Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. Councilmember McAllister, do you have an announcement to make? You're on mute.

Yes, I do.

Pursuant to government code section 54953, I am participating in this meeting remotely through both audio and visual technology under the just cause provision due to travel while on official business of legislative body.

There is no one over 18 of age present at this remote location with me.

Great, thank you.

As a reminder, all votes will be taken by roll call this evening.

City Attorney Logue will make a closed session announcement and then we'll welcome public comment on the items listed for closed session.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

There are two items on this evening's closed session agenda.

Item 2.1 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9.

The name of the case is Alice Okuno versus the City of Mountain View et al.

Santa Clara County Court case number 22CB405643.

Item 2.2 is a conference with legal counsel regarding the initiation of litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9D4.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on the tights agenda?

I am not seeing any, so I'll 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.

All right, good evening everyone.

Welcome to the special meeting of the Mountain View City Council of November 18, 2025.

Please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right, the City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

Council Member Clark.

Here.

Council Member Hicks.

Here.

Council Member McAllister.

Virtual.

Council Member Ramirez.

Here.

Council Member Showalter.

Here.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Here.

Mayor Kamei.

Here.

Move on to item two, our closed session report.

City Attorney Logue, do you have a closed session report?

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

Yes, I have two closed session reports this evening.

In closed session this evening, City Council took final action on item 2.1,

which was a conference with legal counsel regarding Alice Okuno versus City of Mountain View lawsuit

arising from a trip and fall in a city park.

The City Council voted to approve settlement of the lawsuit in the amount of $275,000

The vote passed with seven ayes and zero noes.

In closed session this evening,

City Council took final action on item 2.2

on the closed session agenda,

which was a conference with legal counsel

pursuant to government code section 54956.9

regarding the initiation of litigation.

In closed session,

Council voted with seven ayes

to join the case of Fresno versus Turner

as a plaintiff,

which is a lawsuit challenging

the federal administration's newly imposed terms and conditions on federal grant funding.

Great, thank you. So we'll move on to item three, our presentations. Please note these are

presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after

the presentation items. If you'd like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue

speaker card to the City Clerk now. And our first presentation is item 3.1, which is national hunger

and Homelessness Awareness Week.

But before I head down to the lectern,

I wanted to take a moment to share some of the ways

that the city is working to address food insecurity in our community.

We recognize that food insecurity continues to be a serious need

for many of our community members.

The city has and continues to address food insecurity in a variety of ways,

including providing support to community-based organizations

and nonprofit agencies who offer free hot meals,

food pantries, and grocery distributions to the community, and providing capital funding to Add

a Kitchen at Hope's Corner and offering a senior nutrition program at the City's Senior Center.

Thanks to the community-based organizations and volunteer community providers,

food resources are available seven days a week in Mountain View.

The City is currently collecting food donations for CSA's food drive. In addition, through the

the Council's recent adoption of the Homelessness Response Strategy, the City will be implementing

a new initiative, a Homelessness Prevention Direct Financial Assistance Program, which

will provide flexible financial support for low-income households to cover challenging

costs, which can be used for but is not limited to covering basic needs such as food.

The City is grateful to all the community-based organizations, interagency partners, volunteers,

careers, community, and community members who provide access and security in Mountain View.

And tonight we're happy to be joined this evening by one such organization.

I'm going to ask John Riemenschneider, board president of Hope's Corner, to accept this

proclamation for Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week and to join me at the lectern.

We have to go this way so our backs aren't to you.

So whereas for over 25 years, the National Coalition of Homelessness and National Student

Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness has sponsored National Hunger and Homelessness

Awareness Week, whereas the purpose of the awareness initiative is to educate the public

about the many reasons people are hungry and homeless, including the shortage of affordable

housing for very low-income residents, and to encourage support for homeless assistance service

providers, as well as community services organizations for students and school service

organizations. And whereas the City of Mountain View is committed to supporting the homeless and

hungry with emergency sheltering, interim housing, affordable housing, and meals, both directly and

through support of agencies and service providers, such as Hope's Corner, and whereas the

City of Mountain View recognizes that hunger and homelessness continue to be serious needs for many

individuals and families in our community, and awareness of these needs is even more important

in times of economic stress and uncertain resources. And whereas Hope's Corner engages

volunteers and provides essential food resources, furthering the intent of National Hunger and

Homelessness Awareness Week. Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of the City of Mountain View,

along with my colleagues on the City Council to hereby proclaim the week of November 16th through 22nd,

2025 as National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week in the City of Mountain View.

I'm going to present this to you. Congratulations. And then would you like to say a few words?

Yes, I would. Thank you so much. On behalf of everyone at Hope's Corner, thank you.

As a volunteer at Hope's Corner over the past five years, I've witnessed firsthand

the increased need for food in our community,

as our program has grown to serve hot meals

and warm showers and laundry services three days a week.

This year, we're on track to serve more than 60,000 meals

to our neighbors facing food insecurity.

Hope's Corner is very proud to be a part of the safety net

serving Mountain View,

and especially during this time when so many are struggling,

and we deeply appreciate the strong support of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I just, I want to shout out Host Corner because I know that you, it's unfortunate,

but it's incredible.

This year you celebrated serving, I think, over, what, a quarter million meals to our

community, which is wild, but it just shows the need.

And so I just want to thank you very much.

Can we give that a round of applause, right?

How many meals is it?

Over 350,000 lifetime.

Yes, over 350,000.

So we're very grateful.

So we're just going to take a quick picture with the rest of the council.

And they're always looking for volunteers.

It's a really great place to volunteer.

So we'll move on to item 3.2, our Community Foundation Week Proclamation.

We're happy to be joined this evening by Krista Crame, CEO, and Aria Patel.

Community Engagement Associate with the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation to accept this

proclamation. So I'll invite you both to join me at the lectern. We have your proclamation here.

Whereas Community Foundation Week created in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush recognizes the

important work of community foundations throughout the United States and their ability to unite the

public, private, and non-profit sectors for lasting impact. And whereas the Los Altos Mountain View

Community Foundation serves as a philanthropic hub for the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos,

and the town of Los Altos Hills, providing leadership, resources, and partnership to

address local priorities and foster a vibrant, resilient community. And whereas LAMVCF, I don't

know which one's shorter, saying the whole thing or the acronym, has been instrumental in mobilizing

resources for urgent needs, such as supporting wildlife readiness, affordable housing solutions,

mental health services, youth programs, the arts, sponsoring the annual Compassion Week,

while managing charitable funds with a steadfast commitment to transparency and stewardship.

Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kameh, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the

City Council, to hereby proclaim November 12th through the 18th, 2025, as Community Foundation

Week in the City of Mountain View. There you go. Congratulations. Would you like to say a few words?

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Here, I'm going to have you hold that really quick.

So at the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation,

we stand shoulder to shoulder with local donors,

civic leaders, and nonprofits to take on these challenges.

One of our grantees, Hope's Corner,

we couldn't be prouder of tonight as well.

We do believe that real progress starts connecting

generous people with bold ideas to strengthen

Mountain View and Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.

We are a hyper-focused community foundation every day.

We're committed to help turning community potential into action, fueling collaboration and solutions to make this region more prepared, more resilient, more united.

But mostly we want to make sure that we're committed and we look to you all as a civic partner that we harness the power of shared generosity.

We've become a force for good.

And what we're here to do is to serve our communities to be a lifeline for everyone who calls this place home.

So thank you for this recognition.

I appreciate you all.

Yes, of course.

Do you want me on the other side of the clock?

Right.

.

Thank you.

Okay, so congratulations to both and specifically the foundation because I think whenever anyone

asks me a question about funding I say have you talked to the Los Angeles Mountain View

Community Foundation?

So thanks again for being such a resource.

Would any council member like to say a few words?

All right, seeing no comments, we'll now take public comment for the presentation items.

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

on the presentation items that are listed on our agenda?

Okay, I am not seeing any, so I will close public comment and thank our organizations

once more.

We'll move on to item four, which is 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.

The City Clerk will take roll call vote as we have a Council Member participating remotely

this evening. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Council Member Hicks.

I will not be pulling an item, but as you're probably going to take votes for all of them

together, I'm just announcing that I'm going to be recused from item 4.1,

which is about a public street and easement at 881 Castro Street, because that site is near my

residents. Great. Thank you. Anyone else in person before we go virtual? All right. Councilmember

McAllister. Yes, I would like to comment on 4.1, 4.3, and I had a question on 4.5. Okay, great.

Why don't we, why don't you go ahead and we'll start with 4.1? Okay, 4.1. I like to,

I wasn't here at the time, but we are taking a property, and 4.1 is talking about vacating it.

I would like the council to think next time about leasing property and the greater return that we get in the constant revenue.

We're doing that with lots 4 and 8.

And I don't know if this discussion came up when we were doing the 4.1, the property at Castro,

but it is a very valuable tool, a financial tool that gives the city reliable money,

and we keep our assets.

I do not like selling Mountain View assets, but this is one thing going forward

that it could bring us multiples of revenue versus selling it.

On 4.3, I've always told you time is money.

If you look at the report from the time of 24 to today,

the value has gone up over 2 million, close to $3 million in that shorter period.

So this is a particular time that we really need to be on top of getting this project going forward

and making sure that we are considerate of all the options going forward and that we have accurate information.

And on 4.5, I had a question about what's happening with the trees that are sitting at Google right now.

Are they just going to sit there for years before we figure out what we're going to do with these?

Just a moment.

Is there a member of staff who can answer Councilmember McCallister's question?

Thank you.

I can't answer the question, but I'm Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community Services Director.

I'm so sorry.

Do you mind moving the mic, speaking directly, and then reintroducing yourself?

Hi.

Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community Services Director.

We have Russell Hansen, Urban Forest Manager, on the line, actually, and he can answer your question.

Great.

We will look for him.

Hi, Russell.

it looks like you got unmuted.

Okay, let's see.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you.

Okay, excellent.

So I'm assuming

Council Member McAllister

is referring to the boxed trees

that were planted on the

landings project?

Yes.

Okay, yes. In terms of that, that is

correct because ultimately that project

is very complicated in terms

of how we are designing the public right-of-way with the future project, that we did not want to

actually put those trees into the ground and then come back in a few years, have to take them out

or otherwise. And so what we did is we entered into an agreement with Google where they're going

to be maintaining them. We're going to do periodic inspections. I know they've already had a couple

of them that started to stress out and die. We're working with them to get those replaced. But

ultimately, yes, the intention is to leave those at least temporarily until we find a new developer

of the project and it says follow up clarity so if one dies they're on the hook to replace it

that is correct yes thank you thank you mayor great thank you thank you all right

um i see a motion by council member showalter might that

have a second

All right. 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

their blue speaker card to the City Clerk. I only see virtual, so Bruce England, you have

three minutes. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not going to need that

much time. Bruce England, Wiseman Station Drive. I had a conversation with a few people,

including Russell Hanson about tree transplanting and what kind of care needs to be taken, and

he provided a very good response to that. My concern is that if you don't transplant

trees properly, making sure that the soil is well hydrated and all that, you've heard

about this before from others in the community, that they could die when they're put in the

new location. I'm not sure if Google's then responsible for a tree that's been transplanted

and later dies. So maybe that needs to be built into there. And then just want to take advantage

of these being on the consent calendar to voice my ongoing support for the biodiversity and urban

forest plan and for the Shoreline Boulevard pathway. Thanks. Great. Thank you. All right.

Seeing no other public comment, we'll take 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 the consent calendar items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.5.

Council Member Schultz-Walter.

Okay.

I move approval of the consent calendar,

and that includes item 4.1,

adopt a resolution of intention of the City Council

of the City of Mountain View

to vacate a public street in Easeman

at 881 Castro Street to be read in title only,

further reading waived,

detachment one to the Council report,

and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for December 9th, 2025.

Item 4.2, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View,

directing staff to apply for a non-competitive $379,921 grant from Silicon Valley Clean Energy

for an electric vehicle charger rebate program for existing multifamily properties,

and if awarded, accept and appropriate revenues and expenditures up to 379-921 and grant funds

to Project 20-99, the Sustainability Fund, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

Item 4.3, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View,

authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute Program Supplement Agreement Number F028

to the administering agency state agreement number 045124F15

with the California Department of Transportation

for Shoreline Boulevard Pathway Improvements,

Projects 21-37 to be read in title only,

further reading waived.

And lastly, Item 4.5,

adopt a resolution of the City Council

of the City of Mountain View

amending the fiscal year 2025-26 budget

to appropriate $180,000 in the tree mitigation sub fund

for tree planting expenses to be read in title only

for the reading waived.

Great, thank you.

And that was seconded by Vice Mayor Ramos.

So let's vote.

Voice vote.

There we go.

Council Member Showalter?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Ramos?

Yes.

Council Member Clark?

Aye.

Council Member Hicks?

Yes, for everything except 4.1,

which I am recused from.

Council Member McAllister?

Yes.

Council Member Ramirez?

Yes.

Mayor Comey?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Great.

So 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'd 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?

All right, I am seeing one person in person. David Cuesta, you'll have three minutes.

Hello.

I've lived in Mountain View for a few years,

and this is my first time ever setting foot in City Hall.

So maybe as an introduction, I think you all know who I am.

Big fan of the city attorney, excellent work,

and Kimberley, we've met a few times.

I'm here because of pickleball.

And the Cuesta Park residents

are very concerned about pickleball.

And I'd like to make a declarative statement on it.

Next slide.

I think the Parks and Rec Department has actually made a brilliant suggestion in proposing Pickleball

in San Rafael.

Now there's a lot of housing going up there.

I've marked it here on this map and these are all the projects on the city's radar.

And I've talked to through some with some of the residents and they've had some concerns

so I'd love to walk through these.

Next slide.

One of them is San Rafael will be underserved as density increases.

Let's see how the math shakes out.

Next slide.

Today, there are 845 people that live there.

It's that orange part right there.

That's where everyone lives.

And there's a 2.1 acre park.

Next slide.

But we know what's going to be built.

And we can do a little bit of math.

These are the assumptions made by the city.

And we're going to add 1,048 residents.

So next slide.

If we add today's residents and the future residents,

we know how many acres per resident we're gonna get to.

It's gonna end up at about 2.3,

which is not too shabby, right?

Our goal is about three.

And how does that compare to other areas across the city?

These are the city's own numbers.

Next slide.

Another myth is that the new park will serve

all existing Sanford-FIL residents.

Next slide.

I don't know if that's true.

we can see that many more people will live closer

to the existing playground and park that live there,

that are there today than the new one

that's highlighted in green.

And so when you think about where pickleball could be,

the green area there is a great spot

because folks will gravitate towards a park

that's closest to them.

Next slide.

Another complaint is pickleball doesn't belong

in this neighborhood, it's a very common complaint.

And the next slide.

I would argue the opposite.

I actually think you have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Nowhere in the history of California has anyone built pickleball courts before the residents moved in.

Nobody lives there right now.

All the folks that live in San Rafael live in the Orange Area.

So you could build pickleball, and everyone that decides to move there, move into these apartments,

would knowingly move into a place where pickleball exists.

And that may be an amenity.

that serves them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm not seeing any virtual speakers,

so I'm going to close public comment

and move on to item six, new business.

Item 6.1 is our Rengstorf Avenue grade separation,

design, and right-of-way,

project 22-27, a cost reduction measures.

Assistant City Manager Dawn Cameron

and Public Works Director Jennifer Ng

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. We'll turn it over to the staff.

Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. I'm Dawn Cameron, Assistant

City Manager and co-presenting with me tonight is Public Works Director Ng. We also have

Caltrain project staff in the audience available tonight as well.

Okay, thank you. Next slide.

So tonight staff is recommending cost reduction measures for the Ringsdorf Avenue grade separation project for City Council approval.

We will also highlight the city's needs for successful project delivery.

The Ringsdorf Avenue grade separation project will improve safety and eliminate the crossing delays for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles due to the lengthy gate downtimes.

These gate downtimes cause significant backups on Ringstorff, which restricts community access to schools, services, the community center, and Ringstorff Park, just to name a few.

The city's actually been planning for this great separation for over 20 years, which is pretty stunning, considering that in 2004, the council adopted a preferred concept, and that is still the concept we're working on today.

And in fact, 10 years later in 2014, the council re-looked at the project, reaffirmed their support for the concept, and added additional bicycle and pedestrian enhancements.

So looking at this concept really quickly, it will involve depressing the intersection of Ringsdorf Avenue and Central Expressway while maintaining the train tracks at its existing elevation.

The project also includes a bicycle pedestrian overcrossing of Ringstorff to maintain connectivity between the east and west sides of Ringstorff Avenue and realigns the Leland connection to Ringstorff.

After the Council's actions in 2014 to reaffirm the project concept, the project was put on hold due to a lack of funding for such a large-scale project.

project.

This changed with the passage of the 2016 VTA Measure B sales tax, which included funding

for the Ringsdorf grade separation project.

As the City engaged in discussions to begin project design, Caltrain informed the City

and VTA that Caltrain must be the lead agency to design and construct the project due to

the complexities involved with an operating rail line and the planned electrification

of the service.

Thus, the city provided $4 million to Caltrain in 2019

for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance.

Completion of this first phase was planned for April 2021,

but was not completed until October 2022,

a delay of 18 months.

In August 2023, Caltrain, VT, and the city

ended into agreement for Caltrain to prepare

the final design and for the city

to lead right-of-way acquisition.

Completion of this phase was to take two and a half years, but the final design work has

now been extended by more than a year.

Much of this delay was due to Caltrain project management staffing shortages as well as long

decision making and contract processes in addition to an extensive value engineering

process.

Delays such as these along with other factors contributed to significant project cost increases

which will be discussed further by Director Ng.

Thank you, Dawn.

So we've seen cost estimates steadily increasing on this project.

In October of 2022, Caltrain provided a 35% design cost estimate.

At that time, it was $185 million for construction

and $262 million for the total project.

The funding shortfall was $45 million,

and the city was working under the understanding at that time that we had funding available

sufficient to deliver two grade separation projects.

In January of 2024, the Caltrain design cost estimate from 2022 needed to be adjusted for

the very high jump in bids that all of the cities were experiencing coming out of the pandemic.

costs were therefore adjusted up to 242 million dollars for construction and 325 million dollars

for the total project cost simultaneously at that time realizing that there wasn't enough funding

for both grade separations council made the difficult decision to prioritize this project

ringsdorf the shortfall in january 2024 was estimated to be 31 million dollars at that time

And the city intended to close the gap by pursuing outside funding opportunities.

In mid 2024, Caltrain brought on a CMGC or a Construction Manager General Contractor.

The CMGC would provide constructability reviews during design of the project and provide real

construction cost estimates from the contractor's perspective.

And so therefore in October of 2024, Caltrain provided updated construction cost estimates

which substantially increased the estimated construction cost to $312 million,

and a total project cost of $453 million.

Coupled with modest increases to earlier phases, the anticipated shortfall then was $159 million.

So then faced with $159 million shortfall, the team started value engineering efforts.

$52 million is able to be reduced from the project by looking at our construction methods and sequencing, reducing our construction duration, and taking a critical look at indirect costs, contingencies, and fees.

Another $6 million can be reduced to the project through three design modifications that I'll run through quickly after this.

According to the terms of the VTA, Caltrain, and City Co-op Agreement, the City Council approval is needed for these design modifications.

So the net impact is that the shortfall can be reduced by $58 million to a new shortfall total of $99 million.

Okay, design modification number one is to remove the retaining walls along Central Expressway.

These walls were originally in the design because Caltrain wanted to be able to plan for four tracks in this area in the future,

and since then that need has been eliminated.

Removing the retaining walls, which are shown in orange at the top, from this location results in both cost savings

and provides green space that is aesthetically more appealing to users of the corridor.

The second design modification is elimination of the pathway connecting Crescento Avenue with

Rangsdorf Avenue. It's shown in purple there on the right-hand side. Elimination of the pathway

is both cost savings and preserves park space within the Rangsdorf Park. Residents wishing to

access Rangsdorf Avenue from Crescento may do so using the existing pedestrian pathway which is

shown on the right hand side with the purple line.

And the third design modification is to eliminate retaining walls at the gas station property

north of Central Expressway.

This is both cost savings and practical as a use for the property has not yet been identified.

Once the property is redeveloped, grading and any necessary retaining walls can be installed

with that project in the future.

So even with all of these value engineering efforts, there's still a substantial shortfall in the funding.

The greatest risk to this project is delay.

Each year of delay can cost us an anticipated $9 to $14 million in cost increases for every bit of moving the start of construction beyond 2027.

So we're exploring numerous ways to close that funding gap, including pursuing grant opportunities,

continuing conversations with Caltrain and other regional cities on cost-saving strategies,

and potentially raising the funds locally through a revenue measure.

To keep this project moving forward, key messages that staff is giving to the Caltrain team

is that we need a strong and consistent delivery team

with project managers that can deliver mega projects.

We need flexibility and out-of-the-box thinking

with respect to streamlining processes and decisions,

including design, operational impacts, and even project delivery.

The city needs to be treated as a partner and not a client

and brought in early for feedback on technical plans and studies.

And transparency is needed.

communication from the city can't just go into a black hole and reliable and

timely information is needed to keep this project moving forward back to

assistant manager City Manager Don thank you very much regionally other cities

have been experiencing similar challenges with their Caltrain grade separation

projects last August city managers from nine cities including our own city

manager Kimber McCarthy, and these cities all had planned great separations, met with

Caltrain executive leadership to share the city's concerns about the significant project

cost increases, project management, and the lack of Caltrain's progress in delivering

these projects, Caltrain's.

Discussion points focused on strategies to deliver the projects as quickly as possible,

minimize cost increases, and identifying new funding opportunities.

The city managers and Caltrain executive leadership are meeting again in December to continue discussions about these challenges and potential solutions.

There is also discussion among the cities about engaging the Joint Powers Board in developing solutions and ensuring these projects are a priority for Caltrain.

the bottom line we are not alone and caltrain recognizes and we've been talking to them

that we need we need progress we need solutions and by working with the other cities cities along

the caltrain corridor we are we are hoping that these discussions will prove fruitful

so this brings us to staff recommendation that the city council approve staff's recommended

cost reduction measures for the Ringstorff Avenue

grade separation project, which will allow it then

to complete 65% design and get us moving forward

again into final design.

And this concludes our presentation,

and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Does any member of the council have a question?

All right.

I am not. Oh, Council Member Callister.

Yes, how quickly we forget.

Hey, Chris and I have been working on this since 2014.

Around 2019, we figured this thing was going to be working out.

I think the initial cost was like $150 million, and now it's just gone crazy.

So my question is two questions for you.

Getting the right-of-way is very important in moving this project forward.

Do you need any guidance or approval from council to speed up the process of the right-of-way acquisition?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember McAllister.

At this time, we do not need any particular direction from city council.

Also, the city has already acquired one parcel, and we are in discussion with other property owners about acquiring our property needs from them.

The council actually has a policy that allows the city to pursue right-of-way acquisition for capital, approved capital projects and making offers within appraised values and so on without city council approval because it is an approved capital project.

And therefore, we're moving as quickly as possible to get the appraisal maps put together, get the appraisals put together and engage property owners in the acquisition.

Well, thank you.

And here's another question.

Maybe I'll leave it to anybody.

But, you know, we've been trying to get this project going.

And I would like to recommend that the council sends a letter with our request to get this thing moving along.

What is the best way to do that? Do we need to put it in a motion? Can we do it in a straw vote to say that says Council of the City of Mountain View really would like to get this done?

Because we were looking at, you said 104 trains going now. Just think that there was a question in Council of Questions.

It's going to go to 174 and it's going to go to 300 and it's really going to be very disruptive.

So how can council with its political will write a letter to the powers to be to get this thing and to have them take us seriously?

Thank you again for the question.

City council can choose to direct staff to draft a letter for the mayor's signature that presents the city's experiences, concerns, and requests for helping us get this project delivered.

It could be included in the motion to direct staff to draft such a letter for the mayor's signature.

Okay.

Whoever makes the motion, I would like to add that as an amendment.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Council Member Showalter?

Yeah.

I'm interested in what we're going to do with the dirt when we dig it out.

We have a huge need for material for our sea level rise protection efforts, our marsh restoration, and I wonder if this dirt is going to be used for that or can be.

Thank you for the question.

I think the answer is potentially.

We haven't yet identified, because it's in the future, exactly where the dirt will go.

But there is always a need for dirt brokering, as we call it in the industry, throughout the area, and we do try to keep our dirt local.

Okay, that's great.

Maybe we can talk about, I don't know if it's included in this, but the need, do we have a city policy about the importance of keeping our dirt local?

It's more practicality, right?

The less that you have to haul dirt, the more inexpensive it is to move it from place to place.

Okay.

Great.

Any other member have a question?

All right.

We'll bring it to public comment.

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

All right.

We'll display.

I only see virtual.

So we'll display a timer on the screen. Each speaker will have three minutes. Hello, Bruce.

Thanks, Mayor. Bruce England again, Wiseman Station Drive. I'll be very brief. There's one particular location in this setup that concerns me that it would be nice if it could be resolved sooner rather than later.

So if you decide to break the project up in any way, the intersection of Crescento and Rengsdorf right now is really pretty horrible.

It was a bottleneck there between Central, Rangsdorf, Crescento, the train tracks, traffic coming up Rangsdorf versus traffic trying to come in from Crescento.

I actually bike through there.

So when I have to go right onto Rangsdorf on my bike, I have to sort of thread my bike in between the curb and the cars because they tend to either be right in the middle of the lane there or over to the right.

They aren't thinking about a bicyclist coming past them like that.

very narrow very bottlenecked if there's a way to fix that part separately that would be great

from my perspective thank you great thank you all right that concludes public comment so we'll bring

the item back for council deliberation and action the city clerk will take a roll call vote as we

have a council member participating remotely this evening so we have a motion by council

Member Clark and he has some comments

hoping we get a second.

Second.

Okay great. We will add you

as the seconder.

Council Member Clark.

I just want to say I appreciate all the

work that's gone into this over the

years and it's always hard to

figure out ways to cut costs.

I agree

with the cost cutting recommendations

that have been made here.

And so my motion is to both move this,

my motion is to approve the staff recommendation

and to authorize the,

authorize staff and the city manager

to draft any letters to any stakeholders

that might be helpful to move this project along,

especially to Caltrain and any state legislators

or other key stakeholders for the mayor

to review and sign as she sees fit.

Great, Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor.

I plan on supporting the motion.

I was planning on seconding, but I wanted to give it to Council Member McAllister because

I know he cares so much about this.

I also support originally Council Member McAllister's suggestion, and it looks like it was expanded

by Council Member Clark to empower the staff to write a letter that will eventually be

signed by Madam Mayor to see if we could just get

a little bit more political will to support getting this

through all the other boards, commissions, regions

to get it done.

I've been, I was briefly, I was following on Reddit

the thread on this item and some people are upset

with how much money is cost and unfortunately that is

the cost of infrastructure these days.

but it is something that really does need to get done.

So I'm happy to move this forward and support the motion.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Council Member Hicks.

So I want to start off by thanking staff

for all their work recently and over the years

on this particular project.

I'm on the Council Transportation Committee

and I was very impressed with the cost cutting measures

that were presented there, I won't go over them in detail

because I did at that time on the committee.

But I particularly like the, what was it,

the concrete wall, the retaining wall

that was taken down and green space.

It seems like the cost cutting measures

actually have made this project better.

So that I like and I will be supporting the motion

and the letter.

I also though want to at this time raise my concern

about these mega projects, although I think in this area

we really do need grade separation.

I've got to say I think that grade separation projects

are a lot, I mean this one started how many years ago?

More than 10 years ago when we were more focused

on level of service of single occupancy vehicles.

And I feel like the very large amount of money,

What is it, $325 million?

I'm not sure when you look at the costs and benefits that there's something that we want to repeat in other places in the city.

They make big holes in the ground.

They make the area less friendly for bikers and pedestrians and humans who are around.

And I think this project may be a part of a revenue measure.

I'm not sure we're going to want to ask the public to pay for more of these.

I would do that with careful consideration.

So I'm taking this time to make that statement.

But I will be supporting this one.

Council Member Showalter.

I'm just very, very supportive of this.

And I do, as everyone else has said, really appreciate the work that has gone in it.

And I know that you're not done yet.

There's a lot of work yet to be done.

And we really want to encourage you to continue with that because it's so important for our community.

And in addition to the helping with traffic, I mean, it will help immensely with traffic.

It will help with traffic.

It will help with biking.

But I also think we should remember that this is also an environmental justice issue because we're going to provide a much easier and safer environment for a part of our community that's very dense.

And they really, it's important that we make sure that everybody gets good service and good city services like this.

So I just wanted to bring up the EJ considerations here.

And also, whenever we can, let's use that dirt beneficially.

I love that.

All right.

So before we vote, I just want to echo the thanks to staff.

I know this has come to CTC actually multiple times,

our Council Transportation Committee, multiple times.

I will say I'm happy to sign the letter.

I would, I think that it's something that's so wonderful that the city is willing and ready to move forward with a project like this.

I don't think every jurisdiction, I think this is a number one project and what is it, Burlingame has a number two project.

And so I think the more that we can do this, the more we can be examples for our region of how this is possible.

So thank you to our incredible staff.

So let's vote by voice vote.

Council Member Clark?

Aye.

Council Member McAllister?

Absolutely.

Council Member Hicks?

Yes.

Council Member Ramirez?

Yes.

Council Member Showalter?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Ramos?

Yes.

Mayor Kamei?

Yes.

Motion carries unanimously.

Great.

Thank you to staff.

We'll move on to our public hearings.

Item 7.1 is our mixed-use project at 749 West El Camino Real.

Would any council members like to make any disclosures?

Council Member Hicks.

I met with the applicant and I've been to the site.

Okay, Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I had a phone call with the applicant.

Great.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor.

I had a Zoom call with the app.

Well, actually, I think it was Microsoft Teams.

But yeah, I had a Teams call with the applicant.

Okay, great.

Council Member Showalter.

I had a Zoom call with the applicant and I visited the site numerous times.

Great. Thanks. Council Member Clark.

Same.

All right. Council Member McAllister.

Ditto.

All right. Then I can say what? Ditto, ditto, ditto. All right. I think that handles our

disclosures. And we'll move on to the staff presentation.

Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blisginski and Consulting Senior Planner Margaret Neto 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.

We'll begin with the staff presentation.

Mayor.

Oh, yes.

I think we just need a couple-minute recess for staff to load a presentation that had to be recently updated.

All right.

We will take a five-minute recess, and we will reconvene at 7.45 p.m.

All right, everyone.

Thank you for your patience.

We're going to reconvene, and we'll start with the staff presentation.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor Kamei and Council Members.

My name is Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director, and I'm joined on the

dais by Margaret Netto, Senior Planner, who's the project planner for this mixed-use development

located at 749 West El Camino Real.

The existing development on the project site includes two one-story buildings, a vacant

restaurant building, and an operational Chase Bank building, surface parking spaces, and

associated landscape and hardscape improvements.

The approximate 3.05-acre project site is located in the El Camino Real precise plan

and has a general plan land-use designation of mixed-use corridor.

To the west is a four-story mixed-use residential building.

To the south are one-to-two-story multifamily residential uses.

To the north are one-to-four-story commercial buildings and Gateway Park.

And to the east, there are two-story multifamily residential uses across Lane Avenue.

The proposed project includes construction of a mixed-use development comprised of 299 residential units in a six-story building with 10,830 square feet of ground floor neighborhood commercial space and at-grade podium parking above two levels of underground parking.

A two-story, 8,483 square foot bank building, a provisional use permit for a rooftop deck, a heritage tree removal permit to remove 28 heritage trees, and an easement vacation.

Additionally, the project originally included a preliminary parcel map application.

However, the applicant requested the removal of the map after the publishing deadline for

the council materials.

Therefore the application no longer includes a map request and the applicant will use a

lot line adjustment to combine the parcels prior to issuance of a building permit.

The project has frontage on four public streets, El Camino Real, Castro Street, Victor Way

and Lane Avenue.

The project orients ground floor retail, common areas, lobbies, and other residential amenity

spaces along El Camino Real and Castro Street, with the new bank building proposed near its

current location, which is close to the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street, and adjacent

to a public plaza sited along El Camino Real.

The public plaza on El Camino Real will be wrapped by ground floor commercial space with

landscape features, lighting, and outdoor seating.

The proposed project is consistent with the general plan's vision for the site as it includes

a mix of commercial and residential uses at six stories, consistent with the land use

designation.

The project is in a key location, near downtown and adjacent to a rapid bus stop, and includes

a public plaza.

Additionally, the project is consistent with the ECRPP development standards, including

building height, open space, and pavement coverage.

The project is eligible for a 46.25% state density bonus

and qualifies for 97 density bonus units

for a maximum total of 306 units.

However, the project proposes 90 density units

for a total of 299 units.

The project qualifies for two concessions

and unlimited waivers and is requesting one concession

for the upper floor setback on Castro Street and nine waivers.

Additionally, the applicant's attorney

has submitted a letter this afternoon

requesting the use of their second concession

to modify project condition of approval number one

from exhibit A of attachment two

to increase the time period that the entitlement is valid

from two years to eight years.

While staff has not had an opportunity

to fully review the request,

we are moving forward with the hearing

despite the last minute nature of the request

in an effort to move forward

with council consideration of the project.

The project proposes to provide 15.8%

of the base units to lower income households.

31 units will be reserved for very low income households

and two will be reserved for low income households.

By offering the majority of BMR units at 50% AMI,

the applicant is delivering housing

at a deeper affordability level than required

under the city's BMR ordinance,

thereby complying with the requirement.

The units are reasonably dispersed through the project,

which meets the city's BMR ordinance.

The proposed modern design of the building

includes a circular form for the new bank building

with the residential portion of the building

stepping back from the bank area

towards the other project street frontages.

Most of the residential units within the mixed use building

are located on the second through sixth floors

with the ground floor level containing five residential units

on the southwest side of the building along Victor Way.

The precise plan calls for design sensitivity

for height and setback transitions to surrounding buildings

and lower intensity neighborhoods

along the El Camino corridor.

The building frontages on Lane Avenue and Victor Way have been designed with a residential

scale and building heights stepped down towards the existing adjacent residential neighborhood.

The project proposes about 60,000 square feet, about 45 percent of open space, which exceeds

the minimum precise plan requirement.

The open space area includes a combination of both publicly accessible and private common

open spaces in multiple locations, including the plaza on El Camino Real, which contains

landscaping and seating, passive landscape areas around the perimeter of the project site, and along

residential buildings at street level, three courtyards for residents on the second level of

the building, and a rooftop deck that will include outdoor amenities such as lounge furniture,

landscaping, a pool and spa, and raised planter beds. The project site currently contains 90 trees

including 18 street trees, 35 heritage trees, and 55 non-heritage trees. The project proposes

us to remove a total of 81 trees including 28 heritage trees and 53 non-heritage trees and

preserve two non-heritage trees and seven heritage trees. The applicant will provide 123 replacement

trees. The applicant collaborated with the planning division, public works department,

and urban forestry division to closely evaluate the health of existing trees and identify

opportunities to preserve additional trees including preservation through transplantation.

Given the comprehensive redevelopment proposed on the site, there were limited locations where existing trees did not directly conflict with required public street improvements and or proposed building footprints.

Therefore, focus was placed on studying the limited remaining areas where existing trees could feasibly be retained in place, particularly the nine trees lining the southern border adjacent to the multifamily residential on Victor Way.

the project will plant approximately 123 replacement trees which exceeds the replacement

requirement in areas surrounding the building and within the courtyards on site the project

will also install new landscaping including shrubs and ground cover around the perimeter of the site

within the public plaza in the second floor courtyards and on the roof of the mixed-use

building within the plaza large trees will be planted ranging from 48 to 84 inch box

The overall tree canopy at maturity will exceed the existing tree canopy, and the project proposes 76% California native plantings.

The project will contain one level of ground floor podium parking reserved for the commercial uses on site and two levels of underground parking reserved for the residents.

Although there is no minimum parking requirement for the residential portion of the project in the precise plan,

The applicant is voluntarily providing parking for both the residential and commercial components of the mixed-use development.

The project provides 424 long-term and 30 short-term bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the bicycle parking requirement.

The project also provides off-site improvements, including new sidewalks, a protected bikeway, and a bus stuckout.

The applicant has requested the city vacate two existing public easements for transit shelter purposes,

one on Castro Street and the other on West El Camino Real.

The existing shelters within the easements are proposed to be relocated as part of the project

with a new public easement to be dedicated on Castro Street to align with the new transit shelter location.

The new transit shelter on El Camino Real will be accommodated within the public right-of-way.

The new locations of the transit shelters have been coordinated with VTA

and will be constructed per their standards.

A historic resource evaluation was prepared to verify whether any structures on site qualified

as historic resources under CEQA. Based on the analysis completed, it was determined that the

primary structure on site, the bank building and associated artwork, is eligible for individual

listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and the Mountain View Register of

Historic Resources and is therefore considered a historic resource under CEQA. As the project

proposed to demolish a historic structure or historic resource the city determined that a

focused supplemental eir was required the draft eis the draft supplemental eir was circulated for

public review for a 40-day comment period in march and april of this year and six comment letters

were received during this review period responses to these comments have been provided in the final

seir which was made available to the public on august 19th 2025.

as identified in the draft SEIR the project will demolish the existing bank building and

associated plaza on site to allow for the construction of the new mixed-use building

and public plaza prior to demolition the project will salvage the individual art pieces associated

with the bank building and preserve them for reinstallation in the new development

the demolition of the bank building results in the loss of historic integrity for the site as

the building artwork and plaza all contribute to the historical significance of the property

Because the primary structure on site will no longer be eligible for listing in the California

Register of Historical Resources due to the proposed demolition, the impact of the historic

resource will be considered significant and unavoidable.

This slide contains renderings of the relocation of the mosaic mural and the stained glass

window as they will be reinstalled in the new development.

And this slide contains renderings of the relocation of the bronze seagull sculpture

and Canvas Mural as they will be reinstalled

in the new development.

The significant and unavoidable impact

will require the adoption of a statement

of overriding considerations by the City Council.

A statement of overriding considerations

demonstrates that the benefits of a project

outweigh the impact.

The benefits of the project have been included

in the attached findings of fact

and statement of overriding considerations

and they include the provision of housing units,

the salvaging of the artwork,

improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity,

a new public plaza,

and financial contributions to the city.

The applicant held at least 10 community outreach meetings

and attended two DRC meetings.

Several iterations of the project have been reviewed by staff,

which incorporate modifications

that came from community outreach efforts by the applicant.

The project was presented to the EPC on October 15, 2025,

where commissioners voted 6-0,

with one commissioner recused,

to recommend that the Council adopt the staff recommendation to certify the final EIR

and conditionally approve the proposed project and map.

After the EPC hearing, the applicant requested several modifications to the project conditions of approval,

which were reflected in strikethrough and underlined in attachment 2,

and incorporated into the published staff recommendation.

Additionally, after the publishing deadline for the Council report and materials,

the applicant requested the removal of the vesting preliminary parcel map

and proposes to instead use a lot line adjustment to merge the project site.

These modifications impact attachments 2, 3, and 4,

which I will describe in greater detail on the next few slides.

Attachment 3 will be removed completely from the staff recommendation

as it is the map resolution and associated conditions of approval.

First, the project resolution, whereas statement language has been modified.

The changes include removing the mention of the parcel map

and the language associated with the park in Lufi that is no longer a project requirement with the removal of the map.

These modifications, as shown in this slide, are also provided in the hard copies that were placed on the dais

and in the Room for the Public, which removed the third whereas statement on page 1 and all whereas statements on page 2.

Continuing on page 3 of the project resolution, the first few lines of whereas statement that begins on page 2 is deleted,

along with the last whereas statement on page three regarding the map.

The next mentions of condition of approval modifications on the next few slides occur in Exhibit A of Attachment 2,

the version that is with you on the dais.

First, on page 20, condition of approval number 171 on subdivisions has been deleted

and replaced with the lotline conflict language requiring the future lotline adjustment.

On page 21, condition of approval number 176,

map plan check fee has been removed,

and condition of approval number 177 has been modified,

removing the word parcel map.

On page 22, condition of approval number 180,

parkland dedication, and condition of approval number 181,

utility pavement agreement have been removed.

On page 24, condition of approval number 185

has been modified to remove mention of the map.

And lastly, the street vacation resolution

was also slightly amended to remove the mention

of the parcel map and to modify the recital slightly.

These are the only changes

to the street vacation resolution,

which was also on the dais.

So, with all of that said, staff recommends that the City Council certify the final EIR,

conditionally approve the proposed project as amended on the slide to incorporate the

modifications described on the previous slides, and order the vacation of public easements

in accordance with the detailed amended language on this slide.

Please note that the motion should not include the adoption of a map resolution shown in

strike through above as the applicant requested the elimination of the parcel map.

Additionally, staff does not recommend approval of the new concession requested by the applicant

today as the request fails to provide evidence of identifiable and actual cost reductions

and does not result in a quantifiable cost reduction.

Staff has prepared the necessary factual findings for a denial that can be shared if council

agrees to deny the new concession.

This concludes staff's presentation and Margaret and myself are available to answer questions

along with the Community Development Director, Christian Murdock.

Dan Dybal from the applicant team is here and also has a presentation.

Additionally, staff has our environmental consultants from David J. Powers

and Page and Turnbull in attendance to assist with technical questions.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

So we'll set the seven-minute timer,

and we'll have the presentation from the applicant.

Great.

Hello, Mayor McCamay and Vice Mayor.

I think just one minute.

Yeah, we're going to set up your presentation, I believe.

Oh, I really, okay.

All right.

Okay, hello, Mayor Kamei and Vice Mayor Ramos and Council members.

I'M DAN DYBELL WITH GRAYSTAR HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF METLIFE, THE PROPERTY OWNER.

WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE AFTER FIVE YEARS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE

DESIGN AND FEATURES OF THE PROJECT. I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY MEMBERS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM FROM

GRAYSTAR, THE DESIGN TEAM, AND TAMSON PLUME FROM HOLLAND AND NIGHT WHO SUBMITTED THE COMMUNICATION

SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION THAT WAS RECENTLY DISCLOSED OR DISCUSSED HERE. AND THE ENTIRE TEAM

is available for any questions and follow up. First I'd like to thank the entire city of Mountain View

staff for getting us to this point tonight. It's been a long journey and at the very end we've you

know had some changes that that we've that we've made but we're grateful for the the time that

we've all spent getting to this hearing tonight. We set out five years ago with planning and

and community outreach that ultimately became

our planning application four years ago.

We greatly appreciate the community involvement

that went into the art preservation efforts,

as well as the bike and pedestrian safety measures.

We consulted a broad group of organizations

and interested parties throughout the planning process.

And many of them will be here tonight,

I think believe to support the project.

There's two themes I'd like to emphasize tonight,

and that is community input, which encompasses listening

and then taking action.

We feel we've done that throughout the process.

And the second being voluntarily.

We've voluntarily done what is right

on really every step along the way.

The art preservation piece was part

of our initial application.

And let me stop for just a moment and say that we support the staff report and the presentation

and grateful for it.

But we just have two items that we'd like Council to deliberate and support.

The first is credit for public benefits.

We voluntarily included in the project the preservation of the art.

And in addition to that, we included the bus turnout and the improvements around the Caltrans

VTA vision for El Camino.

We've included a great number of benefits for bike ped safety on Castro Street, on Lane

Avenue and some improvements that go all the way down Lane Avenue to Graham.

So we provided a list of items that and if we go to slide two please.

Well, I can't quite read that.

Anyway, in your packet you have our list of items and we would welcome dialogue tonight

about including those as credit for our public benefit requirement.

The last we're tasked with solving the delivery of UPS, Amazon, Federal Express to the site.

We have three sides of the property.

There are not, there's no parking at all.

There's only one zone along Victor Way

that we would like the city council to support us

in making that a permanent loading zone.

And so we'd like for you to consider that tonight.

And so other than that, we seek your support.

I'm here to answer any questions

and we look forward to the dialogue.

And can I ask?

I'm sorry for the council for a second.

Yeah.

Could you ask about the concession for the extension?

Yeah, and we would like to have dialogue

around the concession.

We have a concession available to us.

We'd like it to be used for the expiration item.

We've been working with staff for a long time on this topic.

It's not like we just dropped it in today.

We've had a number of iterations on wanting to change the expiration timeline and we've

that's been rejected on face value each time we brought it up.

So we support everything in the staff report except the expiration topic and the public

benefit topic.

So we're anxious to talk with you about that tonight.

Okay, thank you.

We'll move on to council questions unless staff wanted to provide any further clarity

or has any other comments on anything.

All right, so we'll move to council questions.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

My question is to staff about the request for a permanent loading zone on Victor, is

Victor way is that something like that's just not allowed like is that something

we can just approve now is that I don't see anything wrong with a loading zone

rather than permanent parking so I don't know if that was like a thing that that

staff if that was the reason why staff didn't want that or I'll go ahead and

see if my colleague from Public Works Quinn may want to take that or Ed thank

Thank you.

Good evening, Ed Orango, Assistant Public Works Director.

Thank you for the question.

It's not, Public Works typically does not allow

for private properties to use the public right of way

for loading, unloading.

If that's Council's purview,

Council provide that direction to staff

and we can work with the applicant to identify

the Victor Lane area as a loading zone.

So if it's not a loading zone, then what is it?

Is it just permanent, just street parking?

Today, it serves as on street parking availability

just for the neighborhood.

Oh, okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Council member Hicks.

So I'd like just a little more detail on one of my main concerns regarding circulation for this project is there is a tremendous amount of pedestrian usage of Castro for students walking from Graham School, usually downtown or places that they live.

And I think there was some communication. I talked to Mr. Am I going to say your name right? Mr. Dybol? I did it. Okay.

So I just like, I know students have been injured by cars in the past and that that's,

there's been a big focus on that.

And I'd just like to hear a little more.

I know when I looked over this project, I kind of tossed around, are the sidewalks wide

enough?

Because there'll be like, you know, 20, 30, 40 kids walking all at the same time.

So just a little more detail around that subject.

Thanks.

I think I've had the same conversation with you all on the topic of Castro Street.

So when we first started envisioning the plan for this community, we decided obviously

we closed the existing entrance on Castro from being used.

So that was we closed a driveway.

And we, because of our involvement on Ilan over from 2013 to 17 when it was completed,

we did a lot of community work with the Graham School and other stakeholders when implementing

traffic calming and things like that along Castro.

So when we approached this project, we sought and received approval from Public Works to

to expand the width of the sidewalk.

So in general, the sidewalk width in the plan is seven feet

and we have a minimum of, along Castro,

we have a minimum of 10,

but sometimes as large as 18 feet in width.

So on average, it's like twice the required width

from Victor Way to El Camino.

And we also sought and received approval

to use a planting strip along the curb

instead of having that just be tree wells

to also add another protection layer,

kind of a friendly protection layer of landscape

along that edge so it makes the walking experience better.

Thank you.

Any other questions from colleagues?

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a few.

The first is for either the applicant or staff.

When did the applicant receive the draft conditions of approval?

So originally they would have been received at least a week before the EPC hearing.

I don't know the exact date.

And then there have been, we have been working with the applicants on modifications to the

conditions of approval for that entire kind of time period.

And there's been several modifications that we made before EPC and then several more that

we made that were reflected in the items before you tonight.

Do you remember the EPC hearing date?

October 15th.

Okay.

Yeah.

Maybe first week of October, approximately.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there a distinction, I don't think there is, but is there a distinction between public versus community benefits?

Arbitrarily.

Not in whatever this context would be, I don't think.

Okay.

Thank you.

What are the obligations that the city has related to housing element pipeline projects?

Are there special protections for pipeline projects or particular obligations for the city that we should consider?

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, Christian Murdoch, Community Development Director.

This particular project site is identified as a pipeline project site in the city's housing element.

This is not a site that is identified in the city's sites inventory.

There are typically more protections for approval of projects on the site's inventory for a city.

In this case, this site is not included on the inventory,

and we're not aware of any special legal protections for pipeline projects.

So I want to clarify that.

So it is listed on the housing element website,

the webpage on the city website.

in there's a map towards the bottom labeled housing element site inventory and it's included.

So can you clarify maybe the distinction you're intending to make on this project not appearing

on the site inventory?

Sure.

I don't have that map immediately available.

I think in referencing the housing element itself, that's the distinction I'm drawing.

This site is listed in the pipeline projects list, meaning it's a project that's been submitted.

It's reasonably expected to be approved and therefore contribute to the city's housing production towards its arena.

As compared to a housing element inventory site, which is identified as having the potential for projects to be submitted and to be developed in the period.

But no, not necessarily having an application submitted for the site.

Okay. So just to paraphrase or to recap, an opportunity site, a site that's in the site's inventory has some additional protections,

but that doesn't extend to pipeline projects,

which I believe are projects that were already under review.

That's our understanding.

Assistant City Attorney, Senior Assistant City Attorney Chen,

would you agree with that?

Yes.

She's acknowledged her agreement.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Can we get through the Council members' questions

and then I can defer?

I'm going to let the council member continue his questions and then we can revert to the

applicant at that time.

Thank you.

There may be other questions as well.

Yes.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mayor.

For staff, can you share if they're available the findings that you're recommending for

the denial of the concession?

Maybe walk through them.

This is the first time I think the city has denied anything related to the state density bonus law.

So I think it would be helpful for us to walk through that and understand it.

Let me go one second, and then I think City Attorney Logue is – or, I'm sorry, Senior Assistant City Attorney Logue?

You can just bring them up, and we'll see where we go from there.

So I think maybe having staff walk us through because I'm the first sentence is concerning

since I had thought that the city actually had borne the burden under state law.

So if maybe staff could help us understand these findings, that would be helpful.

Good evening, Mayor, Council.

Selena Chen on behalf of the city attorney's office.

So staff has reviewed the concession request and come up with findings to support denial.

There are five different findings.

Each of them we believe is a separate and independent basis for denial.

So just going through them quickly.

The first one speaks to the definition of a concession, which on its face in the statute requires an actual and identifiable cost reduction to affordable housing costs.

The letter that was submitted today did not identify with specificity actual and real costs in staff's perspective.

while there is a the burden is on the city we do believe that the the request itself doesn't meet

the definition of a concession so they've failed to provide specific quantifiable evidence

demonstrating how a six-year extension beyond the normal two years

would reduce the actual costs of constructing affordable housing units

so for for clarification just to just to follow up on what she said yes the city does have the

burden in court we would have the burden of demonstrating that it does not meet that

requirement but what we're stating here is that the term concession is specifically and expressly

defined in the statute and so we're at this place where we're not even sure that this is a concession

because there is absolutely nothing showing that it results in the required reduction.

So there is a bit of a distinction between us having the burden in court

and us just saying, look, we don't even have a concession here

because the definition in of itself requires a showing of a reduction.

But again, that's just one of five findings.

So I'll let Selena walk you through the rest.

And I just want to take a point to clarify

because I'm frantically searching.

So this email and this letter was submitted to staff only.

It was not submitted to council.

I saw, I didn't see it in my email.

I saw a different one for a different project.

So I'll continue to look.

But did we have a time stamp on when that came through?

That entire council was CC'd?

Yeah, give me a second.

Yeah, I just want to clarify for the public.

For those of us who work full time like myself, I haven't had an opportunity to see it and

no hard copy was provided.

So if we could just have a point of order so that all of us, including Council Member

McAllister who is virtual with us, has an opportunity to follow along as staff goes

through the concession letter.

So it appears it came in.

Thank you.

It came into city.council but I will admit that looks like at 11 56 AM but I will also

admit that it was on my name was individually on there and it didn't hit my individual email.

I only saw it in city.council,

so there was definitely an issue with the email.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Would you like me to continue?

Oh, I think you're walking through the-

Yes, I'm pulling it up.

Yes, I have it up now.

Thanks.

Okay, thanks.

The second finding that staff is making

is that the requested time extension

is inherently speculative,

and it does not result in a quantifiable cost reduction.

So we're not looking at speculative

or potential future benefit as is raised in the letter

that was sent to city council this afternoon.

There are concessions that do result in direct impacts

to project expenditures.

Examples are reduced parking requirements,

maybe modified setback standards.

The law even allows, authorizes the city to waive fees.

It doesn't require us to waive fees,

but that would be a direct expenditure.

A time extension from two years to eight years

does not reduce any present quantifiable cost

associated with construction, development, or financing.

So from staff's perspective,

the cost to construct the affordable units

is not reduced by this request.

only the timeframe within which the applicant

must secure financing and commence construction is altered.

So it's speculative, it doesn't really constitute

identifiable and actual cost reductions

to affordable housing costs.

Next slide, please.

So the third finding is that the denial is supported

by substantial evidence in the record.

There is going to be a prolonged delay

that could objectively increase project costs

through carrying costs, land banking,

interest accrual and exposure.

So if we were to extend the time by which this entitlement,

the term of the entitlement,

it could actually result in cost increases

from staff's perspective

and it could negatively impact project feasibility.

The fourth point is that the requested concession

is inconsistent with the legislative intent

of Density Bonus Law.

It poses a detriment to timely delivery

of affordable housing units

by creating this lengthy extension

that actually counters the production

of affordable housing for years.

It introduces uncertainty for the community.

It creates potential for land banking and warehousing

and we feel that granting the concession

would undermine the city's ability

to ensure the timely construction

of affordable housing

that has been identified as a priority

and a need for this community.

The final point is that the requested concession

is duplicative of existing city policy.

The city code already authorizes a two-year extension.

So every term, every entitlement is authorized an initial two-year term.

And then based on certain very minimal findings that the project has proceeded as required,

they can come back in to request an extension for up to two years, for a maximum of four years for every project approval.

So it's already baked into the code.

there is an option for the initial term to be extended.

So for those reasons, staff's position is that

there are numerous separate and independent bases

to deny the concession,

and staff does not feel that a concession

to extend the term by the amount requested to eight years

results in identifiable and actual cost reductions.

Thank you very much for walking through each of those findings.

I have two additional questions and then I'll yield to the rest of the council.

Related to additional time, I appreciate staff responding to the council question about how the phasing plan impacts the entitlement period.

But it may be helpful to walk through that if you wouldn't mind one more time.

I want to make sure I understand how we think about the time frame for, or the period of

time that the applicant has to construct the project, given the phasing proposed, and if

in any way that may provide some relief for the applicant as they're thinking about time frame.

Thank you for the question.

Good evening again.

Christian Murdoch, Community Development Director.

So we often focus on the initial two-year period of approval that's in the city code and then also the two-year extension opportunity.

There is language in our existing city code provisions about phased projects.

And so the key threshold issue is that an applicant obtains a building permit and begins significant construction activity within either the two-year or two-plus-two-year for a total of four-year initial approval term.

What the code then says is that if your project is phased, meaning it's complex or extensive and needs to develop multiple project components, in this case, potentially multiple project buildings, provided that significant construction activity does not stop for greater than one year, the entitlements will remain valid.

In the event that a complex project of that sort halts construction for a period of greater than one year, then potentially the entitlements can expire and the project can no longer proceed with further construction at that point.

There's additionally separate bases through the building permit process to allow a project to remain active with valid city permits.

And so provided that a project is obtaining its regular required inspections for required elements of construction for the project, that's an independent and separate basis through the city's permit process where a project can remain valid to proceed with development.

If you may indulge me in walking through a hypothetical scenario, I know it's a challenging market cycle right now.

the biggest obstacle I would imagine

is getting the capital, securing a loan

to actually begin construction

so hypothetically

within the parameters in the code right now

presuming that the applicant is able to get

a construction loan for phase one

which is just the new bank

then they would have that full year

before they have to

it's a full year following

any period of time where there's a like a lull in construction right before they have to worry

about phase two and then for the construction period for phase two which is the interim parking

they have another full year before they would have to worry about potentially securing the

construction loan for the mixed-use building. Is that a fair and reasonable or accurate

hypothetical scenario based on a recurring code? Yes, I think so. So just to reiterate the key

points. So the provisions in the city code related to phasing in the one-year period of significant

construction activity ceasing, there's no defined period in these provisions about how long a given

phase can take for construction. That's primarily governed by the building permit validity and

obtaining those required inspections to keep the permit valid. However long that phase takes,

once it's completed, that's when this code provision has importance. And so if significant

construction activity ceases for greater than one year, it is that lack of construction activity

that could invalidate the entitlements.

Provided they commence Phase 2 within that one year

or Phase 2 starts before Phase 1 is completed

and continues so that there's no gap,

either of those circumstances would allow the entitlements

to remain valid within this city code construct.

Okay, thank you.

My last question is for the applicant.

Just to better understand this,

I have no expertise in development,

but based on what the community development director

just shared, is it possible to delay the need to actually secure the construction loan for

the mixed-use building until potentially years beyond the four-year entitlement period, as

long as you're able to secure a construction loan for the new Chase Bank building?

Yeah.

It's, like you pointed out, it's a volatile time.

We can't predict exactly what the capital markets are going to do, but the scenario of a phasing,

phase one has to be completed, right? The bank moves out of the existing bank into the new bank,

and then the parking lot happens after the bank is demolished. Then it's time to commence

construction. So there's a long period of time. There's activities, so it would, I guess,

would satisfy activity taking place on the site.

It just means, I mean, what's, you know,

it's when does that clock start?

If the financing, for example, isn't,

if that's the driver, if that's not in place,

or, you know, there's construction cost issues

or something like that, that could arise.

It's just, it's when the stopwatch stops and starts again.

So it sounds like there's only one year of pause

that can be, that can take place after the bank is built

and the parking lot's completed.

I'm presuming that it's the financing for the mixed use building.

Yeah, mixed use.

Yeah, that's the, yeah.

So I guess, you know, I'm just sort of thinking mathematically.

So it's, you can, you can, you have four years for,

before you have to worry about phase one, right?

one, right? So at the conclusion of four years, presuming you're able to finance the bank, then

that actually grants you some additional time. It sounds like maybe two or more years to actually

before you have to worry about securing the financing for the mixed-eachability.

Yeah, that's generally could be a scenario or outcome. I mean, we're just looking for

reasonable. I mean, it's, you have a two-year policy. It took us five years, you know, four

years of it as an applicant to get the project approved. And then you're going to hold us to

two years to break ground. It's like, it's unreasonable. So all we're asking for is the

city to be reasonable. And yeah, they, with, you know, with approval, we can get an extension,

but we think the first piece of the term should just be longer.

And, you know, I think my example is valid.

I mean, it took four years from the time we applied

to the time we're going to get our approvals here.

And a lot of that's processed that the city, you know,

had us drag out.

And to expect us to have to live up with a two-year timeline,

like I said, it's unreasonable.

Understood. Thank you.

Those are my questions for now.

Great. Thank you.

Does any other member of council have a question?

Okay.

So I have a question for, I believe, Public Works,

and this may be how we address it in the future.

So as we're seeing the development is asking for the provision

for the TNC and delivery vehicles,

I think as we're seeing large-scale developments,

how might we be addressing that holistically?

I think we have designated spots

for them to be in a private development,

yet we always see people double parking anyways

and in the right of way, which is very dangerous,

particularly for this neighborhood.

So is this something that council would need to direct

as like a work plan item?

Is this something we may be able to evaluate

as this project comes forward?

I'm just kind of curious because it's a,

taking a public street is obviously taking away a public good.

However, there's the reality of people's true behaviors,

which is that they typically want to park or double park where they're not supposed to,

even though we have designated areas.

So I don't know if that's for public works in terms of a right-of-way issue or what,

but I'm looking for an answer for that question on how we may be able to address this,

both in this development and in the future.

Good evening, Jennifer Ng, Public Works Director.

With respect to this particular project, there is loading that is provided on site.

It is typically Public Works's, well, I would say it's typically the city's requirement

that loading is provided on site and not in the public right-of-way.

In this case, that is already provided.

The first floor does have loading area. It is also open parking for guests and the retail.

So that whole first floor is available for that use. In addition, the mail room in which that

would receive Amazon deliveries and such like that is right at the corner sort of near the

bank on that first floor surrounded by parking. Staff did confirm that the heights of the first

floor roof of the parking garage are sufficient enough to accommodate a truck that would be

providing deliveries. With respect to how we answer those kinds of questions in the past,

it would be a significant effort to look forward. You know, I would say that as every agency is sort

of looking at urbanizing more into the future, this is definitely something that needs to

that other jurisdictions are looking at as well,

is to really, you know, how do we deal with the new-ish influx of, you know,

Lyft and Waymo and DoorDash, Amazon Prime, you know,

all of these convenient delivery services that require loading space

with very limited area to provide it.

Okay.

So it sounds like that topic would be a further discussion,

but it sounds that staff, the city,

was able to find that there's ample opportunity

within the project site to address some of those needs.

Is that?

There is, we believe, sufficient availability on site.

The applicant is asking for additional.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All right, I'm not seeing any other council questions,

So I'm going to open it up for public comment.

If you would like to provide public comment in person, please submit a blue speaker card.

If you'd like to submit public comment virtually, please click the raise hand button in Zoom

or press star 9 to unmute.

We'll take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have three minutes.

We'll start with Eli Robles, then Alejandro Martinez, David Cuesta, and Pamela Baird.

If you don't mind queuing up as you're doing,

that would be great.

That's what I have in person,

and then we'll go to virtual.

All right, Eli.

Oh, and Alex.

Good evening, Mayor Kamei and Councilmembers.

My name is Eli Robles.

I'm a field representative for Carpenters Local 405

here in Santa Clara County.

I'm here tonight not just to raise concerns

ABOUT THE PROPOSED GREY STAR PROJECT AT 749 WES AL CAMINO REAL BUT TO HIGHLIGHT THE

TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY THIS PROJECT PRESENTS IF DONE RIGHT. ON THE SURFACE THIS DEVELOPMENT

PROMISES PROGRESS, NEW HOUSING, RETAIL AND A MODERN GATEWAY TO DOWNTOWN BUT REAL PROGRESS

ISN'T JUST MEASURED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OR BUILDING HEIGHT. IT IS MEASURED ON HOW WE TREAT PEOPLE

WHO BUILD OUR CITY AND THAT'S WHERE MOUNTAIN VIEW HAS A CHANCE TO LEAD. BY REQUIRING GREY STAR TO

hire responsible contractors, those who participate in in-state certified or joint labor management

apprenticeship programs, pay area standard wages, and provide health care, you can ensure this

project becomes a model of inclusive growth. These contractors don't just build structures,

they build careers. They train the next generation of skilled workers, offer pathways to the middle

class and uphold safety and quality standards that protect everyone. This isn't just about

preventing exploitation, it's about unlocking opportunity. When workers earn livable wages and

receive health care, families thrive. When apprenticeship standards are supported,

young people gain access to meaningful careers. And when developers are held to fair labor

standards, the entire community benefits from a stronger, more resilient economy.

MOUDVIEW IS KNOWN FOR INNOVATION AND INCLUSION.

LET'S EXTEND THOSE VALUES TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE.

LET'S MAKE SURE PEOPLE WHO BUILD OUR FUTURE CAN AFFORD TO BE PART OF IT BECAUSE WE CANNOT

CALL THIS COMMUNITY BENEFIT IF THE COMMUNITY'S WORKERS ARE LEFT BEHIND.

I URGE YOU TO HOLD GRAYSTAR ACCOUNTABLE, NOT TO FUNISH BUT TO ELEVATE.

REQUIRE THEM TO WORK WITH RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTORS WHO INVEST IN PEOPLE, NOT JUST PROFITS.

Let this project be a beacon of what's possible when fairness, dignity, and opportunity are

built into the foundation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening City Council and Mayor.

As mentioned my name is Alejandro Martinez.

I've been a member of La Una Labor's Local 270 for the past 10 years.

I'm here to support the 749 West El Camino project.

I want to talk a little bit about myself.

Right after high school, I wanted to go to college, have a career, have a family.

Things didn't go as planned for me.

I ended up finding myself struggling making ends meet.

However, the laborers union gave me that opportunity to become a skilled laborer through the apprenticeship program.

I am a single father, and thanks to the laborers, I was able to provide for my daughter.

not just that now I own a home of my own and now I can see my daughter growing in the same city I

grew up all I can say is that this job will allow this job allows us to live in our communities

and will open a lot of opportunities. Graystar has been a proven partner for us because they

work with union contractors by allowing this project it will be a positive impact because

it will offer livable wages and benefits to all of us.

Thank you for your time.

I urge your support.

Thank you.

David?

When Grey Star presented this project to Cuesta Park in 2023, I don't think they, next slide,

I don't think they fully appreciated the flotilla of children biking in front of the primary exit that I've highlighted here in orange.

Nobody likes cars sitting on a sidewalk.

Next slide, please.

This is an example in Sunnyvale where to exit a garage, the car has to sit on a sidewalk to make a turn.

Next slide.

So we went to Gray Star and said, hey, everyone's in a hurry.

Residents aren't going to stop.

Please put in a gate.

and we met with them several times and they did that and they went above and

beyond and they are now providing three gates on Castro and on the exit where my

kids and our kids bike to school and so we're very grateful for the work that

they've done they've worked with us on this. Now next slide. Now it's funny this

whole discussion that we're having about speed kills deals because they're

talking about extending.

And there's a bunch of slides in here complaining

about how the planner has been very unresponsive to me

in my request for various pieces of information.

And I think it's endemic of how slow this has gone.

I have a number of slides pointing to the delays.

So I'm gonna pivot a little bit based on the concessions

that they've asked for here to say, I agree with,

I happen to have a few degrees in economics.

There's no way they're gonna save money

by extending this out.

And this would be terrible for the community

to extend this out.

So I would agree with the denial that's being proposed.

I'm actually frankly shocked.

This wasn't discussed with me ahead of time.

Let's flip through the slides.

We'll go through my complaint slides.

Skip, skip, skip.

I'll send this at an email.

Skip, skip, skip, skip.

Skip.

Now, there's one last gem in this memo, and it's incredible.

I'm going to read it out loud.

Within a one-mile radius of the project, there's a deficiency of 14 acres of parkland for the existing residents.

Therefore, the existing parkland is not adequate to serve the existing and proposed area.

Next slide.

To me, that's pretty amazing because the city has been telling Cuesta Park for years that we have more than our fair share of parkland, which is why we should accommodate pickleball courts.

But when certifying this under the Quimby Act, there's not enough, and that's why we've got to charge $3 million for a park and loot fee.

So which is it?

We have enough parkland, give them back as $3 million.

or we don't have enough park space,

we keep it 3 million and we preserve our park space.

Pamela.

Good evening.

My name is Pamela Baird.

I'm a 27 year resident of Mountain View.

Hello, mayor, vice mayor and council members.

I am speaking on behalf of myself

but not any of the organizations to which I belong.

I want to commend the developer for working with community outreach.

The developer has responded responsibly to the requests and the suggestions that community members have made.

The project is much better looking than it was when we first saw it,

with some of the design elements that have been translated,

And, of course, saving the artwork and repurposing the artwork is very much commendable.

So I want to enforce the idea that the fact that the developer has worked with the community

does deserve some recognition and perhaps even a remuneration

in not having additional expenses incurred by the developer.

We've seen many projects over the last five to six years fizzle out, and we've also seen two precise plans pretty much fizzle out, including the ones that I worked on when I was on the Planning Commission, North Bayshore and Wiseman.

And it would really be a shame to see this one fizzle out because it can't pencil out anymore.

So I encourage you to support this program and look forward to seeing it be coming out of the ground.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Brown. Hi friends. Oh it feels like a while since there's been a development project to

comment on. No. One of the earlier items was about how delaying the Rinkstore project, the Rinkstore

of Great Separation is the thing that's costing so much money. Like time is not usually a way to

save, like just delaying a project and taking longer time doesn't usually save money. We need

need the housing sooner. We need it already. And so I think you guys just got to go fast. I will say

they have been really good with community outreach. I've been to so many meetings with Kathy and David

and the crew just listening to people's concerns and trying to adjust to them. So that part is

great. But that if we can go faster and get it done and get the housing built for people.

You guys can do it. I know you can do it. I believe in you. All right. Thank you.

That concludes in-person public comments so we'll move to virtual. We have Andrea Wald.

Good evening. I'll be very brief. I simply wanted to say that for all the harms associated with

artificial turf, I hope none will be included in the design that is being worked on for the

mixed-use project at 749 West El Camino Real. Whatever landscaping is going to be part of this

project should include only natural plantings which are far better for our environment and

our health. This is also supported by the wonderful biodiversity and urban forest plan

that the city is currently working on. Thank you. Thank you. Bruce England.

Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England. I'm going to be speaking for Mountain View Coalition for

Sustainable Planning briefly but I just want to voice my personal support for the trades and the

labor practices that they come to a lot of the city meetings to talk about my family came from

labor work and then we became long-standing members of the community including in mountain

view and so we we promote the future by taking care of our workers today so i wanted to say that

now for mountain view coalition for sustainable planning we submitted a letter so i won't repeat

that but there were a few points that we wanted to touch on one is about the front plaza design

To us, it still seems overpaved in the various drawings with inadequate tree canopy and remaining

questions about artificial turf that Pandria just spoke about. All corners of that intersection,

Castro and El Camino, seem quite dead, and this project has the opportunity to provide sorely

needed activation, at least at that location, which can lead over to the other corners too,

perhaps at some point in the future. The detail about the community benefits, I know it's really

complicated and the questions that Lucas touched on further complicate matters, but we feel that

they should be given adequate credit for the kind of community benefits that they've already

put forward and I just want to encourage you on council to make sure that you include that in

your discussion I'm sure you will but I just want to encourage you to do that yes we have met with

the developer team many times through Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning we very

much appreciate that and lastly on the issue of the loading zone there are a lot of concerns out

in the community with the improvements made on El Camino to enable bicycling along there some

Some people are comfortable getting around delivery vehicles but a whole lot of people

aren't.

If we want to encourage people to use that new amenity, we really need to make it safe

and comfortable for people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt's iPhone.

Good evening, Mayor Kameh, City Council members.

My name is Matt Regan.

I'm here representing the Bay Area Council and close to 400 of the region's largest employers.

We are here to support the project in front of you.

We have also reviewed it and are very supportive of the project, the homes that it will supply

to our region and to our workforce.

I would like to point out that during staff presentation, I was counting but lost count

after about 10 times when staff said, and I quote, which exceeds city requirements.

It's quite clear that the developer is exceeding city requirements as it relates to affordability

levels and depth of affordability, tree preservation, the art preservation, bicycle provisions,

et cetera, et cetera.

You're dealing with a good partner in Greystar, quite clearly.

And obviously with the very positive comments that are coming from the community, they've

gone above and beyond to outreach to the neighbors and the neighborhoods to make sure that their

concerns have been heard and have been uh have been incorporated into the design of this project

and i would like to just echo the comments by the previous speaker mr england about this the the

the community benefits that are already built into this project and and and at the very great expense

to the developer so i would i would urge you at council to work with the developer on the request

around timing these are very uncertain times and has as has been pointed out several times

and it is challenging to get financing it is challenging to make these projects work on on

specific timelines so you have a developer who's working very very hard with you to meet your

requirements and to meet the community's requirements and i would hope that you can

meet them somewhere in the middle to help them with what they need to make this project work

Thank you so much. Thanks. Robert Cox.

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos and members of the City Council,

thank you for the opportunity to talk on the redevelopment of the Chase Bank site.

Tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of other organizations, but I do want

to thank Mr. Dybul, Ms. Thibodeau, and other members of the Graystar team for reaching out to

the mountain view historical association and livable mountain view to share their plans to

preserve key pieces of artwork from this historic site and integrate it into their new development

i also appreciate their adopting the theme of the richardsonian arches in the architecture which are

evident in the current building for the apartments that they will develop this design element will

lend a sense of historical continuity to the site at the epc meeting on this project several other

other people and I spoke with concern that the project proposal did not include a dedicated

place for delivery vehicles like Amazon and UPS trucks to park when they make their deliveries.

Mr. Deibel called me today and said the Gray Star will make a loading zone available for

vehicles along Victor Way and that signage could be added to mark this area for this

purpose.

I understand now that by listening to staff that they would be offering to take a part

of the public right-of-way and I thank staff for also suggesting that there may be the possibility

which I think would be an improvement would be to have it on site.

However, for me, the most important thing is that we get the issue resolved because as I've

driven around the city since the El Camino bike lanes have been put up and the changes

on California Street have been created.

I've been disturbed to see people double parking

in the middle of major traffic lanes

because they can't figure out where to park.

So for projects like this, I just want a viable solution

to where the parking should be.

And I thank Mayor Kamei in particular

for raising the issue during her questions.

and I hope that you'll come up with a good answer to that.

Thank you very much for listening to my views.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Francisco Nunez.

Yes, good evening.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and everyone in attendance.

I apologize ahead of time.

I'm losing my voice.

I'm a little sick.

But it was important that I make this comment.

I'm with the labor's union. I'm here on behalf of the 67 hardworking local 270 members in Santa Clara and the members who call Mountain View home.

As a member and as an advocate, I'm here to express my strong support for this project.

This project represents an equitable investment in our community by creating significant opportunities for construction jobs created that pay level of wages with benefits and health care for our families and a pension for when we do retire.

Thousands of our members and their families live and work in Santa Clara County.

They live in Mountain View and will directly benefit from the construction phase.

DAN, DEIVEL, AND GRAYSTAR HAVE BEEN A PROVING PARTNER.

THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY PRIORITIZED UNION CONTRACTORS.

I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THEY AGREED TO DO NOW.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR 10 YEARS PLUS ON PREVIOUS PROJECTS IN

MOUNTAIN VIEW AND THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA.

AND THEY'RE ALWAYS ENSURING THAT LOCAL UNION LABORERS AND SKILLED TRACE

PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED ON THEIR PROJECTS.

THIS COMMITMENT IS ESSENTIAL AS SUCH JOBS ARE CRITICAL IN ADDRESSING

addressing the challenges our members face and enhancing the overall economic vitality in our

community. You know, moreover, this project will facilitate recruitment and training for new

apprentices from all walks of life through our apprenticeship program. We actively welcome

individuals from underserved communities, including single mothers, veterans returning from service,

and those that are returning from incarceration. You know, the reality is this represents meaningful

STEPS TOWARDS BUILDING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE ROOTING IN EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY. WE ARE INCREDIBLY

EXCITED ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT EXTENDING FAR BEYOND ITS CONSTRUCTION FATE.

THE HOUSING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IT COMES WITH. IT'S BEEN A LONG FIVE YEARS TO GET THIS

PROJECT TO THIS POINT. AND YOU KNOW, LET'S GET IT BUILT. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE

GRACE OUR PROJECT HERE IN WEST DEL CAMINO REAL AND AS IT PROMISES TO DELIVER INVALUBLE

opportunities for our members and the broader community.

I thank you and I urge you to support it.

One shout out, I appreciated today's

proclamation about national hunger and homelessness awareness. 350,000

meals is great. So if the person is still there, my kudos to you

and to your organization.

Thank you for your time. Have a good evening. Thanks, Francisco. We hope you feel better soon.

So catalyze SV.

I see you're unmuted.

ALEX, IS THAT YOU?

ALL RIGHT. WE CAN MAYBE TRY TO RETURN TO CATALYZE SV.

WHY DON'T WE TRY SULLA?

YES. MY NAME IS CHRISULLA BLUER.

I LIVE NEXT TO THE ALON DEVELOPMENT THAT GRAYSTAR PUT IN SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

and I appreciated how quickly and smoothly they completed construction since I lived between it

and Graham Middle School doing its renovations.

I believe in higher density and mixed-use construction,

and I look forward to having more new neighbors,

assuming that this project moves forward in a timely fashion.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

So, Hala Alshawani?

Yes, good evening, Mayor, City Council and City staff.

My name is Halal Shawani, a long-time resident of Mountain View.

I wanted to commend the developer on listening to the community, on preserving the artwork

and some of the art features of the existing building at Chase Bank.

I've attended many meetings in the past few years with Graystar, and I appreciate their collaboration with the community on that.

However, I wanted to strongly support the city staff in holding the developer to having two years to their permit plus two extra years as extension.

So that makes it four years, really, if they choose to begin phase one.

I think four years is plenty of time. Very generous of the city to do that so that they can secure, so that the developer can secure the funding for the project. And so I strongly support city staff position on that.

the statement that city staff made it will absolutely be detriment to affordable housing

which is what all of this should be about to extend it more than four years to make it to

six years extension i don't think that's reasonable and i thank the city staff for

insisting that it would be the the you know typical time given which is four years

I also greatly support and appreciate the city staff in saying that the public right-of-way on Victor Street should not be used for delivery vehicles.

And it sounds like the city staff already checked out the developer's plan and already determined that there is plenty of space for the delivery trucks to make it to the, it sounds like the first floor and even to the parking garage with no problem to perform their deliveries.

And so there's really no need to give public right-of-way on a street for delivery vehicles.

That's really not reasonable and not really safe for the public residents of the street.

That's their street to be used as everyone else does on their street.

So thank you, city staff, for your suggestions.

And I would like to support them on that.

and I hope council will agree with that as well.

Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Alex Schor.

Thank you, Mayor Kamei.

Sorry about earlier that was me.

This is Alex Schor,

Executive Director of Catalyze Silicon Valley,

calling in today to supplement the letter

that we sent to you and staff.

On behalf of our members

who had a chance to weigh in on this project,

Catalyze This V is deeply committed to building sustainable, equitable, and vibrant places for people in Silicon Valley.

We do that through assisting governments with community engagement.

We also do that through advocating for outstanding development.

And I'm delighted to share that of the 70-plus projects that our members have scored over the last eight years,

This is the absolute first project ever to score a total five out of five across all categories of how we score projects.

It is truly an outstanding project, and we want to commend Graystar and their team for designing an outstanding project

and doing such great community engagement along the way to build support for development.

development. We hope to see many, many more projects like this in Mountain View and across

the Bay Area. This is our third one we've been able to evaluate in Mountain View, and we're

really, really excited for it. We weighed in on this project before discussion was made of the

request for an extension, so we are not weighing in on that tonight. We do hope

it can be built as quickly as possible. This housing crisis continues to tear apart our

community, and we need these homes as soon as possible. And we're so grateful that Great Star

is continuing to invest in Silicon Valley and include affordable housing at very low income

levels. That's a fantastic commitment. So we're so excited about their engagement with the community

and their development project proposal before you tonight.

We hope you will pass it and I will yield the rest of my time.

Thank you, Mountain View Council members and staff for your work on this project.

Great, thank you.

So seeing no other comment in person or virtual,

I'll take 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 resolutions as amended.

The City Clerk will take a roll call vote as we have a Council Member participating remotely this evening.

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm always eager to rip off the band-aid.

So, first of all, I'll share my gratitude to the applicant and staff for the work to

advance the project.

It's taken a long time, and I think it's noteworthy that this is a code-compliant project.

The applicant has invested a great deal of time working through a complex set of regulations

that are designed to, I think, yield community benefits

and a set of improvements that I think

will enhance the site.

It's a good project.

And it includes a lot of the things that we are seeking

when we are evaluating mixed use development,

any type of development really,

but a substantial amount of integrated commercial space

or ground floor retail, 299 apartments,

including a number of low-income, 50% AMI units.

The project, I think, merits approval,

not only because we have a legal obligation to approve it,

but because it is a good project

that I think achieves the city's goals.

I'll note too, the use of the state density bonus law is significant.

We've talked as a council and heard from staff about concerns related to the state density

bonus law, including the use of waivers of development standards or concessions that

eliminate the things that we emphasize and want to include and incorporate in development.

But notwithstanding the use of the state density bonus law, the project still provides a substantial

amount of mixed use or ground floor retail and community benefits or public benefits.

I know we'll talk a little bit more about that in a little bit.

But rather than do what I think many of us fear, using waivers and concessions to eliminate

those elements of development that I think contribute most to our community, the applicant

has chosen to retain and I think incorporate

at a substantial level those types of benefits

and improvements and I think that's commendable.

I would hope that other applicants emulate a project

like this rather than come in with a purely

residential project for instance that makes little

or no effort to improve the area that they're developing.

I think it's important to elevate what is good and attractive about this project.

I have, I guess, some concerns about the risk in denying a concession.

It's something that we have never done before.

I think it's not something we should do lightly,

and we should understand that the burden falls on the city to make the findings

and then to defend the denial of a concession.

I'm in no position personally to either corroborate

or to make findings that are different

from what the staff have proposed,

but it's an unusual position we're in as a council

to deny a concession when, I think after many years,

we've been told the state density bonus law

is very difficult to oppose or to combat against.

So I think if the majority of the council

chooses to adopt the findings denying the concession,

I think it's important to be very clear about why, right?

to put into the record the evidence that we have

to demonstrate conclusively, right?

That there are no identifiable and actual cost reductions

that are provided through the concession.

It's hard for me to say either way.

I will observe though that we've seen a number

of really good projects expire, right?

take the full four-year period by two plus two

and never break around because it's a very difficult,

it's been a very difficult economic cycle

for a very long time.

And that in fact, through state law,

there have been extensions provided

recognizing that there's a lot of uncertainty

and that it's been hard to secure the capital,

to secure the financing to actually build projects.

So I think there is a compelling argument to be made that the concession does in fact

provide through some additional certainty identifiable and actual cost reductions.

We've seen the state say this is necessary to allow housing to be constructed.

In other cases, particularly through development agreements, developers have said,

we will give you the city money in exchange for additional time.

That's noteworthy.

And I think something for us to consider.

So I do think that's a risk and something we should deliberate eyes wide open.

On the community benefit or public benefit component,

I think this is another thing we ought to consider.

If we do deny the concession, the applicant still has a second concession, and that concession could be used to eliminate some of the community benefits.

And that would be truly identifiable and actual cost reduction.

So I think there are also some risks we should consider there.

right, if there is a precedent set in many different regards, however we choose to advance

the project.

We also don't want to set a precedent where future applicants say, okay, well, I mean,

now that we know that we can use a concession or a waiver to get around community benefit

obligations, why not?

Why not do precisely that?

So I think we should think very carefully about how we approach that question.

I'm not going to make a motion.

I'm going to hear what other members of the council have to say.

But I think this is tricky.

I think it's tough, particularly because so many of these questions have come to us at

the last minute.

I think I appreciate the staff's response to the question about when the conditions

of approval were first provided to the applicant.

I know that many of these things have been discussed iteratively over a great deal of

deal of time but I think as projects become increasingly complex and take advantage of

various state laws it may become a good best practice to provide the conditions a little bit

earlier because these are hard questions for the council they're they're I don't think there are

easy obvious answers to many of the questions that were being asked in evaluating the project

And I think having more time for the applicant to work with staff in the future will make

it a little bit easier for us to weigh in.

It's a good thing that the question isn't approve the project or not.

I think that's a question other communities may ask themselves.

In this case, it's we have to approve the project, but how do we answer some tough questions

about the applicability of the state density bonus law

and how do we help make projects viable?

How do we think about timeframes

to ensure that these projects

aren't just going to disappear

right after four or five years of a lot of work,

both from the applicant and staff?

So just some preliminary thoughts

and I'm eager to hear what the council has to say.

Thank you.

Council Member Schell-Walter.

Yes, I really kind of would like to question some of the things that Councilmember Ramirez or get some clarification on a couple of the things that you've said.

I, too, think that really this is a great project.

I was really kind of just bowled over by this letter, this very complicated letter.

I think is six or eight single-space pages.

We received it at five minutes of 12 today.

And I don't work full-time, but it took me, you know,

over an hour to seriously read that letter.

And so to get things at the last minute like that,

it really, it makes it hard.

It makes it very difficult.

So it's a good project.

We all are really pleased, I think the community in general,

and I personally am really pleased with the way

the developer has worked with the community

and come up with alternatives for using the art.

I mean, essentially, when this project started,

that was what needed to be mitigated.

And the developer did what is really thought to be the best practice under CEQA,

which is to say, okay, we know this is a problem, so we're going to design around it.

We're not going to wait to do the EIR to say you have to do this as a mitigation.

We're going to figure it out.

And I really appreciate that you did that.

But I also think that it's important to realize that that is the spirit of CEQAL when it really works well.

And in this case, I think, you know, it has.

So thank you for that.

But then in this letter, you've come forward and said, well, we've done that.

And now there's a community benefit in our precise plan that we're supposed to be paying.

and we don't think we should have to pay it anymore.

That has been brought up in some discussions in the past week,

but there were never any dollars and cents associated with it before.

At least I wasn't aware that there were.

And so I want to ask my colleague,

Are you suggesting that we kind of consider granting the extension to eight years in exchange for them paying the community benefits?

Because I think that that could be a very good outcome.

I wasn't suggesting that necessarily.

But I think what I was struggling and failing to articulate is that these are really challenging decisions we have to make.

The applicant has asked for additional time using a concession, which is something that I've never heard of before and I don't think we've ever seen as a city.

So we have to think about, is that a permissible concession?

And if we don't think it is, are we actually prepared to defend in court our determination that it is not an acceptable concession?

Because the burden falls on us to prove that it's not.

The applicant has also requested credit against the community benefit contribution for voluntarily provided improvements.

And I think one thing that we have to think about is what is actually voluntary and what

is something that they're obligated to provide.

There are a number of things that are voluntarily provided where the applicant could say, if

we make a decision that is not favorable to them, well, I'm going to save some money and

not provide those things anymore, the things that they've negotiated with the neighborhood,

for instance, because there's no objective standard.

There's nothing in state law or in the precise plan

or in our municipal code that requires them

to provide those things.

So if we don't think about them as community benefits,

they could go away, right?

They could go away either through just some application

of state law that I'm not terribly familiar with

or they can use a waiver or they could use a concession,

right, and that I think would be,

that would be an outcome that is not desirable

the neighborhood since there are really good things that they are proposing.

I hope that was clarifying.

It was also a word salad, but I hope it was clarifying.

Does staff have any guidance to offer about the total or the list of things that are being

put forward as community benefits

and the costs that are associated with them.

I think they are in the Holland and Knight letter.

But, you know, whether

staffs read on that would be appreciated.

Thank you.

We do have some information presented on the screen currently.

We have looked at the project

and identified various elements that we think

objectively exceed the clear standards

provided in the code, and in some cases reflect a specific commitment from the applicant to

respond to a community or city staff need that's not specified in a code.

And so we've identified a number of these here, things related to safety measures like the speed

humps, speed limit signs, signage, and so forth, the commitment to the school crossing guard funding

for five years, the high visibility crosswalk, the public plaza furnishings, which are not a

the specified objective standard of the public plaza,

as an example.

And then the value of the, well, what we're calling here

the excess below market rate units provided with the project

that would go above and beyond the 15% requirement

in the city's BMR ordinance.

Those specific contributions total to nearly $1.5 million

that could be credited.

We have looked at similar projects approved

in the El Camino Real precise plan

and San Antonio precise plan areas

that have very similar community benefits structures.

And there is clear precedent in the city council's

past actions to grant credit for these kinds

of improvements.

Most of the projects in fact received some credit

for community benefits to reduce the cash payment amount

that the applicant would otherwise need to pay

in those instances.

And so there's a clearly paved road here

should the council want to go down it

for applying this type of credit.

We do have a couple other options that would enhance

the community benefits credit

that staff's not currently recommending,

but since they've come up in conversation,

I'll just briefly touch on them.

We don't have them on the slide

because they're not part of staff's recommendation.

The other component, should the council be interested

in exploring relates to the VTA transit shelter.

The applicant has estimated the valuation of that

at $250,000, so that would get this up

to approximately $1.75 million of credit.

And the other component relates to the credit

for the public art preservation.

And so I think there are a couple ways

that staff thinks the council could look at that

if the council was interested.

One is to essentially split the difference

with the applicant.

I think there's some dispute between the applicant

and staff as to whether that's purely resting

in the California Environmental Quality Act realm

in some fashion or another,

or if it's something the applicant truly intended

to be a community benefit,

splitting the difference there would increase

the total credit to about $3.4 million.

And then if the council were to grant a full credit

towards that adjustment,

that would get us to about $5.1 million,

which exceeds the total community benefits payment requirement.

I'll just note with respect to those arts credit amounts,

staff has adjusted those

and looking at the detailed information

of cost estimates provided by the applicant.

And in particular, eliminated things like contingencies

that would be part of the project

that aren't directly related to the provision

of the community benefit,

and some cost escalations the applicant had assumed

over a four to five year period for the storage,

the decommissioning and reinstallation and so forth.

So these are really the direct hard costs

that factor into these staff estimates.

Okay, so to get back to that,

It seems like in a sense there's a staff possible recommendation of a credit of $3.4 million.

Is that correct?

Not quite.

I would say the staff feels very comfortable with the approximately $1.5 million credit shown on the screen.

I think feels reasonably comfortable with adding the $250,000 VTA bus shelter.

That gets us to about $1.75 million.

And staff's not recommending the credit towards the art preservation costs,

but we have provided the information

if the council's interested in pursuing that

either at a reduced rate or a full rate.

Thank you.

Well, at this time, I'd kind of like to hear

what some other members of the council feel.

Council Member Clark.

Thank you.

So I'll start by echoing a thanks

both to the applicant and the community

for working together

and producing a project where traditionally

a number of stakeholders who I think

might be opposed to something like this

are actually in favor of it.

And so I think overall this is a win-win for the community.

So I just wanted to start there.

And I'll kind of go down the list from, I think,

most substantial into a few other comments.

So the one is on the community benefit fee, the, you know, crediting the items that staff just identified with the exception of the art, I think makes a lot of sense.

the applicant did go above and beyond in a number of these different items.

And I do think that the VTA bus shelter will be a really big benefit because that's a 522 stop.

It's uncovered right now.

I walk by it all the time.

And I just think that would be a significant benefit.

Where I have some qualms would be with the art because that was identified from the beginning,

even through CEQA as something. And it would be one thing if we'd been talking about this

as a community benefit for a long period of time and there were kind of dollar amounts attached to

it and everyone kind of had a sense of where this was all headed and how we were going to get to

that five plus million dollar community benefit contribution, which is required under the precise

and the applicant is utilizing the precise plan

to get to the densities, even with the state density bonuses.

So I think it would be strange for us to not say that,

you know, that community benefit fee

and everything required in the precise plan

should be adhered to, even with the bonuses.

I think the other thing, the step that I am not willing

to take and I completely understand the request

for an additional number of years for the permit.

I do not find the argument compelling

that this qualifies as a concession.

I disagree with my colleague,

Council Member Ramirez respectfully.

I know you specifically mentioned one of the,

one of the findings for denial,

but there were multiple findings for denial,

one of which I found particularly compelling,

which is that it would be detrimental to the delivery,

the timely delivery of affordable housing

under the housing element, which is the whole point of this.

And so, you know, two years plus the two-year extension,

I think is sufficient, and if we really care

about getting affordable housing and getting it built,

And this particular, I hope this applicant can deliver it

in the next several years, but if they can't,

then we should give someone else a chance.

And I don't think that land banking is a good idea.

We've seen it happen in down market cycles,

and sometimes it even extends beyond

the down market cycles.

So I think there are findings that we can make

that I think are compelling, and I just don't feel

like the arguments made that that qualifies as a concession

they just don't sway me.

So overall, the loading zone, I do think,

a member of the public, I think Mr. Cox spoke,

the Elan project across the street suffers from

just that very narrow street

and there are constant way trucks loading and unloading,

whether it's for people moving in and out,

Rose Market, all those other things.

I think there are opportunities

for some of that to occur on the site,

but I also think that there's going to have to be

some areas offsite,

and so we can handle that one of two ways.

Either we can let staff have the grace

to kind of figure all of that out.

There are formal loading zones on the property

for move in and move out trucks,

So really what we're talking about are the Ubers,

the DoorDash deliveries, the Waymos,

all the day-to-day things that now people

are just double parking, including outside my complex

and the bike lane on El Camino, which we want to avoid.

So if it makes sense to take a couple of those parking spots

where Victor Way actually gets wider there,

and if it makes sense to have a loading zone there

that's for some period of time during the day

and then it reverts to normal parking outside of those hours.

I'm very open to that because I do think

that we need to think ahead as the mayor pointed out

to some of those, for some of those items.

And then the last item,

I don't think this is for us to address tonight,

but I just wanna raise it,

having spoken with some folks who live

either on Lane Avenue, but mostly on Lane, not Victor,

but the folks in that area have,

they're kind of boxed in, right?

And they don't have a lot of area to get out.

And I feel like even though this,

and one of the great things I think about this project

is that it's providing the amount of parking

that it's providing both for the retail

and for the residents.

But there will inevitably be folks

who take the convenient way out

and just park on the street.

And we'll probably hear at some point

after this is constructed about

neighborhood parking permit program.

But I just wanted to raise that now.

I don't think it's something we have to deal with tonight,

but I think it's something we'll have to consider

at some point.

So just to recap, I think the project is great overall.

I think the only things that I look to my colleagues

to help formulate is how we deal

with the community benefit contribution.

I'm very comfortable with what staff recommended

plus the VTA shelter, and that gets us some way there.

So I think in my mind, that's my preferred route.

The rest can be made up as a contribution

unless others feel differently.

But I don't feel like, I don't think it's a good precedent

to set for using concessions for permit extensions.

I just don't, I think that's a step too far for me,

and I think the findings that staff provided were compelling.

So those are my thoughts.

Happy to hear from others.

Council Member Hicks.

So I'll start by echoing what other council members

have said about thanking staff, the applicant,

and the community for all the hard work

to produce this project.

What I'm happy about, of course, the housing,

the amount of housing we'll be getting

and the affordable housing in particular.

For the work with the community on a number of things,

safe routes to school,

circulation of students is important to me,

on the artwork.

And then on, you know, previous to this,

in this parking lot,

the applicant had a Pete's coffee that was very popular.

as a meeting place for people both, at least this is how I used it,

both north and south, living north and south of El Camino.

So establishing another hopefully gathering place for people.

So those things I'm all very happy with.

I'm confident the council will approve the project.

But at the same time, I'm concerned,

and I'm kind of on a very different page with some of this,

I'm concerned about the treatment of both the historic Gateway Park and the historic

building by the renowned and influential architect, Millard Sheets.

I think it comes up as the one thing in the CEQA process that we would have to make a

statement of overriding considerations on.

And this comes up in some questions we asked that council members asked staff.

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report says that full preservation of the building would not have allowed the applicant to meet project objectives,

But the partial preservation, in other words, preservation of the front half of it is what I think it's talking about, would allow the project objectives to be fulfilled.

And although it would take the building off the listing of the California Register of Historic Resources, it would keep it here in the community for all effects.

So I'm sad that that did not come up earlier,

the fact that it would have been possible

to keep this notable building

and make it maybe the lobby for the apartments

or make it a restaurant.

And also that would allow us to keep the gateway,

the garden gateway.

And I feel really sad that this has come up

basically at the very last minute.

And I think that it's telling about our process.

When I talk to members of the community who work very hard on saving the artwork,

many of them told me that the reason they wanted the artwork to save

is they thought there was no way the building would be saved.

So kind of coming in with defeat in the beginning.

And I'm hoping we can, when it's possible to save buildings,

this is one of the most renowned historic architects in the state.

And when it's, and council members who voted to have this building built said this will be something that will be, mark the entrance to Mountain View forever.

So the fact that that's lost so quickly is concerning to me.

So, at the very least, I don't think we should allow, I think we have to take seriously that

the, at least the preservation of the artwork is not a community benefit.

It's part of what we, part of what we do in order to make that statement of overriding

considerations, which I'm not sure, I am sure that this will pass tonight.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make that vote because I think that we need to improve our process on this particular point.

But at the least, I don't think that that should be paid for as a community benefit.

I think that's part of the CEQA process.

Let's see if I had anything else.

No, I think that's it.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor.

Sorry.

So some piecewise thing, then I'll go to overall thing.

I actually do like the idea of having a permanent loading zone

on Victor Way.

It doesn't have to be the whole Victor Way

that adjusts to it.

But as Council Member Clark mentioned,

there is plans obviously for like the big loading zones

for people moving in

and for essentially those in the know.

As we build this gig, there's a gig economy

where you have all the door dashers

and Amazon delivery drivers.

They're not all going to know where the right place is.

So like having a curbside loaning zone is just,

I think it is a public right away.

And I feel like that is a better use of public right away

than parking for someone to use for 72 hours.

So I don't think it has to be the whole Victor way,

but having at least a couple of loading parking zones

I think would actually improve that area.

And so that's why I like that idea.

I'm comfortable,

as when they're talking about the community benefits,

community benefits, counting the 1.5 million

that staff seems to be comfortable with, that's fine.

And as Council Member Clark said,

the VTA transit shelter also fine.

So I guess that leads up to like a 1.75

based on y'all's calculations.

I guess the big jump is the public art.

And I know that it was something that the community asked

really from the get-go with this project.

And so as Council Member Hicks mentioned,

it was probably the biggest,

it would have been the biggest cause

for people to come out to not support this project

if the art wasn't saved.

So I guess I would have been fine

fine had it been allowed, but I also know that if you didn't put it, you wouldn't have

gotten the same people coming up being here.

We would have gotten, public comment wouldn't have been finished by now of people opposing

the project if you didn't have that public art or saved.

As for I think the big item of the night, well overall, I'm very happy with the project.

I want more housing built and this is a good chunk of housing, so we do want to make it

happen the the eight-year ask that the applicant is having I do feel like it's

it's it's like playing we're like playing chicken with a developer with

some of these things where they're saying that it they'll have difficulty

penciling out if they don't get this and then we have our staff saying bet um

so it does make me a little nervous because we have had as some of our

colleagues mentioned before we had had projects that expired and I don't want

this project to expire and so that that gives me some concern I don't know where

the the comfort everyone else has with this I guess everyone had a chance to

talk except for your council McAllister and and the mayor well I my air always

goes last and so you bring it all together but I have discomfort in

denying the eight years because I don't play chicken well if that makes sense so

yes I yes to the project for me yes to the 1.75 toward credit and then much

more hesitation uh for counting the public art and much more hesitation of denying the eight years

and that's where i land okay thank you for waiting patiently council member mcallister

well thank you uh it's unusual layer that i talk at the very end or towards the end but

it was interesting to hear all those comments and and how it was weaved and i give credit to

council member Ramirez for how he laid out his thoughts they were very interesting so being on

a council for my ninth year I've seen a lot of projects come and go Chris and I were on council

when the the economy was going great everybody was building there was money to be had and now

we saw the covid and the slowdown there and money getting tight and so i i i go in this with a

little bit of context of when they're saying they need that eight years and um so i'm a gambler but

i'm also a high percentage gambler so when someone says that they don't feel comfortable

um i look at some of the the things that were going on you know gray star i worked with them

over there on california and they they moved that project right along um and so i noticed that well

there's a lot of ironies that i i see in here so they got met life a 52 billion dollar company

usually has $900 million in profit a year.

And they are one of the best finance developments I've seen in a long time, next maybe to Google.

So that is sort of interesting how they say, well, oh, you know, we're going to be worried about it.

And then I hear other council members, again, they say, we want housing.

We want it now.

And yet they're delayed.

And those projects that I thought were delayed was more because of the economy was really coming out of COVID.

And so you can't put the same context to what happened four, three, two years ago to what's happening now.

And I've seen where people made, like, we made agreements with Google and Siwest for the North Bayshore Gateway, and nothing happened.

We gave development agreements too long, and nothing happened.

So if we really want to get things done, we need to say, developers, if you want to do it, we'll help you.

But if you're putting it off, then how dedicated were you in the first place?

Why did it take you four years to get where you are now, and all of a sudden you go, well, we need more time to figure it out?

Graystar is a very good company.

And to come along and say, well, we didn't quite do our due diligence to the fact that they came out with a letter today is troubling.

I don't like doing government, as someone says, on the back of a napkin or scrambling at the last minute.

That is not good policy.

That is not good government.

And I'm a little disappointed in Graystar that they came at the last minute to ask for these items.

So that puts me on the defensive right away.

Let's go talk about the public art.

I thought that they agreed to do that as part of their project.

So when they come back and say we want credit, again, that's disappointing from Gravestar, a company that puts out a great product to say, well, we want to give it, we want to do it, we want to make it great.

And then all of a sudden, well, we want credit for it.

That does not sit well with me either.

That art is making that project.

And I hope, as a lot of you hear me talk about public art in Mountain View, that we're lacking in it sorely.

And we should make public art a requirement on every project that comes through.

So here we are.

We have this great art.

We've got the stained glass window.

We have all that stuff.

And now they're saying, well, we want credit for it.

This really makes that project.

And a bunch of you said this made the project.

It makes it unique compared to everything else.

Otherwise, they're pretty well cookie-cutting.

So concession there, that's not a concession or credit.

That was part of the project.

they negotiated so when you come back and say now we want some credit for it um no no you've had a

over four years five years to figure this out um again we can't go that route um and what's funny

is that the the bus shelter on el camino they want credit for that it's there already that's going to

improve their property they're going to have a major transit stop right in front of them and they

want credit for it so all these things that were before that they want to change now i cannot support

um when we're talking about the um the loading dock and they said well across the street

graystar designed a project so when someone said well they're suffering they designed the project

across the street so it was their design that's caused the problem here and i'm surprised that

we're now we're going to take public space that they didn't design the proper loading on their

own property now i agree with chris and it's and it's going to come true they're not all those

pretendants are not going to park in the garage they want to quick out they're going to be parking

on the street we need to make sure that if they're going to design design the project thoroughly

It is a very good project.

I'm glad to see it come along.

I'm glad I'm not too happy about Clark's going down the road,

but maybe that could be the new restaurant in there.

But they can design it on their own property,

and we should not be in the business of giving away public property

for something that they should have designed.

What else then?

Again, back to the entitlement time.

We want the project to go.

They have the money.

They can get it done.

Now, some could say that, and I've seen this, where some companies, they'll go out and they'll work hard to get it, and then they get the entitlements, and then all of a sudden they sell the entitlements, and we don't get anything.

It just delays the project.

So I can't see us.

I cannot support anything where we do a concession on the timeline.

I think we need to hold them because we needed to give word to the development community that if you spent four or five years on a project, and then all of a sudden you come back and you want more time, then how serious you were in the first place?

So I cannot do that.

I want the housing now.

Councilmember Ramirez, Councilmember Emily Ramos, you want the projects.

Let's get it done.

If you give them eight years, they may take eight years.

So I find that sort of interesting how you guys did that.

So that's where my take on a lot of this stuff is.

I'm going to support the staff report.

I am not going to do any kind of last-minute negotiating on projects where they had the opportunity of how many public inputs, how many times they went to the planning commission, how time they were with us.

and so unless it's very close to the staff report on the denial i cannot support it and i hope the

rest of you consider all that you have fought for in the past to say let's get housing and then you

go well eight years down the road a lot could happen this way we know they're committed and

they'll build it and it's going to be a great project so that's my i sort of agree with each

and every one of you on certain topics, but this has to go.

And we have to get and set people, let no developers, because with all the state laws

that are changing to the benefit of the developer, we need to say, well, wait a minute.

The state is giving you all these rights.

And we're very limited as a city, especially the state density bonus law and all these

others.

The letter went in to say, well, you have to respect this law.

You've got to respect this law.

And we are. Are they respecting it? Are they respecting the residents of the city of Mountain View to come along and develop this one?

And then all of a sudden they go, no, we want to modify it.

I mean, this project is going to cost hundreds of million dollars and something for three million here, five million there.

That doesn't seem right. It doesn't seem like the the gray star I remember.

that was they were known for their quality and their character and so i'll leave it at that

thank you okay thank you council member mcallister so i see a couple people in the queue um i um

appreciate everyone's discussion knowing that we have an additional a council item that we'll be

taking up later today um tonight uh not today tonight um i think i'm just going to keep my

comments very brief and I'm going to be really bold and I'm going to put a motion forward.

And so I just want to thank staff, thank the applicant, thank our residents most of all for

fighting for what they feel fits best in their community and making sure their voices

feel elevated. And so what my motion is, I'm appreciated for the second because I haven't

shared it yet, but is for the staff. Yeah, we'll see how it goes. I want to see if there's any

openness to the staff recommendation. I'm comfortable with what staff has put forward.

I think that one of the interesting things about talking about timeline is we've had five years to

discuss it. And so that means it's been opportunity for our community and our staff to be able to

discuss. And I feel comfortable with that. I think that I am not in support of public policy that

happens. I think I would say like outside of public input is what I would call it. And so

receiving an email five hours before a council meeting when our council meeting starts at 515

I think is not transparent to the public. And I think that our public has been working really

hard and what went forward to EPC though it's changed the public was aware of what was coming

forward to tonight so I think that that that's important so yes okay

So I put forward a motion, there's a seconder.

I think before we go into deliberation, I'd ask for a five-minute recess.

Thank you.

All right, everyone, if we could reconvene, please.

John I'm going to make an announcement or did you need to say something now?

No, he's there.

Oh.

Are you?

What?

Your hand is raised, but may I give my announcement first?

Oh, no.

I'm lowered.

Sorry.

No worries.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you, everyone, for that unexpected recess.

I have some unfortunate news to share.

I was notified by our city attorney that the applicant is threatening legal action unless

they are given an opportunity to speak currently.

Never in all my time on the Planning Commission nor on Council have I ever experienced anything

like this.

I will allow the applicant to speak for no more than three minutes.

We are in the middle of Council deliberation.

Good evening Council members and staff.

My name is Tamsyn Plume with the law firm of Holland and Knight.

We practice housing law throughout the state and have for many years.

There have been a number of things said tonight that just unfortunately are not true.

It is difficult for the applicant that has worked for five, almost six years in this project

and gone through all the effort that they have to hear what we've heard tonight about why certain things were done.

There's a lot of negative intent to certain things or this is last minute or this is a change or you haven't talked about this.

is your opportunity to not to provide clarity? Yeah I understand I'm just trying to provide

my three minutes if you don't mind if I just share the background it is difficult. This is a housing

protected project it is a pipeline project. Pipeline projects are even more protected than

housing opportunity projects and housing elements because they're actually feasible and they've been

proposed by the applicant. That is absolutely not true that there's no that's less protected.

Two, there is a very good argument that the public benefit fee doesn't apply to this project at all.

The applicant offered a number of community benefits and offered to negotiate a solution rather than take it on directly that the public benefit fee does not apply.

The concession or incentive, what was offered is an alternative to an idea that we've been discussing for quite some time with the city attorney's office.

under SB 330, the vesting period for these housing projects is much longer than the eight years we've

asked for. We offered the concessionaire incentive as an alternative to pressing forward with the

idea that we really shouldn't have this housing project expire. And the last thing I'll note

is that I work for lenders and equity investors, and I have for 25 years. There's a perverse

disincentive to having short time periods. I hear the words, we want this built fast,

so let's add a short time period and make them build it. That is, it just doesn't work that way.

Equity investors and lenders, each project has to pencil. Even the big developers,

the Metlifes, the Sobratos that I work for, every project has to pencil. They are not done for free.

You have to have capital, and it has to have a rate of return. And when the markets and the

Interest rates are funky.

You just can't finance a $350 million project on the drop of a hat, and especially with an artificial deadline looming in front of you or a one-year to keep constructing.

It chases capital away.

So the true reality, and I'm saying this as someone who represents those very people all the time, a short expiration period chases capital away, the very capital you want to invest in the project.

So there's this perverse disincentive with these two things.

And I can assure you the project will be much more financeable and more likely to be delivered faster if you have a more generous expiration period so the financing partners feel comfortable and confident.

It's not going to get snatched out from underneath them or they're operating under some artificial timeline that doesn't relate to the market.

So just please think about it.

Thank you.

So we have a motion and we have a second and we have a queue of folks in the line.

Council Member Showalter.

I'm sorry, but I would really like a quick review of the motion.

The motion was...

So the motion was the staff recommendation.

We can do the credit for the contributions that staff has shared.

I think they have the slide of the contributions.

I think, what is it, slide 29, staff?

And we can include, in addition to that, maybe we can create a line-on for the 250 for the VTA bus.

So it'll be the staff recommendation, the credit for the contributions, which would include the VTA bus shelter.

And I'm not sure how I feel about the loading.

I mean, I think that, what do you think?

As a seconder, what do you want to do?

I think we should ask staff to work with the applicant to provide some loading area.

I think that it is a reality of modern life that people are going to load and unload where they want.

And Victor Way is much quieter than El Camino or Castro.

Okay.

So the staff recommendation, the credit that we see on the screen, including the VTA bus shelter,

and then I would call it maybe evaluate with the ability to evaluate with staff the loading zone on Victor.

Okay.

And then we would not be approving a concession for eight years.

That would not be part of it.

Not at this time.

Okay.

Yes, I'm glad to second that.

Okay, great.

Council Member Clark.

That was going to be my question, just to recap.

And then I just wanted to, I'm happy to read things into the record.

If we need to make specific findings or if you want me to reference anything, I know the mayor made the motion, but I'm happy to read this into the record on her behalf.

I defer to the city attorney for advice on how to address the concession.

Yes, it would be great if the motion includes amending the resolution to include these findings

to deny the concession.

All right.

Well, that may.

Why don't you go ahead and read it?

Okay.

So which part would I be reading for the amending part?

As.

You need to read it.

Right.

Okay.

So I move that the City Council 1 adopt a resolution at the City Council of the City

of Mountain View, certifying the final supplemental environmental impact report and adopting findings

of a fact, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a statement of overriding considerations

for the mixed-use project at 749 West El Camino Real to be read in title only, further reading

waived.

And two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View, approving a

planned community permit and development review permit to remove an existing commercial bank

building, a vacant restaurant building, and surface parking lot and construct a

mixed-use development comprised of 299 residential rental units utilizing state

density bonus law in a six-story building with 10,830 square feet of

ground-floor neighborhood commercial space and at-grade podium parking above

two levels of underground parking. A two-story 8,483 square foot bank building,

a provisional use permit for a rooftop deck, a heritage tree removal permit to

removed 28 heritage trees on a 3.05 acre site at 749 West El Camino Real.

And a supplemental environmental impact report was prepared for the project pursuant to sections

15152 and 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, Further

Reading Waived with the modifications to the resolution and conditions of approval as described

and shown by staff at this meeting.

And three, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View ordering the vacation of public easements at 749 West El Camino Real to be read in title only.

Further reading waived with the modifications to the resolutions as described and shown by the City staff at this meeting.

And also to include the community benefits that we discussed.

And credit the developer with 1.6%.

$75 million toward the community benefit

as required by the El Camino Real Precise Plan.

Deny the concession request for eight years

and use standard two year and two year extension.

And for staff to work with the applicant

to assign the loading zone on Victor Way.

All right.

Council Member Clark, you're still in the queue.

Would you?

Oh, yeah.

The language you just read with respect to the loading zone,

it's, I just wanna make sure,

we aren't requiring a specific area or loading zone.

We're directing staff to evaluate the, yeah.

Yes, work with the applicant

and evaluate the loading zone on Victoria.

Perfect.

Per their request.

Thank you.

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would like, if it's possible,

to invite the city attorney to respond to the remarks

from the applicant's representative,

and in particular, because I expect this is an argument

we will hear again, and it's not one I fully understand,

the entitlement period provided under SB 330.

Yes, so this is the identical argument that was made

in the Tyrella Builder's Remedy case,

and I was aware of that argument,

and I had explained to counsel for the applicant

that I was not prepared to recommend

that counsel accept the argument

because the argument essentially allows

for an unlimited time period

for the applicant to pull building permits.

While I understand that the argument

is that the applicant is not going to take

an unlimited time period,

the way they are interpreting the law

would mean that if you approve the project tonight,

There is an unlimited time period between tonight and the date in which they need to pull building permits and start construction.

But at the date that they pull building permits and start construction, then after that date, the two-and-a-half-year time period starts to run under the Housing Accountability Act.

I respectfully disagree with that interpretation.

I do not believe that the Housing Accountability Act, which is designed to facilitate and expedite housing development, is interpreted to mean that there is an unlimited time period to pull building permits.

And so while I understand that this particular applicant wouldn't be taking that amount of time, I was thinking big picture.

And I was not prepared to recommend to council that you accept that argument.

We did not accept it in the Tyrella case.

And so it was the identical argument.

It was last week, I believe on Wednesday, that we were talking about a middle ground in which we came up with.

She presented the possibility of eight years in using a concession.

And from that date forward, I, along with my team, were researching this concession issue.

But today was the first time we saw a letter on the concession issue.

So just for clarity on how that all played out, yes, I was aware of the prior argument.

but it was one we had already rejected and had been analyzed in another project.

Thank you. Were there other remarks you wanted to respond to?

I'm going to support the motion.

I shared earlier some concerns that I have about.

I tend to be risk averse, generally.

I support the project. I hope it gets built.

I know that this is a tough and uncomfortable conversation, and I think there are valid perspectives, some of which I may not wholly agree with.

But I'm also not detecting majority support for some additional modifications to explore.

Fundamentally, it's a good project.

I think the motion captures the spirit of some of what the applicant has asked for, and we'll see where it goes from there.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

And I think the spirit of the motion is trying to coalesce around a middle ground or some sort of in the conversations that many of us had had prior versus the things that we only received today.

So with the idea that we're going to move forward with much-needed housing in our city and our community.

So let's take a roll call vote.

Mayor Kamei?

Aye.

Council Member Sherwilter?

Yes.

Council Member Clark?

Aye.

Council Member Hicks?

No.

Council Member McAllister?

In the name of compromise, yes.

Council Member Ramirez?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Ramos?

Yes.

Motion carries 6-1.

Great, thank you.

All right, we have another item,

so we're just going to keep rolling,

and colleagues, please take breaks as you need.

Item 7.2 is our residential development project

at 901-987 North Ringsource Avenue.

It's a builder's remedy.

Would any council members like to make any disclosures?

Council Member Clark.

I have visited the site,

and I move that we continue past 10 p.m.

Great.

Do we need to take the 10 p.m. as a separate motion?

City Attorney Logue, apologies.

Yes, please.

Okay, so we'll, I'm so sorry, we'll move that.

So, yes, Council Member Clark, move that we continue the meeting past 10 p.m.

Vice Mayor Ramos seconded.

Voice vote.

Council Member Clark?

No.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Ramos?

Yes.

Council Member Hicks?

Yes.

Council Member Ramirez?

This is the one area where John and I agree, no.

Council Member Showalter?

Yes.

And Mayor Kamei?

Yes.

All right.

Okay, so now we'll continue with our disclosure.

So Council Member Clark did a disclosure.

Council Member Ramirez?

Thank you, Mayor.

I had a phone call with the applicant.

Okay, great.

Council Member Showalter?

Zoom with the applicant.

Great.

Vice Mayor Ramos?

I had a phone call with the applicant.

Great.

Thank you.

Council Member Hicks?