); Agency Negotiators: Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager, Dawn Cameron, Assistant City Manager, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director, Amanda Rotella, Economic Vitality Manager, Angela LaMonica, Real Property Program Administrator-Negotiating Party: The Robert Green Company-Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of Real Property (00:01:53)
• 2. CLOSED SESSION (PLAZA CONFERENCE ROOM): 2. CLOSED SESSION (PLAZA CONFERENCE ROOM) (00:02:51)
• 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (00:03:36)
• 2. ROLL CALL: 2. ROLL CALL (00:04:06)
• 3. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: 3. CLOSED SESSION REPORT (00:04:23)
• 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR (00:04:33)
• 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS: 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS (00:18:26)
• 6.1 Public Safety Building, Design, Project 20-49-Environmental Certification: 6.1 Public Safety Building, Design, Project 20-49-Environmental Certification (00:22:12)
• 7.1 Recommended Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Program - Housing Element Program 1.9: 7.1 Recommended Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Program - Housing Element Program 1.9 (00:50:27)
• 8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS: 8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS (01:45:50)
• 9. ADJOURNMENT: 9. ADJOURNMENT (01:48:24)

Transcript

1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION)

[00:01:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Good evening everyone, thank you for joining us for closed session. Acting City Attorney Bhakta will make a closed session announcement and then we welcome public comment on the item listed for close session. The Acting City Attorney will now make an announcement.

2.1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator (California Government Code §54956.8)-Property: City Lots 4 and 8; no street address (APNs 158-20-069 and 158-20-004); Agency Negotiators: Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager, Dawn Cameron, Assistant City Manager, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director, Amanda Rotella, Economic Vitality Manager, Angela LaMonica, Real Property Program Administrator-Negotiating Party: The Robert Green Company-Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of Real Property

[00:01:53] Acting City Attorney Bhakta: Thank you Mayor. There is one item on this evening's closed session agenda. Item 2.1 is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code 54956.8. The property under negotiation is Hope Street Lots 4 and 8, Assessor Parcel Numbers 158-20-069 and 158-20-004.

[00:02:14] Acting City Attorney Bhakta: There are no street addresses for these lots. The agency negotiators are Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager Dawn Cameron, Community Development Director Christian Murdock, Economic Vitality Manager Amanda Rotella, and Real Property Program Administrator Angela LaMonica. The negotiating party is Robert Green Company and under negotiation are lease and price terms.

[00:02:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session item listed on tonight's agenda?

2. CLOSED SESSION (PLAZA CONFERENCE ROOM)

[00:02:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, I am not seeing anyone virtually or in person. So I will close public comment and the Council will now recess to the Plaza Conference Room for closed session and return to the Council Chambers at the close to continue to the regular session at 6:30. Thank you.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:03:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community of November 4, 2025. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. ROLL CALL

[00:04:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:04:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark.

[00:04:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:04:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[00:04:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:04:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister.

[00:04:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep.

[00:04:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez.

[00:04:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:04:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter.

[00:04:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:04:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos.

[00:04:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:04:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei.

[00:04:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:04:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Great, thanks.

3. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

[00:04:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we'll move on to Item 3, our closed session report. Acting City Attorney Bhakta, do we have a closed session report?

[00:04:29] Acting City Attorney Bhakta: Thank you Mayor. No final action was taken in closed session this evening.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

[00:04:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll move on to Item 4, our Consent Calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the consent calendar.

[00:04:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: If you'd like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on nonagendized items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Councilmember McAlister.

[00:05:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I was just gonna register a no vote on one and I had a comment on 4.5. Okay, the reason I'm voting no on number one, because I've always been pushing for parking downtown.

[00:05:15] Councilmember John McAlister: It's getting very congested, and this project was a very large one, and it's not providing enough parking for the area. And therefore it's gonna put a burden on the, the present community, and they're already fighting for spaces. And it's also gonna affect the business districts because that's another area for people to park.

[00:05:35] Councilmember John McAlister: So I think that we need to get some, we do need the affordable housing, but we don't want to put a burden and diminish the quality of life for others that are going in. On 4.5, the comment is, is, this is the pedestrian bridge. And this came about when I was on council before in the 2017, 18.

[00:05:56] Councilmember John McAlister: And I've always been concerned about the cost that we have this bridge and we're putting bi-directional bike lanes on both sides of the road. And I'm going, why are we doing that? And at the time they said, well, that was part of our, a program. And then I started seeing that coming back that every time that we, there was a lot of um public input or there was some input from BPAC people and some others, that we need to make everything dedicated bike lanes.

[00:06:27] Councilmember John McAlister: And I said, well where's the data to support putting all this money into bike lanes or improved uh road conditions? And so I wanted to point out as one of the questions I put into the staff report is, how, what's the data show, how many people are using the uh Shoreline bridge.

[00:06:46] Councilmember John McAlister: And so during this monitoring, during the spring of '25 monitoring report, showed that during morning inbound peak period from 7:45 to 10:45, 19 bicyclists crossed over Highway 101. And in the evening, 14 people on bicycles crossed over.

[00:07:04] Councilmember John McAlister: There are a lot of projects that we want to get done, but I think we need to be more prudent about the cost benefit of putting in these bike lanes when there's not a big demand for 'em. Um and so going forward I hope you appreciate and I will be asking for data on these bikes usage so that if you wanted to do other items we'll have the money.

[00:07:28] Councilmember John McAlister: But I'm not against bike lanes, but we need to be somewhat uh concerned that we got 82,000 other people in town and yet we're putting in bike lanes for less people. And just look at El Camino, that was a lot of money put on bike lanes. I have a store right on El Camino and they're not there yet, so people say they may be coming. And that's it. Thank you, Mayor.

[00:07:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[00:07:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well I have some comments too. Um my comment on 4.1, that's a multi-family housing tax-exempt bond financing for um the uh Alta and related affordable housing project that um is going to finally go forward there. This has been a very, very difficult project to get financing for.

[00:08:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Because um of the um the financing has gotten so much more um competitive over the last few years and there's been such a rise in building costs. So I'm really delighted to see that this final piece of the financing has fallen into place.

[00:08:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I want to thank um the city staff who worked on it as well as the staff from Alta and related. Um this project's gonna have 120 affordable units, it's gonna be um uh really a great addition to downtown.

[00:08:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um also uh 4.5, the Shoreline Boulevard and Highway 101 bicycle ped bridge. Um this is another adjustment uh that the city needs to make to our plans uh related to the North Bayshore that that really have come about for many reasons.

[00:09:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But largely because of the pandemic and the reduction in traffic that's occurred because of that, and also the economic conditions that have changed. And it's fully appropriate that we need to be flexible as conditions change. So I'm very supportive of this change but um I do hope that in the future we'll see um the need for this bike bridge and be able to put it in.

[00:09:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Clark.

[00:09:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you. Just very briefly on um behalf of the CPPC, I just wanted to call everyone's attention, um you you directed the CPPC to take a look at um motions to for reconsideration. Uh we we um reviewed that at our last meeting and we decided um after discussing a number of different options to to just simplify things.

[00:10:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: And um and uh just have motions to reconsider occur um either at the at the meeting where they happen or the next regular meeting um in in um to align with um with um uh not Robert's Rules. Um although I at all does it actually does align with Robert's Rules too, but um. But um. But um. Sorry.

[00:10:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Rosenberg's Rules.

[00:10:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, Rosenberg's Rules, sorry. Um anyway, we we simplified the language here and um so it conforms to those rules now and we we just also included that um if if someone wishes to make a motion to reconsider um at a at a at the next regular meeting that they um they just make sure the uh city manager and city attorney are consulted so that um so that it's properly agendized. So um thank you all for your for your support in that. Um.

[00:11:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um so now we'll um open it up for uh comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk.

[00:11:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We're going to take in-person speakers first and I believe we have one for Item 4.1. Uh, Cesar Plasencia? Plasencia. Um and then we'll move on to virtual, and each speaker will have three minutes.

[00:11:31] Cesar Plasencia: Alright, hello uh Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members. Uh my name is Cesar Plasencia, I'm a field representative of the Carpenters Local 405. Um I'm speaking regarding the proposed approval of 75 million dollars in tax tax-exempt bonds for the Lot 12 affordable housing project at 424 Bryant Street.

[00:11:49] Cesar Plasencia: We recognize the importance of affordable housing and commend the city for prioritizing this development, but we must also ask what kind of jobs will this project create? Who will benefit from the public financing you are being asked to approve of? The resolution before you states that this project represents public benefit.

[00:12:05] Cesar Plasencia: Yet nowhere in the documentation is there evidence that the developer has committed to hiring a responsible contractor that meets area standard wage, one with a proven record of complying with labor laws and treating workers fairly. Public benefit must extend beyond the finished building.

[00:12:18] Cesar Plasencia: It must include the workers who build it. Without clear assurances that this project will be constructed by a contractor who respects labor standards, provides accredited apprenticeships on this project, this council risks approving public financing for a project that may not serve the working people of Mountain View.

[00:12:37] Cesar Plasencia: We urge you to delay the approval of these bonds until the developer can demonstrate a transparent and accountable contractor selection process. Let us ensure that this project reflects the values of the city, not just in affordability, but also its integrity. Thank you.

[00:12:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alright, I don't see any other uh public comment in person, so we'll move on to virtual. And our first virtual uh speaker is Bruce England.

[00:13:03] Bruce England: Thank you Mayor. Hello everybody. Uh Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive. I'll be very quick. The, I also want to voice support for the trades and labor practices that are uh regularly exercised within Mountain View, but I don't think it hurts for us to uh point that out and ask for it on a regular basis as the trade representatives do.

[00:13:24] Bruce England: Uh and I also just wanted to comment on 4.5, the Shoreline Boulevard um bike ped bridge, just voicing support for that. I know this is really an administrative step in the process is 4.5, but I uh do want to bring it up um that um it has high support from people who are in the bicycle and active transportation community, including myself. Thank you.

[00:13:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Robert Cox.

[00:13:53] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[00:13:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:13:55] Robert Cox: Okay. Uh I'm commenting on item 4.3. I want to thank the CPPC and uh Chair Clark uh for bringing this forward. Uh we support the amendment and ask for your vote of approval. It is in the public interest to ensure that any council member wants to change his or her vote on a council matter uh do this in a timely fashion for two big reasons.

[00:14:16] Robert Cox: One is, advocacy groups such as ours spend a lot of time rallying public support for an issue before approaching the council with our recommendations. And having the matter brought back months later for a new vote diminishes the public's ability to effectively organize and present its views to the council.

[00:14:33] Robert Cox: The second point is that all public stakeholders deserve the certainty that a strict time limit on council vote changes provides. I mean for example, I mean on streamlined approval for projects that are like under the state density bonus, you know there's an opportunity to appeal to the council and you know and then after ten days uh if uh if no appeal is given, you know the developer can move ahead knowing with certainty that he's got the approval.

[00:14:59] Robert Cox: And so um that's just an example where you know here in the council it would be great to be able to do that too. So thank you again for that, and I yield my time.

[00:15:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Denise Jauregui?

[00:15:18] Denise Jauregui: Hi there, good evening.

[00:15:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hello.

[00:15:20] Denise Jauregui: I'm Denise Jauregui and I serve as Executive Director of Housing Choices. And I'm here tonight to express my strong support for the Mountain View Lot 12 affordable housing project. This development will bring much needed affordable homes to the city, including 15 apartments specifically reserved for individuals and families with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are also receiving services from San Andreas Regional Center, which is a state funded agency.

[00:15:48] Denise Jauregui: Housing Choices was founded 28 years ago with the mission to open doors for people with developmental disabilities by creating and supporting quality affordable housing opportunities. And our goal is to ensure that individuals can live rewarding lives in homes of their choosing with access to onsite supportive services.

[00:16:06] Denise Jauregui: The homes at Lot 12 will provide stability and opportunity for the families that we serve, many of whom have deep roots in Mountain View and are currently on long wait lists for affordable housing. These units will allow them to remain in the neighborhoods they know, with the support that they need to thrive.

[00:16:21] Denise Jauregui: And we respectfully urge the City Council not to delay um the approval of the bond resolution um and to help this project move forward. Thank you for your time and for your continued commitment to inclusive affordable housing in Mountain View.

[00:16:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. That concludes our public speakers, so I'll bring the item back for council action. And note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to consent calendar items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. And that uh has been moved by Councilmember Ramirez and seconded by Vice Mayor Ramos.

[00:17:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Uh I'd like to move to approve the staff recommendations, including item 4.1.

[00:17:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving the issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority Exempt Facility Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 75 million dollars for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of Mountain View Lot 12 and certain other matters relating thereto, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[00:17:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Item 4.2. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing the City Manager or designee to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM) on behalf of the City, to continue the City's participation in the PRISM Vision Program, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[00:17:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Item 4.3. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending Section 11 of City Council Policy A-13 governing motions for reconsideration, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[00:17:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And Item 4.4. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing temporary closure from public access of one entrance to Parking Lot Number 6 from Blossom Lane adjacent to 747 West Dana Street for roadway and utility work for a period not to exceed five consecutive weeks, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[00:18:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Let's vote.

[00:18:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alright, and that passes unanimously. We'll move on to Item 5, Oral Communications.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:18:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on nonagendized items.

[00:18:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: If you would like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? I am not seeing any in person. So I will move on to virtual. We have Bruce England. You have three minutes.

[00:19:04] Bruce England: Thank you again Mayor and Councilmembers. Uh Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive. And a member of Green Spaces Mountain View on this matter. So uh EPC at their last meeting reviewed a project at 151 Calderon, which is right adjacent to Stevens Creek near Evelyn.

[00:19:21] Bruce England: And um it was really very alarming because state law says that if you're building ADUs, that um you pretty much can't tell the developer what to do. And in this case they wanted to cut down a lot of trees and put these buildings right next to the creek. And there are all kinds of environ- potential environmental impacts that can happen as a result of that.

[00:19:44] Bruce England: And it's even possible the Water Board might weigh in or might want to weigh in on this. So I just wanted to bring it to your attention if you're not aware of it. And also to consider agendizing it so you can talk about it. And this might mean using your legislative team and the analyst to look at the state law and to uh inquire with Senator Becker and Assemblyperson Berman's offices to find out what they might consider doing um along with other cities that have concerns about this.

[00:20:13] Bruce England: About changing the law such that ADUs that are um... that they're very specific about what an ADU is. Because if you can call any building, any residential dwelling an ADU, it really opens up the floodgates. And you certainly know about builder's remedy. So I hope you will consider this. Thank you.

[00:20:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. We have a second speaker just seeing letters. Um, BJWB.

[00:20:44] Bobbie Weissenberg: Thank you. My name is Bobbie Weissenberg. I'm a Mountain View resident in the Cuesta Park area. And I want to thank the council for all the careful consideration that you give to so many issues that impact the quality of life in the city. I'm speaking tonight just to keep the topic of Cuesta Park and the annex uh on your mind, and reiterate that it is a place of peacefulness.

[00:21:09] Bobbie Weissenberg: On a recent walk we were able to see people enjoying tennis, volleyball. The exercise areas, which were all quiet enough to allow for a peaceful walk, and the spotting of the great horned owl, which was asleep. Five red-tailed hawks and observe a sleeping heron in a tree.

[00:21:31] Bobbie Weissenberg: So just as a reminder, we hope that you'll support staff in the search for a location which is appropriate for pickleball courts. We understand exercise is important and support that, but we would like to preserve the peace and quiet and the precious open space resources we have in the Cuesta area. Thank you so much for your consideration.

[00:21:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alright, I'm not seeing any more in person or virtual public comment, so we'll close oral communications and open our public hearing.

6.1 Public Safety Building, Design, Project 20-49-Environmental Certification

[00:22:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Item 6.1 is our Public Safety Building Design, Project 20-49, Environmental Certification. Principal Project Manager David Printy and Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. I will turn it over to the staff.

[00:22:26] Principal Project Manager David Printy: Thank you. Let me just share my screen.

[00:22:33] Principal Project Manager David Printy: Here we go, excuse me. Yes, good evening Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members. My name is David Printy, Principal Project Manager with Public Works. With me, I have Ed Arango, Assistant Public Works Director. And in the audience we have uh, Terry McCracken, Principal from uh PlaceWorks, the author of the EIR we're discussing tonight.

[00:23:22] Principal Project Manager David Printy: The project uh of the EIR is uh to be located at 1000 Villa Street, which is on the existing 4.3 acre site of the existing Mountain View Police and Fire Administration building, which was built in 1980 and houses all fixed Police Department operations, emergency dispatch, the Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, support staff, and the Emergency Operations Center.

[00:23:49] Principal Project Manager David Printy: Uh, in December of 2024, Council approved the Public Safety Building project scope, which is comprised of the following main elements: a three-story 75,000 square foot building, a public and secure staff surface parking, a three-story secure parking garage, with a uh future planned indoor shooting range, which will be constructed initially as a cold shell or just exterior walls and roof.

[00:24:16] Principal Project Manager David Printy: And there will be a remainder parcel on the site of 0.6 acres that will be uh retained for uh as unprogrammed for future city use.

[00:24:27] Principal Project Manager David Printy: Now according uh to CEQA...

[00:24:32] Principal Project Manager David Printy: The purpose of this item is to certify the EIR and prior to approval of the Public Safety Building, the Council must certify the EIR and adopt required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. According to CEQA guidelines, the Council must: one, conclude the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA; two, review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and three...

[00:25:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: three, confirm the final EIR reflects the Council's independent judgment and analysis.

[00:25:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So a little bit of the CEQA process timeline. In December 10th uh 2024, the City uh we issued a notice of preparation of the draft EIR for a 30-day scoping period.

[00:25:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And in July of 2025, the notice of availability and the draft EIR were published for a 45-day public review period.

[00:25:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh during that period, uh no public comments were received, which uh the period ended on August 15th, 2025.

[00:25:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh subsequently, in September of 2025, um and as part of a collaboration with the Planning Department's update of the historic preservation ordinance update,

[00:25:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: uh staff did have uh outreach meetings with Livable Mountain View and Mountain View Historical Association.

[00:25:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um in those meetings, uh those groups were generally supportive of the project, but did have comments and questions that are addressed in the staff report.

[00:26:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the draft EIR uh addressed uh the topics here on the screen, of which uh initially 11 were determined to have less than significant impacts.

[00:26:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh during the draft EIR process, additional two, transportation and greenhouse gases, were all also determined to have less than significant impacts.

[00:26:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh the re- the following of the remaining seven, uh six were determined to have impacts that could be reduced to less than significant once mitigation measures were adopted.

[00:26:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The final uh topic, cultural resources, was found to have significant and unavoidable impacts even with mitigation.

[00:26:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The topic of cultural resources centered uh on around the uh master architect Goodwin Steinberg, who was the original architect of the existing Police and Fire Administration building.

[00:27:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And this prod- that project was a notable example of his large-scale civic work.

[00:27:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And the project was considered eligible for the California Register as a historic resource.

[00:27:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So as part of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, the City shall have historic shall have a Historic American Building Survey Level Two documentation completed for the Mountain View Police and Fire Administration building and its settings.

[00:27:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: To ensure public access, the City shall submit copies of the documentation to the Mountain View uh History library History Center, and the California Historical Resources Information System in the Northwest Information Center.

[00:27:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and historical narrative.

[00:27:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: As part of the CEQA process, when significant and unavoidable impacts are determined, the City is required to prepare a statement of overriding considerations that identifies how the benefits of the building of a new public safety building for the for the Mountain View Police and Fire Departments outweigh the adverse environmental impacts associated with the demolition of a historic building.

[00:28:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In the case of this project, staff is recommending the Council finds that the needs of the community public safety outweigh the preservation of a building designed by local architect Goodwin B. Steinberg.

[00:28:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: After certification of the EIR, staff will record a notice of determination and final EIR with the County and the State Clearinghouse.

[00:28:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Later in December of this year, staff will return to Council to introduce a proposed funding plan for the project.

[00:28:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And in early 2026, uh we will uh come back to Council to request authorization to sell bonds to finance the project.

[00:28:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh we'll also bring the garage concept design and the heritage tree mitigation plan forward for consideration.

[00:29:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And later uh in in the spring of 2026, we plan to come forth with a request for approval of the first phase of the project, which will be uh selective demolition and site preparation.

[00:29:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So with that, um staff therefore recommends that Council adopt the resolution in the staff report and certify the public safety building EIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

[00:29:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And with that, um we open the floor to questions.

[00:29:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Does any member of the Council have any questions?

[00:29:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[00:29:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I do have a question. Um, but but staff can tell me if my question, or the Mayor, if my question is going beyond questions and it would be better placed under statements. Sometimes there's a fine line between the two.

[00:29:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, so overall I'm supportive of of this project, but I have a tweak that I would like to I would like staff to tell me how I might best suggest.

[00:30:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So the tweak is that, um, that uh as was raised in the staff report, the uh the building has um significant his- significant historic significance.

[00:30:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and uh the building, and also it's on Villa lands, it's a a site that also has some historic significance.

[00:30:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I think we've held other um private developers to higher standards regarding historic preservation, and I I think we have the leeway to hold ourselves to higher standards here.

[00:30:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: In particular, we have um a a a generous budget for art at this uh at this location. And I'm hoping we can somehow put in this um resolution that uh there be a nexus between the artwork, you know, be it a a mural or a sculpture or set of sculptures, whatever it is, and the historic significance of the building.

[00:31:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And so I'm wondering how I might best do that. Can I just add those words to the um to the staff recommended recommended uh, the staff recommendation, or is there something else you would suggest that I do?

[00:31:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks, I think I think you can do that. If you give me one moment, I'll open up the documents and you can let me know how you'd like the language to read, and I'll have uh Director Arango let me know um if there are any concerns.

[00:31:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so that's the answer to my question, is that I can um, and the rest I can put into uh when we make comments, not questions.

[00:31:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[00:31:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Any other questions?

[00:32:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Not seeing any from colleagues, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

[00:32:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We'll um have each speaker allowed three minutes. Looks like we have an in-person speaker, Alexander Brooks. Please make your way to the podium.

[00:32:27] Alexander Brooks: Hi, my name is Alexander Brooks. I'm addressing you on behalf of a coalition of movement groups in the Bay Area who have been working to stop projects like this, Cop Cities uh around the Bay Area in coalition with groups all around the country,

[00:32:41] Alexander Brooks: who have addressed the really harmful impacts of policing, prisons, and the carceral state on our communities, particularly black and brown communities, as well as the environmental impacts of these types of development of land in a way that is really invested in continuing to lock away people, continuing to harm communities,

[00:33:00] Alexander Brooks: rather than uh invest in the types of pro-social, generative types of projects that we know have a positive impact on crime.

[00:33:08] Alexander Brooks: Studies again and again show that increased police funding does not decrease crime. Rather, we know that addressing issues like we have here in the Bay Area in housing, in education, in healthcare, particularly mental healthcare, in transportation are some of the most important ways in order to improve the social circumstances of our people.

[00:33:28] Alexander Brooks: Uh something also to consider is that in California we have a long history of our prisons being sited in places where there are terrible environmental conditions, and we need to consider seriously whether we want to be sending Mountain View residents to prisons where there are high risks of Legionnaires' disease, of lead poisoning in water, of uh air not being clean.

[00:33:49] Alexander Brooks: Uh we also need to consider again in this moment where government funding is being slashed, as communities are really feeling the lack of SNAP uh benefits, the lack of support for some of the basic social supports that we've had uh the ability to rely on for generations but have not ever really gone far enough,

[00:34:07] Alexander Brooks: it seems so absurd to be dedicating something like 200 million dollars to a project of this scope.

[00:34:13] Alexander Brooks: Uh we can look across the bay to San Pablo, where that city council approved a 48 million dollar Cop City, of which 32 million dollars is still unpaid for.

[00:34:21] Alexander Brooks: It's an embarrassment to the city, in a time when these are not the needs of the people that are being called for, it may be of benefit to contractors and police unions, but this is a not something that we need to be investing in for the next many generations of Mountain View,

[00:34:36] Alexander Brooks: especially as we consider the historic impact, is that is that something we want to be looking back on 100 years from now, 200 years from now, that with such an enormous amount of money uh and so many other issues that we could have devoted money towards, we invested this heavily into the concept that our solution to social issues is to continuously be incarcerating, continuously be criminalizing our communities.

[00:34:59] Alexander Brooks: Uh we have the opportunity to be very creative in this time. I'll note that the uh Mountain View City Council I believe recently disbanded its Public uh Safety Accountability Board.

[00:35:08] Alexander Brooks: These are regressive actions that I understand that public pressure uh has not been present for, but if we look to Atlanta, even if we look to San Pablo, communities will resist this type of criminalization, and I really encourage you to be more creative and more in tune with real communities' needs as we think about especially such an enormous investment like this. Thank you.

[00:35:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[00:35:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. I am not seeing any more uh in-person or virtual public comment, so I'll bring the item back for council questions and deliberation.

[00:35:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report.

[00:35:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And perhaps we'll turn it to our acting City Attorney to uh work through I think the language that Councilmember Hicks had asked for.

[00:36:02] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Yes, thank you Mayor. Um, and so that everyone can follow along, on page two of the resolution, resolved clause number five is where we will be inserting the language requested by Councilmember Hicks, if there is a second to that request, just so we can note for the record.

[00:36:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: on the language

[00:36:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Is there a mo- Yeah, and I guess to clarify uh to to clarify Councilmember Hicks, are you looking to make a motion and

[00:36:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure, I can make the motion. And you're saying to make it with uh resolved clause number five?

[00:36:39] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Number five. That's right.

[00:36:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And you want me to give you language for that?

[00:36:43] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Um, if if if you're not sure of the concrete language, if you can just remind remind us exactly what you'd like, I can propose some some language and you can let me know if it captures what you'd like.

[00:36:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I would like uh an I would like uh nexus between, now this does not have to replace the I like the mitigations that staff suggested, I I'm not trying to replace that, but that also there's if there's um several hundred thousand dollars worth of public art and I would like there to be a nexus between the history of the site and or the building, um, to well actually it should probably be the site and possibly the I'm sorry, the building and possibly the site. Um, a nexus between the artwork and um and that.

[00:37:39] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: And just for clarity, all of all of staff's recommendations in the final EIR are being preserved. I'm adding language at the end of the current resolved clause number five. And based on what you just let me know, this is the proposed language: to the extent financially viable, the public art and, um, is there a word you'd like to use to capture building elements that are not necessarily art but might have stylistic value?

[00:38:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No, it's just that the the I think there's a, correct me if I'm wrong with the number, but there's a four hundred thousand dollar budget for art, and that that art will have a subject. And that um, unless it's very abstract. Um, so it will have a subject and that that subject have nexus with the architecture of the building and possibly the site.

[00:38:34] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: So I think um how does this language sound: to the extent financially viable, the public art shall reference uh the history of the site and work of the master architect uh Goodwin Steinberg.

[00:38:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure. And/or. Sorry. And/or.

[00:38:56] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: And/or, sure.

[00:38:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I mean I would like the some reference to the architecture, that's what the the EIR finding was.

[00:39:04] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Okay, so I can write the

[00:39:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And it probably doesn't have to say if it's financially, I mean, we know I think we know it's financially possible.

[00:39:11] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Okay. Um, and I can strike the financially viable language. Um, and the new language reads, and the public art and architecture shall reference the history of the site and/or work of the master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

[00:39:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, the the master architect. And and the site if, you know, that one seems more optional to me. But it could be included.

[00:39:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: The Mayor has a comment.

[00:39:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think staff has a question. Sorry.

[00:39:43] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: Clarification. Thank you um for the input. Ed Arango, Assistant Public Works Director. Um, I'm hearing that it's there's a a direct correlation that you're looking for for the public art to reflect the historic significance of the building, existing building, and site. Um, I just want to be sure the language captures that, um, because it sounds like it's it could be interpreted that um the art capture the architecture of the new building.

[00:40:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, good point. That's not what I meant. You're right.

[00:40:13] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: Yes.

[00:40:14] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: So just clarification on that, just I'm looking to the City Attorney to make sure that that's captured.

[00:40:18] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Yes, I will I am going to add in here that the of the uh prior building, just to just to articulate clearly for the record.

[00:40:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. To staff. Councilmember Hicks, would you like to make that motion and hit your button?

[00:40:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes. Do I just do I read it?

[00:40:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:40:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, then I'll do that.

[00:40:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, this is uh resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting findings related to environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; adopting a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and certifying the Mountain View Public Safety Building Environmental Impact Report in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[00:41:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then that will include a resolved clause number resolved clause number five?

[00:41:18] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Resolved clause number five as as as amended to read to add language at the end which states that the public art and architecture shall capture the history of the site and pri- and the prior history of the site and the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

[00:41:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sure. And/or the, sorry. And/or.

[00:41:41] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: And/or, sorry, one more change apparently.

[00:41:43] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: If you could just repeat the beginning of that one more time.

[00:41:46] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Yes, so this language is being added at the end of the current resolved clause. It's, and it reads, and the uh and the public art and/or architecture shall capture the history of the prior site and work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

[00:42:02] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: So I'd request, I'm hearing it's the exi- existing architecture. So the public art will capture the existing site architecture or site, not

[00:42:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No, the the prior. Oh, existing now, but it will be demolished.

[00:42:16] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: Correct.

[00:42:17] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: I'm hearing language of the public art and architecture.

[00:42:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I I think what what

[00:42:23] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: I understand your intent. I just want to be sure that the um City Attorney words it properly.

[00:42:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well it's that the art will reflect the the uh something regarding the architecture that is currently present but will be demolished in the future.

[00:42:43] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: I'm gonna wait to have the uh City Attorney confirm.

[00:42:47] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: And one point of clarification if I might. Dawn Cameron, Public Works. Uh, and I think the clarification Ed was alluding to is that it's not referring to the architecture of the new building will not reflect the old building. That's not the intent. It's all about the public art.

[00:43:01] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: I think I have captured those changes. And just to read again for the record clearly, and the public art shall capture the history of the site and pri- and the prior history of the site and the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

[00:43:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: All right.

[00:43:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great.

[00:43:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So so you just need to cli- hit the button that says motion.

[00:43:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, thank you very much.

[00:43:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Thank you very much to staff. So um thank you for clarifying for the record the motion. Does that motion have a second?

[00:43:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So that we can continue on in debate. Thank you Councilmember Ramirez.

[00:43:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, thank you Councilmember Hicks, I'm gonna take you out of the queue and then I'm going to move to Councilmember Showalter. Thank you.

[00:43:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I am going to be supporting the motion, but I want to talk about um some of the logistics of getting this document out.

[00:43:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, you know, we got a file that was 2011 pages on Thursday.

[00:44:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um, you know, I was pretty I I I was a little um gobsmacked by that, you know, being expected to read a a 2011-page document in four days.

[00:44:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: It turned out that there was a lot of repetition. In fact there's almost three complete versions of the EIR in that document because they, you know, they're the exhibits uh um repeat things.

[00:44:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But, you know, I didn't know that when I first saw it.

[00:44:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And when I read the um Council memo, it didn't really say, you know, these are the parts of the EIR you need to read and and and tell us the numbers.

[00:44:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I mean, I couldn't even put the um the document in my iAnnotate, it won't take a file that large.

[00:44:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So so I just would like to request that in the future, you divide documents down into um uh sizes that uh can be handled by iAnnotate, and um and also give us a little annotation in the um staff report about what we really need to read and um and uh understand. Because these are serious decisions.

[00:45:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And and this one is so tailored, I I mean it's just so focused on the history, that's really the only one that was um kind of outside of our standard conditions of approval, at least that's how it looked to me.

[00:45:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I only read a couple hundred pages 'cause I got to the point where I realized that's was the meat of the matter. But but anyway, I just um it created a little unnecessary stress, and um and I think that the other thing is we do want to make these documents accessible to everybody.

[00:45:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um and so uh having them uh divided up a little bit into more palatable chunks is easier.

[00:45:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So um but uh and I the other thing is having worked on this kind of document for I don't know, 30 years or something, I gotta thank all the people involved who did it. Um, there's a lot of checklists, a lot of repetition, but that's the process.

[00:46:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's and um I think usually it does come out with a better project. So I want to thank everybody for all the work that's behind it.

[00:46:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Clark.

[00:46:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: If I may, I'd just like to offer a friendly amendment to um kind of align this a little better with how we've handled requests. Um, which I agree with, the request is fine.

[00:46:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Instead of um instead of inserting language into the EIR resolution, can we just pass the EIR resolution as is, and have a two-part motion?

[00:46:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: One is to adopt the resolution, and two is to direct staff to explore um you know incorporating the architect and/or the history of the site into the into the public art as part of the as part of it, because right now it says 'shall', and I have no idea what that art is going to end up looking like, and maybe it's only one element of the public art that's that way.

[00:47:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: That way we can ex- we can explore all this and it isn't baked into the resolution as 'shall', and we end up regretting it later. So it's still I think a- hopefully accomplishes what you want, but it's just not in the actual CEQA or the EIR resolution.

[00:47:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's just a two-part motion, one is a direction to staff.

[00:47:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And it looks like um from the City Attorney that that motion would work as well. Um, so to the motion maker and the seconder, is that okay? So the motion maker...

[00:47:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That's fine if uh yeah, if uh...

[00:47:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, and then to the seconder, all right with that? Okay. City acting City Attorney.

[00:47:49] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Yes, uh the seconder has accepted the friendly amendment, so you may now proceed to vote.

[00:47:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great.

[00:47:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Wait, I... oh, John, Mr. McAlister has a comment. And I wanted to, as the maker I was kind of hasty in making the motion, I had one more comment, but I can wait.

[00:48:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Do you mind, I'm just- was that all your remarks, Councilmember Clark? Okay, perfect. Councilmember McAlister and then Councilmember Hicks.

[00:48:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to uh echo uh Councilmember Showalter's asking for an executive summary, and that's that is really helpful. Our time is very precious in reading all that, but an executive summary would be uh greatly appreciated, and I thank you for bringing that idea up.

[00:48:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[00:48:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just also wanted to, in my haste, because I um prepared that that amendment to the resolution earlier. So in my haste to get that done, I kind of overlooked what the member of the public brought up.

[00:48:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And said, and I wanted to honor that as well, because I think that uh many of the statements you made are are important. I think that we in Mountain View um are trying to ch- I don't want to speak for the police chief who's in the audience, but or anyone else, but I think we are trying to make policing more humane, and that it's a it's a, in my opinion, a long-term process.

[00:49:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: But I also agree with you that we don't want to spend too much public money on um, you know, on public public buildings, in my opinion we want to spend it on the people.

[00:49:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and so I wanted to honor the statements you made, and I'll I'll leave it at that.

[00:49:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, and appreciate you calling that out Councilmember Hicks.

[00:49:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm going to be supportive of the motion, um and just for our public commenter, we've been this is something the City has been talking about for over um 20 years. Um, because we have people who are um here to provide public safety who are in an unsafe building themselves, it's not seismically retrofitted, and um this for us is how are we keep- we we keeping those who are meant to keep our our residents safe safe as well.

[00:49:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, and...

[00:50:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: and uh just wanted to to call that out so um thank you very much and let's vote

[00:50:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great thank you very much and that passes unanimously. We'll move on to item seven, item 7.1 is recommended amendments to the below market... below market rate housing program, housing element program 1.9.

7.1 Recommended Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Program - Housing Element Program 1.9

[00:50:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Housing specialist Anna Reynosa and affordable housing manager Julie Barnard will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

[00:50:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And we'll turn it over to the staff for presentation. Thank you.

[00:50:55] Anna Reynosa: Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, council members. My name is Anna Reynosa and I'm a housing specialist two within the housing department. And this evening I'm joined by affordable housing manager Julie Barnard, housing director Wayne Chen, our consultant with economic planning systems Darren Smith, our external legal counsel Eric Phillips who is attending virtually.

[00:51:18] Anna Reynosa: And this evening we will be presenting recommended amendments to the below market rate housing program.

[00:51:28] Anna Reynosa: This evening the presentation will be in two main parts. We will be reviewing the last BMR review from December 2023. And we will talk about the recommended amendments regarding the BMR ordinance.

[00:51:43] Anna Reynosa: The city's below market rate housing ordinance was adopted in 1999 and underwent its first major update in 2019. The BMR program refers to inclusionary housing units that are integrated within market rate developments, and not projects that are 100% affordable housing.

[00:52:03] Anna Reynosa: Some of the key components of the BMR program include, any residential project that creates seven or more units must include onsite integrated BMR units. Projects less than seven units are subject to a fractional in-lieu fee.

[00:52:21] Anna Reynosa: BMR units are set at different area median income, also known as AMI levels. BMR units are required to be comparable to market rate units, and remain affordable in perpetuity.

[00:52:35] Anna Reynosa: Developers may pursue an alternative compliance in place of providing onsite BMR units. For existing BMR tenants, the maximum allowable rent increase is capped at 3%.

[00:52:50] Anna Reynosa: The city's housing element program 1.9 requires two reviews of the BMR program in the eight-year cycle. The first review was completed in December 2023. The housing element also outlines a five evaluation criteria.

[00:53:08] Anna Reynosa: The next few slides summarize the direction and discussion from the December 2023 study session which informs the recommended amendments.

[00:53:18] Anna Reynosa: The first evaluation criteria focuses on continuing the BMR program as revised in 2019, which promotes inclusionary housing units instead of in-lieu fees. As discussed in December 2023, the number of BMR units in the pipeline exceed the number of actual BMR units.

[00:53:39] Anna Reynosa: If and when they get completed it would significantly increase the number of actual BMR units. Additionally since December 2023 the number of BMR units in the pipeline has increased from 214 to 340 units. Council expressed support for continuing the BMR program as revised in 2019.

[00:54:01] Anna Reynosa: The second evaluation criteria examines the BMR program's efficacy and identifies potential improvements across various standards including accessibility. The current BMR program supports various unit sizes and affordability levels but hasn't addressed special needs. Staff recommended focusing on the physical accessibility of BMR units which council supported.

[00:54:29] Anna Reynosa: The third evaluation criteria assesses whether the BMR program enhances mobility and access to opportunity which are key principles of affirmatively furthering fair housing, also known as AFFH. Which promotes housing choices for lower income households.

[00:54:47] Anna Reynosa: The BMR program advances these goals through onsite BMR units integrated with market rate units, and requiring a proportional unit mix.

[00:54:58] Anna Reynosa: Council supported staff's recommendation to enhance mobility and access to opportunity through alternative compliance by adding AFFH related project location criteria and evaluating incentives.

[00:55:16] Anna Reynosa: The fourth evaluation criteria considers potential policy changes. Council supported staff recommendations to focus criterion four on alternative compliance with the following recommendations: modifying the value from greater than to be no less than providing units onsite, and clarifying that the BMR in-lieu fee be used for equivalency calculations, and confirm the alternative compliance options, which will be talked about on the next slide.

[00:55:47] Anna Reynosa: Under state law cities must offer at least two by-right alternative compliance options. For criterion four, council approved three alternative compliance options: land dedication, offsite development, and a new acquisition preservation option.

[00:56:05] Anna Reynosa: Council at the time opted to remove in-lieu fees and the catch-all provision, and also directed staff to explore alternatives using the consumer price index, also known as CPI, for an annual in-lieu fee adjustments.

[00:56:23] Anna Reynosa: The fifth evaluation criteria addresses potential cleanups in guidelines, policies and procedures. Council supported six staff recommended cleanup items as shown here, items A through F.

[00:56:39] Anna Reynosa: Council requested further evaluation of discussion items from December 2023 before final ordinance amendments. However some items were ready for earlier updates. In February 2025, staff completed the first set of BMR ordinance amendments and clarified the definition of residential development.

[00:57:02] Anna Reynosa: Tonight we are coming back with recommended amendments for the remaining items. We will now cover the main content of phase two program updates for council consideration tonight. For criterion two, council supported enhancing the physical accessibility of BMR units.

[00:57:24] Anna Reynosa: Staff and the city's consultant conducted extensive due diligence, conducted a needs assessment, and completed stakeholder engagement. Developers sometimes voluntarily include accessibility or other features that allow for future adaptability of a unit.

[00:57:42] Anna Reynosa: As a result of this, staff is recommending requiring that 15% of total BMR units in a project, or one BMR unit, whichever is greater, be fully accessible/adaptable where applicable.

[00:57:55] Anna Reynosa: This approach ensures at least one BMR unit is accessible or adaptable without increasing development costs. It would be easier to manage and a streamlined approach to achieving this objective.

[00:58:09] Anna Reynosa: Before I go into our first alternative compliance amendment, I would like to mention there are some key learnings from recent projects that have been used to develop the objective standards for alternative compliance options.

[00:58:24] Anna Reynosa: Secondly when evaluating a proposal, staff will use the in-lieu fee to measure equivalency between the alternative compliance option and providing onsite BMR units.

[00:58:35] Anna Reynosa: The amendments to the alternative compliance approaches addresses direction given by council relating to housing element criteria three and four. With land dedication, there are currently no proposed changes to the current requirements. There are some additions to the requirements.

[00:58:56] Anna Reynosa: Staff is proposing adding location requirements to integrate AFFH criteria, a feasibility and financing analysis which demonstrates the project's alignment with in-lieu fee equivalency and identifies any additional developer contribution.

[00:59:13] Anna Reynosa: In addition there is already a cost recovery of $950,000 the developer will need to provide. This fee has already been adopted into the FY 25 2026 master fee schedule. And now I will turn it over to our affordable housing manager Julie Barnard who will talk about our other alternative compliance.

[00:59:35] Julie Barnard: Thank you Anna. Moving to our second of the three alternative compliance measures, offsite development. So note that many of um these standards that have been developed have been informed by some recent city projects um such as 777 Middlefield and 685 East Middlefield.

[00:59:54] Julie Barnard: So for offsite development the locational requirements align with those Anna mentioned in um our land dedication. One of the new standards that have been added um relates to access to amenities.

[01:00:07] Julie Barnard: So if a site is within 750 feet of the primary project and does not have equivalent amenities, um the offsite residents must be granted access to the amenities onsite. So often that would be things like a pool or a gym.

[01:00:23] Julie Barnard: Next, staff recommend um updating the unit requirements. Currently for offsite development there is a 20% requirement and staff recommend reducing this to 15% in order to better align with BMR our current BMR onsite requirements.

[01:00:41] Julie Barnard: Um our alternative compliance does not have an affordability term stipulated currently. Staff recommend aligning this in perpetuity depending on the financing source. So in some cases tax credits require a 55 year term and um the city would not want to add additional hurdles into project development financing.

[01:01:02] Julie Barnard: Another addition to the standards that um Anna talked about for offsite development is a comprehensive um feasibility and financing analysis. The burden of proof would be shifted to the developer to ensure that the alternative compliance aligns with the in-lieu fee, um and that the project can feasibly accommodate the number of sites uh units onsite, um and that no city financial contribution would be required.

[01:01:32] Julie Barnard: Staff have also contemplated a scenario where a market rate developer opts to partner with an affordable housing rate um partner. Um this will be established through the entitlement process.

[01:01:44] Julie Barnard: Um and the developer would have to outline what the partnership may entail, any terms that they're offered, any financial contributions that they would be providing, um and the process for partnership selection.

[01:01:56] Julie Barnard: So uh the city will later have oversight over the developer partnership um in order to ensure that the terms that they're offering the affordable housing partner are upheld. Um and in the case if there's an RFP um the city shall review and approve the RFP.

[01:02:16] Julie Barnard: Finally staff um propose updating the timing of the delivery, to add a measure that if the um if the failure to develop the offsite development if at a measure that failure to develop the offsite development the developer would need to meet the 15% onsite BMR objective standard.

[01:02:36] Julie Barnard: Um moving on to our third and final alternative compliance measure, acquisition and preservation. The city does have one example of an acquisition preservation project that has been used to model some of these standards and that's 660 Mariposa.

[01:02:51] Julie Barnard: The locational requirements align with the others in um alternative compliance with the addition of CSFRA units also being eligible. Um a developer would need to demonstrate how they meet their rehabilitation and physical accessibility standards through providing an assessment of the onsite current conditions, um the rehab uh they intend to make as well as the rehab costs.

[01:03:18] Julie Barnard: Affordability levels should align with those that uh would have been provided onsite. The acquisition preservation project must meet the same number of bedrooms as would have been provided onsite, with the caveat that studio units have a 0.5 value.

[01:03:36] Julie Barnard: Staff recomme- recognize that it may be challenging for a developer to secure a um uh secure a building within the city's existing housing stock that's a perfect match to what would have been provided onsite. And therefore propose some flexibility in the program.

[01:03:53] Julie Barnard: Um so a developer might may exceed the number of onsite units but only by a 1.5 threshold. So that allows a flexibility in the program while balancing a diversity of unit sizes.

[01:04:06] Julie Barnard: So to use an illustrative example, if the onsite requirement was 10 two bedroom units, so 20 bedrooms in total. The developer would not be um allowed to provide the city with 20 one bedroom units.

[01:04:21] Julie Barnard: There would need to be some distribution of unit sizes, larger unit sizes, in order to um try and um retain some balance while also remaining flexible to set the program up for success.

[01:04:38] Julie Barnard: The next four terms um were discussed in um offsite development with the term, any partnership arrangements and the feasibility and financing plan. Those standards would align um with the offsite development requirements.

[01:04:52] Julie Barnard: Um any relocation and first right to return should remain consistent with the city's TRAO. And finally the timing for the co- um certificate of occupancies for both projects should be concurrent.

[01:05:05] Julie Barnard: Alright, as noted earlier, staff were instructed to review the in-lieu fee um escalator index which is currently CPI. Staff found that the California construction cost index would be the better index and therefore recommend shifting to CCCI.

[01:05:23] Julie Barnard: In doing our due diligence for the alternative compliance we also revisited the in-lieu fee and have a few updates. Although construction costs have increased, incomes which drive our rents and um sales prices for affordable housing um have increased at a greater rate over the past five years.

[01:05:42] Julie Barnard: So therefore you will notice that the fees have decreased um for rental housing and um row homes and townhomes.

[01:05:50] Julie Barnard: Um conversely for um all other ownership products such as condos, um construction costs have actually increased at far greater rates. Which means that the gap between the construction cost and the revenue has increased, and so fa- and so have the fees.

[01:06:09] Julie Barnard: Um our remaining cleanup items um as presented earlier in this report. Um uh oh sorry, uh are still proposed with the exception you'll notice that um the sixth and final cleanup item relating to the HOA reserve fund is has been removed, which we will address next.

[01:06:33] Julie Barnard: So at the after this um December 2023 study session, staff have identified some new recommended amendments discussed this evening.

[01:06:44] Julie Barnard: Currently our ordinance requires that any developer providing units at 80% or below, establish a fund um for future HOA increases um for any households that may be experiencing financial hardship as a result of HOA fee increases.

[01:07:01] Julie Barnard: So since this was adopted by the city, the state has adopted Assembly Bill 572 which restricts an HOA increase for deed restricted ownership units at 5% plus CPI capped at 10%. Additionally staff have received feedback from developers that the HOA reserve fee fund renders their project infeasible.

[01:07:27] Julie Barnard: Staff have found that AB 572 is generally sufficient to meet the intent of the HOA reserve fund and that the benefits of this fund do not offset impacting project feasibility. So therefore staff are recommended to re- recommending to remove this program.

[01:07:45] Julie Barnard: Our BMR guidelines currently uh require adoptin- adoption by council resolution which makes periodic review challenging. Staff recommends removing this resolution requirement and shifting to an administrative process similar to some how some of the other guidelines within the city are administered such as the state density bonus guidelines.

[01:08:07] Julie Barnard: Staff are evaluating moving the BMR ordinance from chapter 36 to chapter 46 to make it easier for developers to find housing related ordinances. Um this would better reflect its administrative and financial nature, streamline the amendment procedures and align oversight with the housing department.

[01:08:27] Julie Barnard: So staff is still evaluating this and if found to be feasible we would return with an ordinance that includes a move from chapter 36 to chapter 46.

[01:08:38] Julie Barnard: So finally in December 2023 council asked staff to establish a rationale for why our program applies to small projects. So small projects in that case refer to projects between 1 and 6 units since once we reach seven units one full BMR unit would be required.

[01:08:57] Julie Barnard: Staff recognize that housing development of any size can contribute to affordable um housing and applying this to projects of any size is the most comprehensive way of achieving this.

[01:09:12] Julie Barnard: In recognition that smaller projects don't have the economies of scales afforded to larger developments, our in-lieu fees for small projects are already discounted. Through the exercise of establishing a rationale for small projects, staff explored some infill initiatives such as the SB9 financial incentives and contemplated some other ways to encourage infill development.

[01:09:38] Julie Barnard: To achieve this, staff recommend implementing a graduated fee reduction um. I'm sorry it popped over, anyway the graduated fee reduction. So the graduated fee reduction is intended to achieve two things.

[01:09:53] Julie Barnard: So first of all it improved project feasibility for small projects by reducing costs and incentivizes the use of SB9 and other similar measures. It additionally would help to unlock more units and therefore increase densities.

[01:10:08] Julie Barnard: So this table provides an illustrative example of the graduated fee reduction. With one units a full fee would be reductio- would be, the full fee would apply. And that is gradually reduced um and once you reach six units there would be a complete waiver of the fee.

[01:10:28] Julie Barnard: So the column on the far right demonstrates that the fee reduces considerably um on a per unit basis with the increased uh ra- uh graduated fee reduction.

[01:10:40] Julie Barnard: This is just to summarize as a reminder of the items that council is contemplating this evening. Physical accessibility, our three alternative compliance measures, the in-lieu fee adjustments, the remaining cleanup items and the new recommended amendments.

[01:10:57] Julie Barnard: The next steps would include drafting the um ordinance and the with the path to approval beginning at EPC in a public hearing at EPC. And a first and second reading at council in early Q1 and early Q2 respective- sorry late Q1 and early Q2 respectively.

[01:11:18] Julie Barnard: So staff recommend council approve the amendments to the BMR program and direct staff to bring back the ordinance amendments. Um so that concludes staff's presentation we're available for questions and we can turn it back to the Mayor.

[01:11:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Does any member of the council have any questions?

[01:11:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, Councilmember Showalter.

[01:11:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um I uh I just want to say to start with that I um I'm really delighted to be working on this again. I started working on it I think it was in 1998 when I was on the planning commission.

[01:11:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um I really view this as one of the most impactful things that I got to work on when I was on the planning commission. So it's really been exciting to see how it's progressed over the years and of course you know things need to be updated so I'm really glad we're doing this.

[01:12:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um I do have quite a few questions though. Um first of all the unit counts um for bedrooms, I I guess actually you did go through that, how that was done. So um basically you you just don't want to have too many small apartments.

[01:12:39] Julie Barnard: Correct. Exactly we wouldn't want a completely disproportionate mix. Um by providing a threshold it would require some larger size units in order to fulfill the bedroom count without um sort of loading the smaller units in order to meet the bedroom count.

[01:13:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Now are we also using this for the um uh for a preservation building as well?

[01:13:08] Julie Barnard: I think that that term is for the acquisition preservation alternative compliance.

[01:13:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay.

[01:13:14] Julie Barnard: Yeah that would be only for the acquisition preservation.

[01:13:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay so so then you have a given building but I guess you could remodel it to be...

[01:13:23] Julie Barnard: Yeah I think that would be the challenge and that's why we're trying to build in a little flexibility. Um we understand that the city's housing stock, the older housing stock probably is comprised of smaller units. Um but we would we're loo- we're really looking for some form of distribution within the bedroom sizes, size units.

[01:13:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Okay. And um the cost recovery for um land dedication of um eight $950,000 that's that's a lot of money. So how I understand we already passed that fee but how how did we come up with that fee?

[01:14:01] Julie Barnard: Yeah um thanks for asking. Um staff did extensive modeling at the time to estimate our costs. Um I would caveat that this costs all administrative costs from the time that at conveyance through um the beginning of construction.

[01:14:18] Julie Barnard: So it includes things like our first study session to council, the crafting of the RFP, the RFP RFQ process. Uh going through the exclusive negotiating period, negotiating the lease, um uh going all the way through reviewing tax credit applications, um any consultant time.

[01:14:40] Julie Barnard: Um we found if we can use lot 12 as an illustrative example um that's taken seven years and and extensive amount of staff time that's gone into that as well as consulting. And we modeled off of that that the estimated cost is around $950,000.

[01:15:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The question I have is, what are the physical changes um that you would need for an accessibility unit? I was a little confused in reading that. It seemed like, um, definitely, uh, the size, the the the the height of sinks was one. Um, uh, grab bars, the angle of opening doors. Um, are there other things that are required?

[01:15:24] City Staff: Great question. Um, I'm gonna do my best to take a run at at the answer. Um, as it turns out, the, uh, our building codes go a long way already to, um, fulfill accessibility requirements. So new buildings, um, in in many cases, um, are already addressing many of the requirements. Maybe not necessarily always the counter heights, and in that case, I believe that there's an economy of scale that needs to be achieved um in order to get to a ex- an accessible unit that would be accessible for somebody who is in a wheelchair, for example.

[01:15:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right and then another...

[01:16:05] City Staff: Um, currently, what we're seeing, um, some developers are opting to at the outset, it's cheaper for them to um make the unit like adaptable for future you- for for the future. Um, and we've seen that in the case of... Anna? You remember? Yeah. Okay, well, in any event, um, I think our um solution is to say that if and when a developer is already doing that, to please align those with our BMR um projects.

[01:16:36] City Staff: Um, I don't think we're adding any additional requirements to what's required in the building code. Um, as I mentioned, they go pretty far already, and, um, in our extensive outreach with developers, they've mentioned that they would require some form of incentives in order to um provide any further um adjustments to um BMR units. So for things like putting side-by-side washer dryers, that would require a redesign of the units if if that's not something they already have.

[01:17:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, yeah, that takes more floor area. Right.

[01:17:12] City Staff: Correct, yes.

[01:17:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But I but I was surprised, I went around and and measured the length- the the height of the counters in my house, and the kitchen counters were 36, but the bathroom count- which is you know higher, but the bathroom counters, 'cause 34 is the limit, the bathroom counters were all lower than that. So I was just... that's kind of where they are. Okay. Um. Uh.

[01:17:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: We we talk about the HCD um designated highest resource areas in Mountain View. And um where are these besides south of El Camino, and do they include the Monta Loma and Old Mountain View neighborhoods?

[01:17:53] City Staff: Um. I have a slide.

[01:17:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: You have a slide. Okay.

[01:17:59] City Staff: Um, alright. So, um, this is the HCD opportunity areas, and you will notice that for the most part, the city is a highest resource. This is a very good thing. There are a very- there is a few areas of moderate resources, um, but for the most part, the city is completely covered by highest or high resource areas.

[01:18:22] City Staff: So, um, in in actuality, the AFFH components like geographically are um fairly easily met through um the HCD opportunity areas.

[01:18:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, thank you for having a slide. That's great. I wanted to see that.

[01:18:37] City Staff: You're welcome. Feeling this might come up.

[01:18:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Alright. And then, um, another thing I wanted to to mention is, um, in the, you know, we asked council questions. People listening on TV, if there is anybody... we ask council questions and we get written answers, and one of the ones I um I asked was about how many BMR fees we'd collected over the years, and um kind of what the multiplier was for the utilization of those.

[01:19:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Because I think, you know, as we update something, we should also kind of think of it as a time to celebrate what we've accomplished with it, which which really is a lot. And um, so, uh, we've collected, if I got it right, $58 million over the years, and um, I think what's even more impressive is that the housing department has- and and that's about half of what the city has contributed to affordable housing.

[01:19:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The housing department has a goal of having a four to one multiplier, that means for every dollar the city puts in, we get um four other dollars somewhere else. So that's a four to one um multiplier for all of the money we put in. But if you think of this 58 million of being approximately half of what the city has contributed over time, that makes it into an eight to one multiplier. That is in- incredibly impressive.

[01:20:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I think we should all really be proud of that, that not only have we co- and and- and it should be something our community is proud of, because not only have we collected these fees, we've really put 'em to good use. Thank you.

[01:20:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAlister.

[01:20:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so I have a couple questions since to clarify because BMR units are great, but I had um a quick one- well, I have a list of questions, so I'll start off with... If a developer built 15% building units and declares the state density bonus, would they still need to put up the ten additional BMR units?

[01:20:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Good evening. Wayne Chen, Housing Director. Thank you very much for the question. Um, so just a couple of pieces. Um, one um component is our our BMR ordinance does allow for density bonus units to count towards the BMR requirement, provided that the units meet the requirements of both State Density Bonus Law and the BMR requirement.

[01:21:13] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, our general review is that our um percentage requirements um apply. And we have recently seen a an HCD technical assistance memo that um essentially affirms that a city's percentage requirements would still apply even under a State Density Bonus Law project. Of course, that being said, we always meet with every project to discuss the specifics of that project and also review any other state considerations that might um require further analysis.

[01:21:48] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So the the the basic approach is that um we we believe it it does, but we would evaluate it on a project by project basis.

[01:21:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Next question.

[01:22:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Either way. So, one of the criteria I was looking at is who could buy these BMR units. And I was surprised to see some of these items that may need to be um updated. So, does the city have a requirement that a potential BMR buyer cannot have more than $150,000 in assets?

[01:22:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, yes. So the current administrative guidelines does have that, plus a couple of other areas that um would need to be updated and modernized. Um, that's actually a pretty good example for having the administrative guidelines be updated administratively rather than by resolution, because we could resolve some of these um modernization cleanup pieces. But yes, for the 150, we do believe that would need to be updated based on the current sales prices. The the math won't won't work.

[01:22:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so I got two other ones. That the potential buyer can put only 30% down?

[01:22:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, our guidelines has- has a range that allows a maximum of 30%. Uh, we typically model a 5% down payment, recognizing that lower income households just don't have the means to save up for a down payment that large. But it does provide some flexibility. So when we meet with the developers, um, we do we do take a look at their projects and um and discuss that.

[01:23:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: But typically, because the um affordable ownership units are of lower income ranges, we use the 5% in acknowledgement of the ability for folks at that range to even come up with a down payment. But there is a flexibility to go up to 30% or as low as 5%.

[01:23:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Why would you put limitations on who could buy them if they're- if we're looking at income level? That is the- as the main factor of- so if one person is making $200,000 and then I was looking at the AMI that they would still qualify for some- why would we put these additional restrictions on if we're trying to get this middle market uh housing available to people?

[01:23:55] Councilmember John McAlister: If you say, hey, I worked hard, I saved up money, I have the assets, now I can't use 'em. Or I have thir- I can only put 30% down, I want to put more down 'cause that will make my mortgage less. So why did you do it? Or why was- the gen- you didn't do it. And if you are gonna reassess 'em, when would you start reassessing these to make sure that we get people in the middle market people that can afford these to get into those units?

[01:24:22] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, that's a great question. Typically, um, any program has a balance and and tradeoffs. And there's both an income test and an asset test. Uh, one might be maybe lower on the income but maybe has high assets for whatever reason, perhaps through inheritance or what not. So um it is important to have an asset test.

[01:24:40] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Where that balance um lies is part of this. Um we do think the 150,000 that's currently in the guidelines is too low and it should be updated, and we would go through the process to to update update that.

[01:24:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Well when would you start that process?

[01:24:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, currently the administrative guidelines needs to be done by resolution. I think we can start taking a look at it now. Um, we do have to undertake the actual ordinance amendments.

[01:25:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So what we would probably do is um a concurrent process to start the actual ordinance amendments while we take a look at some of these um administrative guidelines that would need to be um modernized, and to the extent that we can bring it back along with the ordinance amendments um on the on the Q1 Q2 time frame that um Miss Barnard mentioned.

[01:25:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, another question. If a developer has a development agreement that they put in- that we put in place, will that still be required? And in that, when they did the development agreement, they were to put- pay park in lieu fees. Now as the law has been modified, will they still- they would not have to do park in lieu fees?

[01:25:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh yeah, thank you for the question. I I'm going to turn to Community Development Director Christian Murdock if he could um respond.

[01:26:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you Director Chen. Good evening Honorable Mayor and Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um, so if I understand the question uh correctly, uh it's about the relationship of a development agreement to the payment of parkland dedication and in lieu fees.

[01:26:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, typically uh a development agreement would lock in existing law, not state law, and so to the extent that the uh parkland dedication requirement or fee payment is part of local ordinance, which it typically is, um it would generally lock in uh that fee at the rate at the time that the development agreement was executed.

[01:26:31] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So um, if there is an applicable fee, uh the project would typically be subject to that fee um, and typically not significant changes if the city were to adopt a new fee.

[01:26:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. And my last one, Mayor, is uh, the question I had about when you say pipeline, which is sort of misleading to me it is. Um 'cause it doesn't say they're actually built or they're actually under review or they're permitted.

[01:26:56] Councilmember John McAlister: So, you know, there was great uh, you have this chart up here of all these BMR units, etc., etc. And then it says under review, under review, under review. So, is there a way to present BMR units that are actually getting... 'cause none of these when your list, they're not guaranteed to be built. Are they?

[01:27:15] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Those are pipeline data. They um except for the exception of one project that has two BMR ownership projects that uh have now just submitted for building permits. Um correct, the other ones are pre-building permit.

[01:27:31] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, we do have one project that was completed and is in operation that was um, that came on line over the last two years that that has added um 30 new BMR units um to our affordable housing stock, so that that is a win. Um, and I- we acknowledge the point that projects in the pipeline may not move forward.

[01:27:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We operate um with a starting point that a project is being submitted uh because they think that there's a a good chance that it'll get built, and so we try not to second-guess that. Um, and but yes, they they are pipeline projects, we're working actively with projects to get them to the building permit phase. Um, right now there is one small one queued up.

[01:28:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. alright. I have one final- you you keep saying pipeline. That doesn't mean they're going in- they're they're just... somebody came to the desk. So would it be better to say permitted so they give us a realistic of what's gonna get built versus 'oh yeah, we got these units over in East Whisman where they're gonna put in a thousand units' and you can say well they're in the pipeline. Well they're not.

[01:28:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So is there a way to clarify instead of saying pipeline, permitted, that that will actually give us a sense of what's getting done?

[01:28:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, I think in the uh, yes, in the council responses I I believe we have a table that shows projects that have entitlement and when those entitlements will expire. It also uh denotes the projects that have a uh application submitted but is not yet um entitled, and those are the under review projects.

[01:28:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[01:29:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Seeing no other uh colleagues in the queue, I'll open it up for public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. I'm not seeing any in-person um public comment. But there is one virtual. David Watson, you have three minutes.

[01:29:30] David Watson: Oh wow, uh three minutes. I uh didn't expect to be first and gotta pull up my notes here. I'm David Watson, uh I'm a... I'm a uh member of Mountain View YIMBY and I uh, I don't have my notes yet... uh, yeah. Uh, we support the changes uh that align with the BMR program uh with current economic conditions and past project experiences.

[01:29:59] David Watson: Um, uh, we'd- I I think uh Pat already mentioned our uh request for uh more uh transparency on land dedication and we appreciate that. Um, the uh major change that we uh asked about in our letter and that I will repeat here is uh we'd like to um see the graduated fee schedule extend to projects at least 10 units.

[01:30:24] David Watson: Um, and uh, because this will uh sort of um bring this into line with uh various uh state uh state laws that have passed uh over the last uh few years. And uh that's uh, oh, that's about it. Thank you.

[01:30:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. James Cuseo?

[01:30:50] James Kuzma: Hello, uh. I'm James Kuzma. I wanted to largely echo um David's comments and uh generally encourage the direction some of the staff is taking this and uh fall- the letter that Mountain View YIMBY is providing.

[01:31:07] James Kuzma: Um, the with BMR requirements I know our goal, everyone's goal is to make sure that both we can have as much affordable housing in the city as possible and to make sure that um it's possible for more people of diverse backgrounds to live near each other. And that means a variety of strategies including getting more housing built and ensuring we design our BMR programs so that they generate uh plenty of both affordable housing and um money for the city to provide more affordable housing.

[01:31:38] James Kuzma: And for some things that means making it so that more small projects are viable, for some things that means including fees so that we actually have money to work with. And it's not one or the other, and I look forward to uh seeing these programs evolve so that we can have a better, more diverse city. Thank you.

[01:31:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Alright, that concludes public comment. I'll bring the item back for council deliberation and action. Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:32:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I've got one minute and I'm gonna use it wisely. Um, so first, uh, thank you staff because we have to be out of here by 8 o'clock. Um, uh, excellent work. Very uh, thoughtful uh, and and well laid out.

[01:32:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'm uh I had a chance to speak with a colleague and um I think there's probably a shared sentiment that it can at times be a little overwhelming. Um, but we're trusting you, right? You've uh spent a lot of time thinking about this, engaging with stakeholders, and uh seeing how in practice some of um the uh alternative compliance options have worked out, made adjustments correspondingly, and I think it it shows in in the report and the recommendations that uh you've been um very um thoughtful in in your approach. So I'm I'm happy to support them.

[01:32:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I'm going to move uh to approve the staff recommendations with two minor adjustments, and I might need your help uh Director Chen um because I want to use your language, um but I want to take credit for it.

[01:33:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the first adjustment uh is related to the graduated fee reduction program. Um, right now, it's based on a presumption that there could be up to six units. In some cases, uh a property may not be able to physically accommodate six units. You might only be able to build three or four or five.

[01:33:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And the problem with that is by no fault of your own, you will never be able to enjoy the the maximum incentive. Uh, so my suggestion would be to adjust the graduated fee reduction uh incentive program um to uh basically uh work proportionally with the maximum number of units that would be physically possible on a property.

[01:33:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so happy to talk that through if um if that needs more explanation, but it's it's basically the same concept right, just, if you can only build three units you're never gonna get 100% and that doesn't quite sit right with me.

[01:34:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The other um adjustment, and this is where I'm I'm really gonna need your help Director, um, the uh, as as public comments had had alluded to, there are state laws like SB 684, like SB 1123 um that uh seek to um allow ministerial approval for starter homes right, so small lot, um uh you know, sort of small-scale multi-family or or perhaps a townhouse product um that uh we also want to help incentivize.

[01:34:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, that those state laws go up to 10 units. So the suggestion would be for staff to basically evaluate um how the graduated fee reduction program or the incentive um can be applied to those state laws, right, so up to 10 units. And it may make sense, it may not. I I would trust staff's judgment but if there are words to read into the record I would I would welcome your suggestion.

[01:35:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so it's moving the staff recommendation and then Director Chen will uh share the two additions.

[01:35:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, yes, thank- thank you very much. Um, what I think I'm hearing is a direction to staff to evaluate the feasibility or options to essentially do what we've tried to do for SB 9 for the other state laws to be able to maximize the development potential for small sites up to 10 units.

[01:35:32] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, and with that direction we can uh take a little bit of time to think about how to make that work, and uh with the note that uh one of our next steps is to come back and um public hearings. And so what we would do or do our best is to evaluate the options and through the actual ordinance amendments um provide a recommendation if if if it is feasible um and if there might be um complexities or challenges we can lay that out, but we can include that into the report when we bring it back for the public hearing ordinance amendments.

[01:36:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much.

[01:36:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alright, so that was um a motion by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Showalter. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[01:36:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor, and to keep this quick, I support staff's recommendation and the changes by Councilmember Ramirez. Um, he put in what I wanted to add in anyway, so... yay, it's gonna be a quick night.

[01:36:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[01:36:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I seconded it, but I- it's with the hope that we can make- I can make a few friendly amendments um to it. Uh, some tweaks. Uh, but thank you very much for bringing forward the the body of it. That's great.

[01:36:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and the the one tweak that I'm really interested in making is is just relaxing um the timing of delivery section a little bit. Um this is for off-site land dedication or for preservation. It's um, in ta- so Table 4 and 5.

[01:37:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And basically, um, it says the off-site BMR unit shall be completed and receive the Certificate of Occupancy no later than issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for market rate units, and failure to deliver the off-site units will default the market rate project to the off- on-site BMR uh requirement. And I'm a little concerned that um uh this seems unnecessarily restrictive.

[01:37:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I can imagine how a builder would've started these two projects at the same time and through no fault of their own, one of the projects would be lagging. And um, so I would like to give staff the discretion to say um that they can give an extension if they feel that the owner is working on completing the um the uh um you know the uh the off-site um affordable housing in good faith.

[01:37:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I think we would want to probably put some kind of a time frame on that, you know, we'd um... maybe six months. Um, but uh, then there is a similar thing um in the uh uh the one related to preservation, which says complete all required remediation work and remain- and re- retain Certificate of Occupancy no later than the market rate project occupancy.

[01:38:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And again, I think that there might be a case when it would be appropriate for staff to say that that the um uh the developer was working in good faith, but something had happened. I mean those of us who've done remodels know that uh things pop up that you just didn't have any control over. So that would be, that's my request.

[01:38:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, oh, and then... and then another one that I think we might want to have staff consider is another CLT um alternative, preservation alternative. For instance, if a a developer's money is able to- say a a developer needs to have 20 um units, um, and the things that are on the market at the time and the CLT wants to work in is for 30 units.

[01:39:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So they don't have enough um money to do the um uh to to buy the units and do the rehabilitation, but the CLT is willing to work with them to provide the re- rehabilitation um money. I- I think we should allow staff to work on that as well. So those are a- those are some things I would- I would like to see us just tweak, to make it, to give staff a little more flexibility to um to make things work.

[01:40:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: adjustments related to the timing consideration for staff to explore and uh include at their discretion a determination of good faith efforts. I think that's reasonable. And if staff objects to that, please let us know. But that seems like a reasonable uh adjustment to include.

[01:40:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well they can evaluate the the feasibility, right? So maybe the amendments could be to evaluate the feasib- go ahead.

[01:40:31] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh yes, thank you. Uh one suggestion is to um, in the actual ordinance, to um say failure to do so would have this um default safety net provision, unless there could be a demonstration of good faith. And a recommendation would be to allow the administrative guidelines to provide more specificity which can be um updated or modified um as conditions evolve, but to have some flexibility in the guidelines but have a provision in the ordinance that allows um a a general statement for for this uh situation.

[01:41:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think that's reasonable. Um the last one though that I think I would valu- we would all appreciate and value your input. I feel like the the challenge with the last one is it's very speculative since no CLT I think is is currently prepared to engage in this. And maybe that's something for staff to evaluate as you're working on the Community Ownership Action Plan instead.

[01:41:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh yes. If I understand the the concept here is that there would be the ability to um a, provision a different number of units that may be higher um versus onsite BMR units. And number two, it could include a partnership maybe not with a traditional affordable housing developer but say a a CLT.

[01:41:52] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um I believe the the um recommendations would allow for either of those scenarios or both of those scenarios. Um what we would ask for is the feasibility and financing plan. Um have have the developer propose it, and we can take a look at it.

[01:42:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um what would be important is just understanding what the developer contribution is financially to the project, and how the overall project would be delivered. And what the other funding sources would be, whether it is procured through grants, um applications, philanthropic funding, um other loans, uh and it could be funding that the CLT brings. I think is is part part of what you were thinking.

[01:42:32] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And CLTs would be um an eligible partner that one could partner with. So I think what you're proposing is already contemplated to be built into the alternative means of compliance.

[01:42:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh that's great. Because when I read it I I thought that that it it um it would require them to take on apartments that were um the size they needed or smaller instead of the size they needed or bigger. And so you're saying that's not the case.

[01:43:02] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah I think what Miss Barnard was um laying out is that depending on the timing of their project and what could be out there in the marketplace to buy, it may not be a perfect fit so we want some flexibility. And if part of that is showing that there could be a building that perhaps exceeds the requirement, all the better. Um but it's up for the developer to propose and take a look at what's out there in the marketplace.

[01:43:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's wonderful, thank you.

[01:43:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay great. So it sounds like of the three suggestions, the third one is already kind of being contemplated by staff, and then the two staff will look into the the feasibility um and eva- sorry evaluate the feasibility of the working in good faith. Correct? Okay great. Alright, thank you. Um Councilmember McAlister.

[01:43:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah I have a question for uh Councilmember Ramirez. So your second one about up to ten, did you say make it a part of the ordinance or look into it or evaluate it?

[01:44:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh evaluate the feasibility.

[01:44:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Um would you do like we did earlier is accept the staff report and then make a second motion to cover those items?

[01:44:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I I-

[01:44:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The City Attorney was just going to lean forward. Is that okay Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:44:21] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Uh let's hear from Councilmember Ramirez first.

[01:44:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[01:44:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I uh I guess if you want to be here longer, sure.

[01:44:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. So keep in mind Councilmember McAlister, we're not adopting a resolution. This is not the first hearing. Right, we're providing staff direction to evaluate all of these and then return for the first hearing. Uh so I I'm not certain there's a need to break it up.

[01:44:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Then I'm always hesi- I'm always hesitant and I when at the last minute items are to look at based on one person's calling in and saying doing this. Did you take the opportunity to talk with staff before you did your-

[01:45:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This idea I had brought to staff's attention during the briefing. So yes I've been thinking about it for a little while.

[01:45:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But it it the appearance does not always to me look good when one person speaks and you guys follow up on it. Thank you.

[01:45:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alright, um there is no one else in the queue so I'm going to um call the vote. Just want to thank staff. I know it's um been a long effort, really appreciate it. Um and so let's vote.

[01:45:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Wonderful and that passes unanimously. Thank you so much.

8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS

[01:45:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alright, um I'm going to move on to item 8, our Council, Staff, and Committee Reports. Does anyone have any reports? I can do a quick one, which is we had a very exciting day yesterday where we were able to do our ribbon cutting on our um Ameswell Stevens Creek pedestrian bridge, which is finally open um after some delay.

[01:46:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um Councilmember McAlister.

[01:46:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Uh alright well I'm not seeing anyone with any Council or Staff Committee- Oh, Councilmember Showalter.

[01:46:22] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. Um I'm so sorry I got to miss, I had to miss the um the ribbon cutting, but I was uh uh at a BCDC meeting where we talked about the um uh beneficial use of sediment as a essentially a building product for sea level rise improvements.

[01:46:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I will be sending all of you a um a presentation that was given at this that um really uh does a great job of summarizing the science behind it. And um I think you'll at least some of you will enjoy flipping through it and seeing the explanation.

[01:47:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um let's see. Last Wednesday um morning I was, shortly after our last meeting, I was in Oakland and I got to give a a talk, take care of a, take part in a panel at the State of the Estuary Conference.

[01:47:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's a conference that's held every other year. It's been going on for 30 plus years easily um to bring together scientists and engineers and regulators uh who work on um projects related to San Francisco Bay and and the streams in the area.

[01:47:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So it was really fun after having gone to these conferences for a long, long time to be asked to speak. Um and then on uh Friday I went to a meeting, another meeting for Bay Conservation and Development Commission related to sand mining.

[01:47:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And again, this is a um this is a product that comes from the bay that um uh has uh interests related to the ecology of the bay and um some of it might be used for sea level rise protections but it is used in construction. So it's been very interesting to learn about um all this geology. So thank you.

[01:48:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Wonderful. Thank you so much.

9. ADJOURNMENT

[01:48:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alright, um that moves us on to item 9, Adjournment. The next City Council meeting will be held on November 18th, 2025. This meeting is adjourned at 8:15 PM. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →