Council Questions
October 14, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 ITEM 4.6 Acceptance and Appropriation of $75,000 Office of Traffic Safety Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Grant
1. Is the Office of Traffic Safety Federal or State? If Federal, are there additional requirements to meet related to social issues?
The OTS STEP grant is federal. The funds are provided by the federal government, specifically through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the National Highway Safety Act and are administered by the State of California. There are no additional requirements to meet any social issues.
2. How many collisions that involved injuries or fatalities were there?
There were 0 fatalities recorded in 2024. There was a total of 169 collisions involving some kind of injury.
I will also note that, despite 169 collisions resulting in injuries, a total of 216 people were injured (for example, more than one person was injured in a single collision report).
ITEM 6.1 Exterior Alterations to Historic Structure at 484 Loreto Street
3. Is all this process really necessary? What did it add to the timeline and cost of the project relative to a residence that doesn't qualify as a historic home? Has the project been improved by the process?
The review process for this project is established in Section 36.54.90 of the City Code, which provides that projects involving properties eligible for listing on the California or National Register must be reviewed by the City Council to determine substantial compliance with the Secretary of t he Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Projects proposed at other properties that are not eligible for listing on the California or National Register, such as those solely listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, are subject to a review process by the Zoning Administrator.
In this case, the historic status of the property required the applicant to prepare a historic assessment by a qualified consultant to evaluate the proposed changes. This step is not required for non -historic single-family residential properties (non-historic single-family properties typically have no discretionary review requirement for additions/alterations). While there are no permit fees for historic preservation review, this requirement and the need for Council -level review extended the project timelin e by approximately five months. The project was submitted in May 2025, but did not contain the required historic analysis, which was submitted to the City approximately one month later.
The review process for this project resulted in refinements to the project proposal that better align the project with the preservation standards. However, those project refinements were the result of the staff review phase and not as a result of the City Council review process. The City is currently working on an update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which will explore options to streamline the process, particularly for minor modifications that do not affect a property's historic significance. 2 The City Council will have an opportunity during review of the Historic Preservation Ordinance update to determine whether City Council review should continue to be required for small -scale projects such as the subject project.
ITEM 6.2 Gatekeeper Process - Amendments to Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code to Implement Council Policy G-9
4. Please explain the 0.5% "historic preservation" fee for *any* streamlined project. Does it apply even if the project doesn't touch a historic resource?
The required 0.5% funding contribution for long-term preservation of a historic resource is a mandatory performance criterion for Category 2 Streamlined Gatekeeper Projects in City Council Policy G -9. The proposed ordinance does not include any revisions to City Council Policy G -9 and does not include any provisions specifically applicable to historic resources.
In relation to the requirement contained in Council Policy G -9, it provides that a qualifying Category 2 Streamlined Gatekeeper Project shall not include demolition of a historic resource and describes the funding contribution as pertaining to “long-term preservation of an off-site historic resource.”
5. The policy references these requirements under Section 36.52.15 Special Application Requirements f 2 Plans- a set of plans that includes
a) site plans
b) floor plans
c) elevations, and
d) conceptual renderings
Please briefly describe what each of these is and why they are needed at the Gatekeeper Stage.
Site Plan—A bird's-eye view of a property which shows all existing and proposed development. The site plans help with understanding the relationship between the site and proposed improvements, as well as with adjacent sites.
Floor Plan – Detailed information on each level of a proposed or existing building, with details on rooms and common areas. The floor plan helps with understanding how much of a building will be dedicated to a given land use (e.g., office, retail, residential) in order to understand compliance with allowable uses in the zoning and other standards, such as Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Elevations – Architectural depiction of a building; usually, there is an elevation of each side of a building.
The elevations help to understand basic aspects of building architecture and other key elements of the building form, such as height.
Conceptual Renderings – An artistic visualization of building elevations, typically in color. The renderings help to provide a more complete understanding of a proposed building’s architectural detailing, color palette, massing, etc.
3 The above-mentioned four items are typically required for any development project and are necessary for staff to analyze and understand what is proposed for the Gatekeeper application. This information will then be provided to the Council at the authorizat ion hearing. If less information is provided to staff with an application, it will be difficult for staff to give the Council the information and details they may need to make a decision on whether a Gatekeeper project should proceed to the formal planning application stage.
6. How are we defining a community facility in the context of a Gatekeeper application? Have heard some people say it is of no use (retail, coffee shop, daycare, branch library, etc.) , open to the community at large. Also, hav e heard other people say, no, it is just a community room that the public may use occasionally. Which, if any, of these answers is correct?
References to the provision of a “community facility” are included in two places in City Council Policy G-
9. The proposed ordinance does not include any revisions to City Council Policy G-9 and does not include any provisions specifically applicable to community facilities.
The first reference to the provision of a community facility in Council Policy G-9 is for regular Gatekeeper applications as one of several non-mandatory project components that relate to identified Council goals, priorities, objectives, and community needs.
The second reference to the provision of a community facility in Council Policy G -9 is for Streamlined Gatekeeper projects. Streamlined Gatekeeper projects must meet at least one selective performance criteria, which include options for affordable housing , park land/open space, and community facilities.
A proposed community facility must have a value equal to or greater than 5% of the appraised land value.
Neither Council Policy G -9 nor the proposed ordinance defines “community facility.” Rather, Council Policy G-9 describes a “community facility” as one that is available “for use at no cost or at a reduced cost by the general public.” It could include any of the examples provided in the question or other types of facilities. Council has discretion to consider the appropriateness of a proposed community facility as part of authorizing the filing of a formal planning application (at the Council authorizatio n hearing for regular Gatekeeper applications) or as part of approving the requested legislative amendments (for Streamlined Gatekeeper applications).
7. How does the park-land option fit with our general park fee requirements?
Two places in City Council Policy G -9 refer to the provision of park land. The proposed ordinance does not include any revisions to City Council Policy G -9 and does not include any provisions specifically applicable to park land.
The first reference to the provision of park land in Council Policy G -9 is for regular Gatekeeper applications as one of several non-mandatory project components that relate to identified Council goals, priorities, objectives, and community needs.
The second reference to the provision of park land in Council Policy G -9 is for Streamlined Gatekeeper projects. Streamlined Gatekeeper projects must meet at least one selective performance criteria, which include options for affordable housing, park land/open space, and community facilities. Proposed park land may include dedication of a public park, plaza, or trail to the City in a size proportionate to the proposed project, but not less than 24% of the project site area. 4 The park land provisions applicable to regular Gatekeeper applications indicate an intention for a project to provide park land even when not required (i.e., non -residential projects) or in excess of the City’s minimum requirements (i.e., residential projects with a subdivision map). For Streamlined Gatekeeper projects, it is difficult to accurately relate the City’s minimum requirements to the requirements in Council Policy G -9. The requirement in Council Policy G -9 is related to site area, while park land requirements typically relate to the number of new residential units or residents being proposed. In the case of a very dense project, it may be possible that the minimum park land requirement in the City Code exceeds the requirement in Council Policy G-9.
8. Is the historic preservation fee similar to a park or public art fee — a contribution to the public good of the city?
It is important to note that funding contributions for historic resource preservation described in Council Policy G-9 are not fees like the City Council -adopted Park Land dedication in lieu fee. Rather, they are voluntary financial contributions from a project applicant seeking a legislative amendment in order to undergo a Streamlined Gatekeeper application process. The funds received pursuant to Council Policy G-9 for historic preservation are intended to be available for use in various locations in the City as determined appropriate by City Council.