May 20, 2026 Council Finance Committee/Investment Review Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Member Lucas Ramirez: following the order at 8.33. Um, and they throw a call. So maybe I'm. Here. And. Your Emily Rama?

[00:00:14] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Yeah.

[00:00:15] Member Lucas Ramirez: And then, Committee member, Chris Clark, is. All right, welcome to the council finance committee Wednesday, January 21st, 2026. This meeting was called order already. This is a hybrid meeting allowing the public to comment in person and virtually, and instructions for addressing the committee virtually can be sent on the agenda. You already did roll call. So now we'll do move on to item 3 approved minutes. With any member of the public joining us virtually or in person, like to provide comment on this item. If so, please put the raise pen and zoom. If someone can, you should raise their intend to be called on. We will get in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. No, in person. We will now take virtual speakers. Thank you. I will now bring the item back to committee deliberation and action. Is there a motion and a 2nd to approve the CFC minutes of January 21st. I hope you'll permit. Okay with that. Oh, in favor. All of those. Ascensions, motion passes. You'll now move on to item four. Oral communication from the public. Did any member of the public joining us for folio or in person like providing comments on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom. In-person attendee should raise their hand to be called on. We will take in person speakers 1st. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. From the person. We will now take virtual speakers and no virtual. All right. Uh, that includes that concludes our uh, world communications from the public. We will now move on to item 5. Perfect timing. 5.one proposed changes to the council policy, D dash 13, mountain view employee, homebuyer, and relocation assistance program. The finance and administration, administrative services director, Derek and Pony, opens at this item. All

[00:02:24] Derek: right, good morning. Uh, Good morning, Che Ramos. Uh, Committee members, uh, Clark and Ramirez, the air, grandpa, and your finance and services director, the item you have in front of you this morning is the proposed update to capital policy D 13, the mountain view employee, home buyer, and relocation assistance program. Uh, a little bit of background on this item. Um, during the development of of administrative guidelines. for the home buyer loan program. Uh, it was noted that, uh, several updates to the policy uh, were recommended by staff, and as we went through, kind of the guidelines we wanted to clarify, and update and basically kind of revamp the policy, just to make it, to provide some clarity and also some added features, we had received some initial feedback from employees, general employees about, Uh, loan program was a great idea. However, it didn't seem to be totally helpful as far as, you know, and helping them get their, get a home city of map and view. So we kind of took a fresh look at this policy. And uh, by proposing a fair amount of updates in addition to the kind of clarification and providing some clear uh, a policy altogether. Um, and as you'll note in the staff report or memo. We have outlined the kind of the major updates that we have for this item. Um, Starting with clarifying the available assistance, they're broken down basically into 3 eligibility categories. We added a definition section to provide some additional clarity. We established kind of a participation window following hiring date. Thought that that was printed and comparable to some other uh, agencies that have similar home buyer programs, which there are that many. Um, so with hiring, um, Within 3 years of their higher date, they're eligible for the program. We expanded and kind of modernized, uh, some of the provisions, including, um, being able to transfer, uh, a loan instead of a find, uh, formal refinance program. So that we would like to propose, kind of a transferring of a loan to another property within the city. Um, clarify from property types and eligibility. It's basically trying to pick up the policy. Another. Item that we, we, um, updated was clarifying of some relocation, assistance provisions, and then we provide some administrative and operational updates in preparation for the, uh, administrative guidelines that will be, uh, preparing in regards to this policy. Uh, So, with that, happy question. I know there was some DNA, uh,

[00:05:28] Unknown Speaker: for the meeting around this. I don't. Right.

[00:05:34] Member Lucas Ramirez: If any member of the committee have any questions.

[00:05:40] Unknown Speaker: I have one. clarify. Uh, yeah. I don't know. I've never purchased a home. So the median home price at 3000000 was sparking is a little high. Um, is that that includes. All types of ownership, housing, single family detached, single family attached, and condominium, is that right? Correct. Thank you. All right. We

[00:06:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: will now move on to public comment. With any member of the public joining us virtually or in-person, like provide comments on this item. If so, please click the rates. Zoom. In-person attendees should raise their hand, be called up. We will go in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Coming person? We will now take virtual speakers. And no virtual. Thank you. I will now bring the item back for committee deliberation and action. Is there a motion and a 2nd to recommend the city council adopt revisions to the council policy, D dash 13, mountain view employee home buyer and relocation assistance program?

[00:06:53] Unknown Speaker: All Um, you're gonna suggest changes.

[00:07:02] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Uh, 1st up, I really appreciate staff, uh, putting together, uh, the recommended changes, uh, and for responding to questions I submitted in advance, uh, were very helpful. Uh, the one change I would like to suggest, um, is, uh, or council appointees, the council continue to approve, um, the, uh, home buyer loan, uh, like relocation assistance program, we can be flexible. I do think that more likely than not to come up during negotiations during. hiring what the process. But I think, at the end of the day, council. The bug stops with the council. Um, take it from, from a public, you know, community perspective, I think it's important for the council to be able to, uh, participate in and be held accountable for, um, benefits or, uh, opportunities that we could, we provide for for our own money fees. So I don't know. Staff had some suggestions or ways of approaching that, but I would. Genior guidance.

[00:08:19] Unknown Speaker: But from a staff perspective, appointees work at the behalf of the council. So, You know, you're in a comment, what makes sense, stuff, that would fall under a purview. Uh, I would probably ask them rather than trying to do it on a fly right now and delegate your staff where to cut in to the policy, but the point is clear. Probably under eligibility. Uh, but the, the point is clear, used to what counseling the fruit loans for the appointment. And that would make sense because it would probably occur as part of your negotiation process anyway, part of your evaluation process. So, We can, we can work.

[00:08:58] Unknown Speaker: I appreciate that. I'm inclined to agree more often than not. That's probably where that discussion would occur. Um, and I'm I'm comfortable with staff's recommendations for addition of that. Um, I, you know, the other thing I was curious about, I don't feel very strongly is that, um, just because in our zoning ordinance, we do make a technical distinction between rowhouses and townhouses. Um, I don't know if it's, it's kind of seems to me like we're saying. We're taking the typology off the table. I don't think we intend to do things, but that's the other clarification. I would, you know, appreciate steps, suggestions. I think we just had that term back to the policy. Those are my comments. Any comments? No,

[00:09:52] Unknown Speaker: and I'm happy to incorporate that into. I'll move to that recommendation. Thank you. I'll 2nd emotions. All right. All

[00:10:08] Member Lucas Ramirez: in favors, yeah. Any of those? Any extensions? Motion carries. Well, include 5.2. The code changes to council policy A dash 11 financial and budgetary policy. But I have an administrative services director, Derek, I'm calling you, Derek, and patient, service director, Grace, Chang, Over the anxiety. All

[00:10:33] Derek: right, thank you very much. There, there, Trampol, and your finance... Just that financial services director will kind of walk you through this item. But before she does, I just wanted to mention that this item is very similar to 5.one as far as just updating the policy or from an operational standpoint, we are proposing these recommendations and also to become a compliance with some recently, uh, enacted. Governmental accounting standards board statement. And so with that, I'll take it off. I'll hand it over to Grace. Okay. Good morning everyone. Um,

[00:11:10] Grace Chang: so, um, let me start with um, technology 811 is the CT's financial and budgetary policy. So we view this policy periodically to make sure we are in compliance with seeking of compliance accounting rules and also agree with our operations. So, um, staff will view this policy, um, and proposing a few changes um, for the key areas. So the 1st area, um, we are proposing changes in section 4 point F, which is general fund open space we serve, as you we call council, uh, voter of both uh, real property transfer, measure G-tap, in November 2024, and council provide direction on how that tax revenue should be spent on. Um, so we are cleaning up the language in this section to align with what the council's direction is for how we spend on the message G allocation. The 2nd the 2nd area that we're proposing for changes is section 4 point J, which is we serve requirement for compensated absence fund. Compensate absence is the internal service fund that we establish to keep track of our vacation, sick leave, um, payout for the staff. Um, and in last year, we implement gas V 101, which, um, gas, we expand the definition of what we composite absence, in place, we pay out. So, um, Currently, the funding um, policy is to fund this 80% of the liability we are cool for this one. Giving this expansion of the definition, that thing that we should suffer out the funding requirement with the with how this fund should be established for the liability balance. So therefore, we are proposing to revise this policy, um, to to establish the funding strategy instead of 80% at the compensated absence liability, we are using as average past 5 years average spending. So that aligns much more realistically on how much cash we need for this one. Um, the 3rd area that we are proposing changes is for 4 point S on 4, which is the new we serve that council directs staff to in Korea in last. Fiscal in 2324 budget development to establish a CIP we serve in the shoreline regional part community fund. So this is just a cleanup of language to formalize um, this we serve in this area. The 4th item that we are asking for proposal changes is section 5 point E, which is capital in Poland policy. We want to provide a little bit more guidelines and clear direction to staff, how to manage the weak current and neo and bioannual CIP funding. So we can be this, the, we current CIP can spend it on a specific purpose and Epo by guidelines, guidelines on timeline on when those unspent balance. Can we turn back to the fund balance so we can we direct those funds to other CIP projects? Um, so the last item we're proposing changes is the cause allocation plan, which is section 7 point H. Um, so, um, this is one of the reasons driving this changes is we receive a GF of work review, um, how men ask CT to clarify the, um, the cost allocation plan, um, process. And also, we wants to provide the, um, guidelines on what annual increase, um, of overhead, um, administrative overhead costs that we can use. Um, so with that, that is all the changes we are proposing um, for this policy. And once the committee provide recommendation, we will incorporate the changes and provide it to council, um, for cancellation in June 2026. Thank you. Thank you Um.

[00:14:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: Any member of the committee have any questions? All right, we will now move on to a comment, but any member of the public joining us virtually or in person, like to provide comment on this again. If so, please click the right hand button in zoo. Attendees should raise their hand to be called. We will take in-person speakers first. each speaker will have 3 minutes. Interest. I will now take ritual speakers and no rituals. Thank you. I will now bring the item back from house committee deliberation and action. Are there any comments?

[00:15:29] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, chair. Yeah, we appreciate that. Impressive, provisions,

[00:15:37] Unknown Speaker: always good faith, on top of the quality and. Just it. Why state law.

[00:15:45] Unknown Speaker: So support all the changes. I also appreciate responses to the other questions I said, that's interesting. Um, I wanted to propose, um, brief changes too, which I think are clean up another, like, one of the policy change. The cleanup items would be to, uh, in addition to the staff recommendations. Um, he, uh, preliminary budget, uh, review that we've incorporated into our process recently. I think it's been well received by everyone. It has a life an opportunity to provide direction to leaders and staff. Great, because that means that has more time to, you know, think through it and bring back some changes. But it opens it up. get a sense of what, uh, that has prepared, uh, the coming fiscal year. Um, so, uh, I think, uh, including that. There's, there's, in the section, regarding the budget, probably their own, which seems to be, I think, like, one of the steps that we've had. The other one is, um, section 4 K on the equipment place that we deserve, um, Suggested change would be to update it to including that, uh, target, 25% that statute there to be possible. I think it was. This was in April this year, uh, based on, uh, some. It's all the recommendations, I think. So, again, all. Um, the policy with the practice. And then the policy change would be for section 4, reserve, uh, policies, uh, and the general fund, local space reserve. I didn't know this, but, uh, provision that says, uh, excess city of revenue generated from excess city owned properties would, uh, would go into the open space reserve, which I think is a good idea. But now that that open space reserve has dedicated funding, from measure G, I'm wondering if, uh, committee would support, uh, instead having, uh, either giving staff a chance to come back with recommendations or what I was thinking is the revenue from, uh, excess city properties could go into the spar, which doesn't have a dedicated source of revenue. very valuable reserve for the council, uh, teaching property position. So, Those are the 3 changes, uh, interested in staff's thoughts, and then,

[00:18:31] Unknown Speaker: The response to your 1st question, sure, I can, uh, just, uh, preview.

[00:18:41] Unknown Speaker: And actually, I'll say, I have to look at which policy it's in, but if you all remember years and years ago, there used to be what was called a narrative budget, which is essentially similar, so what we're doing now, but we're, we're kind of preparing it in a, I think, more, um, transparent way for council to understand in the public what's going on. So we can maybe find where it references the narrative budget too, and just change it to how we're, what we're calling it now, and also added into this policy.

[00:19:12] Unknown Speaker: 3rd point, the proceeds to excess beyond property. I saw the city manager nodding her head. It does seem to make sense now that there is a dedicated revenue source. Then I'll defer to Derek and Grace

[00:19:24] Derek: on the 25% for the item 4 K. Yeah, makes sense, and we can add it to that reserve policy, or to that, that section of the, uh, ERF. Ready for three? Yeah. Thank

[00:19:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. Bye with that. Yeah, I'm happy to support your personal work. And um, Yeah, I guess we are, um, is there a motion in a 2nd to recommend that be, that was going to cancel our dog? Revision technology, 11 financial and vegetarian policy. The movie. So,

[00:20:03] Unknown Speaker: Staff Recommendations. All

[00:20:08] Member Lucas Ramirez: right. Holland Davis, say hi. All of those, and the abstensions. Motion passes. Yay. All right, now to the grand finale. Oh, item 523. I see, I'm partland next to study. The main service director, John Marchand, will guard the presentation on this type. Morning

[00:20:59] John Marchand: committee members, once again, John Marshall Community Services Director, going by a plethora of Department heads to support this item, along with uh, Tafion Rice Evans from economic planning systems, also known as EPS. We were here in January to, for the 1st time to bring forward, um, the introduction of utilizing a mitigation fee act, as well as, uh, confirming with the, the committee that there's an interesting continuing use, maybe act. Um, and there was also a dialogue from the committee about looking at some alternate ways to look at the fee, um, compared to what we were proposing, which was uh, by land use type and number of bedrooms for a number of reasons. And then since then, we have done a number of, we've taken a number of steps to identify how we can further clarify, as well as look at some of the local court cases that have taken place and make sure that we are, um, trying to stay consistent with what the, um, those are, um, to date. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to Patheon, to take us through a presentation and then I'll wrap up at the very end. Thank you Morning,

[00:22:16] Tafion Rice Evans: chair, committee members. Yeah, so as John mentioned, we have a relatively brief presentation here today. I'm going to do a quick recap on, um, bit of a loss for the last meeting in January, going to do you into some of the details of how we, um, have looked at and kind of offering up post-square foot be approached to impact piece and then get your preparation. Um, so in the in the January meeting, uh, which tends it to you, uh, kind of a view of what the existing fee structure was for Fox fees. Uh, and then also came forward with uh, kind of a concept and a framework, with technical analysis to back it up, it laid out some potential maximum, um, fee levels, um, and related related matters. One of the key, um, 11 component of that presentation was the way in which the fees are charged. Um, and so that different approaches that different cities have taken in terms of how it's done. But what we showed you last time was a, an approach that was, uh, mirrored the way in which the city currently do as many, many of its their fees where you have kind of per unit fees, but you also have, uh, fees per bedroom. Um, and I think that that kind of blended approach led to some questions. And so, I think the, So, the committee here had specifically raised some questions about the balance, equity, proportionality, and a lack of consideration for unit size. We wanted to make sure that we, um, address those next slightly. So, uh, the direction we took away was to, to look at an approach that focus more on per square foot, fee, um, application, um, and then return to that, um, return to you with that day. There are several, uh, you know, uh, generally acknowledged benefits of a per square foot approach, uh, one relates to the kind of language in AV 602 that has a preference for that approach. And so, uh, there's a certain kind of legal, um, benefits, arguably, that you're using a per square fee of the approach, uh, and also provide having a per square foot fee approach, rather than mixing and matching per unit per bedroom. We have a kind of a nice consistency between different unit types. Um, also avoids possibilities. When we do it on a bedroom basis, there may be some incentives or disincentives created to build different kinds of units with different numbers of bedrooms. So it kind of gets away from that, that approach. Up next slide, please. Um, so just, um, going back to the kind of the underlying basis of the fee program, just briefly, 3 acres per 1000 residents is the, is the city standard, that's where he drives his whole, uh, fee program. That is getting coupled with, um, some important cost assumptions that allow us to understand what is the maximum. The equivalents we would be allowed to charge during 2 residents. Um in the city. Uh, you can see here that it's a $108000000 breaker is the all in cost for an acre of land and and a different improvement together. Um, and that then translates into using the 3 acres of a 1000 translates into a $32,400 per rest, which then drives, all everything you'll see beyond this is driven by that number combined with population density. Uh, we did wait, mind change the community. I think pointed out last time that we had an array of um, capital improvement costs and estimates. There was some concern that some of those improvement cost estimates might be kind of unusual alibi as we remove those. And so there has been a bit of a reduction in the overall fee level, it was $3400000 per acre. We lost 4 to you when we removed those 2 outlier parks that now, now we snap down to 3 because, sorry, $3000000 per week. It's a little bit of a reduction, uh, in a few numbers, we're going to be showing you here today. Uh, next live piece. Um, so then to kind of go through the process of basically estimating these maximum fees, um, the way, you know, the way, the way it's typically is done in the way it's sort of been done ending at this point without changing that. It's just calculate your per unit fee based on your cost per person and then the estimates of person's per unit. Uh, these persons per unit, obviously, important drivers at the fee levels, as you can see, um, and those are out of the US census, uh, data for the city of Mountain Leaf. As you can see here, And as we might expect, there are more persons per household in a single family, attached unit, then there are attached unit, fewer, in your typical multifamily. So when we put all of that together, we end up with maximum per unit fees, um, that vary from $54,000, uh, per unit, average from off a family fee, up to about 89 million, 89,000, sorry, 89,000, uh, dollars per unit for a single family tax fee. So, again, normally in, in, in years past, that would have been the end of the kind of conversation you would end at that. At that point, but now we have new legislation. And policy desire to have more variation by size. So here in the next line, you can see the conversion from the average per unit fee into the average per square foot fee. Um, and again, this is based on Data from the city of Mountain View, where we take the average size of those um, units that you can see 775 square feet for most family, up to 2500 square feet for single family. Attached units, do some math. We end up with a set of per square fee. Um, calculation. So we have, as you can see, about 30, $35 per square foot of single family attached, up to $69 uh, per square foot for multi-family. Um, and one of the things that we want to kind of talk about a little bit is, you can, you can see that that this, this kind of combination of, um, a bit of a juxtaposition in terms of the fee amounts per unit are higher, on the, um, on the larger and the single family detaching it, but the per square foot fee, ends up being actually higher on the kind of flips on the Mothic family. Um, units, even though the overall fee level is higher on the single family fees, next labels. Um, Excuse me, so here, uh, We wanted just to kind of explain a little bit more why. Uh, the per square foot fee tends to be higher on multi-family than is our single family. It's all basically based on, uh, the number of folks, uh, the, I guess, the density or intensity of population living in each of these units. So when we, in order to kind of basically try to come up with comparison, we said, we wanted to normalize the numbers and ask, you know, what on average, when we look at these different kinds of units, what is the average number of people in a 1000 square foot space in order to, Basically, kind of, in order to explain the underlying dynamics of why you have a higher per square foot feed for multi-family than for single family. You can see here when we combine the data for mountain view. Um, on average, we have about 2 persons per 1000 square feet living in a multifamily unit versus about. one. One person, 1000 square feet living in a certain family, cash unit. I don't think that's necessarily surprising in terms of the way, you know, the size of the, you know, the population densities, but we wanted to dig in on that a little bit, just to kind of explain why we get that differential between the plus square foot, uh, fees, next live fees. So when we put it together. Um, you know, obviously, when you, when if you adopt a per square foot fee, uh, Every, every development will come in with a slight different square footage size, so every development will have a slightly different, um, kind of average per unit fee. We want just to kind of illustrate how that might work. Dynamics of that might work is the real world. So here you can see, uh, both per square foot fee, the maximum per square foot fee at the top, 35, 69, Dollars per square foot. You can see the average unit fee, that's specifically tied to those average unit sizes, so 2500 for the single family detached, 1850 for the single family attached, and 775 for the multifamily. He would just provide some illustrations of how that view would go up and down within those unit categories. As sizes vary. So you can see here. As I think the legislation intended that if you built a 2000 square foot single family home, you would get, you would pay a lower, you'd pay the $71,000 would be your per unit bill versus the 88,000. Um, similarly for a single family attached to multi-families, units get smaller. Up the amount of fee burn would go down on the flip side as your fees get larger, uh, on a plus square foot fee, you pay, you would pay a higher level of, of overall fee. Uh, next live fee. So, uh, putting this into, you know, context, this is, I think it's, this, I think this city changed. Explained or will explain, right? This is a, uh, 1st step where we're looking to calculate the maximum, uh, the maximum fee, the nexus requirements. Uh, this is not, of course, necessarily what, what, what you're going to adopt. It's just kind of setting, setting a kind of a bar and a structure for us, but still worth kind of making a comparison between where those maximum fees have landed. Uh, so far. And both the existing fee level. Uh, so the bars here on the left-hand side, you can see the dark move that's your existing fee level. Uh, for these 3 different on average for these 3 different categories. Um, you can, we've also showing the kind of housing element policy goal of 20% off that as the orange bar. And then on the right, you can see where these, technically derive maximum numbers, um, end up relative to those numbers, and so, what stands out. You know, quite clearly here is that this, again, this is on an average unit, it will vary by, depending on unit square footage. An average unit we have, the multifamily going down, to about the level, about the 20% going down by that 21% comes down to about that, that 20% below farm level. Uh, you can see the single family numbers are moving kind of, you know, the direction they, they're, they're going up relative to, uh, the car maximum, creating a greater crap between the orange and the, and the light. On the right. Uh, next. Uh, finally, we just wanted to, to, uh, kind of, you know, show the, uh, I think one of the, one of the, uh, forced to, consider what a team would look like, with also included on residential, uh, development. Um, here, you can see the, another offense, how you can see the fees that we presented and calculated. Um, initially back in January, um, on the right hand side, you can see just this whole reduction and this is just driven by that reduction in the cost of breaker or part improvement. So, uh, the numbers on the right hand side are kind of the new recalculated potential maximum fees for non-residential. And I think with that, next life is. So... Thank you, Tavian. Once

[00:33:33] John Marchand: again, um, and included in the Q and A is a question about, um, the need for an accompanying capital improvement program document. We are working on that. And as Tapion also mentioned, what we're looking at today is the maximum fee calculation. And as we go through and look at the different projects and capital improvements that we're looking to make over time, we have to look at what is realistic as far as how much can we do compared to maybe what we could be charging for as part of the maximum here. So there's, as we go through that process, we actually think these, these maximum fees just from going through the capital improvement program, we'll actually continue to see further. Um, de-escalation of off of the maximum, um, based on that. And so just want to put that into context. So for input and direction, uh, we're asking if the committee supports the staff recommendation to establish with the Quinby Act and mitigation V act based on, um, the calculations we were showing today, and does the committee support the recommendation to apply the updated park and recreation impact V to non-residential development, which you had shown and support for before. Just wanted to show you the new calculations and continue that, um, confirmation, and then looking for any additional input you have, um, for us to move forward. And the last slide. So we are, yeah. No. You can go back. to the previous one. There you go. Um, so we have staff, um, depending on the outcome of the recommendation committee this morning. Um, we are prepared to to bring this as a new business item to, uh, city council, um, we're looking in September, um, at the moment. prepared to do that. But there's more work to do or other items that, um, the committee would like to provide, uh, we're open to questions, comments, and forward to your input. Thank you. Alright.

[00:35:46] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Does any member of the committee have any questions? Never Ramirez. I

[00:35:52] Member Lucas Ramirez: don't have any.

[00:35:52] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, I have a few. Thank you for the presentation. Um, and you work on this. Let's actually start with the slide that was after the blank flight, because that did, uh, I submitted several questions in advance, and, uh, staff, uh, appropriately identified questions that were inelegantly expressed, and I think that that slide, uh, addresses one of those questions. And that's, uh, we were took, right now we have sort of like, posit, average square footage for a multifamily unit, right? That's, um, you know, all of the, the unit types, right? Studios to 3 bedrooms, and I was curious about that breakdown based on bedrooms, and that's what this is, right? And staff sort of walk through. This analysis, why you're using that deposit number instead of stuff.

[00:36:58] Tafion Rice Evans: Yeah, sure. So, I mean, I guess what I 1st of all say is that the, um, There, there were. I think that there was leeway for the council, collective to make certain choices, right, both about per square foot, per per bedroom, also about how details, you want to become, that you want to be. So, We, we ran this analysis. We, we, as you can see, it's, it's kind of, the math is the same, right? Persons per unit drives everything. So if we can, if we can come up with, And since this allows us to do this, we were able to get this information. Um, and as you, as you point out right now, we have a kind of multifamily composite what we're showing you about $66 per square foot, right? When you look at the, when you look at the data we receive, um, we get variation from $85 per square foot for studio, down to 62 for one bedroom and then up to 69 for 2 bedroom. And so I think there's a there's a couple of, For me, choices that come in here. One is, um, is this level of detail kind of useful and important? I think we could justify either way. Um, I don't see a lot of cities going to this local detail, but certainly possible. I mean, it's more detail. Um, We were a little bit just, just the, as you, I guess as you get into these smaller categories, the, you know, the sample size to data is a little less, since you get a little bit more, you get some results you're not sort of expecting, like can't fully instinctively explain why those variations are, as they are. And so I think we were feeling that it would be kind of maybe cleaner and clearer to have, you know, to use the composite one. Um, but I think that's, that's an open discussion from my perspective.

[00:38:45] Unknown Speaker: And I'll just add to that. We, we really spun our wheels on this for quite some time. I think over multiple meetings. And we tried to wrap our head around why the data would come out this way, right? Where you have this multifamily studio, so high in comparison to these, you know, larger, um, unit types in a multifamily, um, development. And, you know, we, we talked about how, when data comes in, you know, you can have definitely have more people in a smaller unit than you would normally think would be in a smaller unit. You can have way less people in a larger unit than you would think, would, would be in that larger unit. And really what we came to is when we, when we landed on the average, we understood that there is always going to be a disparity in the number of people in units, and you're never going to, there's, there's no possible way to exactly pinpoint, there's a studio, really, just one person, maybe max 2 people, or is that just a family that just has to put in that baby for a while and you've got actually got 3 people in there. And then you've also got families as their financial, you know, their economic situation changes is increases. They can move out of that small studio and now you've got a house where is way bigger than what they need, with the anticipation that they may or may not grow into that home. And so with those types of disparities. And you get these kind of results, these kinds of numbers. We thought that it better serve the community, to average it all, and come to this, this middle, where you're at this 775 average square foot, and you're around the $66, right, for the per square foot fee, and you're balancing out that outlier at $85 and you're, and you're kind of smoothing that column. But like Tafeon said, we can be more detailed and be more granular at this. But as you can see, it may have results that the council is not. Mm, that it doesn't further the council's policy goal right because it's really hitting studios in a way that we didn't anticipate. And this is driven by census data, data that we can't really manipulate. It's like, It would be sort of arbitrary for us to go, oh, well, let's just slice that number and make it lower. Because what's behind this information is just pure census data that we've gathered or that Typhon has gathered to generate these numbers.

[00:41:24] Unknown Speaker: Not intuitive. No. I, I really struggled with the math behind this, uh, report, so I, I appreciate you helping, um, the nuances and, um, complexities behind that. Um, um, You alluded to this earlier in the presentation. The other thing that I'm struggling with this understanding, uh, where, um, We, there's a difference between, like, a discretionary policy, uh, uh, fee adjustment or reduction, right, to achieve a policy goal, and the reductions or, uh, adjustments that are legally obligated, right, to mean the nexus and proportionality tests. And what I don't really have a full appreciation for is what we have to solve for here. And what would the, the work that would come after, we've provided direction on the, uh, the nexus study. So can you help? Me understand, like, so there, there are, this doesn't solve all of the legal requirements. There's more work to meet the legal obligations. Right. So,

[00:42:37] Unknown Speaker: John, um, definitely alluded to that at the end, I would say, what we're trying to do today is get, to what I would describe as a stable base, a stable base being all of our input data is something that you understand and that you support, right? You understand that we're pulling census data. We're, we're getting all of these numbers and we're coming to this calculation. And if you support the, you know, square foot versus the unit count, uh, unit size, um, calculation, and sort, and, and once we get to this stable base, we know what numbers we're using going in, we know that we're, we're using square footage or not. And we know whether or not we're digging down into multifamily by, you know, bedroom size, or were you using an average? We get to this stable base and I would say that that puts us probably about 85% of the way there. I think there's 15% more work that we have to do on the back end. We need to figure out. I feel like there's this overlay that's going to come on top of that. Related to proportionality. We started a conversation about, um, current, our current fee, our current Quimby act fee is based on planning areas, right? Um, we are looking towards probably going, um, looking at a citywide need, uh, uh, 3 acres per 1000 need, right? Quinby Act has specific legal requirements that you're spending the money in a specific radius, absent particular findings, mitigation fee act doesn't have those types of limitations. And so, one of the things we're going to have to talk about is, is, um, how you layer proportionality on top of this base fee, based on need, right? If you're in an area that has a ton of parks and the development that's going up isn't going to really impact it because that, that particular area has so many parks that, you can add easily a 100 more people to that community without impacting the demand on the parks in that area versus an area where, It has one park, and adding a 100 people just exacerbates an already very bad problem. Mitigation fiat fees give, um, an ability to address that on a citywide basis, whereas Quimby Act doesn't. And so that is sort of the behind the scenes work that we still have to do. And that, I think, is something we're going to have to do legally to come into compliance with proportionality requirements. As opposed to, there may still be other policy, um, decisions that council makes with regard to incentives or exemptions and things like that. That you layer over top of what we're doing with regard to proportionality. But your decisions, your policy decisions will be very much driven by this sort of last 15% of work that we need to do in order to ensure that legally we feel like, if you impose this fee, at its full cost, we are still meeting proportionality requirements. Regardless of what incentives and policy decisions you make on the other side, right? So I still think that there's that work. Would you agree?

[00:45:59] Unknown Speaker: Very helpful. Thank you. 2 final questions. Um. You, you, again, you, you touched on this. Maybe this was proportionality rather than a nexus question, but in certain circumstances, uh, like residential development near Shoreline Park. Uh, you might have, like, a lot of heartland, right? So the demand on the need for acquisition might be, you know, it might it might be hard to demonstrate that there's a need for funding for part acquisition, right? Because there's a lot of tart land, but you might need money for the construction of amenities that were facilities that are not served by what's on shoreline community park right now. So, at this level, do we have, is, is, is that a distinction that we, we have to make at the nexus study level or is that, work that we would do with the proportionalities? analysis later on. So

[00:47:03] Unknown Speaker: I wanna, I'm gonna defer to John a little bit, because we talked a lot about Shoreline and and its impact on the city and we talked about the realities of what Shoreline offers, right, in way of park. There's a, there's a beautiful golf course and there's a bunch of open space, some of which you can hike, some of which you can't. And then there's, A play park, right? That probably needs to be expand, but John, do you want to talk about the realities of of Shoreline and how we're thinking about how that plays into the?

[00:47:31] John Marchand: Yeah, so as we went through the parks and recreation strategic plan, we looked shoreline quite a bit, um, as far as what is considered truly publicly accessible. Um, and while it is accessible, we have a lot of constraints, and that is related to wildlife in particular. Um, and what we can do as far as taking what is currently open space and possibly, um, areas that are utilized by the wildlife. So it's already protected space. Um, and the opportunities to bring in new elements is very small. I even trying to put in a new parking area that I was looking to do. We were denied to do that because we don't have enough space to mitigate the loss of what is, um, accessible areas for wildlife specifically. Um, and so, And looking at the next steps is how, If there are needs within the shoreline, within the shoreline area. Um, North Bay Shore area. We're not going to be able to accommodate types of elements that those neighborhoods are going to be looking. And so it's a matter of how do we, uh, look at what should be providing to those families in an area that's close to their residents to identify the next steps. So to

[00:48:58] Unknown Speaker: follow up on that, what, to maybe try to illustrate, Shoreline is, you know, a massive area of of parkland, but you could have residential developments. We know that there's there's plans for lots of residential to go in that area. And those, those families that are going to be moving in there are going to be looking for parks where their kids can play, right? They're going to be looking for parks where they can picnic. And Shoreline will offer some of that and it is going to, I think, impact the type of fee that you can collect from the, um, the developments that go up in that area. But to the extent, and I do think that, and this is, this is sort of that extra 15% of, of work that we have to do, some of the ideas that came up in my head, you know, I, I sleep with this, um, in my head. But, you know, things like, you know, if you're within, you know, this many feet of, a mini park, there's this reduction or there's, you know, I'm trying to figure out how do you, how do you account for, what is available and what is going to be needed? based on your development. And so Shoreline, while it feels like, you've got this huge park and, you know, you're easily making your 3 acres per 1000, There, I think, that you could legally justify. Yes, it is this open space, but it is not usable park space. And so there still is a justification for collecting a fee in order to allow the city to buy additional land maybe in that area that is not shoreline in order to build another community park or mini park. To serve, um, a need. And so, Shoreline is, an aspect. But, how we figure out, um, I don't think that it is the the end of the analysis in that particular area, for instance, and whether or not this goes in the nexus study, or if it goes in the ordinance, it's hard to determine at this moment. I feel like it's going to require some sort of write-up or to be addressed in the nexus study, but it may be more, um, addressed more head on in the ordinance that becomes that gets adopted, that, like I said, um, applies that additional calculation to accommodate or to meet the proportionality requirements. So you may end up seeing it in both the next study providing backup for it and the ordinance providing the guidance on how the fee is going to be calculated when you have situations like that.

[00:51:41] Unknown Speaker: For the facilities or amenities. For example, that are not in shoreline today, we have to have a capital improvement plan. to identify them so we can spend that money on the acquisition of land for a new part. It doesn't have the amenities that we need or that we believe we will need with new residents. So, okay, you're not eating your head. Yes, that'll be in the category. The last question I had. We received a letter from the BIA, um, that, um, a lot of points and suggestions. I was curious to hear staffs, uh, recommend suggestions were, uh, response to the BIA. So

[00:52:22] Unknown Speaker: I'll start first. I read it and um, I actually found the letter to be quite reasonable. I was, uh, Typhion, uh, brought to my attention the, um, case, BIA versus city of Patterson, and so that has driven a lot of the work that we've done recently and why we bumped it out a little bit so that we could ensure that we don't make some of the, um, errors the court identified that the city of Patterson made. One of the reasons why we're going to adopt a separate, uh, capital improvement brand related to this nexus fee. Um, and so, I don't know if Typhion, I don't know if you had a chance to look at that letter, but that was something that I wanted to discuss because I thought there were some, um, reasonable recommendations, but I will say that outside of my area of expertise. This is where I would rely on our consultant and our staff. So, I from a legal perspective. I thought it was, it made some, um, solid recommendations, but I would, having just read it yesterday, would like an opportunity to, um, talk to our consultant and the rest of staff, and I don't know if anyone else had any thoughts. On the letter.

[00:53:35] Tafion Rice Evans: Um, yeah, I didn't have a full-time chance to look into it. I will, um, you know, kind of acknowledge and agree that there's a lot of, uh, post the sheet's decision, like a lot of new conversation, kind of has arisen. Probably tied to A B 602, probably tied to sheets, probably tied to what it means. Uh, I think some of this goes back to, you know, what did the sheet's decision, you know, what is the supreme forward, directing everyone to do, and then you have, you have a bunch of like cases following on from that, that kind of point in, arguably slightly different direction. So, I think at the bottom of it, all for me, I mean, between sheets, maybe 602, all these things, obviously we have to do what we're doing, what we're collectively trying to do here today, which is to do with the eyes and cross over teas. I think that's what we're looking to do. Um, but I need to, I need to read the letter more, um, specifically and then talk to the team to kind of give a better response. Question.

[00:54:37] Unknown Speaker: During the presentation you mentioned. Oh, this is evolved with. State legislation is also all over the last few years, and I'm just curious where you help me understand where they're heading and if they are, you know, focusing on persons per unit or square footage or I guess what I'm trying to get it is, do we feel comfortable in how this evolves? The same trajectory as state legislation, I think, baseball is heading so that we don't end up in a spot where we have to readress this in the next year or two. Sure.

[00:55:12] Tafion Rice Evans: I think in terms of, like, state law of the mitigation fee act, maybe 602. Um, I think it's, Uh, to me, I don't know exactly what's going to happen, right? I feel like legislature has made it pretty clear. Uh, you know, suggestion that they don't like the idea of flat fees. And so I think the most, that the core has as many things in AB602, including, you know, having a break, the SCAPE and transparency, all kinds of other things, but one of their core requirements is like, I want you to do it on a per square foot basis. Unless you, unless you can explain to me why that doesn't make sense within the proportionality context. So, I think that that's, Um, that's the direction I don't, I can't see that changing. I see the question. Since my life, that would change. So I think if we're doing it on a post square foot basis, we're on solid ground. I think within that, as you can see, there's all kinds of permutations of how do you lump things together or break them out that are, that are not really. I think, I think different, different cities are trying different things based on different cities, um, and I think they, kind of generally acceptable within that framework. Um, I think there's a, the kind of more, the greater uncertainty, I'd say, would be around the, the sheet's decision. And again, what, you know, you follow its trajectory and you find. US Supreme Court makes a decision, court of appeal, says no, that program is fine. Patterson, you know we have all these cases going on. Um, it's a little bit hard to disentangle how many of them are like specific issues with individual fee programs or, What are the large lessons to be learned? So, I wouldn't want to predict, you know, what, what the court's future courts might say in that regard. But I think in terms of like state law, the mitigation fee acts and all those kinds of, I think I think this, you know, this kind of framework and structure, uh, that we've suggested. Uh, but also kind of others with the per square foot approach would be consistent. It feels very

[00:57:12] Unknown Speaker: defensible if we're talking about studying the overall envelope in the ceilings, right? The fundamental pieces through which you... And then you can have. And then, briefly on the, on the Shoreline example. If you, uh, if you didn't build a smaller big park or something else, there's the, I should notice, but can you use the, these be used for connectivity, which like the 2 white trails or, trying to connect. Like another utilized portion of the park with a, something a little bit more utilized, the trail system.

[00:57:54] John Marchand: We do utilize Parkland fees for the creation of trips, yes. But

[00:58:00] Unknown Speaker: that would include smaller white connect. Smaller connections between parks and things like that as opposed to really long trails. Right

[00:58:13] Member Lucas Ramirez: Uh, without any more questions, we will bring it to uh, maybe. Um, with any member of the public joining us virtually or in person to provide comments on this item. If so, the raise hand button ensue, in-person attendee should raise their hand to be called on, we will take in-person speakers first. No, in person, but we have that. We have 2 in-person speakers. Speaker will have 3 minutes. Are we ready with the timer? Very nice. Thanks

[00:59:02] Public Speaker: for the opportunity to speak today. App appreciate it. Um, I'm planner and developer. Just some couple of thoughts for when this does go to council. I think for the public, the staff report. Or the analysis would be great if the 1st section showed to be before and after. So we have existing fees now. And you're working on something that would be, quote, that after. So for instance, for simplicity. In the condo world, 14 to 1500 square foot condo, staff is pushing us towards right now. 3 bedroom livability. We pay $67,000, yeah. Based on this math, that would go up to over $100,000 a year. And I think it'd be really good. Or the council and the public to see what the implications are. The 2nd part of the analysis that I would ask is, how does increases in fees justify compliance with the general plan? You have to. Very important things in the general plan have been modified both by the city. And the state HCD, the housing element, they call for a minimum of 20% production in part peace. So that would be 1st. I would love to see how do we increase the fees and still stay in compliance with that potified. Requirement. The 2nd part is also in the housing fee and also codified by the state, HCD. Was the secondary, which was opportunity sites for housing, commitment was made to the state in order to spur development, there would be further cuts, potentially, well, not even potentially, there would be further cuts to fees, including park dedication. So obviously, when you get to staff report to the council, I really think that council has to understand how this effort, Parallels or coincides or is contrary to what the general plan, which is our guiding light, States in black and white, and do you have to go back to the state and amend the housing element because you're not needing that .% reduction. And secondarily, you're not, uh, helping the opportunity sites as what was promised to the state through that. So it's, I understand the Quimbiak, that's fine. This is math. But I think if the public saw and the council, before and after, in very simplistic example. Um, especially as I relate to condos, because nobody builds 500 square foot condos. Um, That would be really good for people out of eight. And then compliance with the GP as it relates to that 20% and the opportunity sites. I think. Thanks. You,

[01:01:58] Unknown Speaker: um, Mr. Donahue? Okay, so yeah,

[01:02:07] Mr. Donahue: hold on, you might be resident. Um, I, Uh, Actually, the shoreline issue was something that was in my mind as well. Um, Shoreline doesn't, as, as you discussed, doesn't have all the amenities, but that's why we have community parks. So, There are many planning areas that don't have all of the amenities, uh, in in their neighborhood parks or the mini parks. Uh, but, uh, That's why the, uh, the inlu fee, uh, ordinance allows for the spending of money from any development in the city to be used in community parks. For instance, the, you know, Eagle Pool, Franksburg Pool. Uh, tennis courts, uh, football, I think might be something that people are concerned about. Um, and um, So, That's that. One thing that is really concerning to me is that, uh, I'm on the EPC, but not to be for that. But when the, uh, uh, Development at the corner of Middlefield and Alice came to BC, uh, earlier this year, uh, it's apartments, and there was no park in Luffy, and it was just, uh, kind of shocking to me having been on the Parks and Recreation Commission some time ago. The, um, I thought was that people living in apartment buildings, uh, don't have yards and they need recreation facilities. They need parks. So, um, I think time is of the essence. I understand that, you know, this is kind of 85%, but one thing I just want to encourage is moving forward as quickly as possible without moving so quickly to screw things up. There's kind of a balance there, but time is up, yes. So please, please, thank you. Thank

[01:04:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. Any other in-person public comments? None. We will now take virtual speakers. Oh. Dennis March. Yes, can you hear me? I can hear you. All

[01:04:22] Dennis Martin: right. Thank you very much. Good morning uh, chair. And committee members. I'm Dennis Martin, representing the building industry association in the Bay Area. I call your attention to our comment letter submitted yesterday, and I ask your indulgence this morning as my remarks may slightly exceed the 3 minute time limit. We appreciate the city's effort to revisit the park, the Nexus study, and respond to revolving legal requirements following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in sheets versus County of El Dorado. We also appreciate the city's recognition that development fees and exactions directly affect housing affordability, and project feasibility. The city of Mountain View is one of the most costly communities in the Bay Area to build housing, and if the city is to come anywhere close to building its arena, Then you must address fee load on new housing. I also want to note that on August 19, 2025, on behalf of BIA, I previously contacted Mr. Marshawn, regarding the city's efforts to comply with 6 cycle housing element programs related to the Parkland dedication ordinance, including potential reductions to Parkland in Loop fees, and the establishment of Parkland credits for privately owned public accessible open space and trails. In that correspondence, BIA specifically encouraged the city to undertake robust outreach to the development residential development stakeholder community. And we have not been contacted regarding this effort, but, uh, BIA requests and appreciate staff's willingness to continue that dialogue through a rebust, Development stakeholder dialogue. That said, we believe the proposed fee framework raises several important concerns that warrant additional stakeholder outreach and further analysis before the city advances toward that adoption. First and foremost, land acquisition assumptions embedded in the study appears to significantly, uh, exceed, uh, that, uh, recently regional praise market evidence. The staff indicates that the city is utilizing an implied parkland acquisition, the assumption of approximately 7800000 per acre. But by comparison, a recent USPAP compliant appraisal, prepared for the city of Santa Clara, concluded that reconciled land values ranging from approximately 5000000 to 5.60000 per acre, existed across multiple Santa Clara zip zip codes. That appraisal utilize verified comparable sales, market condition adjustments, transparent reconciliation methodologies. The difference between those values and mountain views assumptions raises important questions regarding whether the nexus study may overstate current acquisition costs in today's moderating market environment. Therefore, BIA requests. That the city adopt the transparent city of Santa Clara annual appraisal model to determine land value for parkland acquisition. Second, we urge the city to more carefully evaluate occupancy assumptions underlying the proposed fee structure, and I'm not gonna get into as much detail as we did in the letter. You've kind of addressed that in your presentation. But, um, we do want. Thank you. Were

[01:07:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: there any other virtual public comments? All right, we will bring it back to, um, I will bring the item back to the committee for deliberation and to provide input and direction to guide the final development of the study and its future consideration and potential adoption by the city council. You want to get started? What gave you that impression? Uh, I

[01:08:14] Unknown Speaker: uh, I've only got a few months left, so I'm gonna max, maximize, uh, opportunity to provide input. Um, so I'll, I'll start with, um, I think the, uh, appreciate staff and city attorney's office, uh, returning, um, to the committee with the adjustments that we, uh, directed, uh, that in January. Uh, surprised by some of the outcomes. Uh, I think it's, uh, uh, representative from the, So some of the public speakers have mentioned, you know, the math is the math, and I don't have a math background. Um, you know, I think it would be helpful. As you continue this work to maybe break down and bite-sized junks exactly how you came to. Some of these conclusions for those of us in the council, um, are challenged mathematically. Um. But, uh, I think, as a whole, I think, direct, there's, directionally moving in the right direction. I would support. Um, the staff recommendations, uh, for, The 1st 2 questions, uh, establishing the, uh, Quimbi F fees and vacation. BFT is based on square footage. Uh, as as, Report concluded, that's the most defensible approach. Um, And, um, I, I continue to support applying, um, the impact fees to non-residential development, although I think we may want to make a policy decision later about, you know, if we want to facilitate, you know, neighborhood serene retail, mixed use development, we may want to, you know, provide an incentive to do so. So that's one thing we don't have to figure out today, but I think it's good to give the council the option later to impose fees on non-residential development so that way we can provide the amenities. Uh, that patrons of those businesses and employees also were likely used. But I'm I'm nervous about, um, again, appreciate it, stats, responses to the questions I submitted in dance. I'm nervous that at least, you know, these, the legal maximums that we're seeing, um, uh, represent a substantial percentage of the hardcuffs of, of the construction costs of residential development, right? between 12 and roughly 13.5%. That's a non-trivial. We're struggling, uh, to, uh, uh, realize the housing, that I think the council has been, uh, encouraging for many years, or if we've seen a small number of projects, but the highest return, I generally, you know, attached and detached single family. But a lot of the multifamily projects are just not, uh, financially feasible and that's certainly true for, uh, condominium development, you know, has been a priority for the council for a long time. So I'm, I'm nervous that, you know, these are not the final members, right? There's a little bit of a black box for me. additional inputs that likely will result in lower numbers, but, um, right now, I think the, the, the concern is we may end up with fees that de facto, uh, never materialize because, I, constructed, you know, housing is not financially. Uh, so I think that the next steps are going to be very important. Um, and I, I, I would love sort of a further breakdown. What are the things that we have to do, right? These are proportionality analysis, the legal compliance, and then, um, you know, what, what are opportunities for, uh, discretionary or policy solutions to some of these challenges, right? How can we ensure that residential development is not infeasible. So we actually won get housing and to generate the fees or. Our plant in lieu of the feed, uh, where the community, uh, would benefit from, from these types of the medies and facilities. Uh, so I, I, I don't know exactly how to, what kind of direction is useful right now. Uh, but I think at a starting point, um, outreach to the development community seems reasonable, something that we've, uh, done very effectively in many other contexts, were pretty good at public outreach. So, I think that, um, that suggestion from the BIA, we're pursuing. There might be other suggestions in that letter. are helpful and perfectly sensible. Um, And I think I would look to staff to guidance for, you know, what is your response, what are things that we can do without, um, Risking pushing the effort too far out, right? Where like this unfortunate space where, you know, A certain class of housing, we impose fees, another class of housing. We can't legally impose fees. I think that's, that's right or fair. Especially with a product type that the council would like to see, uh, entry level ownership housing. Um, I think that's something we want to see, and yet, I'm a developer and I have the choice between, you know, a department complex without a subdivision. I pay $0 more fees and condo development. Why would I pick the comment development right now, right? Uh, we are, we have the, the regulatory framework serves as a disincentive to that. So I think we should be mindful of the impact of these decisions on feasibility and also the types of housing that de facto were synthesizing based on that that fee structure. So, I don't think I have useful things to say, aside from, I support one and two. And for additional input direction, I would say, uh, conduct the development community outreach, and look at that letter, VIA, earn it, counsel with suggestions for it. Opportunities to make the process a little bit more transparent and also take into consideration for financial feasibility or residential development. I think that's kind of where I would land.

[01:14:43] Unknown Speaker: I don't have anything to add, I think. We, This comes back to us in September. Hopefully we'll have. I don't know if there's any state legislation this year that might impact it. I mean, hopefully... Well, probably, maybe there isn't. And then, and then just appropriate, as we always do that. Additional guy has scrubbed the boards. But I don't, I think the way we structured this. We don't really have to worry about that probably. Vice mayor.

[01:15:19] Unknown Speaker: So we are, um, advocating for the condo, uh, the legislation going through about the condo and the insurance piece. So, maybe that will be something that will help with the condo development. something that we are engaged in. So we can try and provide an update at that time, where the bill is at, or whatever, like, what is the date of advocacy effort, that would be, all of that time as well. Yeah,

[01:15:48] Unknown Speaker: I think things are going to be real time. We've been getting. You

[01:15:58] Member Lucas Ramirez: have answers for the 3 questions, though? Well,

[01:16:01] Unknown Speaker: I'm, I'm fine with the general direction, I don't have any..

[01:16:09] Unknown Speaker: But ultimately, the piece that we adopt will be. This is set into the local accent here. And then whatever we adopt will be.

[01:16:22] Unknown Speaker: I think you're going to see a further reduction.

[01:16:24] Unknown Speaker: Yeah And and we can, there can be a set of structures. Correct.

[01:16:28] Unknown Speaker: Policy adoptions that will potentially even reduce it further. That's right.

[01:16:36] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so, uh, yes, for one and two. Um, I really do like the people 6. I kind of, I'm still, it's still not enough for me to, well, the single family attention, the single family kids, just straightforward, but I'm kind of curious to break down more with the multifamily. I'm trying to visualize how does the, how does this breakdown, the current fee, definitely percent off and the average unit. How would that look with like the past 5 projects we approved or something like that? That gives a better sense of like what does what do these these mean? Um, and like actual tangible units and projects that we have approved. Um, what does that, what would that actually mean? Kind of run it through the sip. So that we know, like, compared to the projects that we actually get. How does that that look? Um. I kind of also view. It's completely different, but I kind of view what we're setting is like, this is the maximum amount we can charge, kind of like, when we do taxes, when we ask, um, our residents, like, please approve this tax structure that's the maximum amount we are allowed to tax. The council can always. Lower that tax. I remember this with measure P. Um, there was always that discussion. Um, well, you were still on council in the council. Um, where like, uh, well, the question that went before the voters was like the maximum amount they could actually charge. But the council could say, like, oh, we're concerned about, like, the economic life out, the liability of things, and lower it on there, what you needed was the approval to go to the next. That's kind of how I'm doing this. Um. And then we will, to to make our housing elementals and stuff like that, but just, just so that we can cover ourselves legally. You like that. With that, the, that have what they need. Is there emotion needed? I don't know.

[01:18:53] Unknown Speaker: I'm happy to. Oh, okay.

[01:18:58] Unknown Speaker: I don't know. So I moved to approve staff recommendations. to, uh, establish whimby thieves. When we had to be from education, DFT is based on where footage. Uh, and then to fly the updated part of that impact fee to non-residential development. 2 key things and that's, I don't think there's opposition. I'll include the directions to development community outreach. Uh, in that, for that, for evaluate BIA lettering, for recommendations. It's not going to come back to CFC. Next step is to go to Apple. Included that castle. What do you think of reasonable?

[01:19:48] Unknown Speaker: I'll 2nd it, but I just want to make sure that, uh, our reach is, I don't know the extent of the outreach. So, it's like, not that there shouldn't be coverage. I just, I don't want to dictate the work job. I don't even do okay with that. We want we want all that input. just leave it. to figure out how late.

[01:20:09] Member Lucas Ramirez: I mean, I would love plentiful detail and what we get back from that and sometimes it varies when we hear about like outreach sometimes. Um, ideally, I remember when we did the housing element work, there were like that grid of like, this is the, um, this is the input we got, and this is why we recommend this, based on that. I won't be prescriptive, but I kind of like that.

[01:20:42] Spector Murdoch: I can speak briefly. My mayor, Spector Murdoch, Community Development director. So we have already conducted engagement, development community. Perhaps not as broadly, uh, include the VIA, uh, as they've suggested they would like, but we have targeted developers active in. That has led to some of those developers participating today as a consequence of that spending. process is working. What we hear is the fees are too high, as you can imagine, and it's difficult to know where we could calibrate those fees. If you satisfy the development, you can quote unlock certain desirable types. We can think about how to figure out where the line might be. But for condominium development, particularly we've had other developer engagement very recently, is part of our low and moderate income ownership strategy work or the console workplan. And what we're hearing overwhelmingly from auto developers is that the construction defect liability is the number one cost implication and ability to develop comic contempts. Absolutely, fees are an important part of that, you know, whether it's 10% or something around there. That's a very high share, but it's, it's not been cited as the foremost reason, uh, or obstacles to planning in development. So it's not even clear if we set it to 0 what that would do given the construction defect viability, they can also tally a very significant amount. I'm not suggesting we begin to 0 in the city, but that's within the council's purview to decide. So it's just, I think, that and balancing with the fact that this tends to be the most significant funding source for park acquisition and construction. Those are difficult policy, uh, issues to balance out. But we have done developer engagement, and the good news is we're tentatively good scheduling this summer to have another developer engagement meeting. And so, um, so, provide an opportunity to update where we've progressed, it's the last thing I come in and

[01:22:33] Unknown Speaker: see if there's further impact from the developers of that. Maybe then I don't want to be prescriptive either, but. The reason the BIA is special is that they sue, they sometimes win. So... Include them in the process of simplers.

[01:22:54] Member Lucas Ramirez: All right, we have a motion in a 2nd all in favor. All oppose. Extensions. And that seems to have passed unanimously. So we will now move on to item 6. Comments, questions and committee reports. Are there any committee or staff reports, questions, or committee reports from committee members?

[01:23:19] Unknown Speaker: I was curious about, uh, what else? Do we have any other? Uh, December,

[01:23:28] Derek: we've got November, early December, we're going to call you on that. That'll be, uh, Akford. We are going to also bring back the auditors, work planet results from past audits. So I think that's pretty much the TDM 8 months. I mean, after, so that'll be December. I don't foresee one before then. So you got a little break. Thank you. Yes.

[01:23:55] Member Lucas Ramirez: With that, I'll adjourn the Meetless New Year's adjourned at 9.7.

• ← Previous