Yes.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for joining us for closed session.

Acting City Attorney Bacta will make a closed session announcement, and then we welcome public comment on the item listed for closed session.

The acting city attorney will now make an announcement.

Thank you, Mayor.

There is one item on this evening's closed session agenda.

Item two point one is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code 54956.8.

The property under negotiation is Hope Street Lots four and eight.

Assessor parcel numbers one five eight-20-069 and one five eight-20-00 four.

There are no street addresses for these lots.

The agency negotiators are Assistant City Manager Arne Andrews, Assistant City Manager Don Cameron, Community Development Director, Christian Murdoch, Economic Vitality Manager Amanda Rotella, and Real Property Program Administrator Angela La Monica.

The negotiating party is Robert Green Company, and under negotiation are lease and price terms.

Great, thank you.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session item listed on tonight's agenda?

I am not seeing anyone virtually or in person.

So I will close public comment and the council will now recess to the plaza conference room for closed session and return to the council chambers at the close to continue to the regular session at 6 30.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hicks.

Here.

Great.

Thanks.

So we'll move on to item three, our closed session report.

Acting City Attorney Bacta, do we have a closed session report?

Thank you, Mayor.

No final action was taken in closed session this evening.

Thank you.

So we'll move on to item four, our consent calendar.

These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration.

If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the consent calendar.

If you'd like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-agenda items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

Would any member of the council like to pull an item?

Councilmember McAllister.

I was just gonna um register a no vote on one, and I had a comment on 4.5.

Okay.

The reason I'm voting no on number one because I've always been pushing for parking downtown, it's getting very congested, and this project was a very large one, and it's not providing enough parking for the area, and therefore it's gonna put a burden on the present community, and they're already fighting for spaces, and it's also gonna affect the business districts because that's another area for people to park.

So I think that uh we need to get some we do need the affordable housing, but we don't want to put a burden and disminish the quality of life for others that are going in on 4.5.

The comment is is this is the pedestrian bridge, and this came about when I was on council before in the 2017-18.

And I've always been concerned about the cost that we have this bridge and we're putting bi-directional bike lanes on both sides of the road.

And I'm going, why are we doing that?

And at the time they said uh that was part of our program.

And then I started seeing that coming back that every time that we're there's a lot of um public input or there's some input from BPAC people and some others that we need to make everything dedicated bike lanes.

And I said, Well, where's the data to support putting all this money into bike lanes or improved uh road conditions?

And so I want to point out there's one of the questions I put into the staff report is how what's the data show how many people are using the uh shoreline bridge?

And so during this monitoring during the spring of 25 monitoring report show that during morning inbound peak period from 745 to 1045, 19 bicyclists crossed over Highway 101, and in the evening, 14 people on bicycles crossed over.

There are a lot of projects that we want to get done, but I think we need to be more prudent about the cost benefit of putting in these bike lanes when there's not a big demand for them.

And so going forward, I hope you appreciate and I will be asking for data on these bikes usage so that if you want to do other items, we'll have the money.

But I'm not against bike lanes, but we need to be somewhat uh concerned that we got 82,000 other people in town, and yet we're putting in bike lanes for less people, and just look at El Camino.

That was a lot of money put on bike lanes.

I have a store right on El Camino, and there's not there yet.

So people say they may be coming.

And that's it, thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember Show Walter.

Well, I have some comments too.

Um, my comment on 4.1 that's a multifamily housing tax exempt bond financing for um the uh uh Alta and related affordable housing project that um is going to finally go forward there.

This has been a very very difficult project to get financing for because um of the um the financing has gotten so much more um competitive over the last few years, and there's been such a rise in building costs.

So I'm really delighted to see that this final piece of the financing has fallen in place, and I want to thank um the city staff who worked on it as well as the staff from ALSA and related.

Um this project's gonna have a hundred and twenty affordable units.

It's gonna be um uh uh really a great addition to downtown.

Um also uh 4.5, the shoreline boulevard and highway 101 bicycle ped bridge.

Um this is another adjustment uh that the city needs to make to our plans uh related to the North Bay Shore that that really have come about for many reasons, but largely because of the pandemic and the reduction in traffic that's occurred because of that, and also the economic conditions that have changed.

And it's fully appropriate that we need to be flexible as conditions change.

So I'm very supportive of this change, but um I do hope that in the future we'll see um the need for this bike bridge and be able to put it in.

Councilmember Clark.

Thank you.

Just very briefly on um behalf of the CPPC.

I just wanted to call everyone's attention.

Um you directed the CPPC to take a look at uh motions to re uh for reconsideration.

Uh we we um reviewed that our last meeting and we decided um after discussing a number of different options to to just simplify things and um and uh just have motions to reconsider occur um either at the meeting where they happen or the next regular meeting um in um uh to align with um with um uh not Robert's rules.

Um although it all does it actually does align with Robert's rules too, but um but um but um sorry yeah Rosenberg's rules sorry um anyway we we simplified the language here and um so it it conforms to those rules now and we we just also included that um if if someone wishes to make a motion to reconsider um at a at a at the next regular meeting that they um they just make sure the uh city manager and city attorney are are consulted so that um so that it's properly agendized.

So um thank you all for your for your support in that um great thank you um so now we'll um open it up for uh comment would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items if so please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk.

We're gonna take in-person speakers first, and I believe we have one for item 4.1.

Uh Cesar Plancenia Placentia.

Um, and then we'll move on to virtual, and each speaker will have three minutes.

Hello, uh Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members.

Uh my name is Cizar Placencia.

I'm a field representative of the Carpenter's local 405.

Um I'm speaking regarding the proposed approval of 75 million dollars in tax exempt bonds for the lot 12 affordable housing project uh for 24 Bryant Street.

We recognize the importance of affordable housing and commend the city for prioritizing this development, but we must also ask what kind of jobs will this project create who will benefit from the public financing here being asked to approve of the resolution before you state that this project represents public benefit, yet nowhere in documentation is there evidence that the developer has committed to hiring a responsible contractor that meets every standard wage one with a proven record of compliant with labor laws and treating workers fairly.

Public benefit must extend beyond the finished building.

It must include the workers who build it without clear assurances that this project will be constructed by a contractor who respects labor standards, provides a credit apprentices on this project.

This council risk approving public financing for a project that may not serve the working people of Mountain View.

We urge you to delay the approval of these bonds until the developer can demonstrate a transparent and accountable contractor selection process.

Let's ensure that this project reflects the values of the city, not just in affordability, but also its integrity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, I don't see any other uh public comment in person, so we'll move on to virtual.

And our first virtual uh speaker is Bruce England.

Thank you, Mayor.

Hello, everybody.

Uh Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive.

I'll be very quick.

The I also want to voice support for the trades and labor practices that are uh regularly exercised within Mountain View, but I don't think it hurts for us to uh point that out and ask for it on a regular basis as the trade representatives do.

Um and I also just wanted to comment on 4.5 the shoreline boulevard um like Ped Bridge, just voicing support for that.

I know this is really an administrative step in the processes 4.5, but I uh do want to bring it up that um it has high support from people who are in the bicycle and active transportation community, including myself.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, Robert Cox.

Can you hear me?

Yes, okay.

Um, commenting on item 4.3.

I want to thank the CPPC and uh Chair Clark uh for bringing this forward.

Uh we support the amendment and ask for your vote of approval.

It is in the public interest to ensure that any council member wants to change his or her vote on a council matter.

Uh, do this in a timely fashion for two big reasons.

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

The second point is that all public stakeholders deserve the certainty that a strict time limit on council vote changes provides.

I mean, for example, I mean on streamlined approval for projects that are like under the state density bonus.

You know, there's an opportunity to appeal to the council, and you know, and then after 10 days, uh, if uh if no appeal is given, you know, the developer can move ahead, knowing with certainty that he's got the approval.

And so um that's just an example where you know, here in the council, it would be great to be able to do that too.

So thank you again for that, and I yield my time.

Great, thank you.

Denise Jarigui.

Hi there, good evening.

Um, I'm Denise Howard, and I serve as executive director of housing choices, and I'm here tonight to express my strong support for the Mountain View Lot 12 Affordable Housing Project.

This development will bring much needed affordable homes to the city, including 15 apartments specifically reserved for individuals and families with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are also receiving services from San Andreas Regional Center, which is a state-funded agency.

Housing choices was founded 28 years ago with the mission to open doors for people with developmental disabilities by creating and supporting quality affordable housing opportunities.

And our goal is to ensure that individuals can live and rewarding lives in homes of their choosing with access to on-site supportive services.

The homes at lot 12 will provide stability and opportunity for the families that we serve, many of whom have deep roots in Mountain View and are currently on long wait lists for affordable housing.

These units will allow them to remain in the neighborhoods they know with the support that they need to thrive.

And we respectfully urge the city council not to delay uh the approval of the bond resolution.

I meant to help this project move forward.

Thank you for your time and for your continued commitment to inclusive affordable housing in Mountain View.

Great, thank you.

Uh that concludes our public speakers.

So I'll bring the item back for council action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to consent calendar items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.

And that uh has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, I'd like to move to approve the staff recommendations, including item 4.1, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View approving the issuance of the California municipal finance authority exempt facility bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 75 million dollars for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition, construction improvement, and equipping of Mountain View Lot 12 and other and certain other matters related relating there to be read and title only for the reading waived.

Item 4.2 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View authorizing the city manager or designate to enter into a joint powers agreement and memorandum of understanding with public risk innovation solutions and management prism on behalf of the city to continue the city's participation in the PRISM vision program to be read and title only for the reading waived.

Item 4.3, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending section 11 of City Council Policy 813 governing motions for reconsideration to be read and title only for the reading waived.

And item 4.4 adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing temporary closure from public access of one entrance to parking lot number six from Blossom Lane, adjacent to 747 West Dana Street for roadway and utility work for a period not to exceed five consecutive weeks to be read and titled only for the reading waived.

Great, thank you.

Let's vote.

Alright, and that passes unanimously.

We'll move on to item five, oral communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section.

State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items.

If you would like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

I am not seeing any in person, so I'll move on to virtual.

We have Bruce Englin.

You have three minutes.

Thank you again, Mayor and Council members.

Bruce England Wisman Station Drive and member of Greenspaces Mountain View on this matter.

So EPC at their last meeting reviewed a project at 151 Calderon, which is right adjacent to Stevens Creek near Evelyn.

And it was really very alarming because state law says that if you're building ADUs that you pretty much can't tell the developer what to do.

And in this case, they wanted to cut down a lot of trees and put these buildings right next to the creek, and there are all kinds of environment potential environmental impacts that can happen as a result of that.

And it's even possible the water board might weigh in or might want to weigh in on this.

So I just want to bring it to your attention if you're not aware of it, and also to consider agendizing it so you can talk about it.

And this might mean using your legislative team and the analyst to look at the state law and to uh inquire with Senator Becker and Assembly person Berman's offices to find out what they might consider doing along with other cities that have concerns about this about changing the law such that ADUs that are um that they're very specific about what an ADU is because if you can call any building, any residential dwelling on ADU, it really opens up the floodgates, and you certainly know about builder's remedy.

So I hope you will consider this.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

We have a second speaker just seeing letters.

Um BJWB.

Thank you.

My name is Bobby Wiesen Bear.

I'm a Mountain View resident in the Questa Park area, and I want to thank the council for all the careful consideration that you give to so many issues that impact the quality of life in the city.

I'm speaking tonight just to keep the topic of Questa Park and the Annex on your mind and reiterate that it is a place of peacefulness on a recent walk.

We were able to see people enjoying tennis, volleyball, the exercise areas, which were all quiet enough to allow for a peaceful walk, and the spotting of the great horned owl, which was asleep.

Five red-tailed hawks and observe a sleeping heron in a tree.

So just as a reminder, we hope that you'll support staff in the search for a location which is appropriate for pickleball courts.

We understand exercise is important and support that, but we would like to preserve the peace and quiet and the precious open space resources we have in the Cuesta area.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Alright, I'm not seeing any more in-person or virtual public comment.

So we'll close oral communications and open our public hearing.

Item 6.1 is our public safety building design project 20-49 environmental certification.

Principal Project Manager David Printy and Assistant Public Works Director Ed Orango will present the item.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

I will turn it over to the staff.

Thank you.

Share my screen.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor.

Excuse me.

There we go, excuse me.

Yes, good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members.

My name is David Printy, Principal Project Manager with Public Works.

With me, I have Ed Orango, Assistant Public Works Director.

And in the audience, we have Terry McCracken, principal from Placeworks, the author of the EIR we are discussing tonight.

In December of 2024, Council approved the Public Safety Building Project Scope, which is comprised of the following main elements: a three-story 75,000 square foot building, a public and secure staff surface parking, a three-story secure parking garage, with a future planned indoor shooting range, which will be constructed initially as a cold shell or just exterior walls and roof.

And there will be a remainder parcel on the site of 0.6 acres that will be retained for uh as unprogrammed for future city use.

Now, according to CEQA, or let's see, uh the purpose of this item is to certify uh the EIR, and prior to approval of the public safety building, the council must certify the EIR and adopt required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

According to CEQA guidelines, the council must, one, conclude the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA, to review and consider the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project, and three, confirm the final EIR reflects the council's independent judgment and analysis.

So a little bit of the CEQA process timeline.

In December 10th, 2024, the city uh we issued a notice of preparation of the draft EIR for a 30-day scoping period.

And in July of 2025, the notice of availability and the draft EAR were published for a 45-day public review period.

During that period, uh no public comments were received, which uh the period ended on August 15th, 2025.

Uh subsequently, in September of 2025, uh, and as part of a collaboration with the planning department's update of the historic preservation ordinance update, uh, staff did have outreach meetings with Livable Mountain View and Mountain View Historical Association.

In those meetings, uh, those groups were generally supportive of the project, but did have comments and questions that are addressed in the staff report.

So the draft EIR uh addressed uh the topics here on the screen, of which uh initially 11 were determined to have less than significant impacts.

Uh during the draft EAR process, additional two transportation and greenhouse gases were all also determined to have less than significant impacts.

Uh the following of the remaining seven, uh six were determined to have impacts that could be reduced to less than significant once mitigation measures were adopted.

The final uh topic, cultural resources, was found to have significant and unavoidable impacts even with mitigation.

The topic of cultural resources centered on around the uh master architect Goodwin Steinberg, who was the original architect of the existing police and fire administration building.

And this project that project was a notable example of his large-scale civic work.

And the project was considered eligible for the California Register as a historic resource.

So as part of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, the city shall have historic, shall have a historic American building survey, level two documentation completed for the Mountain View Police and Fire Administration building and its settings.

To ensure public access, the city shall submit copies of the documentation to the Mountain View History Library History Center and the California Historical Resources Information System in the Northwest Information Center.

This documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and historical narrative.

As part of the CEQA process, when significant and unavoidable impacts are determined, the city is required to prepare a statement of overriding considerations that identifies how the benefits of the building of a new public safety building for this for the Mountain View Police and Fire Departments outweigh the adverse environmental impacts associated with the demolition of a historic building.

In the case of this project, staff is recommending that council finds that the needs of the community public safety outweigh the preservation of a building designed by the local architect Goodwin B.

Steinberg.

After the certification of the IR, staff will record a notice of determination and final EIR with the county and the state clearing house.

Later in December of this year, staff will return to council to introduce a proposed funding plan for the project.

And in early 2026, we will uh come back to council to request authorization to sell bonds to finance the project.

We also bring the garage concept design and the heritage tree mitigation plan forward for consideration.

And later, uh in the spring of 2026, we plan to come forth with a request for approval of the first phase of the project, which will be uh selective demolition and site preparation.

So with that, um staff therefore recommends that council adopt the resolution in the staff report and certify the public safety building EIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

And with that, um we open the floor to questions.

Great, thank you.

Does any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember Hicks.

So I do have a question.

Um but but staff can tell me if my question, or the mayor, if my question's going beyond questions and it would be better placed under statements.

Sometimes there's a fine line between the two.

Um so overall I'm supportive of this project, but I have a tweak that I would like to, I would like staff to tell me how I might best suggest.

So the tweak is that um that uh as was raised in the staff report, the uh the building has um significant his significant historic significance.

Um and uh the building and also it's on villa lands, it's a site that also has some historic significance.

And I think we've held other um private developers to higher standards regarding historic preservation, and I I think we have the leeway to hold ourselves to higher standards here.

In particular, we have um uh a generous budget for art at this uh at this location.

And I'm hoping we can somehow put in this um resolution that uh there be a nexus between the artwork, you know, be it a mural or a sculpture or set of sculptures, whatever it is, and the historic significance of the building.

And so I'm wondering how I might best do that.

Can I just add those words to the um to the staff recommended recommended uh the staff recommendation, or is there something else you would suggest that I do?

Councilmember Hicks, I think I think you can do that.

If you give me one moment, I'll open up the documents and you can let me know how you'd like a language to read, and I'll have uh Director Arango let me know um if there are any concerns.

Okay.

So that's the answer to my question, is that I can um and the rest I can put into uh when we make comments, not questions.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other questions?

All right.

Not seeing any from colleagues.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

We'll um have each speaker allowed three minutes.

Looks like we have an in-person speaker, Alexander Brooks.

Please make your way to the podium.

Hi, my name is Alexander Brooks.

I'm addressing you on behalf of a coalition of movement groups in the Bay Area who have been working to stop projects like this, cop cities uh around the Bay Area in coalition with groups all around the country who have addressed the really harmful impacts of policing, prisons, and the crucial state on our communities, particularly black and brown communities, as well as the environmental impacts of these types of development of land in a way that is really invested in continuing to lock away people, continuing to harm communities rather than uh invest in the types of pro-social generative types of projects that we know have a positive impact on crime.

Studies again and again show that increased police funding does not decrease crime.

Rather, we know that addressing issues like we have here in the Bay Area in housing, in education, in healthcare, particularly mental health care, in transportation are some of the most important ways in order to improve the social circumstances of our people.

Something also to consider is that in California we have a long history of our prisons being cited in places where there are terrible environmental conditions, and we need to consider seriously whether we want to be sending Mount V residents to prisons where there are high risks of uh lesionnaires' disease, of lead poisoning and water, of uh air not being clean.

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

It seems so absurd to be dedicating something like 200 million dollars to a project of this scope.

Uh we can look across the Bay to San Pablo, where that city council approved a 48 million dollar COP city, of which 32 million dollars is still unpaid for.

It's an embarrassment to the city in a time when these are not the needs of the people that are being called for, it maybe have been a benefit to contractors and police unions, but this is uh not something that we need to be investing in for the next many generations of Mountain View, especially as we consider the historic impact.

Is that is that something we want to be looking back on a hundred years from now, 200 years from now, that with such an enormous amount of money uh and so many other issues that we could have devoted money towards, we invested this heavily into the concept that uh our solution to social issues is to continuously be incarcerating, continuously be criminalizing our communities.

Uh we have the opportunity to be very creative in this time.

I'll note that the uh Mountain View City Council I believe recently disbanded its public uh safety accountability board.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I am not seeing any more uh in-person or virtual public comment, so I'll bring the item back for council questions and deliberation.

Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report.

And perhaps we'll turn it to our acting city attorney to uh work through I think the language that council member Hicks had asked for.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um, and so that everyone can follow along on page two of the resolution, resolved clause number five, is where we will be inserting the language requested by councilmember Hicks.

If there is a second to that request, just so we can note for the record.

Is there a yeah, and I guess to clarify, uh to to clarify, Councilmember Hicks, are you looking to make a motion and sure?

I can make the motion, okay, and you're saying to make it with uh resolved clause number five.

Number five, that's right.

And you want me to give you language for that?

Um if if you're not sure of the concrete language, if you can just remind remind us exactly what you'd like, I can propose some some language and you can let me know if it captures what you'd like.

So I would like uh, and I would like a nexus between, now this does not have to replace the I like the mitigations that staff suggested.

I'm not trying to replace that, but that also there's if there's um several hundred thousand dollars worth of public art, and I would like there to be a nexus between the history of the site and or the building, um to wells actually it should probably be the site and possibly I'm sorry, the building and possibly the site, um, a nexus between the artwork and um and that.

And just for clarity, all of all of staff's recommendations in the final EIR are being preserved.

I'm adding language at the end of the current resolved clause number five.

And based on what you just let me know, this is the proposed language to the extent financially viable, the public art, and um is there a word you'd like to use to capture building elements that are not necessarily art but might have stylistic value?

No, it's just that the the I think there's uh correct me if I'm wrong with the number, but there's a $400,000 budget for art, and that that art will have a subject, and that um, unless it's very abstract, um so it will have a subject, and that that subject have nexus with the architecture of the building and possibly the site, so I think um how does this language sound to the extent financially viable, the public art shall reference uh the history of the site and work of the master architect uh Goodwin Steinberg?

Sure.

And or sorry, and or sure.

I mean, I would like the some reference to the architecture.

That's what the the EIR finding was.

Okay, so I can write and it probably doesn't have to say if it's financially, I mean, we know I think we know it's financially possible.

Um, and I can strike the financially viable language.

Um, and the new language reads and the public art and architecture shall reference the history of the site and or work of the master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

Yeah, the master architect and the site, if you that one seems more optional to me, but it could be included.

The mayor has a comment.

I think staff has a question.

Sorry.

Yeah, thank you for the input.

Etarango, Assistant Public Works Director.

Um I'm hearing that it's there's a uh direct correlation that you're looking for for the public art to reflect the historic significance of the building, existing building and site.

Um I just want to be sure the language captures that um because it sounds like it's it could be interpreted that um the art capture the architecture of the new building.

Okay, good point.

That's not what I meant.

You're right.

Yes.

So just clarification that just I'm looking to the city attorney to make sure that that's captured.

Yes, I will I'm going to add in here that the of the uh prior building, just to just to articulate clearly for the record.

Great, thank you to staff.

Council member Hicks, would you like to make that motion and hit your button?

Yes, do I just do I read it?

Okay, then I'll do that.

Okay, this is uh resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View adopting findings related to environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, adopting a statement over overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and certifying the Mountain View Public Safety Building Environmental Impact Report in compliance with the California Environmental Equity Act or Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived.

And then that will include a resolved clause resolved clause number five.

Resolve clause number five as as amended to read to add language at the end, which states that the public art and architecture shall capture the history of the prior site and the work of the master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

And or the work.

Sorry, one more change, apparently.

If you could just repeat the beginning of that one more time.

Yes, so uh this language is being added at the end of the current resolve clause.

It's and it reads and the uh and the public art and or architecture shall capture the history of the prior site and work of the master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

So I'd request I'm hearing it's the existing architecture, so the public art will capture the existing site architecture or site, not no, the prior, oh, existing now, but it will be demolished.

I'm hearing language of the public art and architecture.

I think what I understand your intent.

I just want to be clear that the um seat attorney words it properly.

Well, it's that the art will reflect the art the uh something regarding the architecture.

I'm gonna wait to have the uh city attorney confirm one point of clarification if I might, David Printy Public Works.

Uh and I think the clarification Ed was alluding to is that it's not referring to the architecture of the new building will not reflect the old building.

That's not the intent, it's all about the public art.

I think I have captured those changes, and just to read again for the record clearly, and the public art shall capture the history of the site and pro and the prior history of the site and the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

All right, great.

So, so you just need to click hit the button that says motion.

Thank you very much.

Alright, thank you very much to staff.

So um thank you for clarifying for the record, the motion.

Does that motion have a second?

So that we can continue on in debate.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

I'm gonna take you out of the queue, and then I'm gonna move to Councilmember Showalter.

Thank you.

Yeah, I am gonna be supporting the motion, but I want to talk about um uh some of the logistics of getting this document out.

Um, you know, we got a file that was 2011 pages on Thursday.

And um, you know, I was pretty I I was a little um gobsmacked by that, you know, being expected to read a 2011 page document in four days.

It turned out that there was a lot of repetition.

In fact, there's almost three complete versions of the EIR in that document because they, you know, there the exhibits uh um repeat things, but you know, I didn't know that when I first saw it.

And when I read the um council memo, it didn't really say, you know, these are the parts of the EIR you need to read and and tell us the numbers.

So I mean I couldn't even put the um the document in my I legislate, it won't take a file that large.

So I just would like to request that in the future you divide documents down into um uh sizes that uh can be handled by I legislate and um and also give us a little annotation in the um staff report about what we really need to read and um and uh understand because these are serious decisions and and this one is so tailored, I mean it's just so focused on the history.

That's really the only one that was um kind of outside of our standard conditions of approval.

At least that's how it looked to me.

I only read a couple hundred pages because I got to the point where I realized that's what the meat of the matter, but but anyway, I just um it it created a little unnecessary stress, and um and I think that the other thing is we do want to make these documents accessible to everybody and um and so uh having them uh divided up a little bit into more palatable chunks is easier.

So um, but uh and I the other thing is having worked on this kind of document for I don't know, 30 years or something.

I gotta thank all the people involved who did it.

Um there's a lot of checklists, a lot of repetition, but that's the process that's and um I think usually it does come out with a better project.

So I want to thank everybody for all the work that's behind it.

Councilmember Clark.

If I may, I'd just like to offer a friendly amendment to um kind of align this a little better with how we've handled requests, which I agree with.

The request is fine.

Instead of um instead of inserting language into the EIR resolution, can we just pass the EIR resolution as is, and have a two-part motion?

One is to adopt the resolution, and two is to direct staff to explore um, you know, incorporating the architect and or the history of the site into the into the public art as part of the as part of it, because right now it says shall, and I have no idea what that art is going to end up looking like, and maybe it's only one element of the public art that's by that way, that way we can we can explore all this, and it isn't baked in the resolution as show, and we end up regarding it later.

So it's still I think a c hopefully accomplishes what you want, but it's just not in the actual CEQA or the EIR resolution, just a two-part motion, one is a direction of staff.

And it it looks like um from the city attorney that that motion would work as well.

Um, so to the motion maker and the secondary, is that okay?

So the motion maker.

That's fine if uh yeah, if uh okay, and then there's a seconder alright with that.

Okay, city acting city attorney.

Yes, uh, the seconder has accepted the friendly amendment, so you may now proceed to vote.

Great.

Wait, I oh, John Mr.

McAllister hasn't comment.

And I wanted as the maker I was kind of hasty in making the motion.

I had one more comment, but I can wait.

Do you mind I'm just was that all your remarks, Councilmember Clark?

Okay, perfect.

Councilmember Calcer, and then Councilmember Hicks.

Yeah, I just want to uh echo uh Councilmember Scholl Walters asking for an executive summary, and that's that is really helpful.

Uh, our time is very precious in reading all that, but an executive summary would be uh greatly appreciated.

I thank you for bringing that idea.

Councilmember Hicks.

I just also wanted in my haste, because I um prepared that that amendment to the resolution earlier.

So in my haste to get that done, I kind of overlooked what the member of the public brought up and and said, and I wanted to honor that as well, because I think that uh many of the statements you made are important.

I think that we in Mountain View um are trying to change.

I don't want to speak for the police chief who's in the audience, but or anyone else, but I think we are trying to make policing more humane and that it's uh it's uh in my opinion, long-term process.

But I also agree with you that we don't want to spend too much public money on um, you know, on public buildings, in my opinion, we want to spend it on the people.

Um, and so I wanted to honor the statements you made, and I'll I'll leave it at that.

Great, thank you.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, and appreciate you calling that out, Councilmember Hicks.

I'm gonna be supportive of the motion.

Um, and just for our public commenter, we've been this is something the city's been talking about for over um 20 years.

Um, because we have people who are um here to provide public safety who are in an unsafe building themselves, it's not seismically retrofitted, and um this for us is how we we keeping those who are meant to keep our our residents safe safe as well.

And I just wanted to call that out.

So thank you very much.

And let's vote.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And that passes unanimously.

We'll move on to item seven.

Item 7.1 is recommended amendments to the below market.

Below market rate housing program, housing element program 1.9.

Housing specialist Anna Reynosa and Affordable Housing Manager Julie Bernard will present the item.

If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

And we'll turn it over to the staff for presentation.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

My name is Ana Reynoso, and I'm a housing specialist too within the housing department.

And this evening I'm joined by affordable housing manager Julie Barnard, Housing Director Wayne Chen, our consultant with economic planning systems, Darren Smith, our external legal counsel Eric Phillips, who is attending virtually.

And this evening we will be presenting recommended amendments to the below market rate housing program.

This evening, the presentation will be in two main parts.

We will be reviewing the last BMR review from December 2023, and we will talk about the recommended or amendments regarding the BMR ordinance.

The city's below market rate housing ordinance was adopted in 1999 and underwent its first major update in 2019.

The BMR program refers to inclusionary housing units that are integrated within market rate development and not projects that are 100% affordable housing.

Some of the key components of the BMR program include any residential project that creates seven or more units, must include on-site integrated BMR units.

Projects less than seven units are subject to a fractional in LU fee.

BMR units are set at different area median income, also known as AMI levels.

BMR units are required to be comparable to market rate units and remain affordable in perpetuity.

Developers may pursue an alternative compliance in place of providing on-site BMR units.

For existing BMR tenants, the maximum allowable rent increase is capped at 3%.

The city's housing element program 1.9 requires two reviews of the BMR program in the eight-year cycle.

The first review was completed in December 2023.

The housing element also outlines a five evaluation criteria.

The next few slides summarize the direction and discussion from the December 2023 study session, which informs the recommended amendments.

As discussed in December 2023, the number of BMR units in the pipeline exceed the number of actual BMR units.

If and when they get completed, it would significantly increase the number of actual BMR units.

Additionally, since December 2023, the number of BMR units in the pipeline has increased from 214 to 340 units.

Council expressed support for continuing the BMR program as revised in 2019.

The second evaluation criteria examines the BMR program's efficacy and identifies potential improvements across various standards, including accessibility.

The current BMR program supports various unit sites and affordability levels, but hasn't addressed special needs.

Staff recommended focusing on the physical accessibility of BMR units, which council supported.

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

The BMR program advances these goals through on-site BMR units integrated with market rate units and requiring a proportional unit mix.

Council supported staff's recommendation to enhance mobility and access to opportunity through alternative compliance by adding AFFH related project location criteria and evaluating incentives.

The fourth evaluation criteria considers potential policy changes.

Council supported staff recommendations to focus criterion four on alternative compliance with the following recommendations.

Modifying the value from greater than to be no less than providing units on site and clarifying the BMR in LUFE be used for equivalency calculations and confirm the alternative compliance options, which we'll be talked about on the next slide.

Under state law, cities must offer at least two by right alternative compliance options.

For criterion four, council approved three alternative compliance options, land dedication, off-site development, and a new acquisition preservation option.

Council at the time opted to remove INLU fees and the catch-all provision and also directed staff to explore alternatives using the consumer price index, also known as CPI for an annual INLU fee adjustments.

The fifth evaluation criteria addresses potential cleanups in guidelines, policies, and procedures.

Council supported six staff recommended cleanup items as shown here, items A through F.

Council requested further evaluation of discussion items from December 2023 before final ordinance amendments.

However, some items were ready for earlier updates.

In February 2025, staff completed the first set of BMR ordinance amendments and clarified the definition of residential development.

Tonight we are coming back with recommended amendments for the remaining items.

Staff and the city's consultant conducted extensive due diligence, conducted a needs assessment, and completed stakeholder engagement.

Developers sometimes voluntarily include accessibility or other features that allow for future adaptability of a unit.

As a result of this, staff is recommending requiring that 15% of total BMR units in a project or one BMR unit, whichever is greater, be fully accessible or adaptable where applicable.

This approach ensures at least one BMR unit is accessible or adaptable without increasing development cost.

It would be easier to manage and a streamlined approach to achieving this objective.

Secondly, when evaluating a proposal, staff will use the INLU fee to measure equivalency between the alternative compliance option and providing on-site BMR units.

The amendments to the alternative compliance approaches addresses direction given by council relating to housing element criteria three and four.

With land dedication, there are currently no proposed changes to the current requirements.

There are some additions to the requirements.

Staff is proposing adding location requirements to integrate AFFH criteria, a feasibility and financing analysis, which demonstrates the project's alignment with inLU fee equivalency and identifies any additional developer contribution.

In addition, there's already a cost recovery of $950,000.

The developer will need to provide this fee has already been adopted into the FY 2025-2026 master fee schedule.

And now I will turn it over to our affordable housing manager Julie Barnard, who will talk about our other compliance.

Thank you, Anna.

Moving to our second of the three alternative compliance measures, off-site development.

So note that many of these standards that have been developed have been informed by some recent city projects, such as 777 Middlefield and 685 East Middlefield.

So for off-site development, the locational requirements align with those Anna mentioned in our land dedication.

One of the new standards that have been added relates to access to amenities.

So if a site is within 750 feet of the primary project and does not have equivalent amenities, the off-site residents must be granted access to the amenities on site.

So often that would be things like a pool or a gym.

Next, staff recommend updating the unit requirements currently for off-site development.

There's a 20% requirement, and staff recommend reducing this to 15% in order to better align with BMR, our current BMR on-site requirements.

Our alternative compliance does not have an affordability term stipulated currently.

Staff recommend aligning this in perpetuity depending on the financing source.

So in some cases, tax credits require a 55-year term, and the city would not want to add additional hurdles into project development financing.

Another addition to the standards that Anna talked about for off-site development is a comprehensive feasibility and financing analysis.

The burden of proof would be shifted to the developer to ensure that the alternative compliance aligns with the INLU fee and that the project can feasibly accommodate the number of sites units on site, and that no city financial contribution would be required.

Staff have also contemplated a scenario where a market rate developer opts to partner with an affordable housing rate partner.

This will be established through the entitlement process, and the developer would have to outline what the partnership may entail, any terms that they're offered, any financial contributions that they would be providing, and the process for partnership selection.

So the city will later have oversight over the developer partnership in order to ensure that the terms that they offer the affordable housing partner are upheld.

And in the case, if there's an RFP, the city shall review and approve the RFP.

Finally, staff proposed updating the timing of the delivery to add a measure that if the if the failure to develop the off-site development, add a measure that failure to develop the off-site development, the developer would need to meet the 15% on-site BMR objective standard.

Moving on to our third and final alternative compliance measure, acquisition and preservation.

The city does have one example of an acquisition preservation project that has been used to model some of these standards, and that's 660 Mariposa.

The locational requirements align with the others in alternative compliance with the addition of CSFRA units also being an assessment of the on site current conditions, the rehab they intend to make as well as the rehab costs.

Affordability levels should align with those that would have been provided on site.

The acquisition preservation project must meet the same number of bedrooms as would have been provided on site, with the caveat that studio units have a 0.5 value.

Staff recognize that it may be challenging for a developer to secure a secure a building within the city's existing housing stock.

That's a perfect match to what would have been provided on site, and therefore propose some flexibility in the program.

So a developer might exceed the number of on site units, but only by a 1.5 threshold.

So that allows a flexibility in the program while balancing a diversity of unit sizes.

So to use an illustrative example, if their on site requirement was 10 two bedroom units, so 20 bedrooms in total, the developer would not be allowed to provide the city with 20 one bedroom units.

There would need to be some distribution of unit sizes, larger unit sizes in order to try and retain some balance while also remaining flexible to set the program up for success.

Um, we're discussed in off-site development, but the term any partnership arrangements in the feasibility and financing plan, those standards would align with the off site development requirements.

Any relocation and first right to return should remain consistent with the city's TRAO, and finally the timing for the certificate of occupancies for both projects should be concurrent.

Alright, as noted earlier, staff were instructed to review the NLU fee escalator index, which is currently CPI.

Staff found that the California construction cost index would be the better index and therefore recommend shifting to CCCI.

In doing our due diligence for the alternative compliance, we also revisited the INLU fee and have a few updates.

Although construction costs have increased, incomes which drive our rents and sales prices for affordable housing have increased at a greater rate over the past five years.

So therefore, you will notice that the fees have decreased for rental housing and row homes and townhomes.

Conversely, for all other ownership products, such as condos, construction costs have actually increased at far greater rates, which means that the gap between the construction cost and the revenue has increased and so far and so have the fees.

Our remaining cleanup items, as presented earlier in this report, sorry, are still proposed with the exceptional notice that the sixth and final cleanup item relating to the HOA reserve fund is has been removed, which we'll address next.

So, after this December 2023 study session, staff have identified some new recommended amendments discussed this evening.

Currently, our ordinance requires that any developer providing units at 80% or below establish a fund for future HOA increases for any households that may be experiencing financial hardship as a result of HOA fee increases.

So since this was adopted by the city, the state has adopted assembly bill 572, which restricts an HOA increase for deed restricted ownership units at 5% plus CPI kept at 10%.

Additionally, staff have received feedback from developers that the HOA reserve fee fund renders their project infeasible.

Staff have found that AB 572 is generally sufficient to meet the intent of the HOA reserve fund, and that the benefits of this fund do not offset impact in project feasibility.

So therefore, staff are recommended to remake recommending to remove this program.

Our BMR guidelines currently require adopted adoption by council resolution, which makes periodic review challenging.

Staff recommends removing this resolution requirement and shifting to an administrative process, similar to some how some of the other guidelines within the city are administered, such as the state density bonus guidelines.

Staff are evaluating moving the BMR ordinance from chapter 36 to chapter 46 to make it easier for developers to find housing related ordinances.

This would better reflect its administrative and financial nature, streamline the amendment procedures, and align oversight with the housing department.

So staff is still evaluating this, and if found to be feasible, we would return with an ordinance that includes a move from chapter 36 to chapter 46.

So finally, in December 2023, council asked staff to establish a rationale for why our program applies to small projects.

So small projects in that case refer to projects between one and six units, since once we reach seven units, one full BMR unit would be required.

Staff recognize that housing development of any size can contribute to affordable housing, and applying this to projects of any size is the most comprehensive way of achieving this.

In recognition that smaller projects don't have the economies of scales afforded to larger developments, our inlu fees for small projects are already discounted.

Through the exercise of establishing a rationale for small projects, staff explored some in-fill initiatives, such as the SB9 financial incentives, and contemplated some other ways to encourage in-fill development.

To achieve this, staff recommend implementing a graduated fee reduction.

I'm sorry, it popped over.

Anyway, the graduated fee reduction.

So the graduated fee reduction is intended to achieve two things.

So, first of all, it improved project feasibility for small projects by reducing costs and incentivizes the use of SB9 and other similar measures.

It additionally would help to unlock more units and therefore increase densities.

So this table provides an illustrative example of the graduated fee reduction.

With one unit, a full fee would be reduction, would be the full fee would apply, and that is gradually reduced.

And once you reach six units, there would be a complete waiver of the fees.

So the column on the far right demonstrates that the fee reduces considerably on a per unit basis with the increased uh graduated fee reduction.

This is just to summarize as a reminder of the items that council is contemplating this evening, physical accessibility, our three alternative compliance measures, the inlu fee adjustments, the remaining cleanup items, and the new recommended amendments.

The next steps would include crafting the ordinance and the with the path through approval beginning at EPC in a public hearing at EPC and a first and second reading at council in early Q1 and early Q2 respective, sorry, late Q1 and early Q2 respectively.

So staff recommend council approve the amendments to the BMR program and direct staff to bring back the ordinance amendments.

So that concludes staff's presentation.

We're available for questions, and we can turn it back to the mayor.

Thank you.

Does any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember Schulhalter.

Thank you.

Um I just want to say to start with that I um I'm really delighted to be working on this again.

I started working on it, I think it was in 1998 when I was on the planning commission, and um I really view this as one of the most impactful things that I got to work on when I was on the Planning commission.

So it's really been exciting to see how it's progressed over the years.

And of course, you know, things need to be updated.

So I'm really glad we're doing this.

Um, I do have quite a few questions though.

Um, first of all, the unit counts for bedrooms.

I guess actually, you did go through that, how that was done.

So basically, you just don't want to have too many small apartments.

Correct, exactly.

We wouldn't want a completely disproportionate mix.

By providing a threshold, it would require some larger size units in order to fulfill the bedroom count without sort of loading the smaller units in order to meet the bedroom count.

Now, are we also using this for the um for a preservation building as well?

I think that that term is for the acquisition preservation alternative compliance.

Okay.

Yeah, that would be only for the acquisition preservation.

Okay, so then you have a given building, but I guess you could remodel it to be.

Yeah, I think that would be the challenge, and that's why we're trying to build in a little flexibility.

Um we understand that the city's housing stock, the auto housing stock probably is comprised of smaller units.

Um, but we would we're looking really looking for some form of distribution within the bedroom sizes, size units.

Okay.

Okay.

And um the cost recovery for um land dedication of um eight, nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

That's that's a lot of money.

So how I understand we already passed that fee, but how how did we come up with that fee?

Yeah, um, thanks for asking.

Um staff did extensive modeling at the time to estimate our costs.

Um, I would caveat that this costs all administrative costs from the time that at conveyance through um the beginning of construction.

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

Um we found if we can use LOC 12 as an illustrative example, um, that's taken seven years, and and extensive amount of stop time that's gone into that as well as consulting, and we modeled off of that that the estimated cost is around $950,000.

Okay.

Um, all right, and then another question I have is what are the physical changes that you would need for an accessibility unit?

I was a little confused in reading that.

It seemed like definitely uh the size the the height of sinks was one, um, uh grab bars, the angle of opening doors.

Um are there other things that are required?

Great question.

Um I'm gonna do my best to take a run at the answer.

Um, as it turns out, the uh our building codes go a long way already to um fulfill accessibility requirements.

So new buildings, in many cases um are already addressing many of the requirements.

Maybe not necessarily always the counter heights, and in that case, I believe that there's an economy of scale that needs to be achieved in order to get to a an accessible unit that would be accessible for somebody who is in a wheelchair, for example.

Um currently, what we're seeing um some developers are opting to at the outset, it's cheaper for them to make the unit like adaptable for future use for the future.

Um, and we've seen that in the case of Anna.

You remember?

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, in any event, um, I think our um solution is to say that if and when a developer is already doing that, to please align those with our BMR um projects.

Um I don't think we're adding any additional requirements to what's required in the building code.

Um, as I mentioned, they go pretty far already, and um in our extensive outreach with developers, they've mentioned that they would require some form of incentives in order to provide any further um adjustments to um BMR units.

So for things like putting side by side washer dryers that would require a redesign of the units if that's not something they already have.

Okay, yeah, that takes more floor area.

Right.

Correct.

Yes.

But I was surprised I went around and measured the length the height of the counters in my house.

And the kitchen counters were 36, but the bathroom count, which is you know higher, but the bathroom counters because 34 is the limit, the bathroom counters were all lower than that.

So it was just that's kind of where they are.

Okay.

Um we we talk about the HCT um designated highest resource areas in Mountain View.

And um, where are these besides south of El Camino?

And do they include the Monoloma and Old Mountain View neighborhoods?

Um I have a slide.

We have a slide, okay.

Um right, so um this is the HCD opportunity areas, and you will notice that for the most part the city is a highest resource.

This is a very good thing.

They are a very, there is a few areas of moderate resources, um, but for the most part the city is cut completely covered by highest or high resource areas.

So, um, in actuality, the AFFH components like geographically are fairly easily met through the HCD opportunity areas.

Well, thank you for having a slide.

That's great.

Well, I wanted to see that.

I think this might come up.

All right, and then um another thing I wanted to mention is um uh in the, you know, we ask council questions.

People listening on TV, if there is anybody, we ask quite council questions and we get written answers.

And one of the ones I um I asked was about how many BMR fees we'd collected over the years and um kind of what the multiplier was for the utilization of those.

Because I think you know, as we update something, we should also kind of think of it as a time to celebrate what we've accomplished with it, which which really is a lot.

And um, so uh we've collected, if I got it right, 58 million dollars over the years, and um I think what's even more impressive is that the housing department, and that's about half of the city contributed money to affordable housing.

The housing department has a goal of having a four-to-one multiplier.

That means for every dollar uh the city puts in, we get um four other dollars somewhere else.

So that's a four to one um multiplier for all of the money we put in.

But if you think of this 58 million as being approximately half of what the city has contributed over time, that makes it into an eight to one multiplier.

That is incredibly impressive.

So I think we should all really be proud of that, that not only have we could and uh and and it should be something our community is proud of, because not only have I guess this is getting into comments, I'm sorry.

It's you know, I mean it's it's not only have we collected these fees, we've really put them to good use.

Thank you.

Councilmember McAllister.

Yeah, so I have a couple of questions uh to clarify because BMR units are great, but I had um a quick one.

Well, I have a list of questions, so I'll start off with if a developer built 15% building units and declares the state density bonus.

Would they still need to put at the 10 additional BMR units?

Good evening, Wayne Chen, housing director.

Thank you very much for the question.

Um so just a couple of pieces.

Um component is our BMR ordinance does allow for density bonus units to count towards the BMR requirement, provided that the units meet the requirements of both state density bonus law and the BMR requirement.

Um our general review is that our um percentage requirements um apply.

And we have recently seen an 8 CD technical assistance memo that um essentially affirms that a city's percentage requirements would still apply even under a state density bonus law project.

Of course, that being said, we always meet with every project to discuss the specifics of that project and also review any other state considerations that might require further analysis.

So the the basic approaches that we believe it does, but we would evaluate it on a project by project basis.

Next question.

So one of the criteria I was looking at as who could buy these BMR units, and I was a surprise to see some of these items that may need to be updated.

So does the city have a requirement that a potential BM buyer cannot have more than 150,000 in assets?

Yes, so the current administrative guidelines does have that, plus a couple of other areas that um would need to be updated and modernized.

Um that's actually a pretty good example for having the administrative guidelines be updated administratively rather than by resolution because we could resolve some of these um modernization cleanup pieces, but yes, for the 150, we do believe that would need to be updated based on the current sales prices, the the math won't won't work.

Okay, so I got two other ones that the potential buyer can put only 30% down?

Um our guidelines has a range that allows a maximum of 30%.

Uh, we typically model a 5% down payment, recognizing that lower income households just don't have the means to save up for a down payment that large, but it does provide some flexibility.

So when we meet with the developers, we take or do take a look at their projects and um and discuss that, but typically because the um affordable ownership units are of lower income ranges, we use the 5% in acknowledgement of the ability for folks at that range to even come up with a down payment.

But there is a flexibility to go up to 30% or as low as 5%.

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

If you say, hey, I worked hard, I saved up money, I have assets, now I can't use them, or I have I can only put 30% down, I want to put more down because that would make my mortgage less.

So why did you do it?

Why was the in here you didn't do them?

And if you are going to reassess them, when would you start reassessing these to make sure that we get people, the middle market people that can afford these to get into those units?

Um that's a great question.

Typically, any program has a balance in in trade-offs, and there's both an income test and an asset test.

Uh, one might be maybe lower on the income, but maybe has high assets for whatever reason, perhaps through inheritance or whatnot.

So it is important to have an asset test where that balance um lies is part of this.

Um, we do think the 150,000 that's currently in the guidelines are is too low and it should be updated, and we would go through the process to update update that.

Well, when would you start that process?

Uh currently the administrative guidelines needs to be done by resolution.

I think we would start taking a look at it now.

Um we do have to undertake the actual ordinance amendments, so what we would probably do is um a concurrent process to start the actual ordinance amendments while we take a look at some of these um administrative guidelines that would need to be um modernized and to the extent that we can bring it back along with the ordinance amendments um on the on the Q1 Q2 time frame that uh Ms.

Barnard mentioned.

Okay, another question.

If a developer has a development agreement that they put in that we put in place.

Will that still be required?

And in that when they did the development agreement, they were to put pay park and loo fees.

Now, as the law has been modified, would they still they would not have to do park and loo fees?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

I'm gonna turn to community development director Christian Rodok if he could uh respond.

Thank you, Director Chen.

Good evening, honorable mayor and counsel Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Um so if I understand the question uh correctly, uh it's about the relationship of a development agreement to the payment of parkland dedication and loo fees.

Um typically uh a development agreement would lock in existing law, not state law, and so to the extent that the uh parkland dedication requirement or fee payment is part of local ordinance, which it typically is, um it would generally lock in uh that fee at the rate at the time that the development agreement was executed.

So if there is an applicable fee, uh the project would typically be subject to that fee, um, and typically not significant changes if the city were to adopt a new fee.

Okay, thank you.

And my last one may I guess um the question I had about when you say pipeline, which is sort of a misleading to me, it is, um, because it doesn't say they're actually built or they're actually under review or they're permitted.

So there was great uh you have this chart of here of all these BMR units, et cetera, et cetera.

And that says under review, under review, under review.

So is there a way to present BMR units that are actually getting because none of these what in your list?

They're not guaranteed to be built, correct?

Are they?

Those are pipeline data.

They um except for the exception of one project that has two BMR ownership projects that have now just submitted for building permits.

Um correct.

The other ones are pre-building permit.

Um we do have one project that was completed and is in operation that was um that came online over the last two years that has added um 30 new BMR units um to our affordable housing stock.

So that that is a win.

Um and I we uh acknowledge the point that projects in the pipeline may not move forward.

We operate um with a starting point that a project is being submitted uh because they think that there's a good chance that it will get built, and so we try not to second guess that.

Um, but yes, they are pipeline projects.

We're working actively with projects to get them to the building permit phase.

Um right now there is one small one queued up.

Okay, all right.

I'll final you keep saying pipeline.

That doesn't mean they're going in.

They're they're just somebody came to the desk.

So would it be better to say permitted so they'll give us a realistic of what's gonna get built versus, oh yeah, we got these, you know, it's over in East Westwin where they're gonna put in a thousand units, and you can say, Well, they're in the pipeline.

Well, they're not.

So is there a way to clarify instead of saying pipeline permitted that it will actually give us a sense of what's getting done?

As I think in the uh yes, in the council responses, I I believe we have a table that shows projects that have entitlement and when those entitlements will expire.

It also uh denotes the projects that have a uh application submitted, but is not yet um entitled, and those are the under review projects.

Okay, thank you.

Great, thank you.

Seeing no other uh colleagues in the queue, I'll open it up for public comment.

Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment in this on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

I'm not seeing any in-person um public comment, but there is one virtual David Watson, you have three minutes.

Oh wow, uh three minutes.

I uh didn't expect to be first and kind of pull up my notes here.

I'm David Watson.

Uh I'm uh I'm uh uh member of Mountain View Yimby, and I uh I don't have my notes yet.

Um yeah uh we support the changes uh that align with the BMR program uh with current economic conditions and past project experiences.

Um we'd love I I think uh Pat already mentioned our uh request for uh more uh transparency and land dedication.

We appreciate that.

Um the uh uh major change that we uh asked about in our letter, and I will repeat here, is uh we'd like to um see the graduated fee schedule extend to projects at least 10 units, um and uh because this will uh sort of um bring this into line with uh various uh state uh state laws that have uh passed uh over the last uh few years.

And uh that's uh that's about it.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, James Kuzimal.

Hello.

Uh I'm James Kuzmal.

I wanted to largely echo um David's comments and uh generally encourage the directions and the that is taking this and uh follow the letter that Mountain VM is providing.

Um the with BMR requirements.

I know our goal, everyone's goal is make sure that both we can have as much affordable housing so that's possible, and make sure that um it's possible for more people of diverse backgrounds to live near each other, and that means a variety of strategies, including getting more housing built and ensuring we design our BMR programs so that they generate uh plenty of both affordable housing and um money for the city to provide more affordable housing, and for some things that means making it so that more small projects are viable for some things that means including fees so that we actually have money to work with, and it's not one or the other, and I look forward to uh seeing these programs evolve so that we can have a better, more diverse city.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

All right, that concludes public comment.

I'll bring the item back for council deliberation and action.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've got one minute and I'm gonna use it wisely.

Um so first, uh thank you, staff, because we have to be out of here by eight o'clock.

Um excellent work, very uh thoughtful uh and well laid out.

Um I'm uh I had a chance to speak with a colleague, and um I think there's probably a shared sentiment that it can at times be a little overwhelming, but we're trusting you, right?

You've uh spent a lot of time thinking about this, engaging with stakeholders and uh seeing how in practice some of the uh alternative compliance options have worked out, made adjustments correspondingly, and I think it it shows in the report and the recommendations that uh you've been uh very um uh thoughtful and in your approach.

So I'm happy to support them.

Uh I'm going to move uh to approve the staff recommendations with two minor adjustments, and I might need your help, uh Director Jen, because I want to use your language, um, but I want to take credit for it.

Um the first adjustment uh is uh related to the graduated fee reduction program.

Um right now, it's based on a presumption that there could be up to six units.

In some cases, uh a property may not be able to physically accommodate six units.

Uh you might only be able to build three or four or five.

And the problem with that is by no fault of your own, you will never be able to enjoy the maximum incentive.

Uh so my suggestion would be to adjust the graduated fee reduction uh incentive program um to uh basically uh work proportionately with the maximum number of units that would be physically possible on a property.

Um so happy to talk that through if um if that needs more explanation, but it's it's basically the same concept, right?

It's just if you can only build three units, you're never gonna get 100%, and that doesn't quite sit right with me.

The other um adjustment, and this is where I'm really gonna need your help, Director.

Um the uh as as public comments had alluded to, there are state laws like SB 684, like SB 1123, um, that uh seek to um allow ministerial approval for starter homes, right?

So small lot, um uh sort of uh small scale multifamily or or perhaps a townhouse product um that uh we also want to help incentivize um that those state laws go up to 10 units.

So the suggestion would be for staff to basically evaluate um how the graduated fee reduction program or the incentive um can be applied to those state laws, right?

So up to 10 units, and it may make sense, it may not.

I might I would trust staff's judgment, but if there are words to read into the record, I would I would welcome your suggestion.

Okay.

So it's moving the staff recommendation, and then Director Chen will share the two additions.

Yes, thank thank you very much.

Um what I think I'm hearing is a directions of staff to evaluate the feasibility or options to essentially do what we've tried to do for SB9 for the other state laws to be able to maximize the development potential for small sites up to 10 units, and with a direction, we can uh take a little bit of time to think about how to make that work.

And uh with the note that uh one of our next steps is to come back in um public hearings, and so what we would uh do or pass is to evaluate the options and through the actual ordinance amendments, um, provide a recommendation if if it is feasible, um, and if there might be um complexities or challenges, we can we can lay that out, but we can include that into the report when we bring it back for the public hearing ordinance amendments.

Thank you very much.

All right, so that was um a motion by council member Ramirez, seconded by Council Member Show Walter, Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor, and to keep this quick.

I support staff's recommendation and the changes by Councilmember Ramirez.

Um he put in uh what I wanted to add in anyway, so yay, it's gonna be a quick thing.

Councilmember Showelter.

Well, I seconded it, but I'm it's with the hope that we can make I can make a few friendly amendments to it, uh some tweaks.

Uh but thank you very much for bringing forward the the body of it.

That's great.

Um, and then the one tweak that I'm really interested in making is is just relaxing um the timing of delivery section a little bit.

Um, this is for off-site land dedication or for preservation.

It's um in table so table four and five, and basically um it says uh the off-site BMR units shall be completed and receive the certificate of occupancy no later than issuance of the certificate of occupancy for market rate units and failure to deliver the off-site units will default the market rate project to the offs on-site BMR uh requirement.

And I'm a little concerned that um uh this seems unnecessarily restrictive.

I can imagine how a builder would have started these two projects at the same time, and through no fault of their own, one of the projects would be lagging.

And um, so I would like to give staff the discretion to say um that they can give an extension if they feel that the owner is working on completing the um the uh um you know the uh the off-site um affordable housing in good faith.

And I think we would want to probably put some kind of a time frame on that, you know.

We um so maybe six months um, but uh then there is a similar thing um in the uh uh the one related to preservation, which says complete all required remediation work and remain and and retain certificate of occupancy no later than the market rate, project occupants.

And again, I think that there might be a case when it would be appropriate for staff to say that that the um uh the developer was working in good faith, but something had happened.

I mean, those of us who've done remodels know that uh things pop up that you just didn't have any control over.

So that would be that's my request.

Um, oh, and then and then another one that I think we might want to have staff consider is another CLT um alternative, preservation alternative.

For instance, if a developer's money is able to say a developer needs to have 20 um units, um, and uh the things that are in the market at the time and the CLT wants to work on is for 30 units.

So they don't have enough um money to do the um uh to buy the units and do the rehabilitation, but the CLT is willing to work with them to provide the rehabilitation um money.

I think we should allow staff to work on that as well.

So those are a few those are some things I would I would like to see us just tweak to make it to give staff a little more flexibility to um to make things work.

The adjustments related to the timing consideration for staff to explore and uh include at their discretion in a determination of good faith efforts.

I think that's reasonable, and if staff objects to that, please let us know.

But that seems like a reasonable uh adjustment to include.

Well, they can evaluate the ability, right?

So maybe the amendments could be to evaluate the feasibility.

Go ahead.

Uh yes, thank you.

Uh one suggestion is to um in the actual ordinance to um say failure to do so would have this um default safety net provision, unless there could be demonstration of good faith and a recommendation would be to allow the administrative guidelines to provide more specificity, which can be um updated or modified um as conditions evolve, but to have some flexibility in the guidelines, but have a provision in the ordinance that allows uh a general statement for for this uh situation.

I think that's reasonable.

Um the last one though, that I think I would value we would all appreciate and value your input.

I feel like the the challenge with the last one is it's very speculative since no CLT, I think is is currently prepared to in engage in this, and maybe that's something for staff to evaluate as you're working on the community ownership action plan instead.

Uh yes, if I uh understand the the concept here is that there would be an ability to um a provision a different number of units that may be higher versus on-site BMR units, and number two, it could include a partnership, maybe not with a traditional affordable housing developer, but say a CLT.

Um I believe the the uh recommendations would allow for either of those scenarios or both of those scenarios.

Um what we would ask for is the feasibility and financing plan and have the developer propose it and we can take a look at it.

Um what would be important is just understanding what the developer contribution is financially to the project and how the overall project would be delivered, and what the other funding sources would be, whether it is procured through grants, um applications, philanthropic funding, um other loans, uh, and it could be funding that the CLT brings, I think is is part of what you were uh thinking, and CLTs would be um an eligible partner that one could partner with.

So I think what you are proposing is already contemplated to be built into the alternative means of compliance.

Oh, that's great because when I read it, I I thought that that it it um it would require them to take on apartments that were um the size they needed or smaller instead of the size they needed or bigger, and so you're saying that's not the case.

Yeah, I think what Ms.

Barnard was um laying out is that depending on the timing of their project and what could be out there in the marketplace to buy, it may not be a perfect fit.

So we want some flexibility, and if part of that is showing that there could be a building that perhaps exceeds the requirement, all the better.

Um, but it's up for developer to propose and take a look at what's out out there in the marketplace.

That's wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, great.

So it sounds like of the three suggestions, the third one is already kind of being contemplated by staff, and then the two staff will look into the the feasibility um and evaluate, sorry, evaluate the feasibility of the working in good faith.

Correct?

Okay, great.

All right, thank you.

Um council member McAllister.

Yeah, I have a question for uh council member Romares.

So your second one about up to 10.

Did you say and make it a part of the ordinance or look into it or evaluate it?

Evaluate the feasibility.

Okay.

Um would you do like we did earlier?

Is accept the staff report and then make a second motion to cover those items?

I may I oh the city attorney was just gonna leave forward.

Is that okay, Councilmember Ramires?

Uh let's hear from Councilmember Ramirez first.

Okay.

I uh I guess if you want to be here longer, sure.

Right.

Right.

So keep in mind, Councilmember McAllister, we're not adopting a resolution.

This is not the first hearing, right?

We're providing staff direction to evaluate all of these and then return for the first hearing.

Uh so I'm not certain there's a need to break it up.

Then I'm always I always hesitant and I win at the last minute items are to look at based on one person's calling in and saying doing this.

Did you take the opportunity to talk with staff before you did your this idea?

I had brought to staff's attention during the briefing.

So yeah, I've been thinking about it for a little while.

Okay, but it it's the appearance does not always to me look good when one person speaks and you guys follow up on it.

Thank you.

All right.

Um there's no one else in the queue, so I'm going to um call the vote.

Just want to thank staff.

I know it's um been a long effort, really appreciate it.

Um, and so let's vote.

Wonderful, and that passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

All right, um, I'm gonna move on to item eight.

Our council staff and committee reports.

Does anyone have any reports?

I can do a quick one, which is we had very exciting day yesterday where we were able to do our ribbon cutting on our um Ameswell Stevens Creek Pedestrian Bridge, which is finally open um after some delay.

Um Councilmember McAllister.

Okay.

Um all right.

Well, I'm not seeing anyone with any council or staff committee.

Oh, Councilmember Schulter.

Yes, um, I'm so sorry I got to miss, I had to miss the um the ribbon cutting, but I was uh uh at a BCDC meeting where we talked about the um uh beneficial use of sediment as a essentially a building product for sea level rise improvements, and I will be sending all of you a um a presentation that was given at this that um really does a great job of summarizing the science behind it and um I think you'll at least some of you will enjoy flipping through it and seeing and seeing the explanation.

Um last Wednesday um at morning, I was shortly after our last meeting.

I was in Oakland and I got to give a uh talk, take care of take part in a panel at the state of the estuary conference.

That's a conference that's held every other year, it's been going on for 30 plus years easily, um, to bring together scientists and engineers and regulators uh who work on um projects related to San Francisco Bay and the streams in the area.

So it was really fun after having gone to these conferences for a long long time to be asked to speak.

Um, and then on uh um Friday, I went to a meeting, another meeting for Bay Conservation and Development Commission related to sand mining.

And again, this is a um, this is a product that comes from the bay that um uh has uh interests related to the ecology of the bay and um some of it might be used for sea level rise protections, but it is used in concert, it is used in construction, so it's been very interesting to learn about um all this geology.

So thank you.

Wonderful, thank you so much.

All right, um, that moves us on to item nine, adjournment.

The next city council meeting will be held on November 18, 2025.

This meeting is adjourned as 8 15 p.m.

Thank you.