June 17, 2024 Council NOFA Review Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:01] Unknown Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order at 302 p.m. This meeting is being conducted. I have to read this, right? Oh, still? Okay. Just to be certain. this meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. Anyone wishing to address the committee virtually may join the meeting online at each ttps colon slash slash mountain view.zoom.us slash J slash 8125 Uh, sorry, 812-453-48820 or by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 812-45348820. When the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, click the raise hand feature in Zoom or dial star 9 on your phone. When the chair calls your name to provide public comment. If you are participating via phone, please press star 6 to unmute yourself. So, uh, the meeting is called to order, um, of all, well, committee member Ramos and Fair Ramirez present, um, and a committee member, uh, Hicks is not in yet. Um, will move to item three. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on, uh, 3.one approved minutes. So, you know, members of the public. A motion is in order. Come on in. Ah,

[00:01:24] Member Alison Hicks: the door was locked.

[00:01:26] Unknown Speaker: It should be unlocked. I'll look at it. Okay. I want to see what's ring on here. I might check... We were just about to approve the minutes. Oh, no. Actually...

[00:01:40] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Item 3.1, so I'm... You just got to pull it. So I moved to adopt the minutes of the February 6th, uh, meeting and the August 18th meeting. Is there a second?

[00:01:53] Unknown Speaker: Oh, 2nd. Yes. Thank you. All in favor? I, I passes unanimously. Thank you. I have 4 oral communications from the public. I still don't see any members of the public. Thank you, so we'll move on to item 5, discussion, action items. Uh, 5.one review of notice of funding availability process, uh, and we will begin with the staff presentation. Oh,

[00:02:20] Senior Housing Officer: good afternoon. Um, come on, say, it's Ramos and Cheramirez, Deanna Palabera, senior housing officer. I'm joined today by Arsha Ramshandani, Housing Officer, the Housing Department, Julie Barnard, the Affordable Housing Manager, Don Cameron, public sports director, and I'm joining virtually as Lee Chen Housing Director. Um, This afternoon, we'll provide the committee with a review of the NoFA process and updates made in response to housing element program 4.1 A. This program addresses streamlining and processing revisions, um, that should be completed by June 30th, 2024. So our review at a high level, is aimed at improving coordination, communication and transparency in our process. Um, so we'll be providing an overview of the NoFa process. What is the no process? But it begins with an applicant submitting a NoFA application to the city to request, um, city funding towards their project. It concludes when staff brings a funding recommendation to the city council. Um, For approval. So the city of Mountain View has an over-the-counter Nova where funding is awarded on a 1st come, 1st serve basis. And NOPA funded primarily through 3 sources, housing impact fees, which are fees assessed to commercial, um, and high-tech development, RBMR fees, and, um, any remaining rental housing impact fees, um, This fee was discontinued in 2018. So the Nova process is summarized here on this chart, um, as mentioned, it begins when an applicant submits an application to the city requesting funding. The application typically includes the details of their proposed development and housing program, including income levels, population served, sources and uses. The next step in this process is our due diligence phase, we're staffed from various departments, including planning, public works, fire, we all review the project, and we make an assessment about the project viability. If it can be built, Um, housing staff is reviewing to ensure that um, their housing program is in alignment with city priorities. That's its, that it's competitive for external, state, federal funding. Um, like tax credits, grants, et cetera. Step 3 is where staff engages in a series of meetings with the applicant to get more clarification about the application, to review the funding requests with the applicant. This process can typically, uh, take a few steps or a few meetings depending on the complexity of the project. The total number of meetings and length of time that step 3 takes really depends on the responsiveness of the applicant and the information, if they're providing complete information. If the initial application submittal includes a project that is more viable at the outset, um, It's less likely to take as much time. Um, however, projects um, that maybe aren't in alignment with city code or requirements may require more back and forth. The next step is when staff brings a funding recommendation to the NoFA committee. And then it concludes with the NoFA review committee making a recommendation to the city council for funding. It's like, So a lot of what, um, we reviewed through this process was through the lens of streamlining, which is really focused on reducing the number of steps and the time it takes to complete a process. However, for the notebook process, um, there are a few factors that make it difficult to reduce the steps in time that it takes to complete our, our process. Um, Sometimes these factors are out of the city's control. Like completing the due diligence process, for example. It really depends on the applicant's ability to secure outside funding sources, which, as we all know, are very competitive. So our review is really the minimum number of steps that is needed to completely review the process for funding. Um, our review. In this particular case is focused on increasing the clarity of our process. Our goals are to have a smooth and transparent process, and hopefully that reduces the time it takes to bring funding forward. And really, we are taking a continuous improvement approach to this whole review. So we are always looking at opportunities to get better, to collect feedback and to increase the transparency of our process. So here you'll see the various elements of the housing, uh, element item that we're bringing forth. There were several steps, um, that we were asked to look at, and actions affiliated with them. Um, I'll focus on um, housing element number one. The underwriting guidelines. Oh, review and update of the city's affordable housing. Um, No foot process. So actions that we took affiliated with this housing element component were to create underwriting guidelines to update our NoFA application and to implement online submittal functionality. Part of this was the underwriting guidelines. So in 2022, the food development adopted, um, the multifamily rental underwriting guidelines and these guidelines provide a set of criteria that the city and other lenders used to assess, um, Funding requests. It includes things like loan eligibility, loan terms and conditions and our various underwriting policies. So we completed this action in 2022 and prior to doing this, there was a little bit of a lack of standardization in the way that we, um, We negotiated each loan. So it was really on a case by case basis. Folks weren't entirely clear on what our criteria was. And so now with having these, we feel like we've been able to streamline our process, make it more transparent. Folks know what our requirements are when they come in the department. Um, again, the guidelines are a living document. So we will continue to update them in response to changes in regulatory requirements, economic conditions, um, and best practices. I should note that items on, um, this list, let's say CI, um, denote like a continuous improvement item that we will constantly be looking at throughout our process. Next is our updated NOFA application. So we are in the process of updating the application that applicants submit when they come in the door. It was last updated in 2014. It doesn't include a lot of the relevant information that we've got now. It was a PDF form, a little funky and hard to use. We were having folks, um, who were submitting that were leaving information off. And just generally, we were getting inconsistent and incomplete applications. So we're moving towards a template based excel form. So include some attachments. But this form will allow for more standardization, um, data consistency and just we hope overall, um, more efficient application process moving forward. And the final piece of component number one is to implement online submittal capacity. So, um, applications are currently accepted by email, which we all know is not the preferred method to receive applications, um, really limits the accessibility and transparency of the application. They're not able to track if it's been received, confirm submittals. And there can sometimes be issues with version control. There's updates that need to be made. So to improve this aspect, um, we are looking towards, um, implementing online submittal. We exploring platforms that will provide us with this functionality and for better data management. The next housing element component was to improve coordination and communication internally. Um, so, Staff are routinely communicating throughout the no foot process, but we've implemented now a post-project review. So we did this with 1265 Montecedo. Following that loan closing stat met. We discuss best practices, ways to be more efficient. Um, how to best communicate with each other through the NoFA process. And going forward, we will be having post-project reviews to help us continue to coordinate more effectively. And this will be a continuous improvement item. That's something that we're doing on an ongoing basis. Um, then speaking of public facing. Uh, I'm sorry, the next housing element component is to improve coordination and communication with applicants. So 2 actions that we took as a result were to identify key staff on our teams and points of contact on our website, um, create public facing workflows and to document our procedures. Um, so we have, uh, recently updated the website to, um, include all of our key documents, including our guidelines. Um, we will be, uh, putting the updated application on the website, Um, we also collected some feedback that, Applicants didn't always know who they should contact with questions. Um, so we have now designated uh, key. So both Harsha and myself, housing officers in the housing department will be the key points of contact with any know-for-related questions, will be forward and our information can now be found on the website as direct for the contact. Um, this really aims at providing our developer applicants with the necessary support and the resources that they need to make it through the process occasionally. And then finally, creating public, basically workflows and to document our procedures. So, um, we've also received feedback that there's a lack of clarity about how long it takes. What the actual process is. And so, uh, through this process, we are documenting all of these things, writing it down, um, with the goal of smoother coordination and communication between them and us. The next housing element component is housing element component 4, which is to encourage developers to leverage city funds. So this is already required as part of our underwriting guidelines, which explains it in detail, more fully. So we always want applicants to achieve cost-effective development and to maximize their overall ability to secure and leverage our funding for outside funding. Um, And again, this is a requirement already that applicants have to meet once they submit an application. The next housing element component was housing element component five, which was to host developer round tables. So staff held a NoFA specific developer round table on June 3rd. Um, it was really aimed at medium affordable housing developers who have already gone through our no foot process, who are currently going through it. Or, um, who may be interested in applying for our NoFA. So we collected a lot of feedback, both in advance of the developer round table and during. Um, some of the feedback was highlighted as an attachment to the staff report. But I'll go through a few key points here. So some of the most effective and beneficial aspects, um, of the no foot process based on the feedback was, um, having availability of city funding early. So the availability of pre-development loan. Um, the accessibility of an over-the-counter NoFA application process. Having dedicated staff available for direct communication and support throughout the NoFA application process. The most challenging aspect of the NoFA process was really a lack of clarity about the process itself and the timeline. And some suggested improvements to the process where to publish an outline of our, um, steps and timelines, and then to create an informal project review checklist, um, that accompanies the application. This feedback really aligns with some of the actions that we've taken here today, and that will continue to implement as part of our radio. Um, we also will be holding periodic meeting with affordable housing developers on an ongoing basis. Um, this will be to continue to collect feedback and then to also update, uh, developers and know for applicants on our general housing programs. So we'll be doing this on an ongoing basis. Housing element component 6 was to garner consultant advice. So, we worked with our economic advisory consultant, cycle consulting. We also worked with, um, outside legal consultants from, um, Burke Williams Sorenson, who both of whom have worked with city staff for a long time as part of the Nova process. Our economic advisory consultant assists us with few diligence during the review of our applications. Um, they help us evaluate the financial strategy and perform as of each applicant. Um, Seifel works again with a lot of cities in San Mateo County, Santa Clara County. Um, so we're able to, you know, depend on her advice and expertise as we incorporate changes into our process. Um, She provided input. Um, with our Nova application and has been very involved in updating. But peace. We also work again with outside legal council. They specialize in affordable housing projects, and they assist with drafting documents needed to accompany our loans, so our loan agreements, regulatory agreements, promissory notes, things of that nature. Um, and these documents really ensure that our interests are protected, that these units remain affordable, and that the affordability requirements are met. So we'll continue to review all of these documents. Um, with the help of our outside, uh, consultants as part of our ongoing commitment to review the process. The next housing element component was to review other agencies that practices. So how do they award fundals? What are the tools that supports this fundament? So as mentioned, we have an over-the-counter notebook process. We wanted to see how our neighbors award funding the projects. We looked at cities next door in Santa Clara County, San Mateo County. And we found that most cities award funding in 2 ways over the counterprocess, like us, or a competitive no phone process. And the difference between the 2 is that a competitive process, um, sex applications during a specific or limited period of time. Um, it be over the counter process like ours, accepts applications on an ongoing 1st come 1st serve basis. So applications going through the competitive process or usually score ranked, brought back to a committee or council for approval and moving on to the next steps. Um, We've all reviewed, um, this, and we looked at how other cities reviewed it, and it really is, uh, the method by which we award funding is a very local decision. So it's very specific to their funding sources and their process. So staff is, uh, recommending that the city continued to implement it over the counterprocess because it has key advantages in terms of, uh, timing of funding availability, uh, the flexibility to award funding to projects that best meet our goals and priorities. The next housing um, Oh, I'm sorry, one more thing, tools that support our funding methods. So, um, we took a look at what other cities are using.

[00:18:51] Senior Housing Officer: We found that, um, the cities that do it best have incorporated, um, the things that we're talking about here today. So standardizing their templates. Having checklists available to make sure that people are submitting what they're supposed to submit. Um, And these tools are very accessible online. So updating our website, making sure all of these key documents are available will really help streamline our process moving forward. The next housing element component was to utilize trained staff in each department and division. Some of the actions affiliated with this piece were to, um, have city staff, work on NoFA projects that are subject matter experts in their fields. Um, and to provide affordable housing training to city staff who are involved in the no foot process. So, Already, um, senior staff participate in review of the NoFA applications. Each member of the staff has the necessary skills, um, to conduct their review, so we have senior planners, um, senior building officials, senior staff from public works and fire, all take a look and are part of this process. Um, and they make sure that, um, the project is viable and we coordinate with each other ongoing as projects travel. through. So the housing department is also committing to holding training for city staff that are involved in the review. And so we'll spend some time over the next few months putting together the elements of this training. We're hoping to provide an overview to staff about how affordable housing is financed. We think that's an important component. Um, how these projects are similar and maybe how they're very different from market rate projects, um, and how this might inform a developer's design or approach or the constraints around, um, this particular project. Next. So that sort of summarizes the report that you received. We're here to um, receive your feedback. Incorporate it into our NoFA process. As mentioned, um, we will be implementing components and actions. That's discussed as part of this review, and we've always aiming to continue to refine our project. Just left on it, collect feedback. Thank you. So we're available for questions if there are any and we're joined online by Wayne as well. Enjoy

[00:21:28] Member Lucas Ramirez: much. Well, we'll 1st take questions from the committee, and then if, um, there are any members of the public will take public comment that come back to comments? Does any member of the team have any questions? Any other heads? So

[00:21:43] Member Alison Hicks: first, I think this is great. I'm I'm glad I know I'm segueing into comments, but you know, questions, since I have several of them, sometimes sound like you don't appreciate the work, so just to start off with. I think this is great. Um, and I'm so glad to see streamlining, meaning things like, um, you know, clarifying the process and the documents rather than just cutting out meetings with members of the community. Um, So, um, overall, I loved it. I I still have a little bit of unclarity. What? So there's the over-the-counter process and the competitive process. Um, But those are just, I think I understand what they are, but those are, um, titles for processes. Is the over the counterprocess really still over the counter or is it on, so it is. Yes,

[00:22:41] Housing Manager: it still requires some discretionary approvals or at least through the notebook committee and through council approvals, but it isn't as, it's not competitive, as in, we're not stacking developers up against one another for a limited. So that part I understood, but the part

[00:22:56] Member Alison Hicks: I didn't understand is this. After I retire from council, I work for a nonprofit developer. Do I, if I'm doing, you're doing the over-the-counter process, do I come into your counter and submit it or do I submit it online? So we are going

[00:23:12] Senior Housing Officer: towards submitting online submits right now. The way it works is we receive applications in a variety of ways. Sometimes applicants reach out to planning directly to sort of make sure that a project they're thinking about meets the zoning requirement. So, and maybe then they're routed to housing. Oh, you're looking for city funding and, you know, we we get developers in a variety of different ways, but typically they reach out to the housing department. They discuss their projects, give us. Um, and then we direct them to the application. They submit their application with all of their housing programs. So we're looking towards family housing and yeah, they they email us the application. Um, I guess what I'm asking is, is the 1st point of contact at the counter or is it on? It's typically like phone, email introduction.

[00:23:59] Member Alison Hicks: Well, I think it may be an outdated term for that particular because... Over the counter is where you go. And the other one, I forget what was it called, the competitive process is whether it's competitive or non-competitive. So, you know, it seems like, clockwise, where some are horsepower or something, you know, maybe a term that, actually, I think those are even less confusing because, If you want them to submit it online and you call it an over-the-counter process for people as old as me. It's confusing. So

[00:24:40] Senior Housing Officer: maybe a 1st come 1st serve is more appropriate. Okay.

[00:24:43] Member Alison Hicks: Yes. And then I have a question about that too. Okay. Because is it really? What does 1st come 1st serve me? And so if I retire from council, Council member Ramirez does too and we both work for different nonprofit housing organizations. If I come in 1st, but my applications not complete and we're going on about it. And then he comes in for his organization. Am I really in a queue ahead of him? Or how does that work? What does 1st come 1st serve actually mean?

[00:25:15] Senior Housing Officer: Really, it's the projects that make it through that due diligence phase. We can 2 applications at the same time. It doesn't necessarily mean his is going to get funded and yours is it. We go through a back and forth to make sure that the projects, A, meet our priorities and our goals, um, that they're competitive for funding. Mostly that they're viable. They can be built, right? If you say you're going to come in and build, give us 100 units, 5 stories, something like, we want to make sure that that physical product can be built. So the due diligence part is where we figure out, then they're ready for the next step, a recommendation of funding. And it's projects that get to that point, really, that we feel have gone through the due diligence phase and are now, we're comfortable making a recommendation. 2 projects walk through the door at the same time. I got there 1st and he got there the next week.

[00:26:07] Member Alison Hicks: And it may be that your project just, but my project may be slower. His may get through due diligence first. I think it may be important. Also, so just like over the counter, to me implied, I should bring my application to the counter. First come 1st serve, implies to me that if I hear other, Nonprofits are putting together something, I should rush to get my application in 1st because I'll be at the top of the queue. So I would clarify what those terms mean. And I should say this is for someone I haven't been in this field in decades, but I did work in affordable housing and planning, and you know, the terms maybe mean different things at different times, but I would clarify what they actually mean. Let's see, what else do I have? Uh, And I was a little confused also when you, the staff report said, you would encourage, I don't, I didn't write down the exact quote. You would encourage people, applicants to, uh, go for city funding. But we don't have any. It, or don't have an adequate amount. It seems to me that then you would, I, I don't know. That seemed contradictory. leverage city funding to leverage. Yeah, so the projects that come in, we want to make sure that we're, that projects are still out competing for other sources of funding, right? We have a limited source, a limited bucket. Um, so we want to make sure that if a project is Seeking our funding, that they're also seeking funding from the county, from grant funding, their tax credits, they're going out and securing other sources because we know that ours isn't enough to make the project pencil. So we want to make sure that they're leveraging our funds to qualify. A lot of times they need to show a city commitment in order to submit other applications for other funding. So, um, that's really the nature of how the projects are financed and we want to make sure that projects are A competitive, that they can receive. And they are eligible for those other funding sources. And that we're helping them get there, but we have a limited source of funding too. So, yeah, so that was another thing I was a little unclear. And then later in the staff report, it said that during your

[00:28:34] Member Alison Hicks: meetings with, um, the various nonprofits that they said, or affordable housing developers, that they said it was particularly important for pre-development funding, which means you want to talk to them about it early on, not at the end. Yes. So, I was just, unclear on what, the word and courage was used and I was like, if they don't need it, we should, and we don't have much. We shouldn't be encouraging, but it's not a big point. It was just a lot. Yeah,

[00:29:03] Senior Housing Officer: and I think it's probably more appropriate that we require it. We don't encourage it. We require... You require that they, we require that they leverage our funds and that they are going out and actively seeking other

[00:29:16] Member Alison Hicks: sources of funding. But you don't require that they use city funding if they don't need it. No, we

[00:29:23] Senior Housing Officer: don't, we don't. You're right. We don't do it. Only

[00:29:27] Member Alison Hicks: if it's helpful. You want to make sure that they know it's available. Yes. If it is in fact. Okay. Um, okay, so that was just, and then to you, this is a minor point that my son recently applied for something at our house, electric related. Do you text? Uh, this may be more for private site homeowners and so forth than for a nonprofit houser, but I thought I would ask. Do you text people, um, back, you know, when you, they ask a question, maybe they email you a question, you, you say you'll get back. Do you text them when they, you have a, an answer? Um,

[00:30:06] Senior Housing Officer: typically if we get, if I receive a question at the counter from an applicant or whomever, housing related questions, um, if they're at the counter, we try to answer the best we can. If we need to follow up, we collect an account or a phone number, whatever is the best method, but text is not typically how. At least I've done it. Mostly, it's to be able to track our response, make sure that we have, and then if they have a follow-up that they have.

[00:30:34] Member Alison Hicks: So this may not be important for working with affordable housing developers, but he had a very long lag in, he would email in a question. somebody would email him back. He wouldn't look at his email for a couple days. And so every single question was like, and there are a lot of. Where's like, 3 days later and then it was the weekend. So 5 days later. He was like, why don't they just text me? Kaiser text me. Um, so I don't know if that's practical, but I think it cuts down in terms of streamlining, I think it could cut down a lot for some people. And I think that's. And then, okay, my last question is, apparently some of the nonprofit housing developers said they would like a checklist. Is that something you're gonna give them? Okay. It

[00:31:29] Senior Housing Officer: will. So we have some supplemental information that we require from the developments related to their housing programs, unit accounts. Um, some, some sort of like schematics and, um, a lot of financial like information that we require. So we will have a checklist as part of our application. Find it's one place to keep everything organized. They've submitted it. Yeah,

[00:31:52] Member Alison Hicks: because they could make their own, but they probably spend a lot of time doing that and all make different checklists and everybody would be confused. Um, okay, that's all my questions and thank you. having been in this field. I really enjoyed reading the staff report and it sounded generally great to me. Thank

[00:32:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: you very much. Can we do member Ramos? Do you have any questions? Ah,

[00:32:14] Member Emily Ann Ramos: yeah, could we go to slide four? This is.

[00:32:42] Senior Housing Officer: Sorry, just a little bit of a lag on our screen. No worries. Just

[00:32:48] Member Emily Ann Ramos: a, uh, sorry. Overall, kind of looking at a quick understanding of each of the steps and where there is staff discretion and what is the range of that discretion? I guess that's, it's a very big question, very little words. So, uh, just like an overview of like, so the developers, Miss Nova, stat, views for completeness, that seems pretty straightforward, right? So, like, the term as a complaint is, you can look at the form and see that it's complete or not. Then the departmental staff conducts due diligence, including cities affordable housing consultants. What is the range of discretion there? What does that due diligence mean?

[00:33:32] Senior Housing Officer: So typically we're making sure that the project is meeting all of the sort of general health and safety codes that we have here in Mountain View, making sure that the project can be built. It meets all of our basic city requirements. So they're not assuming a building that doesn't have setbacks or fire access. We want to make sure that it can be built. It's functional and viable. Um, and that's really the extent of our review during the no foot process. You know, there's, there's an entitlement process that the project goes through and that is sort of separate from this process, often we're getting applications that are very early in the process. So our job is to make sure that when we allocate funding towards the project. that, We, if we are going to, let's say, for example, give a project $5000000 and they say we're going to provide 100 units that 100 units can, in fact, be built and that their housing program isn't going to change substantially. Um, from when we provide a reservation to then, once it's entitled. So, really, it's the initial viability, feasibility aspect. Um, so making sure that they are meeting code and requirements. Okay.

[00:34:44] Member Emily Ann Ramos: And then how is that different in terms of step three? Like, what is? Do you remember, Ramos,

[00:34:54] Wayne: if I could also add, um, I think, um, uh, Ms. Talavera hit it exactly. I did want to note one piece where when we do do diligence in step two, which leads into step three, which is, um, we may talk to, um, the developer in terms of 1st looking at the reportable housing program, so, um, setting aside project of viability that could be built. Um, the AMI levels or if there are special needs or, um, the sizes of the units. And so, for example, a couple of years ago, when a council said, we really would like to see if we can get more larger family units. And at the time, we might have been seeing more smaller units. Part of step 2 is evaluating that, and then step three, we may be meeting with the developer and saying, hey, you know, we see what you've submitted, and was wondering if there was an opportunity to include larger unals, and then they might go back. Um, um, see if it's possible and come back with some refinements or modifications. And so there was a interplay with 2 and 3 and part of the, um, the discretion as you're referring to, um, is, in many cases, staff trying to reflect, um, city and council priorities for affordable housing and then having a dialogue with the developer to see if there might be any tweaks to their initial proposal. But, So,

[00:36:17] Member Emily Ann Ramos: like, what does that mean? For the developer, is it, does that, like, is there a point there that just things just, Doesn't happen at that step? Like, how does

[00:36:27] Senior Housing Officer: that work? It's really a conversation that we're having with them based on a variety of factors. Can the project support what we're asking? Does it add cost? Is it something that they can take a look at? And oftentimes it's something that can be reviewed. And maybe it does work and they can support larger family sized units. And, you know, some adjustments to their housing programs, lower AMIs, um, or we're making them aware of programs that we've heard of through the county, that we serve different populations. And so a lot of this is just a dialogue. And typically it comes back to, can your project support this request or can it not? And, you know, based on those factors is how we, we move forward. But I think we're always working towards making it. In partnership with developer, a project that meets our goals and priorities. And, um, and that's how we move through those conversations.

[00:37:23] Housing Manager: If I can add, um, Maybe sort of, if you want to look at it as step 2 is internally, that city. Like what do the cities stop doing? What are we working on? What are we comfortable with? What are we not comfortable with? Whereas step 3 is maybe the city and the Apple thing? The truth, what they review, context, funding, reference to the app, again. It's sort of like by then the dollar amount that we're comfortable funding. And then that we will work through with them because Instead one, they might come in and offer $100000000 And we're not going to, we don't have $100000000 and we look at the project and we're like, well, you know, maybe $80,000 a door is what we think we can support for this project and some projection. Going forward. So, by time you get to step three. I mean, this is a little discretionary, but mainly we're working on what is the most feasible? How far can we get? Can we go through this? Um, we're going through growing paints. The 1st time, I believe, I mean, I'm new to the city, but that we have this many projects in our pipeline, with the finite resources. So right now we're trying to establish the feasibility of these projects and what is the most viable for us to be able to fund them so they can leverage other sources. Um, that we think will still allow them to continue. Um, again, we're not a competitive process. So it's not like we say we've got $100000000 and we have 8 applicants coming in at once. It's really a. There is a lot of sort of back and forth working with the developer to see what is their programming. Is it realistic? It's realistic, great. But we think that, you know, this is a reasonable amount to support. The information that they've given us and they perform based on some of other assumptions that they have. The cities are usually the 1st gap finances in to any project. Most other funders want to be the last. They want to be the last funders. So we're taking the biggest risk, always. Um, So that's sort of the position. That's why there's a lot of iterations. There's a lot of internal discussions about what, are there, is there project, you know, far along in the process for us to be at a staff level, comfortable saying, yes, like we think that we've spoken to all the other departments there. They, they see this as feasible or, like, comfortable providing the Nova committee with, um, with a recommendation. Wait. Thank,

[00:39:50] Wayne: thank you, Julie. Yes. And and to sort of bring this back to committee member Ramos's question. In our experience, I don't believe we've experienced an issue where that it has, um, slow the project or which, uh, it created kind of a timing piece with the developer, usually what we've experienced and it's, um, represented by the survey, is that the developer really appreciates the feedback to just help them dial in the project. Um, so that they can really bring a project to the city that is really adjusting the city's goals um, as well. Um, so that's, that's been our experience so far and we would continue to have this as a, uh, as a process, we're able to actively talk with, with the developers and, This is where we did notice the flexibility part, um, with our, with our plus size, it allows this kind of dialogue to make sure it's really a, a project that is viable. financially and physically in terms of being able to be built and that addresses the community's needs. So

[00:40:56] Member Emily Ann Ramos: I, I, I, I've been hearing things about like the different, like, ranges, like, if they come in saying, we want a $1000000 from the city for this, that seems probably unrealistic, but do we have those kinds of guidelines as people come in with an understanding on that, because that could also be helpful. Like I, I, I, I, I, I like the idea that we're super open and like we're willing to work with people, but like I hate for someone, a developer, a nonprofit developer, they either are new to the game, we're looking at a whole bunch of, um, uh, more localized develop, a nonprofit developer starting to uh, sprout essentially, and they, they may not know as much, and so they're coming in, and I would hate for, for them to be like, Oh, let's go for it, which I think overall we do want to support in general, but like they're, like, how transparent are we with actual expectations of that? I

[00:41:56] Senior Housing Officer: think, I mean, this is my perspective, having gone through it, um, with just a few developers, but they come in typically with a number in mind, right? I mean, they're looking at the county, you know, when there was measury funding available of a certain amount from the county, certain amount from the city, certain amount assumed from tax credits and other sources. So they come in with a number and we do start off those conversations pretty early on about whether or not that number's realistic. Um, and I think they do a lot of work too, to their credit. And coming in with numbers that are reasonable and requests that are realistic and they have taken a look at maybe past projects that we've funded. And so some, some benchmarking as far as, you know, what we offer port per door, Stooley was mentioning. And so, um, I don't know that we've been in a situation where, um, the numbers, like we haven't had those conversations and they're already far along in process. We're having those conversations very early and very often. Um, once an application is submitted and sometimes before. So

[00:43:07] Member Emily Ann Ramos: after, So as now we're in step 3 in terms of that kind of discretion, they called their community meeting, we've been very blessed in mount of you. I rarely see, uh, the community and our staff push against affordable housing, like we've been really lucky, but I've seen other cities that have not been as lucky. How much does that discretion? Uh, Weigh in on the NoFo review process.

[00:43:36] Senior Housing Officer: I think we like to have applicants speak to their neighbors in the communities where these projects will be built and collect feedback. And so, um, we ask that applicants be open to receiving that feedback and depending on on the feedback, incorporate it, if possible, right? Not always, is it? And sometimes there's already things that we're doing. Sometimes the feedback is, oh, well, well, Mountain Vee residents get priority. Yes, they will. Sometimes it's, I don't like the way that looks or, I don't, you know, and so then there's things that are maybe not as easy to answer, but that can be addressed in other ways. That um, are feasible. So I think it's always a balance of incorporating feedback. But, um, for the most part, we've been lucky that our applicants, um, definitely try to do the best they can to incorporate community feedback and respond to it in a way that's appropriate. It makes sense. But what

[00:44:33] Member Emily Ann Ramos: happens if there is a, a great point. What if somehow we get, uh, a crest view, uh, kind of situation or something like that. I

[00:44:46] Senior Housing Officer: think there's always a point at which not every suggestion or, uh, feedback can be incorporated, but we do our best to respond and to, um, I think, Our developers have done a good job in outreach. And so if they are trying to work with somebody who's maybe making a request that is not reasonable or cannot be incorporated for some reason is taking them along on that journey, education, outreach, about maybe why it can't happen here. Um, like I said, we've been lucky for the most part that we're working in partnership with developers who um, do the work, do the outreach, in coordination with staff, we're able to respond. I think those

[00:45:30] Unknown Speaker: are my questions. Thank you. Any

[00:45:32] Unknown Speaker: other follow-up? Um, so you were writing some stuff down. Oh. I

[00:45:38] Member Alison Hicks: was just, maybe for comments, like, no more questions. Okay.

[00:45:42] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So I agree with, um, how, Committee, member Hicks started 1st of, Thank you for preparing the presentation and giving us an opportunity to better understand the process and provide some, uh, input. I, I, I've been on the Nofoot committee, I think off and on for, um, a number of years, and I don't recall having a similar opportunity. So this is, this is terrific. Um, I have a few questions, a great, uh, questions because they, I thought all of my questions had been answered, but see, we're asking questions. I, um, uh, if I generated a few. And the 1st is to clarify, is there, there is a 20% target for the city contribution, right, to a developer, they would be expected to use that 20% contribution to leverage the remaining 80% of the total development cost externally. But a target is not a maximum, right? So, um, how do we practice and force that? Hard to. So that, that

[00:46:42] Senior Housing Officer: is part of the criteria, but I think when funding becomes tighter and tighter. I be even less than 20%, right? Now, because we're looking at it. So, we are always engaging, um, in conversations with the development teams to make sure that they are pursuing every available funding source possible to make sure that the project can be financed and built. Um, that's part of the due diligence phase, um, taking a look at where we are with application cycles and tax credits and. Supernova grants, whether or not it's competitive for Asic funding. So a lot of due diligence goes into making sure that, um, we're helping to identify sources. They're looking at sources. Um, and taking a look at the pro forma is often, uh, biggest tool in making sure that a project can be financed, but that 20% is, is, uh, is where we were, and I think, in a more competitive funding climate and with limited resources that that number will probably drop to the overall contribution from the city. Maybe

[00:47:43] Unknown Speaker: I should have asked a little bit more directly. So, do we say no more than 20% or, do you, when would you apply discretion to allow a city contribution greater than 20%? Well,

[00:48:00] Senior Housing Officer: great questions. Yeah. I would say, I don't know that well, we've been in, or at least Wayne can speak more to the history of it. Since I've been here, we have had more limited funding, right? So we have not, I have not been in a position where we could. contribute more than 20%. Uh,

[00:48:19] Wayne: yes, I, I think historically, we've, you know, this kind of 401 ratio is, uh, in some ways, um, quite common in terms of how other cities have leverage ratios, so that is, when we work with developers, they're, uh, very used to seeing this, this sort of thing, as uh, Deanna was alluding to, we may be looking at higher, higher, uh, leverage ratios, but I do think this is what speaks to, What we can really commit to is have a clear set of processes, um, guidelines, tools, um, but there is an element of art here in negotiation that is part of the process. And so these are all fantastic questions. And the way that we would approach it, typically, is that dialogue, and then we're having a conversation in terms of, how can we advance this project in a way that's feasible, and you're able to access external funding sources? And if a developer comes back and says, we hear the priorities. We're having, for example, maybe a challenging time getting getting to the leverage requirement, but we can really hit the goals if there's a little bit more of a contribution. We would look at that. If they come back to say, we can get more leveraging requirements, but the external funding sources might need us to include these other items, which may be less of a priority. Then we would say, let's look at that. Let's figure that out. So that's where some of the art comes in. And where the flexibility really helps us to figure out, um, what works for the developer and what advances our, our city goals, um, but the underwriting guidelines, as Deanna mentioned, provides us with a very clear starting and from there, we can figure out what, what will make a project move forward. Okay,

[00:50:01] Unknown Speaker: that's helpful. Thank you. Do we include in that 20%. The value of city owned land. So

[00:50:10] Senior Housing Officer: city owned projects don't typically go through the NoFA process. Those are typically done through an RFQ, RFP, a competitive bidding process, and then funding commitments are brought to council for consideration as part of that negotiation. process. Our NoFA process is typically reserved for, um, applicants who, you know, outside developers who have secured a site or have their eye on a site and and are considering affordable housing on that site. Do we, is

[00:50:42] Unknown Speaker: it important to have a, uh, leveraging target for, Force, affordable housing developed on city owned properties. Yes.

[00:50:51] Senior Housing Officer: So I think we would apply some of our underwriting guidelines to our city-owned sites and make sure that we're working within the same parameters for us, for those developers, although that's on a case-by-case basis, because we may have some priorities that are very specific to city-owned sites that may make it a little more difficult, right? So requiring childcare, requiring deeper affordability levels that may change some of the criteria. Um, but those are on our sites when we have applicants who come, you know, from the outside with their own, uh, or having secured another site that's not city on property. We apply our underwriting guidelines. Okay,

[00:51:32] Unknown Speaker: thank you. I might have comments based on these later. Um, so I appreciated uh, several of the questions that committee member were almost asked. The community meeting. Um, that we require. Uh, is, is that required to, uh, is that a, uh, a requirement expected from any external sources of funding, state or federal? Do they require a community meeting or is this something that is just a city of Mountain View expectation? This

[00:52:04] Senior Housing Officer: is a city of Mountain View expectation. We found that, um, definitely. We want to make our residents and community members aware of projects that are in the pipeline that will come to their communities. Um, gives them an opportunity to weigh in. Some of these applications. Maybe going through streamlined reviews, and this may be the only opportunity to find out about a project, have an opportunity to provide some feedback and input. So, Um, it's not always the case, but it can be. And we found that our community members really appreciate having the opportunity to review a project, find out more about it, how they might apply. Um, and the project details. If

[00:52:45] Unknown Speaker: I may add in also the value of the community meeting and the opportunity for the developer to engage with the community and hear their feedback and, As was being mentioned, it doesn't mean the developer has to follow through on all the feedback receipt. Some of the stuff is pretty easy, low hanging fruit. The developer even says, oh yeah, I can do that or could get to the basis of what the community concern is and say, we can handle this and it can really help with, as, you know, in the future with the project that it developed good community relations starting from the beginning. But the other piece is, When the project appears before Council for NoFA Funding, which is a council action. Yeah, the council's not hearing from the community, issues for the very 1st time being raised for everybody, developer everybody, as much as possible. Uh, it's the developer and staff were able to see. Yes, we did hear this from the community. This is what we were able to address. This is what we were not able to address, and it just can help make the approvals process at that end go more smoothly. Because the council is not being brought things that, uh, for the 1st time and everybody's hearing about it at the 1st time. It was an opportunity to engage with the community earlier on.

[00:54:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: Do we require projects that go through the NoFA process to go through what we used to call, the design review committee? No. Okay, so they they could voluntarily, if they want to, but we do not require it. And then how do we, how do we present that information to applicants? Uh,

[00:54:29] Julie Barnard: that they aren't required to. It's just, it's part of our checklist. So as we make our process more public facing. It may be even that it's too early in the project's entitlement process to be ready for design review. Um, so you know, as I mentioned, we make sure that it's viable, it's functional to me, all of our code requirements, but there's still a lot of work on the other end that has to happen with our planning teams or public works teams to make sure that, you know, all of the very specific elements are addressed. Um, and at that point, they may have to go to DRC or they may not, but um, it's not a part of our financing process.

[00:55:06] Cameron: Yes, be very clear. These are 2 separate processes, they can run in parallel, they could be structured differently. But it, working carefully to ensure that, The over process is kept very clean and just focus on what's necessary for council's future consideration of providing funding for the project. The entitlement process is a separate process. It may be subject to the historio approval, depending upon what type of application they submit, in which case it will follow that process. Um, and whether it goes to DRC or not depends upon what the, what process they're doing through entitlement. When, um,

[00:55:53] Member Lucas Ramirez: typically how far along is a project in the entitlement process when we require the community meeting.

[00:56:02] Julie Barnard: And at that point, we'd like to make sure that again, we've done our due digit, so that the project has sort of gotten, review and feedback by all of the various city departments, and that works more or less sure that the project can be built, that it can deliver the units. Um, and the housing program that it says it will. So that's that's pretty much the point that we've addressed all major concerns. There's no access, circulation, any health and safety issues. All of those are addressed and that the project that they'll present to the public is ultimately a project that can be built and that they'll see. Is

[00:56:38] Member Lucas Ramirez: the community meeting that require that we require for the NoFA process predominantly about design review? Is that what we hear from the community?

[00:56:48] Julie Barnard: No, a lot of it, uh, revolves around their housing program. So who it'll serve, who the units will be available to, a lot of times their application cycle, the development process, um, you know, what step they are in the development process, timelines, when you can expect to see construction, things in that nature. But design is an element that just comes up naturally, but, um, It's not the complete focus of the meeting. Our job is about financing and housing. And so that's typically what we try to focus on dreams.

[00:57:21] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then a committee member Hicks asked about this, but just for my benefit, The staff report refers to an informal project review checklist, but it doesn't define what's included in the checklist. So what does that refer to?

[00:57:37] Julie Barnard: So our informal review, uh, We do have an informal review process through planning, and we like to see some of this information. Um, how it differs from that process is that we require a lot more financial and housing specific information, that we'd like to see. Oftentimes the informal review process doesn't, um, have as many studies that might be required as part of the formal application process, so arborist reports, um, like fully detailed schematic designs, things of that nature. Oh,

[00:58:12] Member Lucas Ramirez: okay. So it is, it is a separate checklist, though, from what you would require for, um, in the entitlement review process. Okay. Um, that's helpful. Thank you. Um, I know we're we're starting to think about acquisition and rehabilitation. Um,

[00:58:33] Member Lucas Ramirez: do we anticipate a substantially similar type of funding, uh, prioritization and distribution process, or are we looking at something quite different from what we've discussed here? I

[00:58:48] Talavera: mean, I, I, don't think it would be substantially different. Well, I guess we would, sorry, I'm just thinking out loud because I hadn't occurred to me. Um, but, I

[00:59:00] Chen: could jump in, maybe with some thoughts, um, so 1st acquisition, uh, uh, preservation has always been an item that was fundable. We just didn't have any developers requesting funds for that use. Um, I believe one of the items that we've talked about is creating an acquisition preservation underwriting guideline. Um, um, just to be able to account for possible financing differences, but I think what will happen right now, um, uh, Cher Ramirez is because we're going through, uh, acquisition preservation of fund process and a community ownership action plan processes to really look at, um, those activities like now through, through that effort. And if we need to create some additional tools related to implementing our NoFA process for acquisition preservation. We would do that under continuous improvements. Okay,

[00:59:53] Member Lucas Ramirez: so we're we're really not thinking about that in the context of this review. Oh,

[00:59:59] Chen: only because we actually don't have any funding available that we would project, and right now, we are prioritizing our, um, our P sites. And so, We we wouldn't have any funny right now, the moment for new, uh, new construction, nor would we have any for acquisition preservations. So therefore, the most immediate opportunity for acquisition preservation is through the catalytic fund and the community ownership action plan process. Okay. Um, uh,

[01:00:27] Member Lucas Ramirez: aside from uh, Evelyn and Pioneer, what other uh, city-owned sites are are in the pipeline. So,

[01:00:37] Chen: the, the, um, ones that we have, um, that we have in our 12 project pipeline, which includes 3 uh, future ones, um, are the Sobrato site in North Bay Shore, and the pending sites in uh, Middlefield Park. Do

[01:00:57] Member Lucas Ramirez: do we have any sense of when the middle field park sites would be uh, dedicated to the city?

[01:01:06] Chen: Perhaps I might look to assistant city manager, Cameron.

[01:01:11] Cameron: Okay, Wayne, or as of today, public works director. welcome back. Thank you. Um, so, We know that Google is still interested in pursuing a 1st phase housing project for Middlefield Park and and for North Bay Church, just it's been a little bit slower pace and they originally envisioned. And there's still discussions going on. Um, where they would be providing, uh, dedicating some land for portable housing as part of the phase one residential. So, it, it could be in the next couple years. We'll see some of that not dedicated.

[01:01:52] Member Lucas Ramirez: Do we um, have we seen? Are we turning away prospective affordable housing developers elsewhere because we're waiting for the sites to be dedicated by Google? Or is there any evidence that there are other opportunities that we're saying? I mean, the voice kind of suggested what the San Antonio, California Street, project, the Valero, gas station, that the city turned them away because we were prioritizing city owned sites, and they're proceeding with the project, without a city subsidy, are there other examples or other folks who are, who would like to go through the no folk process, who are turning away actively?

[01:02:36] Chen: I would just say, and then I see perhaps Deanna and Julie may have some additional insights. I think part of our implementing our city funds have been to, relay the message to the community that we are prioritizing, um, the city sites, so the community has, um, received the message, and so they, they, they, the conversations that we've had, have been, oh, there are opportunities. Or maybe a project that don't require city funding or, or, We just like to check. We just like to double check to see whether there there isn't any city funding and so we've been noting that. We are still projecting a gap. Um. So maybe I'll, I'll, uh, turn it over to Deanna and Julie to see if they may have had other conversations with developers who have been inquiring.

[01:03:29] Julie Barnard: I think that's, go ahead. Right now, we have a pretty real bus pipeline. We're working on getting our projects. Um, Funding, financing, they're all at times competing with each other. So, you know, we, um, have limited funding available as we mentioned. We have received direction to prioritize the remainder of our funds for our city-owned sites, but as projects do come in and ask, We say, let's let's still have the conversations. Let's keep in communication knowing that we have limited funding because we don't know if there's going to be a project. We're going to get some fees, loans repaid. There might be opportunities, maybe not at the scale. We have been issuing loans at 16 million, 10000000 but, you know, there may be opportunities to contribute to a project that makes sense and meets our goals and priorities. So we still like to engage in the conversation, find out about the projects that are being looked at and evaluated here and if there are opportunities for funding. Then we can bring those forward.

[01:04:33] Talavera: I just want to clarify. I just took a quick look at the article. Um, we didn't turn anybody away. Um, we were asked about city priorities and we've said that sort of main maintained consistently that city owned sites, our city priorities. Um, we have, we had worked with the developers at 334 San Antonio, and we were surprised that they didn't ask us for funding, but they were pretty clear that they were never going to ask the city behind it. So

[01:05:01] Member Lucas Ramirez: I misunderstood. No,

[01:05:02] Talavera: no, no. I think it was a little... It was ambiguous. Um,

[01:05:07] Member Lucas Ramirez: I wasn't certain about that. Thank you for clarifying. So, but we're, do you have a rough sense order of magnitude, how many opportunities there might be, uh, that are not in the pipeline, that are not city owned sites, that, you know, where you are engaging, at least preliminarily.

[01:05:26] Julie Barnard: Including, including, well, I say, excluding 334, right? Two, okay. Great,

[01:05:33] Talavera: because that's 2 total. 2 total. Yeah, 2 totals. So one. Exuding. Well, okay, which one thing? Which

[01:05:42] Julie Barnard: size? Oh, okay. There's another Danco. Well, these are all like, again. Highly preliminary. Yeah, I know. I'm aware of the ulta ones. I would say about two. Okay. And again, these are just sort of preliminary conversations that we're having and they're having as they evaluate the feasibility of their projects. I don't know that us saying no, means their project won't move forward. I think, you know, the funding climate is very clear that it's hard, whether they have city funding or not, and I think we're all looking towards the regional ballot measure to see whether or not that'll infuse some funding here and that these projects can pencil. So I don't think, um, The lack of availability is necessarily making people look elsewhere. I think everybody is looking at just what other funding sources there might be. Okay,

[01:06:29] Member Lucas Ramirez: Emily's job is to get that measure passed, so... Any other questions?

[01:06:36] Member Alison Hicks: What, your line of questioning just, um, did write something with me, and it's back to, it's this question of how much the city gives or loans. You know, it sounds like if people are going forward. When that's not available, they're going forward anyway. I, I just don't know or understand where we're at with encouraging them to do 20%. You know, it sounds like if people are going for, it sounds more like, have a conversation with them about it. Maybe that's exactly what you're doing. But I'm, I'm left with this situation where we don't have the money and some are going forward anyway and. What exactly that means that,

[01:07:20] Julie Barnard: I think in the case of, of, you know, the project that had decided, they made a choice to go forward. without using city funding. That was just a financing choice that they made, particular to their project. But

[01:07:33] Member Alison Hicks: it sounds like if one project can do that, then others probably can too. So I would, what, without a full understanding of this, what it leads me to wonder is, can we ask, since, can we ask them, you know, to me, it says, you don't necessarily want them to take the 20% because maybe they can finance it otherwise and another project will need it. So, I still have some questions around that, how that all works. So what

[01:08:03] Cameron: I understand if we're talking about 334? I'm

[01:08:07] Member Alison Hicks: talking, oh, well, yes, we are, and then all future projects. This is the 1st time.

[01:08:13] Cameron: As I understand it, we've seen an affordable housing project developer coming to say, they're not going to use city funds. They are very, very early in the process. And we're watching very carefully because we hope they can pull it off because it can potentially, as you're mentioning, be an example that could be useful for other developments when there is limited city funding or no city funding available. And, but, We don't know yet if they're going to pull it off. Just to just

[01:08:49] Chen: to add, you know, for example, and without getting into too much nuance, oftentimes the external funding sources are asking what's a city contribution into the project, what's a local match, and they can get points for that. If there is not a city contribution, then they, they may not have something to fill out there. So there is, there is, a push and pull, um, across these funding sources, and the other piece too is, um, without city funding or other funding sources. Projects typically may not have special needs. Or deeper affordability, or larger units. So I think for, um, in order to try to get more supply, we are looking at all different opportunities, including projects that, um, don't have city funding, um, we would still like to be able to be able to partner with develop those in order to create a range of housing types that may not be able to be delivered if it doesn't have city funding in there. And as Deanna mentioned, we, like most others, are looking at a regional measure and being able to move, move projects and, and add, probably through the pipeline. So, Most of these conversations, it's all about trade-offs and, um, it's not a single, uh, solutions. Uh, so, this, uh, 334 would be a great project, because we'd do the 1st of its kind and it would be able to deliver a certain type of project as we try to address affordable housing through the range of needs. We are looking at how to have city resources to come in and also help define projects that can address council and other city qualities as well. Any other questions? Well,

[01:10:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: sure, we have a 100% affordable housing project in my boss's district in South San Jose that, um, just secured financing with a no city subsidy. So it's, it's happened before, but I just don't know what degree of regularity elsewhere. Um, thank you very much for answering our questions. Um, are there any members of the public?

[01:11:00] Senior Housing Officer: Like 9 people online. Hersche's monitoring. We don't have any hands raised. We have no questions.

[01:11:08] Unknown Speaker: All right. So if there are no members of the public wishing to provide comment on this item, we'll return to the committee for comments. Is there any comments set?

[01:11:19] Member Alison Hicks: Make a comment. So, I just wanted to say, um, well, this last discussion about whether people need the 20% are not as interesting and I'll, I look forward to seeing what, what happens at 334 and in San Jose and whether there's a model for less than 20% or whether we really need that in the future for, you know, for their tax credit applications and so forth. So that's an interesting one I'd love to hear. More about in the future. Um, and then I just want to say I really liked, again, that I really liked the, um, It's like a 15 page of, I've been, as a council member Ramirez said, I've been on this committee for some time. A deeper dive into the process and how to do it better. That was great. Um, and then I just wanted to put in a pitch for what is stage 2 and stage 3 because I've been, it, I haven't specifically done this process, but I've been on both sides. been, you know, working for the city of San Jose, receiving applications, and I work for an affordable housing developer that work mostly with the city of Berkeley. And I just really appreciated. I would not want it to all to become so streamlined that it was all paperwork, or I guess it's not paperwork, because it's online, but whatever, you know, for me, it was really important to, uh, have that, like you said, the conversation, the dialogue with people from the city. We mostly worked with the city at Berkeley. You know, so they're just a tremendous number of questions that we were able to ask. You know, during that dialogue that if it had been paperwork or online would have been very time consuming, but also when we occasionally went to another city, like we did the city of Oakland just once, um, you know, that was getting to know a whole different set of things. So that, that dialogue, um, I thought was really important and really helpful, and I would not want to truncate it in any way. Um, and then as for the city, the step 3 and city meeting, um, Uh, or not city meeting, the community meeting, that was also really important to us, and I would say, I guess when you're developing affordable housing, it's a place, you know, it's a place in the city. It's not a piece of paper. Although for a long time when you're working on it, it looks like a piece of paper. But, um, and you're going to be managing it over the long term. So meeting with people in the neighborhood, if you, it's best to do it as early as possible. And yes, people in the neighborhood will bring up all sorts of things that have may have little to do with the project. Um, But sometimes you can, you can say yes, you know, save an additional tree or the neighborhood uses the path on the left and can you keep that? you know, whatever it is. And over the long term, you don't want to start off with conflict. And yes, sometimes the feedback from the communities don't do the project at all and get out of our neighborhood. But, um, you know, if you're an affordable housing developer, you know, which I did that work for 10 years, you'd better be able to have that conversation at some point. So, but most of the time it's how you're going to fit in and be a good neighbor. And what the program is and et cetera. Um, and yes, a few designy things. So, so I just think those are really important and completely truncate them, I think, over the long, 1st not having the dialogue, but the city will make, in my opinion, working on projects with the city more difficult, and then not getting in early and not having a dialogue with the community makes managing it over the long term. More difficult. And, you know, I know we're all online and on screen a lot, but I think those human interfaces are really important. So that's my, I guess those are my, um, comments on step 2 instant. Those are all my comments. When you remember Ramos? Um,

[01:15:34] Member Emily Ann Ramos: so it makes me feel so much better. You guys were just like, oh, and this is the 1st time we did like a whole overview because I'm here in my 1st Nova meeting being like, oh my god, you guys do this all the time. But, um, so I'm glad, uh, to to know that, uh, we're all on the same boat on that. That's always nice. Thank you, the staff or, um, uh, the report and and all the, the answering of questions. Our, our, our briefing ended up, what, being like 15 minutes, half an hour longer than it probably should have been. Um, I, I, So I do agree with, with council member Hicks about 2 and 3 and how like we should be really open about, um, meeting with the community on that. I just, I get so scared of like, what does this mean? Could this kill the project? Could this kill the project? And so that, that, that, I, I, I don't want any of these projects to be killed kind of thing. And, and, um, I'm generally an optimistic person, but like, I, I, I just worry that like, if, if it's not, Clear enough that we do prioritize having this affordable housing here. Um, that it just doesn't, then it won't happen. And I also think about like why things like objective standards exists. Um, I, I've been spending a lot of time more recently, uh, talking about, like, um, There are certain things, uh, that one person can ask and another person can ask, this is a completely different thing, but like, say someone who is more privileged, uh, raises a more privileged household, was able to ask for certain things more than I feel comfortable. Uh, asking for, and that was long conversations relating to that, and as, especially as we're looking at, um, coming with more community-based developments as we are building our community ownership action plan. Like, how are we making that kind of, that accessible comparatively to the large ones, like Ulta and Midpen, they, they'll know to force through. Um, with with some of these things, but like, say, if you just have a new CLT pop-up, like. So I just want

[01:17:48] Member Alison Hicks: to say the one I was talking about that I worked for for 10 years was a CLT. How

[01:17:53] Member Emily Ann Ramos: long were they before you, how long did they exist before you joined them? Oh, I

[01:17:59] Member Alison Hicks: don't know. A decade or something, maybe? But it transformed. I mean, we can talk about that. Okay. It transformed a lot. They weren't developing much before. I was on, yeah. Yeah,

[01:18:14] Member Emily Ann Ramos: I just, I just worry, like, you have, say, we haven't really scoped out fully the community ownership action plan, but the hope is that we get some more smaller local, essentially developers, that, that won't be as, as well. Well established as like the Edens, the the Altas, the mid-pens. And so we want that flexibility with them. And quite honestly, if they are community based developers, then maybe the communities are going to be so bad because they're going to be from the community, which actually may make it actually even easier. But I just, There's going to be a lot of patients dealing with some of those types of developers kind of thing and I don't want, I, like I said, I hate the idea of turning away affordable housing. Those are my comments. Thank you. If

[01:19:08] Unknown Speaker: I could paraphrase, because I've been thinking a lot about this lately, too. You shouldn't have to be as sophisticated as like gray star or Prometheus to do work here. You shouldn't have to have access to enormous amount of capital and attorneys and architects, you know, uh, uh, you know, an army of people to be able to do business in Mountain View. Anyone should have, if they're working in good faith with the city, access to the opportunity that exists here. So that's kind of how I was thinking about your comments. Well,

[01:19:36] Member Emily Ann Ramos: which biological than I am. Well, I've been doing this for a little bit longer.

[01:19:39] Unknown Speaker: Um, so I have, thank you. This was a very, uh, I thought very enlightening and productive conversation. I didn't want to share a few thoughts about several of the items that we've discussed too. Um, so 1st I appreciate the difference between the no for process and going through an RFP for city owned property, but I don't want to have a reduced standard or expectation for projects that succeed through an RFP process in terms of leveraging external sources of funding. And in fact, what makes it attractive in my mind, unless we're going for, you know, extraordinarily low levels of affordability, right? You know, 0 to 30% AMI, or we have expectations like what have been brought up earlier, childcare. I would actually, expect that they use less city funding, right, since we're giving them land. Um, and that's what it can be frustrating when we're providing land, you know, for a trivial amount of funding or or, uh, or no funding at all, and also we're investing a substantial amount of city funding, right? So lot 12, I think, ended up being challenging for us. We had great expectations of that developer, and that's what made it okay. That's why I voted for it in the end. Um, but that's that's not a habit I want to get into, right? Um, you know, that, especially in downtown. It's land that, you know, is, um, extraordinarily valuable. And so if we're if we're not providing it at market value, then I have an expectation that the developer do an, you know, an exceptional, exceptional job attracting external uh, sources of funding. Um, and so that, and then, I would like to be more firm than not on the 20% target or less, because I think about Luna Vista, which was a very, I mean, good development, but very costly for the city. And I, you know, especially what we heard from affirmed with Evelyn, I feel like we have a right to expect that developers do a very good job, leveraging the funding that we do provide. Um, so I, I don't know how firm I want to be with that expectation or standard. I trust staff in the end, because I think there are a lot of things that I'm not going to be privy to individually as a council member when you do your due diligence, but generally speaking, 20% would be the most generous. I would feel comfortable being with city funding. And then I would be even more stingy for city owned properties. That's sort of by, you know, uh elegant conclusion there. Um, I have concerns about the community meeting. I appreciate what you were sharing. I think it helps me, you know, frame that a little bit more, uh, uh, carefully. On the one hand, there are the SB 330 community meeting limitations, right? So we, we've got a community meeting. We've got the NoFA committee, and then we've got city council, right? That's 3 meetings right there. SB 330 has the 5 meeting limitation. Um, unless I'm wrong.

[01:22:46] Julie: Uh, this isn't subject to this community meeting is a subject to, it's, this B 3, 3, 3, is something different.

[01:22:55] Unknown Speaker: That feels too clever by half, though, right? The purpose of SB 330 is to to prevent this kind of, you know, Obstruction by meeting, right? And I know we say that there is a difference between entitlement review and no for process, but there's so much overlap, you know, at multiple stages here that, I, You know, if we're telling a developer, you have to come to this meeting and there is design review that is a component of it. I don't see how we could, exclude it from the state limitation, right? And then, Design review comes up, and no for review committees. No for review committee meetings, because it has in multiple of the projects that I've I've reviewed. You know, and then it comes up again at the council reservation process. So it doesn't feel It doesn't feel right or defensible to exclude them from the SP 330 limitation. So I mean, if there's a question there, I'd love, you know, staff to, to, you know, come back to us with, you know, a determination about whether it would be subject to the limit. And if it's not subject to the limit, then why not? But it feels like we, I mean. I mean, there are points of discretion, and this gets to the concern that committee of MO committee member Ramos had articulated about abuse of the points of discretion that exists. I think it's a good thing. But I think we can only make so many requirements before we start creating some legitimate problems for the folks who are trying to do work in our community. Uh, so, so, it does that community meeting, does the no f- review committee meeting, the council reservation meeting, do those 3 count against SV 330? And if they don't, then why not? How do we justify that legally? Um, I'll

[01:24:46] Member Alison Hicks: make a comment on that. But maybe when you're done, whenever you want me. Sure,

[01:24:49] Unknown Speaker: sure. we could come back to committee members. Um, so I also wanted to speak to the clear requirements. in the priorities that we have as a council. So I'm, I would be more comfortable personally. I like, you know, clear expectations, right? So, it, it's, Maybe it works much, much or most of the time to say, can you add in a few more 3 bedroom units? I don't have too much of a problem with that. But I think it would be, It would be better for the community and for the development community to have an understanding going in of what the minimum expectations are. you know, target, 10%, you know, 3 bedrooms or something like that. You know, I, I, I don't like squishiness, you know, it's subjectivity. Um, I feel like that's where we get into trouble and that's where projects sometimes start to struggle, right? So if, if, the staff is enforcing council priorities, I think we should take the time to at least have some quantification of what that might be. And, uh, so serving families is a priority and has been for many years. I've heard the council say that, but I, you know, I, can we get a few more units is, is, hard, everyone might have, you know, a reasonable difference of opinion on what that looks like. And so coming in with, you know, to even though it's ostensibly a non-competitive process, um, you know, we really want you to meet these targets. Some some percentage, whatever stat feels is reasonable but achievable for, you know, uh, I'm not sure what all the parameters might be, but, uh, family serving units is one of them, maybe, you know, level of affordability, that kind of thing. I would rather err on the side of clarity and objective standards than than pursue this in negotiation because I, I, I feel like the council can, can, if these are our priorities, then we really should articulate to you what we, what we expect if we're gonna give our money. Um, to serve these projects. And I think it also can lend itself to some streamline, right? It's, I think of it this way. You know, if you meet, if you meet our minimum expectations, then we don't continue this negotiation. And if you don't, then we will continue to work with you to get something closer to what the council expects. You can do yourself a favor by just coming in, meeting those targets. Um, if they're spelled out, um, objectively. Um, yes.

[01:27:28] Wayne: May I just provide a example for that one? For example, regarding the bedroom sizes, what we've done in the past was to say, whether it be an opportunity to include some more larger units, what has happened and what we've been able to then use as a template for other projects on the pipeline. A developer goes out and says, how do we fund this state? And then they'll go out and, um, look at the funding requirements and what has happened is, Um, hey, city. We can qualify for this bucket of funding and if we have 50% of our units as 2s and 3s. And then they provide, they provide, um, a sample project and then we say, great. So we'll try to work with that. So, there, there may be, what we could do is we can go back to see if we can maybe dial in, some of the priorities, while also allowing, um, the developer can go and see what can be funded, and to see if we can strike strike that balance of more clarity, but also the flexibility and not, um, getting stuck with a requirement that may, may not be viable. I

[01:28:34] Unknown Speaker: think that's that's fair. I trust your judgment and how to, um, to achieve the the council's goals. Um, but I feel like you could have, you could have achieved a substantially similar purpose by saying, you know, we, we, we would like you to target, whatever, some arbitrary number, 15% of the units, 3 bedroom. And then the developer could come in and say, either I can do that or, Here's some nuance, right? And here's how we could approach this goal collaboratively and, uh, maybe, you know, the city can can learn from that and then modify the expectation accordingly for future, um, uh, for future applications as they come in. But, but it's, it's, if we can, based on what we have learned over the past several projects, I think, quantified to some extent, just to give everyone clarity and what they should come in with. I think we all save ourselves a little bit of time and trouble, right, since they're more likely to come in with an application that is closer to meeting our requirements that they don't meet them entirely from the get go. Um, couple more things, and then I'll stop. Um, getting back to to discretion, I don't think this is true anymore, but I did want to share a couple of examples that, um, that have troubled me for a long time and why I have some concern about discretion. One of the 1st projects that, um, that I had the opportunity to, uh, take to, I guess, review, uh, was, uh, uh, I don't know if I want to say who they are, but you could probably figure it out, just, you know, it preceded most of the team here. Um, but what I had learned from, from that applicant was, at that time, the city was actively discouraging um, affordable housing developers from using SB 35 and using 2016 county measure A funding. And I'm thinking, where did this come from, right? That wasn't anything that council had articulated in any meeting that I had participated in or observed. Um, and ultimately, the council did say, yes, use SP 35. We don't care. You know, if you're going through a ministerial approval process. And then, yes, please leverage county measure A. And the county measure A discussion was a little bit more involved because there were questions about ownership of the land. But I, what I, what I felt was there was a, a point of discretion that was used to prevent a developer from taking advantage of some important tools that did not come from council direction. And so I want to make sure that doesn't happen anymore, right? If the council provide, if I lose a vote, that's fine. You know, I'm totally happy to, um, you know, to help advance the will of the majority of the council. But in that case, it was frustrating to me because the council had never actually said, we don't want to avail ourselves of these tools. Um, so I'm wary of discretion when maybe, you know, sometimes staff. I think, might have a perfectly good reason for, or they think that they're, you know, advancing the Willips Council. There might be some justification for that position, but it, it, it actually didn't reflect what a majority of the council was seeking at that time. Um, so I, I, I'm, you know, sort of like what committee, committee member Ramos was suggesting, if we can, uh, be very clear and careful with how we use discretion. It's an important tool, but, um, we should, you know, err on the side of helping facilitate development at levels of, you know, deeper levels of affordability, you know, leveraging external for, you know, funding sources as we possibly can, as much as we possibly can, that that, would be something to strive for. Um, I don't know exactly how you put that into updates to the NoFO process, but, um, I, I think, I hope we can come back and sort of, um, clarify some of the, uh, the input if that's helpful, but I think that's, that's, We, we've heard a lot about discretion. Um, and now the last thing was about, um, you know, meeting code, which, which is trickier now than it ever has been, right? So I'd be curious to better understand when we're doing our due diligence if a developer wants to use the state density bonus law. By definition, they're not meeting code, right? They're seeking exemptions or waivers and concessions, uh, that, um, you know, are not gonna meet our code because they're, they're taking advantage of the law that's designed to help, uh, get around some of those, those kinds of, uh, requirements. Um, and I think also about, uh, AB 2011 and some of the other ministerial approval laws that override our, um, uh, our own regulatory framework. And I would love to better understand how how we work with developers. who are taking advantage of those laws, I'm, this is why I I get concerned about points of discretion because then we can, we can use the discretion of the NoFA committee, NoFA review process, to achieve design goals, which in my opinion, is an inappropriate use of the NoFA, Committee, all right, I keep saying that, the NoFA review process. Um, it's not. I agree with, with, um, with now public works director, Tom Cameron. It's not, we shouldn't be using this process to achieve design goals. There are, you know, there, that's why state law has increasingly eroded our ability to do so, right? Um, so, so trying our best to keep these, these processes very clear and distinct, um, and only overlap if we app, like a member of the community can always say design related things, that's their prerogative. Right, yeah, exactly. But that shouldn't translate to, in order to secure the funding from the city, you must make these changes. That's where I think, you know, we're, we're overstepping, um, our, uh, the, the purview of the process. Okay, um, any other remaining comments? Oh,

[01:34:24] Member Alison Hicks: I just had one comment about your comment. In terms of number of meetings, um, you know, when I've been on the other side developing, you know, these community land trust projects, I would want, I would want the earliest opportunity. I would prefer, even if it's inappropriate and design it, I would prefer to be told early on. What, the, what the community wanted to change because that's when I can change, change it sometimes with no, with no problem. If I hear too late. That's when it makes it harder to, you know, to work with people. So, I, you know, how many meetings you count. I just think it's, is maybe a different question, but I think it's important, at least it's always been important for me to, I mean, there's a critical timing issue. You don't want to meet with the community when you have no idea what you're doing. But you also don't want to meet with the community when everything is set in stone and all you're going to say is, no, we can't do this. No, we can't do that. Even things that maybe in, you know, you may not find them appropriate. They're super easy to do and it makes the community happier. I've always been happy to do them. And I think it's a building relationships thing. So, I, that's why I thought the meeting was included at that step, because I, I assumed that the staff thought that was the appropriate time that was not too early, but early enough. Maybe I'm wrong, but I, I just wanted to say that I think timing is really important.

[01:36:00] Unknown Speaker: I agree with you, and I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm more thinking from a like a rigid legal compliance standpoint. Would the community meeting that we, we require count towards the SP 330 limit. It maybe it doesn't, maybe it doesn't. I don't know, but I agree with you that having that meeting earlier in the process likely means that the feedback the community provides will have greater value, right, as opposed to here's the baked pie. easier to do. Right, yeah.

[01:36:30] Member Alison Hicks: What I would least want to do was say, if you talk to me, you know, 3 months ago, I could have done that easily, but now forget it. I don't want to be in that position.

[01:36:40] Unknown Speaker: A quick question for Steph. Do we dictate, when does the, What are the parameters for scheduling that meeting? Do we say now you must have the community meeting or does the developer have total discretion?

[01:36:53] Senior Housing Officer: I think it's a little bit of a, like, in coordination with each other. But the project is more likely than not. Uh, reached a point where we won't expect any major changes that would impact the housing program, because that's what we're there to talk about, right? The number of units. Um, uh, the AMIs, uh, the development schedule, things like that. You know, those are those are the important pieces for the note foot process. So we like to make sure that whatever we're bringing to the public. It's true, right? And that, um, then we're not going to go back and make a bunch of changes and it's, oh, it's, it's not going to be a 100 units, now it's 50. And, you know, and it's not going to serve these people. It's gonna serve these people. So we just want to make sure that whatever we're going out there and we're telling people that it's true. It's, it's not gonna change so much that it'll, it'll be something completely different by the time it gets approved. I

[01:37:50] Julie: also want to add that there is also a scenario where they, in and over application after they're entitled.

[01:38:00] Unknown Speaker: But we don't. We

[01:38:02] Julie: don't have any... They're coming whenever they want. process, but when you're asking about whether or not it's subject to SB 330, like the process might have already been done by then. It

[01:38:14] Unknown Speaker: could be. Yeah,

[01:38:15] Julie: exactly. So I think there's a lot of like back and forth and one thing that came out about up around table is how many conversations we have with applicants and with developers, even if they are outside of our Nova process, like, um, uh, 334 San Antonio, we still work with them constantly. Like we have a constant communication, constant contact with, with all of the affordable housing developers that have potential projects and like pipeline projects. The, but

[01:38:44] Unknown Speaker: the SP 330 limit on 5 meetings is the publicly, the scheduled meetings. Um, we'll put that to city attorney's office, to determine, uh, whether the nofo related required meetings are subject to the SB 330 limit. You know, should the application be going through that? Because that is a, you know, important question to have answered, but that's one another reason to keep, you know, the novel process is separate from entitlement. different decisions that are being made here. So, we will, we'll put the question forward just to make sure. Okay,

[01:39:25] Unknown Speaker: thank you. I appreciate that. I was thinking about, I think, I can't remember if you and I were on the. When we heard the Danco project on El Camino. There were parking concerns, and I think the Nova review committee discussed some, oh, that was, I think it was council member, Abbe Hogan, and Pat, maybe Patrick Wiltram. Uh, but we we, we had, there were community concerns about parking and we talked about parking in that meeting. Um, and so that's, that's why there's, there's fuzziness, right? And it's just because it's a reflection of what we hear from the community. Um, any other comments? Um, I did, so there were a couple of things that I, I wanted to, I, I've heard that, and please tell me if there is not unanimity on these things. Um, but I agree with council member, um, uh, Hicks about clarification of terms over the counter and 1st come, 1st serve. Maybe there are other terms. I don't think we're being prescriptive in how to articulate that, but I think that's something, whether you come back to the NoFA review committee or not, something that might be worth, um, thinking about, and then also the, um, exploring other methods of communication, including texting words, appropriate, maybe that's realistic or not. And I don't think there's an expectation that you come back to us. But I, I thought those were, were too, um, uh, good suggestions. I appreciate, um, the, um, exploration with the city attorney's office about the SP 330 limit. And then, um, I don't, it, it's, I think it's beyond the scope of this, um, discussion, but I, I, it would be helpful to understand at some point, you know, what the, the leveraging goals or targets for RFP projects should be, especially I, I personally would include the value of the city owned land in, in that, in that calculation, maybe there are other better ways, but, um, personally, I'll speak for myself on this one. I have an expectation that if we're, we're allowing the use of city on land, unless there's some other consideration, like replacing parking or something somewhere else, that we, we would have a very low city dollar contribution above and beyond that. Yeah,

[01:41:38] Member Alison Hicks: I'll just say, I basically agreed with what you said on city, oh, contribution. Thank

[01:41:43] Unknown Speaker: you. I appreciate it. Anything else that we wanted to highlight or emphasize? I said a lot, but those were the 3 that I thought.

[01:41:53] Senior Housing Officer: Or if I count it. Oh,

[01:41:55] Unknown Speaker: I presume the SB 330 was going to happen, but yes, thank you. Four. I like that number more Um, anything else from staff that would be helpful or clarification you would appreciate from the committee?

[01:42:07] Senior Housing Officer: No, thank you, everyone, for their time, the feedback. And as we mentioned, we'll continue to select feedback and we're always looking towards, you know, improving our processes, but with the goal of making them more clear and transparent as a result of this review. Awesome. Thank you. Um,

[01:42:23] Unknown Speaker: so if there are no other questions or comments, we will conclude item 5.1. Thank you again for the presentation and the robust conversation. Uh, and we will move on to item 6 committee staff comments, questions, committee reports. Are there any? I

[01:42:41] Member Alison Hicks: just have one question. Which is, I think I came a minute late to this meeting, and if I remember, the public, it would have appeared, I know the door being locked was a mistake, but it would have appeared, it being closed, appears that if you, I couldn't tell the meeting was here. We can

[01:42:59] Unknown Speaker: prop it open again. We never used to before COVID. It was because the door is unlocked. Do you have to pull? The handle feels locked, but if you pull, the red thing was on. That I can get in. thing doesn't matter. When it's pressed on unlock like this, it's just that. It's a manual unlock. And we used to know how to do that all the time every COVID. But the other thing I've been thinking about is investing in just some kind of sign that come out the door, just says, doors open. Come on in. Yeah, I

[01:43:30] Member Alison Hicks: think that would be helpful because it was right. It looked dark. It was quiet, and the red thing set to me locked, and I thought, if I ever remember the public, I would think I had the wrong date. So, um,

[01:43:43] Unknown Speaker: I'm looking at that for that one and atrium, because when you prop the door open doing these, these committee meetings and somebody's walking by and talking very violent interferes with the meetings. So, we could get to a method where we're more putting up a sign saying, come on in. Yeah, I think a sign would be super... Yeah. So we'll look at that. That's

[01:44:03] Member Alison Hicks: my only question Thank

[01:44:04] Unknown Speaker: you. I was walking by a public safety advisory board meeting maybe 2 months ago. Do you remember this? And the door was closed and locked, and I, you know, badged in, and I walked in and everyone was stunned, like, somebody's walking in, and it's supposed to be a public meeting clip. Um, so, uh, thank you for for the, I like the sinus signage suggestion as well. Any other questions, comments, anything from staff? Thank you all very much. Thank

[01:44:32] Unknown Speaker: you. That's gonna, um, what

[01:44:35] Unknown Speaker: do we say? during the meeting at, uh, 447 PM. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →