October 2, 2019 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:02] Mr. Janes: And it very - and then you have to, you know, I also put in the traffic signal timing, signal timings between, you know, synchronization between interchanges and all that stuff. And it very accurately replicates a lot of things I've seen on these roads in terms of how the queues form. This is Terra Bella, just to show you how detailed this analysis goes. This is at Terra Bella and Shoreline, where because Shoreline is often backed up like this, these guys can't go until maybe the very last minute. And there's a flood of U-turners here because they're avoiding that 20-minute line to get off 101.

[00:00:39] Mr. Janes: So they make a left on Shoreline where there's no line, come down here - this typically, maybe a one-cycle line, which is maybe two and a half minutes or so - and then just pull a U-turn here. And there's a lot of people doing this now. It's increased over the years. To the extent that, you know, there's a development supposed to go in here at 1001. These people are gonna have a hard time getting out, at least during rush hour.

[00:01:05] Mr. Janes: Because it's very difficult to make a right turn here, because they have to yield to the U-turners, and then once the U-turners are done, through traffic goes through, and then they still can't turn because it's blocked like this.

[00:01:16] Mr. Janes: I haven't - yeah, so I haven't put in that additional traffic that'll come, but that's - I'm gonna do that soon, as well as some of the other developments like 777. And also the - I guess the bus lane, part of that is that Dutch intersection so-called, where they're gonna take out essentially the bike - they're gonna not allow people to use the bike lane to make right turn lanes.

[00:01:36] Mr. Janes: And I actually did that by accident because when I first modeled this, that's what I put in - I just had two lanes with no dedicated right turn lane and the backup from Shoreline went well past San Ramon, almost to Moffett. And then I put in the dedicated right turn lane like you saw there, and there was no backup at all.

[00:01:55] Mr. Janes: So I think, you know, this could be a very useful tool. It's free, so, you know, I hope the City, you know, maybe the barrier before was the cost because probably the commercial packages cost tens of thousands of dollars to lease every year. This is free. And as far as I could tell it's very well done. Okay. Thank you.

[00:02:15] Acting Chair Cox: All right. Thank you very much Mr. Janes. All right, are there any other members of the public that would like to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda this evening? All right, uh seeing none, we'll move on to our next item which is the public hearing on the East Whisman Precise Plan. Um, is there a staff report?

[00:02:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes there is.

[00:02:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you very much acting chair Cox, commission. Uh this is the East Whisman Precise Plan. Uh the purpose of this meeting is to uh get a recommendation from the uh Environmental Planning Commission on the proposed Final East Whisman Precise Plan for Council consideration next month.

[00:03:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: As I said, here's where we are in the process. Our public adoption hearings with the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council. Uh we've been through quite a lot in this project, including community workshops, uh lots of study sessions, uh lots of public input, lots of commission and council input, and input from uh the BPAC and other groups. Uh and so this uh is ideally the end of the line um getting to the council uh for final adoption.

[00:03:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh here's tonight's agenda. It's changed slightly from the staff report. Uh we're recommending that uh the commission consider uh a question on Jobs-Housing Linkage Guidelines. Uh and then the commission is uh free to comment on any of the other topics in the staff report, including uh development review process, master plan rights, character area targets and so on. Um but there are staff recommendations for each of those and so if the commission uh is okay with the staff recommendation then uh then maybe no comment is necessary.

[00:04:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh there are other minor changes and we can talk a little bit about that. Uh in addition, the commission is being asked to make a recommendation on a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, and a Zoning Text Amendment. Uh and then lastly we'll also talk about the final EIR.

[00:04:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the first topic for the commission tonight is on the Jobs-Housing Linkage Guidelines. Uh based on council direction, uh some of the procedural detail in the Jobs-Housing Linkage program was removed from the Precise Plan and staff drafted uh some some key points to be fleshed out uh in greater detail uh in the future, um but some key points for uh the adoption of Jobs-Housing Linkage Guidelines which were included in the commission report.

[00:05:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh it includes the procedural detail. The uh draft Precise Plan um required if if residential projects were going first required office projects to be approved prior to the residential projects being constructed. Uh this gives a little bit more uh flexibility, a little bit more time between uh the completion of a residential project and a uh the start of an office project. So five years uh for office submittal.

[00:05:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um in addition the uh if the office project goes first the draft prod uh Precise Plan uh required that the residential project be identified uh but that a uh community benefits option be provided uh at the time of approval. Uh the draft guidelines provide a little bit more flexibility uh saying that those requirements would be determined through a phasing plan uh approved at the time of of office approval.

[00:06:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um in addition uh some of the comments that we got from the developer community uh were to improve uh certainty and and possibly reduce some of the requirements, especially associated with the floor area transfer. Uh that was incorporated. Uh but in addition uh staff felt it was important to re-emphasize that there is no certainty with the development reserve. That is going to be uh always up to the council uh based on um whether there's development reserve left, uh other issues of of design review and and uh council goals and and community benefits.

[00:06:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This program does maintain the overall goals of uh the draft Precise Plan, including requiring that residential go first and/or be certain. Uh maintaining the balance of jobs and housing. Uh we're actually reducing the opportunity for double counting uh with some language. And of course protection of the development reserve and limits on overall office growth.

[00:07:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh in the last two days uh the residential applications for the Los Altos School District TDR projects, uh Miramar and SummerHill, provided letters to the EPC. Uh they uh stated that if as previously directed by council they are not allowed to take advantage of the benefits of the Jobs-Housing Linkage program then that would give them the incentive to leave the Transfer of Development Rights program.

[00:07:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um of course the balance here is that the office projects also submitted before the Jobs-Housing Linkage program was was developed. Uh these five projects, three office projects and two residential projects are roughly in balance today and the overall goal is to have uh them come through together and and maintain the overall balance of the uh um uh of the East Whisman Precise Plan.

[00:08:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: However if we require that the office projects somehow support the residential projects it could add uncertainty to these uh office projects that had already submitted applications. Uh SummerHill's request is associated with fee waivers and/or uh deductions. Miramar's request is to uh access um some form of Jobs-Housing Linkage rights.

[00:08:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh staff is seeking input and comments from the Environmental Planning Commission. We don't currently have a recommendation because this is a a quickly evolving issue. Uh but we will take your input and comments and forward them to the City Council in November.

[00:08:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh the City Council requested that they have the opportunity to review large base FAR projects. In addition the EPC would also have this opportunity to review these large base FAR projects. Uh but asked staff to study uh a potential threshold for what constitutes large. Uh staff is recommending a 70,000 square foot threshold. This is based on several factors.

[00:09:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh first off there have been no recent uh developments between 20,000 and 70,000 feet outside of downtown. Um and uh that that gap is um you know is is a you know at 20,000 square feet staff feels those projects would certainly be too small. Uh 70,000 square feet we have several good examples of recent projects for uh the EPC and the council to look at in terms of the size uh of those projects and if they would want to review future projects of those size.

[00:09:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh 70,000 square feet is about a 4 acre office project at 0.4 FAR. It's about a 1.6 acre residential project at 1.0. Those are the base FARs. Um the uh about 30% of parcels uh covering about 65% of the land area in East Whisman are bigger than 4 acres. So uh you can imagine that this threshold would cover a little more than half of the project area in in East Whisman. Um about a third of the the parcels.

[00:10:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The EPC was also given a list of of other recent projects and can use that list of projects to identify uh a different threshold uh if they have uh input on that.

[00:10:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Some areas like this area shown on the map in purple uh near Maude and Clyde are required to get master plans prior to submitting a uh planned community permit. Applicants can also choose to do master plans based on Jobs-Housing Linkage, uh shared parking or other special cases.

[00:11:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh the draft Precise Plan did not allow master plans to confer any rights to the development reserve. Uh staff is recommending that that be uh revised slightly to allow a two-year period wherein an approved master plan can be uh wherein a a a plan community permit application can be submitted based on an approved master plan in order to maintain that um uh rights to the development reserve approved through the master plan.

[00:11:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If uh an applicant needs longer than this, uh we do have a a development agreement process that can extend that timeline longer.

[00:11:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh staff took another look at the character area targets. Uh they are intended to guide future decision makers about growing with a balanced mix of office, residential, open space, and neighborhood commercial.

[00:12:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um the public comment has expressed concern that the targets uh were too low in the mixed-use character area for office and that there are too many two-bedroom and larger units identified in the housing mix.

[00:12:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh staff has updated these character area targets, uh the office uh based on analysis that there is adequate developable uh parcels to accommodate up to uh 1.2 million square feet of office in the mixed-use character area. It's also consistent with the TDR bonus alternative and uh providing larger ranges to provide uh more flexibility for for development to be consistent.

[00:12:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh the housing mix was updated to incorporate ranges uh and to consider a mix of condominium and apart likely condominium and apartment development types.

[00:12:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Council also directed staff to study uh potential height exceptions near the uh Middlefield Station. Uh staff is recommending a 750 foot buffer from the station shown uh in this map uh within the high-intensity mixed-use area. In addition uh it would not be allowed to go within 200 feet of the um Precise Plan boundary.

[00:13:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh this uh it's associated with an incentive for additional open space, height variation, and neighborhood commercial. You could only get these height exemptions if you provided all three. And uh it's also associated with limits on massing and requirements for separations between buildings of that height.

[00:13:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Council directed staff to add a critical mass of commercial near the uh near the station, the Middlefield Station. Uh so staff increased the minimum to 5,000 square feet. Uh in addition in order to help support a grocery store uh and other uh broad range of uses, uh staff is recommending an increase to the minimum depth for all neighborhood commercial.

[00:14:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh and also the height exception adds an additional incentive for additional neighborhood commercial near the station.

[00:14:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh our economic analysis uh analyzed the potential for a grocery store. Uh there will be enough demand for a new grocery store in the area. However, there will be challenges in terms of integrating it with potential project designs and that's something that we're going to have to work out on a project by project basis.

[00:14:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff is recommending an update to the office TDM uh requirements. Uh instead of the the draft Precise Plan which has the TDM requirements on a development by development basis, uh the previous was a near-term requirement of about 0.9 uh extending to a long-term requirement of about 0.7 trips per thousand square feet.

[00:14:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff is recommending uh using an area-wide standard. Um and this allows uh the Precise Plan to maintain better consistency with the Environmental Impact Report. It creates an incentive for legacy buildings, existing buildings that aren't currently covered by TDM programs uh to join uh through partnerships with uh new buildings.

[00:15:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh it also allows staff and the city to respond to increases in trips generated by existing buildings. So we could actually reduce or or increase the uh TDM requirement on new buildings based on uh what's happening in the background.

[00:15:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um and potentially there could be fewer overall trips with the revised standard if there are fewer larger developments built. Uh alternatively the uh proposed um standard would be more complex to implement. We are going to develop some implementation guidelines. Um and there could be more trips if more smaller developments are built.

[00:16:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff is recommending some changes to the open area standards. Uh the open area standards in the highest intensity zone are actually a disincentive for density. Uh they could end up with being a requirement of roughly 50% of lot area being um uh common usable open area.

[00:16:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The new open area standards are more consistent with the North Bayshore Precise Plan. Uh they're also fairly consistent with this approved project, the site plan shown on left that um on San Antonio which is under construction now in terms of the interpretation of what counts as common usable open area.

[00:16:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh staff is also recommending some flexibility for mixed-use to double count open area under very specific circumstances, uh to count emergency access areas as open area under very specific uh and design-reviewed circumstances, uh and to add a open area standard for hotels.

[00:17:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Other recommended changes to the Precise Plan are summarized in Exhibit 10. Uh these changes had clear Council direction and so they were not included in the staff report. In addition there are minor changes to word choice and such uh that are shown in track changes in Exhibit 4. So the question for EPC on this slide is uh does the EPC have any additional comments or recommended changes to the draft Precise Plan?

[00:17:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In addition to the draft Precise Plan, staff is seeking EPC recommendation on a new General Plan designation, the proposed East Whisman Mixed-Use designation. Uh there would be a new zoning district uh that covers the East Whisman Precise Plan area and it would replace all of the existing zoning districts in the area.

[00:18:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh one of the zoning districts in this area that only exists in this area is the Transit Floating District, the T District, which was formerly used to allow additional density on specific project sites near the Middlefield uh and NASA Bayshore light rail stations.

[00:18:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh the East Whisman Precise Plan effectively replaces this role uh for the City and so staff in order to uh you know maintain the the zoning ordinance is recommending that the uh the EPC recommend repeal of the transit zone and the TOD permit which is only implemented in the transit zone.

[00:18:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh as the EPC reviewed at the beginning of the summer, there was a draft Environmental Impact Report that was released in June. Uh there were impacts to uh vehicle miles traveled and transit delay. In addition there were intersection deficiencies identified at uh seven local intersections and multiple regional freeway segments.

[00:19:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh we did receive letters from eight individuals, agencies, and organizations. The responses were provided in the final EIR in the packet uh and no additional impacts were identified from comments or these Precise Plan revisions.

[00:19:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next step for this project, um some stakeholders may be interested to see the City Council study session on the school strategy on October 15th. And then Council adoption for this project on November 5th.

[00:19:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the next few slides uh summarize the uh lengthy recommendation language uh for these six actions that staff is recommending. Uh if the EPC is interested in modifying the Precise Plan, uh we ask that you uh you know clearly read off the section and the revised language for what what should be modified uh and we can uh note that into the um the action for the the recommendation.

[00:20:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Alternately, like I said, EPC can recommend modifications. Um or the EPC can find that the proposed benefits of the project do not outweigh the impacts and recommend denial of the EIR.

[00:20:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So here's the summary uh of the questions for the meeting. Uh staff is uh available with any questions that you might have.

[00:20:37] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Eric. Um so now since this is a public hearing we'll uh move on to doing uh this in the standard order for a uh public hearing. Uh we'll start with general questions from the uh commission and then we'll open it up to hearing uh comments from the public and then we'll come back for any follow-up questions and deliberation from the uh commission.

[00:21:05] Acting Chair Cox: So um uh one other thing that uh I did talk to staff about before we started the meeting was the question of given that we have seven different areas that we're potentially going to discuss tonight, of whether or not we should do a uh show of hands about the areas that are of uh particular interest to commissioners where they want to have some you know significant discussion. Uh do you think that's still a good thing to do tonight Eric?

[00:21:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um yeah I I I think there are also uh potentially other topics that the EPC is going to want to discuss outside the seven or eight listed and um there should be an opportunity for EPC to provide those as well.

[00:21:55] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Uh would now be a good time to go through that or should I wait until after we have the initial questions?

[00:22:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um maybe after questions and public comment.

[00:22:04] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. And um one other question uh procedural question. Um if people have questions that might relate to the EPC questions on a top-level scale, is it okay to ask these initially or should they wait until we get to the individual topics?

[00:22:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sorry you're saying um

[00:22:26] Acting Chair Cox: Like if they want to ask about say like Jobs-Housing Linkage just some general clarifying questions or about you know some of the like the SummerHill letters or any of this kind of thing, is that good to do ahead of time or on the specific topic?

[00:22:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh you mean the the EPC questions? Yes. Yeah. Um uh I think we can do um if we're going to be um uh asking what topics wish to be discussed then maybe getting the questions out of the way beforehand. All right. That makes sense.

[00:23:02] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Sounds good to me. All right, so uh we'll turn this then back to the commission for uh general questions and and high-level questions on the specific areas that staff has asked us to discuss as well as just uh questions about particular topics of interest uh to commissioners that were not outlined in the report. Uh are there commissioners that have uh high-level questions to ask?

[00:23:31] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:23:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just a couple. Um in the the marked-up version of the the Precise Plan it's it's page 66 uh I guess it's 3.3.3.4. Um where the language that allows the incorporation of the shared common usable open spaces. Um it reads says in the mixed-use projects same the same common usable open area may satisfy multiple portions of uses of common area requirements subject to review of appropriate programming, accessibility, compatibility and time of use. And the I guess what I was left with a question is who is that staff review? Um what is how is that evaluated of whether whether this would be a permitted or not?

[00:24:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh staff would make a recommendation on it to the the approving body.

[00:24:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um are there any existing criteria that would be used for that or what...

[00:24:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um I you know the the criteria are um that the programming would be appropriate to both uses, that is uh that it would be appropriate for both you know residential users and and non-residential users. Um that the space is accessible to both residential users of the site you know and and non-residential spaces. Um that the uh spaces are um uh compatibly designed in terms of aesthetics and um operations, hours, um just a you know we when we review these these uh plans we we try to think about all the ways that they might be used and and potential uh sources of conflict and and impact.

[00:25:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's first question. Second one, I didn't have the opportunity to go back to listen to the council discussion on the uh the additional height in the you know around the station. Um and the staff report didn't just said they asked to look at it. Can you provide a little context as to was there some specific concerns that they had or what was the what was the basis for that request?

[00:26:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There there actually wasn't discussion at Council. They they had they discussed the all the points of the staff report and then they followed up saying kind of at the end of the meeting they said and here are some other things that staff should look into.

[00:26:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And the 750 foot radius, where did that come from?

[00:26:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, 750 foot radius is generally considered a walkable quarter mile from that station area which is the area we're trying to activate uh with ground floor retail and other active pedestrian uses. So by providing that height incentive in that area it can both allow for greater ground floor retail and potential open space in that walkable radius.

[00:27:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thank you.

[00:27:05] Acting Chair Cox: Okay are there uh other questions from the commissioners? Okay I I have a few then. Um so uh one of the things uh that was noted in the questions that it was sent uh earlier to staff before the meeting uh asked a little bit about the 135 foot um height limit and made notice of the fact that in the community workshop um there wasn't there was I would say there wasn't a clear strong support for really large heights. Um and yet I just want to make sure that uh would you say that it's fair to say that Council understands that 135 foot height limit is being proposed and that they've had a chance to discuss it and think it through?

[00:27:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um so the um I I would say that council has not specifically reviewed 135 feet.

[00:28:13] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. I mean has there been any sense coming back from Council on what they think is you know the appropriate height limit? Because I'll I'll disclose I I had a chance to talk to two uh developers, um SummerHill and uh uh Lendlease and Google before this meeting. And you know they showed me some some plans that they're contemplating and I mean they're clearly thinking in terms of you know over ten story buildings. And so I mean this wasn't shown in the community uh workshop and so I'm just I I'm trying to get a sense of whether this is going to be a surprise to Council or not or whether you know that's that's in the envelope of thinking in terms of the Precise Plan right now.

[00:32:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well it it's certainly up to council to to accept or reject the the proposed language. We were asked to look at uh potentially potential uh height additional height near the station. Uh and so we were proposing language in in response to that and and certainly council can determine that it's too much or or modify it.

[00:34:21] Acting Chair Cox: All right, that's fair. Um so another question that I had was we talked about the 70,000 foot threshold on the review of projects and I did go look through the exhibit of the projects that you mentioned but they're all office projects. And I'm wondering uh it sounded like from the staff presentation that that 70,000 square foot threshold would also apply to residential projects, is that right?

[00:34:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[00:34:54] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Um can you give me an idea like the SummerHill project how many square feet is that?

[00:35:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't know exactly but it's certainly over 400,000.

[00:35:03] Acting Chair Cox: Okay maybe maybe Mr. Hickey can tell me. Do you know how many it is?

[00:35:06] Mr. Hickey: It's approximately 700,000.

[00:35:09] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Okay. So it it would be it it would make the grade in terms of a review if a similar project came by.

[00:35:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well and any project that size would almost certainly be bonus FAR anyway.

[00:35:24] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Okay. Fair enough. So you know we'd be talking about 1.0 FAR projects. Um and 70,000 square feet would probably be you know 50 to 70 units. Okay. Okay that's good. And let's see. I wanted to ask about the change in the composition okay of the uh of the unit mix. Um so one of the things that concerns me is that when we did the North Bayshore Precise Plan we broke it down to 40, 30, 20, 10 where 40% was studios, 30% one bedrooms, 20% two bedrooms, 10% three bedrooms. And I was concerned at the way that this was rewritten because the two bedrooms and three bedrooms are lumped together. And so there could be a potential of there being no three bedrooms built. Well I know now that there won't be none because SummerHill if SummerHill goes forward they will provide some as part of their project. Okay? But um but I'm getting I I'm wondering another comment I heard in talking with the people that I mentioned earlier that I talked before the meeting was that the the targets on the unit counts are a bigger issue in the East Whisman Precise Plan because of the Jobs-Housing Linkage. You know the unit counts link to whether you can do the project. Whereas in the North Bayshore Precise Plan they're more advisory. Um in the sense I I'm not sure exactly what that means. But I mean I'm wondering what you're thinking on this is. I mean are are the ones in the North Bayshore Plan just aspirational? Or is there some way that you know how would they what is the difference in how they would be dealt with in the East Whisman Plan and in the North Bayshore Plan?

[00:37:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well the intent was to have them implemented similarly. Um as uh as guidance uh so if uh if a project comes through they would identify the current mix in the area uh and what their project is doing to that current mix. Uh and so that staff and the commission and council could kind of keep tabs on the evolving growth of the area uh and modify policy if necessary. So you know do we need to provide additional incentives, do we need to encourage certain developers to provide more of a certain type of unit you know however we decide to modify policy. Um it's not intended to be a a strict standard uh that every project needs to comply with. Um so part of the goal of some of these revisions was to clarify that kind of um aspirational and advisory and and monitoring role uh but then also to provide ranges so that there isn't the expectation that a project needs to hit 40% exactly. Um and to to acknowledge that you know futures un un un uncertain and and we don't know exactly how many you know studio units are going to get built.

[00:38:55] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you. Um those are my only introductory questions. Do any other commissioners have questions before we open this up to public comment?

[00:39:06] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I have um thank you. I do have a quick follow up on the the TDR uh program that we talked about. Um so when the five projects were bundled together Eric you had mentioned in the notes that there results there's slightly more residential than office resulting in about 130,000 square feet of net new office available?

[00:39:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 130,000 yeah.

[00:39:40] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So how is that square footage intended to be utilized?

[00:39:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So in the uh in the May staff report and and decision that is uh guiding this whole discussion uh staff acknowledged that there is another East Whisman project that is intending to purchase TDRs from the school district, the project on on South Bernardo, you know we call it the Vanni project, site owned by Vanni and and and his company. So they would if they were to go up to 0.75 FAR plus the TDR, they would be allowed about 270,000 net new square feet of office plus the TDR. So it's a very large site and they would be building a lot of net new floor area. Um so the 130,000 was the goal was to uh apportion that 270,000 that he could consider covered under the Jobs-Housing Linkage requirement but that if he wanted more than 130,000 he would need to find another residential project to partner with.

None

[00:39:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So in the May staff report and, and decision that, um, is, is guiding this whole discussion, uh, staff acknowledged that there is another East Whisman project that is, uh, intending to purchase TDRs from the school district. Um, that's the project on South Bernardo. Um, the... you know, we, you know we call it the Vanni project, you know it's a site by, owned by, um, Vanni and, you know, his company. So, um, they would, if, if they were to go up to 0.75 FAR plus the TDR, they would be allowed about, uh, 270,000 net new square feet of office plus the TDR. So it's a very large site and they would, they would be building a lot of net new floor area. Um, so the 130,000 was the goal was to, um, be a portion of that 270,000, uh, that, that he could consider covered, uh, under the jobs-housing linkage requirement, but that if he wanted more than 130,000 he would need to, um, find another residential project to partner with.

Segment 1

[00:41:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you.

[00:41:20] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Capriles.

[00:41:22] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I'd like to kind of go back to the height uh limitation or recommendation 135 feet. Um is that really an effort to have mixed use and because they mentioned that they'd like to have more height in order to have the bottom levels be a little bit higher. But it's hard hard to envision 135 feet as estimated how many stories and does uh you know a grocery store or other commercial are is that like would you say that would be two stories? I mean help me visualize please.

None

[00:41:23] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Um, I'd like to kind of go back to the height, uh, the height limitation or recommendation, 135 feet. Um, is that really an effort to have mixed-use, and because they mentioned that, you know, they'd like to have more, more height in order to have, you know, the bottom levels be a little bit higher? But, it's hard to, hard to envision the 135 feet as, uh, estimated how many stories, and does, uh, you know, a, a grocery store or other commercial, are, is that like, would you say that would be two stories? I mean, help me visualize please.

[00:42:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Yeah. Um, so, um, yes, you are required to provide ground floor commercial if you want this additional height bonus. Um, 135 feet, I would estimate 10 to 11 stories. Um, the, um, the ground floor commercial space itself is usually not more than one story. Um, there's just not much, um, appeal for retail or other commercial uses to not be on the ground floor and kind of visible and accessible from the street. Um, so, but in a lot of cases, especially grocery stores, um, and a lot of other commercial uses, they like to have a lot of extra height. Um, part of that is to have the interior character that they want. Part of that is for additional equipment and HVAC and things like that that they might need. Part of it is to create a lot of visibility on the ground level, uh, of, for, for the public to know that hey, this is, you know, this is a destination. Uh, there are lots of reasons why they like to have a lot of ground floor height. Um, so that could be one reason why somebody might want additional height is to accommodate that, uh, that taller ground floor for the commercial use. That wouldn't necessarily add stories, though. Uh, the store- the purpose of the stories, um, staff recognizes that the, the maximum FAR in the high-intensity office area is, um, is a lot to fit into eight stories given our expectations for, um, you know, publicly accessible paths, open areas, um, you know, ground floor commercial, which doesn't count to FAR. Um, so if you want to accommodate all of these other things on a site, it's very difficult to ma- get the maximum FAR within the eight stories identified in the precise plan. Uh, so, so in, in a lot of cases, um, in order to create these really, really high quality open spaces that we're looking for, you have to take that floor area which would have covered more ground and kind of stack it up taller. Um, so that, that's where the additional, um, height recommendations, the additional story recommendations is really coming from.

Segment 1

[00:42:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah so um yes you are required to provide ground floor commercial if you want this additional height bonus. Um 135 feet I would estimate 10 to 11 stories. Um the ground floor commercial space itself is usually not more than one story. Um there's just not much appeal for retail or other commercial uses to not be on the ground floor and kind of visible and accessible from the street. Um so but in a lot of cases especially grocery stores and a lot of other commercial uses they like to have a lot of extra height. Uh part of that is to have the interior character that they want, part of that is for additional equipment and HVAC and things like that that they might need, part of it is to create a lot of visibility on the ground level for the public to know that hey this is a destination. Um there are lots of reasons why they like to have a lot of ground floor height. Um so that could be one reason why somebody might want additional height is to accommodate that taller ground floor for the commercial use. That wouldn't necessarily add stories though. Um the the purpose of the stories uh staff recognizes that the maximum FAR in the high intensity office area is a lot to fit into eight stories uh given our expectations for publicly accessible paths, open areas, uh ground floor commercial which doesn't count to FAR. Uh so if you want to accommodate all of these other things on a site it's very difficult to get the maximum FAR within the eight stories identified in the Precise Plan. Um so in a lot of cases in order to create these really really high quality open spaces that we're looking for, you have to take that floor area which would have covered more ground and kind of stack it up taller. Um so that's where the the additional story recommendations is really coming from.

N/A

[00:42:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so so in in a lot of cases, um in order to create these really really high quality open spaces that we're looking for, you have to take that floor area which would have covered more ground and kind of stack it up taller.

[00:43:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The maximum FAR in the high-intensity office area is um is a lot to fit into eight stories given our expectations for um you know publicly accessible paths, open areas, um you know ground floor commercial which doesn't count to FAR.

[00:44:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um so if you want to accommodate all of these other things on a site, it's very difficult to get the maximum FAR within the eight stories identified in the precise plan.

[00:44:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um so the that's where the additional um height recommendations the additional story recommendations is really coming from.

[00:44:44] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Yeah because I think that um you know one of the concerns is you know we have so much uh as you say ground space to go and to keep going up and up and up I mean we have one 10-story building in the city

[00:45:02] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: and I think that you know based on my recollection of all the precise plans we've done we've always you know talked about eight stories

[00:45:13] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: so you know push comes to shove you know are we giving up you know the open space in an effort or you know in an effort to add open space we're trying to go up so it makes it

None

[00:45:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, well, I think part of the goal of the design standards. So we have, um, a distance standards between where these tall buildings can be and we also have maximum, uh, dimensional standards of how big the buildings can be. So, um, part of that is to avoid the kind of Manhattanization, uh, and this, uh, this area too, this 750-foot radius is actually smaller than the area in North Bayshore that's allowed to go up to 14 stories. So it's, it's a compact area and it is, it is, um, you know, thousands of feet from, from Whisman Road, um, and, uh, and other kind of potential visual impact, uh, areas.

[00:46:30] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, are there other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Yin.

[00:46:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Uh, just a couple of questions. One was about the open space, and if we decrease the required open space, um, I was wondering if there was language or definitions, um, associated with high quality. As we lose amount of space, I wanted to just ensure that what we do have is the highest quality. Um.

[00:47:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, we don't have that language specifically. Um, you know, staff would be interested in hearing what some of those characteristics are, that would be quality. Um, certainly we do, you know, very thorough review of all of our open areas, uh, for landscape design, improvement design, um, making sure that there's a broad range of amenities, uh, in every residential development. Uh, we also have design guidelines that, um, will guide how, um, that kind of quality is, is created. Um, so, if, uh, the commission, you know, certainly if the commission is, is looking for something additional in terms of the quality of the open area, we can, uh, we can look at adjusting that.

[00:47:47] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Um, and another question was regarding the Master Plan change. Where is that? Um, the development reserve. And that it was noted that one small side effect may be that smaller companies would be at a disadvantage or smaller projects would be at a disadvantage because more of the development reserve would be allocated to large projects for longer periods of time. And I already understan-

[00:48:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh that's a...

[00:48:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: That was thought of.

[00:48:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, that's that's a possible idea. I you know, I think staff would have a very hard time figuring out how much.

[00:48:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sure.

[00:48:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, you know, and and there would be some uh risk in the long run, especially if you bake it into a precise plan that um Council would have less flexibility to give uh the development reserve to projects that they consider worthy. Um, so it it just kind of reduces the flexibility of Council, but if uh Commission has any other ideas we can or you know discussion we can we can certainly um make that recommendation to Council too.

[00:49:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Well knowing what projects are coming forward, is there any chance that one company could just take all of the development reserve given the limitations of FAR and heights and all that? Is that a possibility?

[00:49:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um it's unlikely. Um, you know the the uh draft plan for the this um mod Clyde area that that that Google has proposed I think is looking at 6 to 700,000 square feet, which is a big chunk, but it's not all by any means.

[00:49:52] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you.

[00:49:57] Acting Chair Cox: Uh Commissioner Cranston.

[00:49:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess a a follow-up. And for the longer term EPC members forgive my question. What is the typical duration of a master plan? Um, I I don't have a sense of context as to if you put in place a master plan, is it generally a laying out 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, I mean what is you've kind of limited it to they've got to do something everything pretty much everything within two, is that the typical duration of a master plan? I mean what what are they? So I don't have a context.

[00:50:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so the only master plans that I've actually seen come through have been simultaneous with the plan community permit. Um, Martin, do you know of any...

[00:50:39] Albert Jean: No, I mean we we really haven't used them extensively in Mountain View in the past. Uh, there was one out in South Whisman was the most recent I believe. But uh it's not something that we've really used extensively and that's why uh Mr. Anderson has put in that language for restricting the timeline when it must be acted upon.

[00:50:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and and the purpose uh originally with master plans really is about, you know, confirming that the project can be done and that all the utilities are accounted for and that it will be completed in an an order that, you know, ensures that the city gets certain public benefits and open space and things like that.

5.1 East Whisman Precise Plan

[00:50:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and and the purpose originally with master plans really is about, you know, confirming that the project can be done and that all the utilities are accounted for and that it will be completed in an order that, you know, ensures that the city gets certain public benefits and open space and things like that. Um, so in that sense, they have a timeline of the construction of the project, right? Um, in this case, uh, you know, when, when the master plan areas are potentially very large and complex, uh, staff wants to make sure that the council has an opportunity periodically to come back in and make sure that, um, this development reserve floor area is being used as effectively, uh, as they wanted it to or towards the projects that they wanted it to.

[00:51:50] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Um, I, I have one follow-up question on that. In one of the discussions that I had earlier with a Google representative, um, they raised a concern that a two-year period was too short for them to be able to, um, manage everything that you are asking for. In particular, they raised the question that, you know, first they're going to need to demolish the office, which means they have to find a place for everybody to go, and then, you know, I mean, getting everything else lined up, they might not be able to do it in a two-year period. And then they asked, well, what about if we could put together a phasing plan that would guarantee some kind of certainty that the development would actually happen, could it, could it go over a period longer than two years? And so I offered to raise this question just to get your thoughts on this to see that there needs to be some convergence, particularly for them as they try to plan their Middlefield Station project.

[00:52:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and, and certainly staff recognizes that. Our, our concern is, um, kind of in terms of regulatory overlap. Um, we have a tool called a development agreement, which we often use to extend development timelines for very long periods of time. Um, you know, we have one now that's, uh, I think 10 years. Um, and so our goal is to not have the master plan replace the development agreement, uh, to have them be two separate tools, uh, and two separate processes that serve different purposes.

[00:53:32] Acting Chair Robert Cox: So, it sounds like a partial answer you might have back for them is to consider this other vehicle for achieving their goal if, you know, the master plan isn't the right one.

[00:53:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right.

[00:53:42] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions from the Commission before we open it up to the public? Uh, Commissioner Capriles.

[00:53:50] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Um, regarding the master plan, I think originally when we came up with the master plan idea, just to follow up on your comment, the idea was to be able to deal with multiple owners of property and to make sure that everybody was aligned and in an agreement. So I think that's kind of where that master plan idea came in to, you know, probably augment, uh, you know, the developer agreement that Eric alluded to. But I just wanted to, you know, make the point there we found that we had a lot of property that was small, but in order to, you know, kind of pull it all together, we wanted to kind of have a vehicle such as a master plan to see if we could pull it all together to make sure we could develop a particular piece of property. So just wanted to provide that input to, you know, follow through on, on Commissioner Cranston's question.

[00:54:56] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Um, thank, thank you, Commissioner Capriles. Um, Commissioner, uh, Cranston.

[00:55:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So development agreements are generally with a single property owner?

[00:55:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: A development agreement is associated with a single, uh, project applicant. Uh, you can have as many property owners as you want on a project application.

[00:55:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks.

[00:55:18] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay, are there other questions from the Commission? All right, seeing none, I will open this public hearing to public comment. Um, how many people want to comment on the East Whisman Precise Plan? One, two, three, four, okay, that's not that many. Um, so each person will get three minutes. Please, uh, when you come up here, please, um, uh, state your name and also fill out a blue card for staff so that we can have your name recorded appropriately in the minutes for the meeting.

[00:56:17] Albert Jean: Hi again, Albert Jean. Could you restart the clock, please? Yeah, three minutes is not long. Um, yeah, I just wanted to say something. Again, it's about traffic, of course, that's my pet peeve, I guess. And I submitted a, well, first of all, as Eric mentioned, uh, Fehr & Peers did a pretty good thorough traffic impact analysis. They identified something like 17 intersections that would be severely degraded, but they could be, that could be mitigated with the proper improvements. And I submitted a lengthy public comment, which actually found its way into the FEIR, although it was actually intended to be for the Precise Plan, where I commented about why the Precise Plan itself makes almost no mention of possible improvements that will be need to be made in order to get people in and out of East Whisman. It just talks a little bit about internal roads, pedestrian paths, things like that, but nothing about this massive amount of public improvement that's going to be needed to make East Whisman feasible. I mean, I guess you're going to, they're going to be talking about a school strategy. How come there's not a transportation strategy? It seems like any kind of decent urban planning has to consider, you know, transportation. In Japan, they actually build the subway station before they build the city. They know that it's going to be necessary, and I fail to realize why, I looked through the Precise Plan, I didn't find any mention of how the surrounding roads are going to be handled. And I think some of the surrounding cities and other organizations also were kind of wondering how that was going to happen. I don't know what you can do about that. I understand that, for example, the reply was, yeah, the state now doesn't recognize, you know, intersection, uh, performance as an environmental impact, and so, yeah, it doesn't have to really be addressed in the EIR. That doesn't make the problem go away. Mountain View is a city, is still going to have to deal with it, and as you know from Shoreline and other places, it can get very bad. And so I don't know if there's something you can do to add something to the Precise Plan saying, you know, they should take these recommendations from Fehr & Peers more seriously or something, but it seems like there should be some mention about overall transportation in the Precise Plan. I mean, they go into, you know, excruciating detail on road widths, appearances, building appearances, you know, setbacks, and all that, and yet there's nothing about how you're going to get people in and out of this place. So, I don't know, yeah, at this stage, I don't know if you can do something about that, but I'll keep hammering away at this. Thank you.

[00:59:02] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Thank you. Uh, next.

[00:59:10] Robert Holbrook: My name is Robert Holbrook. I'm speaking to you as a Mountain View resident who's concerned about airplane noise. Over the last several years, I've spent, uh, many, many, many hours, uh, working on this and participated in community forums, uh, that, uh, are trying to address the increase in airplane noise over Mountain View. And I wanted to share with you, uh, some of my findings and what a few thoughts that, uh, might impact the, uh, Precise Plan. Um, airplane noise has been concentrated into rails. Um, there are two two rails that separate, uh, over, uh, at a point in, uh, West Sunnyvale. One of them, uh, continues over Mountain View and this City Hall up toward Palo Alto. The other goes basically over Whisman Avenue. Uh, there is, um, every likelihood that an increase in the proportion of traffic, uh, will shift to Whisman Avenue over time. And we know that, um, San Jose Airport, which is where the airplanes are heading, is one of the fastest growing airports in the country, the mayor says it's the fastest. Uh, I believe that there could be 400 airplanes a day in, uh, 2030, uh, or at least a number close to that on days when we have, uh, traffic over us. Now this is the rub. Only one in seven days are weather conditions such that the air traffic is over us, and those days are concentrated in the winter months. So it would be easy for a developer to miss the fact that airplane noise can be a significant issue during those months and pass on the opportunity to install windows that could give residents better protection against the noise. What I encourage you to consider is whether or not the Precise Plan can in some way ensure that developers are made aware of the situation regarding air traffic above us, which I want to say is at 25, about 2,500 feet, uh, over Whisman Avenue, and the planes are descending to 1,800 feet over Moffett. Can the developers be made aware of the situation with regard to aircraft noise so that they can make an informed decision about the kind of windows and sound insulation that they might want to equip their buildings with? I think if they were to do that in a thoughtful way, we would end up with happier residents, happier office-goers, and overall more satisfaction with this project. Thank you.

[01:01:42] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Thank you, Mr. Holbrook. Uh, next.

[01:01:51] Randy Kenyon: Randy Kenyon, representing Los Altos School District. I'm here again to remind you how critical the TDR program is to us enabling us to acquire a site in the San Antonio section of Mountain View and build a school and parks in that area for the neighborhood. Um, many, probably more than half of our TDR buyers are in the East Whisman Precise Plan area. And Commissioner Cox brought up the issue a little earlier tonight, um, it is increasingly troubling to us to hear the concerns of the developers, the developers in the East Whisman Precise Plan area, especially those with residential projects who are trying to determine if they can make their plans work within the Precise Plan requirements. Uh, I don't pretend to understand all the complexities involved, um, and all the issues that face you guys, um, that you have to consider this evening, but I'm worried, uh, we are worried in the school district that there may be enough uncertainties that would cause some or all of our TDR buyers to bail on us. Um, this would put our purchase of the San Antonio site, uh, at serious risk. It is good to hear tonight that there's some discussion about some solutions regarding some of the issues that have been brought up, so we're pleased to hear that. Um, so just please take into consideration the, the comments from the, uh, TDR buyers tonight and my comments, uh, as you proceed with your deliberations. Thank you.

[01:03:32] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you, Mr. Kenyon. Uh, next.

[01:03:41] John Hickey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is John Hickey. I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of SummerHill Housing Group. Uh, I want to start by saying that, uh, we do appreciate the effort that staff has made to address so many of the comments and recommendations that we and other stakeholders have made regarding the Precise Plan through this process. Uh, we are, however, still very concerned about several issues that we believe pose a substantial challenge for residential development in the plan area, especially for the LASD TDR projects. As we explained in the letter that we submitted yesterday, and as Miramar Capital explained in the letter that they submitted earlier today, um, the Precise Plan unfortunately threatens to take away the opportunity for the residential TDR projects to participate in the Jobs-Housing Linkage strategy. And in so doing, unfortunately, the Precise Plan undermines one of the Council's key goals for the Precise Plan, which is of course to support residential development in the plan area. Now as we know, the Jobs-Housing Linkage strategy is essential to the success of the Precise Plan because it encourages commercial developers to partner with residential developers so that the creation of new jobs doesn't outpace the creation of new homes and new housing. The staff report explains that the City Council wants to group all the LASD TDR projects together, and we agree with that. Um, but we don't think that the Council intended to undermine the residential TDR projects by taking away their chance to benefit from the Jobs-Housing Linkage strategy. Now I want to make it very clear, we're not asking here for any special treatment for the residential TDR projects, we're just asking for them to receive the same benefit from the Jobs-Housing Linkage strategy as non-TDR residential projects will. In our letter, we proposed what we believed is a simple way to achieve a fair and equitable treatment for the residential TDR projects, but we are certainly open to working with staff to consider other options that would achieve the same result. The key is simply that the residential TDR projects should receive the same benefits as the non-TDR residential projects. Thanks very much.

[01:03:42] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Thank you, Mr. Hickey. Uh, next.

[01:03:43] Ellis Berns: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Ellis Berns, I'm a consultant working, and with me is Jennifer Rank, an attorney with Sheppard Mullin. And we're here representing Perry Heraty from Miramar Capital, the owners of 400 Logue. Um, you've received a letter from Miramar Capital earlier today, and we'll let the letter speak for itself. From the earlier speaker, I think we have the same concerns for the TDRs. I just have two points that we'd like to get some clarification on. The first is related to as you're, as you are deliberating over the recommendations, recommendation 6 talks about a resolution to approve the draft administrative guidelines for the East Whisman Precise Plan Jobs-Housing Linkage. We hope as you consider that recommendation, you take into account what staff has discussed tonight, the opportunity to spend some time working out some of the details. So we hope that as you're deliberating, you think about, you consider that. And we appreciate staff's effort, um, to work with us, to work with all the TDR developers to try to make, to, uh, make this happen. So we really appreciate that. The se- the second point of clarification, I was wondering if Eric you could pull up Figure 2? Um, this is related to the height exception and it's just a clarification. We want to make sure we understand this because it happens that the property 400 Logue is literally out, just the next property over, outside, if you look on Logue Avenue, it's the next property over that is not included in this particular, in this circle. Thank you. And we are proposing, because we were, we are a gatekeeper, uh, a project that has two buildings, one of which does go up up to 11 stories. So we wanted to make sure that, uh, we are inclu- would be included in this height exception. Uh, or to understand a little further how that would, how that would work. So those are my two comments and requests for clarification. Thank you.

[01:08:10] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Uh, thank you, Mr. Berns. Uh, just a question back to staff, I mean, once you get out of this blue circle, I mean, what do the heights step back to?

[01:08:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, well for normal development projects, the heights would step down to the maximum 95 feet.

[01:08:30] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Uh, that's about eight stories, or?

[01:08:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, seven, eight stories. The, the 400 Logue project is purchasing about 60,000 square feet of floor area for- from the Los Altos School District. That floor area would need to be accommodated somewhere on the site, and the draft Precise Plan does include language to give flexibility to TDR projects to accommodate the floor area that they are purchasing, based on development standards.

[01:09:01] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Thank you. So, um, unless there are other members of the public that want to stand up and address the Commission tonight on 5.1 East Whisman Precise Plan, I will close input from the public and bring it back to the Commission for, uh, additional questions on specific areas and deliberation, and potentially a resolution, uh, for the Precise Plan. So let's see. Um, can we go back to the list of topics that, uh, we are going to cover? And I guess one question I had is that in terms of, this list has seven items on it, and yet, um, I think I counted five questions in the staff report. So which, which would you prefer we follow as we walk through this stuff?

[01:10:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there are, uh, I guess there are literally nine questions here. The five questions in the staff report are, um, you know, were, were based on a, a kind of prioritization that staff had for, you know, kind of what to focus on. But if the EPC has specific topics that they want to focus on, whether listed here or not, uh, then it, it may be beneficial to see what those topics are, um, to, to focus conversation on those.

[01:10:30] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So then, um, here's what I'll do. Um, let's, let's take a look at, uh, item number two, and, uh, let's just do a show of hands on each of these, uh, seven topics under number two, to see which ones commissioners are interested in commenting on. And then I can add additional, uh, topics that they might want brought up. Okay, so, uh, on number one, uh, the 70,000, uh, foot, uh, limit for review, um, can I see a show of hands of people who would like to discuss this? I guess, does that mean that, uh, that we're mostly okay with that recommendation? Okay. Yeah, and I would say the same thing. I mean, you know, the question about, you know, I think that the SummerHill project on residential is a good dividing line, I'd like to see review on something like that, smaller things I don't think we need to, so, so we'll say that, uh, uh, we're going ahead with staff recommendation on that number. Okay. Uh, how about master plans? Mm. Nope. Okay. How about, uh, character area targets? Okay. Uh, Bill wants to do character area targets. Okay, me too. Uh, but in particular I wanted to talk about the housing mix that was under that item. Okay. Then, uh, what about height exceptions? Uh, okay. Height exceptions. Uh, neighborhood commercial? All right, we're okay with that. Uh, office TDM? Looks like we're okay with that. And open area? Um, Commissioner Yin, did you want to talk about open area more, or?

[01:12:37] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think Eric had already answered my questions and I'm comfortable...

[01:12:40] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so then, um, uh, from section two, we'll just concentrate on those two, on those two items. And then, um, are there additional items that we want to cover, uh, tonight with regard to the Precise Plan? Uh, Commissioner Lo.

[01:12:57] Commissioner Kammy Lo: So when we come to other comments, I do have, um, some recommendations for Chapter 4.3 regarding on-site open space and landscaping.

[01:13:11] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And are there other issues people would like to discuss tonight on the Precise Plan? Okay, I'll take that. Well, we will talk about number one. Okay. So anyway, alright, that sounds good. So that will allow us to use our time efficiently tonight, because, you know, as we talked about with staff earlier on, I mean, the goal here is for commissioners to make sure that they can focus their attention on areas that, uh, that they have a particular interest in and want to influence the result, while, um, not compelling them to discuss areas that they're largely in agreement with staff. Okay, so, then having done that, let's go back to question number one. Does the EPC support the draft Jobs-Housing Linkage Program guidelines, and would the EPC like to give input on the LASD TDR projects? Uh, do I have a commissioner who'd like to start with that one? Uh, is that you, Commissioner Capriles? Okay, go ahead.

[01:14:23] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Um, I, I guess that, um, my concern here with this is to try to get, um, come to some kind of, uh, I think it's probably going to be a compromise now on, on what, what are the benefits that are being denied these projects that are so important, that, that they feel that they are being disincentivized. So, um, you know, not knowing the real low-level details because in the Precise Plan it's pretty high level. So I would like to really have a further understanding of the details of exactly where, where's the difference here, what are the, you know, I'd like to see what a, what a project would normally receive, benefit-wise, and then what a TDR project does or does not receive, and where, where are we at an impasse?

[01:15:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. So, outside of the TDR program, uh, residential projects would be able to, uh, sell the rights for an office developer to build office floor area. So, um, what, um, what the Jobs-Housing Linkage does is says that, uh, the, um, pardon me. I just gave a presentation on this in Santa Barbara, so I should have it right off the tip of my tongue, but I don't. I apologize. Um, yeah, so what the what the Jobs-Housing Linkage program does is it creates a strong incentive to build residential by, uh, giving them additional monetary resources that come from the office that wants to build. So the office developer would need to partner with a residential project in order to build, and that requirement would presumably be associated with some kind of financial resource, um, some kind of financial support. Um, because the, the residential projects in the TDR program are kind of forced into partnership with each other by virtue of the fact that they're all in this one TDR program, those projects, those residential projects don't have the same leverage or opportunity to ask for financial resources. Um, so it's, it's unclear, we don't know right now how much that, how much, um, uh, that those financial resources are worth. Uh, we're leaving it to the open negotiation, the market, you know, the private discussions between office developers and residential developers to determine how much that's worth. Part of it would be, you know, what's the current shortfall to actually build residential, right? How much, how much more money does a residential developer need today to build given, you know, the cost of construction, the cost of land, and the cost of city fees and other requirements. Um, so presumably, the office development would provide that shortfall. Um, so that is potentially what the residential projects in the TDR program are missing out on.

[01:18:08] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: And, um, with the, um, is the expectation is that the TDR projects would then want to have lower fees by the City or, you know, what could the City do to, you know, assist in that financial shortfall, so to speak?

[01:18:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, um, so I, you know, I'm a little hesitant to put anything out there in this, in this public setting because we really haven't had an opportunity to vet it through, you know, our legal counsel or, or other kind of what-if permutations. Uh, certainly the, um, uh, the SummerHill letter had kind of an innovative strategy to off, you know, take this presumptive amount and use it to offset some of their fees, uh, or some of their other requirements. Um, and, uh, you know, staff has some concerns about that. There's, there's some a possibility that, um, arbitrarily, or, or, I mean maybe it's not arbitrary, but reducing fees for certain projects under certain circumstances may not be legal, um, and it may, may put our, you know, other implementation of those fees in, in, uh, in question. Uh, so we would again, if that's something that we were going to pursue, we'd have to look at all the legal ramifications of it. Um, but, uh, you know, there, there are certainly other ways that, uh, this could be, uh, achieved. We could force the office projects to work with the residential projects, uh, we could take another look at the 130,000 square feet that was going to, uh, the Vani project, um, and, uh, there may be fee or other, uh, Precise Plan requirement opportunities that, uh, could be adjusted for the TDR projects.

[01:20:15] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Because, to me, this just seems like a very, you know, untapped new area for us to kind of pursue, and it seems to me that we might want to look at a, a particular policy that would address something like on this order because I think to, you know, try to put that into a Precise Plan without having a, you know, a specific policy direction and not to, you know, and to have it be legal seems to me that that, you know, that might be a good direction for us to pursue. Because I don't, I don't want people to think we're trying to, um, you know, favor, favor one thing over another. But because it is an untapped area, we've never, we've never really done this specifically to the best of my knowledge, the transfer of development rights, um, you know, particularly between a school district and, you know, commercial developers. So, you know, it seems like a policy might be in order, but I'm curious to what, the other commissioners are thinking.

[01:21:37] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Um, Commissioner Lo.

[01:21:38] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um, first of all, I want to disclose that, um, I had a meeting with the SummerHill representatives. Um, and I do feel there seems to be some unfairness between the TDR residential projects versus the non-TDR residential projects. And I think we need to address that, um, so that it doesn't become a disincentive for developers to build residential projects. Um, and I, I asked earlier the question of the 130,000 and I'm wondering if staff would be able to look into that and see how we might be able to use that, um, as an incentive so that the playing ground is, feels leveled. And I'll be curious to hear what your thoughts are too.

[01:22:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I don't remember for certain which, who it was that I spoke to, but I came away with one of the earlier discussions, I think it might have been SummerHill. Um, that they actually no longer need the TDR to actually meet the guidelines of the, of the program. Um, whoever it was, what it would imply is that by participating in the TDR, they're actually spending money that, to buy something that they don't need, and as a result they would be losing the ability to monetize the square footage of the office space that they're retiring. So it creates a situation where if they continue to, if they if that's the case then someone who is participating in the TDR would be incurring an expense at the expense of eliminating a potential source of income. Okay, which is something that I would say, oh, that stinks. Um, if I were in their case. So I can, I can understand the concern. I, I don't know whether that's still the case or not, but it seems like a pretty serious disconnect. Um, the advantage of the TDR program is it allows them to go into the, into the area of the program that is today considered bonus FAR. Um, without, theoretically the offset is that they are, that these other things that they would normally have to pay for by going into the bonus level they don't have to pay for. So there's, should be some benefit there, um, associated with it. Um, so my, my hopefully there's still, they, they're still a good guy there at the end of all this. My first instincts is let them participate in the in the transfer program. Um, but then what that creates is a situation where they could simply say, well, I'm going to sell that space to somebody who's not in the TDR program, and the office developers who are also on the list now are screwed because things, and you were counting, and there's more than that 130,000 because there's other ones that have proposed that they actually need that in order to be able to meet their numbers. So my first thought on this was that they would be allowed to participate in the TDR, in the linkage program if they are selling it to someone else in the TDR program. So they can take 100% advantage of the TDR program and the linkage program if they are working, if we are, they're doing as we had kind of expected, which was that they're working together on those things, on those projects. So that not just the one that we're going to give 130,000 to, but the other projects that refer, that need that contribution, um, would also be in a situation where they need the residential developers as well. Um, and so that it creates a situation where hey, if you're in the TDR program and you stay in the TDR program, then you play nice with the other office developers, you get all the benefit. If you go outside of that, then sorry it doesn't work anymore. That was my feeling was going 100% one way hurts the school district, going 100% the other way hurts the other side, the other side of the equation and it's something like that where it was hey, if you're in the TDR program, you can monetize it, you can do whatever you want with it, was felt like a middle place that might work to address both needs.

[01:23:14] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Um, other Commissioners? Commissioner Cranston.

Segment 2

[01:26:45] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh, I just I find it's a complex problem and very difficult to come up with solutions. Obviously you guys aren't looking for solutions right now since it's a work in progress. Um, I guess the overall concern I have is just that there is a little bit more parity um for the residential developers. Um I also wasn't sure what the timeline was and whether or not there was an understanding prior to all this that there would have to be, it's okay, never mind. Forget that. Um, if we could find something that was legal, which provided some parity, which didn't also then cause complications elsewhere would be ideal. I just don't know what those would be, not knowing the the finer details of the situation. Um no one wants the school district to be left, you know, high and dry. So we're sort of, you know, coming up against a rock there. And at the same time, yeah, it is a new thing we're working, as best as we can, with the new situation as it develops. I'm hoping everyone is patient enough to to allow staff and us to come to some sort of compromise where there is parity, it may not be the ideal for everybody involved, but if we can get this all to work out, it would be great. So, if if we could have just a little more time for staff to think about it and come back, I don't know if they can come back to us or not, or if it just moves forward and goes to council. Um I'm not sure if this is our only time to make recommendations given that it's so last minute and.

5.1 East Whisman Precise Plan

[01:28:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that the EPC will review the individual projects, um, it, it's hard for the EPC to provide feedback on how those projects interrelate, uh, at those meetings, that's probably not possible. Um, but, uh, you know, I think you can get an update at that time, you know, in terms of how the, the individual, you know, how Council directed the individual projects to be reviewed.

Segment 2

[01:28:58] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. So just given the timeline I think it's kind of hard to come right now and say we would like this, so personally if we can just find some more parity for the residential uh developers, that would be great. Thank you.

5.1 East Whisman Precise Plan

[01:29:13] Acting Chair Robert Cox: Okay, uh, thank you, and uh, I'll, I'll echo some of the comments that I've heard from the other Commissioners and add a few other notes. I mean, in particular, you know, when I think back on the TDR process, I mean, my initial reaction when I saw what projects were coming up was, oh wow, there's a lot of office projects and just a little bit of residential here. It kind of made me ask the question of whether or not at that point we should have given, you know, stronger incentives to get residential because I mean, you know, we are trying to achieve a jobs-housing balance not only within the East Whisman area but um, but in the city of Mountain View as a whole. And even we would like to inspire other...

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Acting Chair Cox: places in the Bay Area and maybe even Santa Barbara. To understand the importance of what's going on here and to, you know, to adopt that as well, you know, after, you know, we've taken the leadership in this role. So, um, you know, having listened to what Mr. Hickey said from Summerville this afternoon, a few things do come to mind. One is that as

[01:30:30] Acting Chair Cox: many of the other commissioners have echoed, I think we do need to provide some kind of marketable incentive that the residential projects can bring to bear to help shore up the viability of their projects relative to the office projects. And so I would support, you know, some way of making that happen. Um, since this is, as it's been mentioned, right, this is coming in at the 11th hour, I leave it open to staff to continue their negotiations

[01:31:06] Acting Chair Cox: and figure out what is, what is best. And in terms of their recommendation to council, and, you know, the developers will do the same. I think the great thing about being on the EPC is we're at the 11th and not the 12th hour. So there's still time. So I applaud you and encourage you in that direction. I want to echo what Mr. Cranston said about, given that, you know, there are certain advantages in the TDR program itself, that, you know, making that

[01:31:38] Acting Chair Cox: balance work within the TDR program is a good thing to do. And and just also to say that well, just to say that I encourage you to go forward with this because as Commissioner Yin pointed out, making the whole thing work is very important for the LASD school district and all of the Mountain View students within it. So

[01:32:06] Acting Chair Cox: that's that. So those are my comments on that. So, in terms of, so I guess we've all just talked about the LASD TDR projects. Let me just ask Eric, do you feel that you've gotten enough input from us given the state of things? I think the clear thing that comes across is that I think a majority of people have specified

[01:32:30] Acting Chair Cox: that they believe that there should be some way for residential projects to be compensated from office projects, even though they are in the TDR program. But we're leaving the details to be worked out. Yeah, I'll agree with that. Okay. Was there any other major point that we wanted to make back to staff at this point that I missed?

[01:32:57] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. So, and then generally we also have to answer the first question. Does the EPC support the draft Jobs Housing Linkage Program guidelines? Can we just, is a show of hands good enough for that? And does everybody support it? Or does, okay, it sounds like there's general support with the guidelines as written. So that, I think we've concluded item number one.

[01:33:25] Acting Chair Cox: And then let's go on to item number two on the particular items where we wanted to talk about them in more detail. We can start with the character area targets. In particular, Mr., Commissioner Cranston, I know I wanted to talk about the housing mix. Did you have other issues you wanted to talk about in that area?

[01:33:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The housing mix was my main issue.

[01:33:48] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, so I'll let you start with your comments on the housing mix.

[01:33:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm, I'm, I'm open to the idea of more flexibility. Commissioner Cox or Vice Chair Cox mentioned the elimination of the requirement for a three-bedroom earlier. And I think one of the, one of our expectations, at least certainly my expectations, as we've gone through this process is that we hope to get more

[01:34:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: residential units in the area that would support a little bit larger families. And so having at least some percentage as three-bedroom is something that, in my mind, was a goal. Removing the specific, removing the levels all the way across the board for both the, for combining two and three-bedroom, to me feels like a step too far.

[01:34:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I would have been more inclined to allow a little bit more flexibility. I think the original, the previous version had three-bedroom at 20%. Okay, make it 10 to 20. Expand the range of the two-bedroom, but I would, I'm concerned about eliminating the three-bedroom call out in the plan.

[01:35:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It feels like a step too far. So that's my, I would like to hear other commissioners' feedback on that.

[01:35:14] Acting Chair Cox: Yeah, I'll, since I also called this out, I'll echo that as well. You know, as I said, like with the North Bayshore Precise Plan, we did have a target of 10%. And honestly, you know, when I, I was the one who originally proposed the mix for the North Bayshore plan, and my thinking at that time was,

[01:35:41] Acting Chair Cox: you know, there was a strong interest on council's point of view to get as many units up there as possible. And so, you know, I proposed that mix as an aggressive mix towards smaller units, you know, because, you know, it was kind of like 9850 or fight, okay? And so I thought the best way to try to make such a large target would be heavily weighting things on smaller units, but I also didn't want to, I was concerned about the idea of

[01:36:12] Acting Chair Cox: not getting three-bedroom units in other projects. I go back to the time when we were reviewing 801 West El Camino, and I had talked to the developer at that time, and as he was running through with me private the benefits of the project, he said, and we are providing three-bedroom units. And I said to him, oh, okay, how many are there? And he said five.

[01:36:38] Acting Chair Cox: And it's like 180 unit project, and I said, well, you know, it's not a large part of the mix. And he shot back at me, we're the only ones who are doing anything at all. And that stuck in my mind is, yeah, that's part of the problem. And because we have typically, you know, homes, when people get to that point where, you know, I mean, they want to raise a family, I mean, and if they end up with a typical family with,

97:30

[01:37:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: people when they finally decide to set down roots, moved out of Mountain View into other communities because they couldn't find family housing. The only two of us who stayed were the ones that didn't have children.

[01:37:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And and that's that's been a problem I think that we've had in Mountain View in general over a long period of time that I'd like to see, you know, redressed somehow. So, yeah, I guess I I would also um not want to completely eliminate that category.

[01:37:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I mean, I I could also and again with Mr. Cranston, I think that, you know, I had envisioned also East Whisman as being a place that was at least a little bit more uh family-friendly than North Bayshore, which, you know, might have been in my thinking more of a still like a immediately post-college atmosphere.

[01:38:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, and so, you know, having some three-bedroom units could be helpful in that. So I guess, you know, here here's a couple thoughts. One thought is that we could put the 10% back or at least have no worse than North Bayshore.

[01:38:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Another thought is, you know, when I had talked to the representatives from Google, I asked the question, well, is part of the problem the idea that the linkage uh between jobs and housing is expressed in terms of units rather than in terms of bedrooms.

[01:38:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And that, you know, I mean, I'm not saying I would go too too far on that, but maybe a three-bedroom unit could up to say 10% could be credited at one and a half units. Okay, instead of a single unit.

[01:39:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just, you know, to allow more of those to happen. So those are a couple ideas and uh I interested in what other commissioners think.

[01:39:29] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Prelliss.

[01:39:30] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um, I I think what we're trying to address is a lot of um a lot of people that already have families and we, you know, we keep talking about we want people to live close to where they work. So it would be a shame to have it limited to, you know, two bedrooms if you needed three.

[01:39:53] Commissioner Kammy Lo: With the cost of the housing, you know, just the housing market in general around here, it's just, you know, pretty pretty ridiculous to think that we could uh, you know, people could afford homes, you know, that would uh accommodate the three-bedroom needs.

[01:40:12] Commissioner Kammy Lo: So, you know, I I really think that we need to um, you know, when you when you give ranges 40 to 60%, what does it mean? I I think that that the range thing makes it really kind of nebulous as to whether you go two-bedroom or three-bedroom type of thing.

[01:40:35] Commissioner Kammy Lo: So, you know, is it right for us to be a little more specific as you suggest? You know, I you know, I'm not sure. I'm not really sure. I'm trying to look at it through somebody that would be um putting together uh a number of units and if you give me a range, I'm going to take the one that I think that it'd be the most marketable, you know, out there and maybe not necessarily what the rest of the community needs.

[01:41:07] Commissioner Kammy Lo: So if we could be a little more specific, and and, you know, I don't think we're asking for a high percentage, but but some just to keep that in mind.

[01:41:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, well, thanks for bringing that up. I hadn't thought about it, uh, but now that you've brought it up, um, I'm all for flexibility, so I understand why it was done, um, but I see what you're saying and I would be open to a wider small range, sorry, a small number, wider range set at three plus.

[01:41:47] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And the reason why I say that is because as we're developing out Mountain View, I don't see that many more single-family homes being built. I think it's going to be higher density. Um, and if we are trying to have people stay as they move in as young couples or singles, eventually they will potentially have families and we would like them to continue staying and not have high turnover in the city.

[01:42:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So if we could provide for some um family housing in the higher densities, the R4s and such, then I think that would be a benefit to the city.

Segment 3

[01:42:38] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Lo.

[01:42:39] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Yeah, I think you all have brought up some really good points. I do have a quick question for the staff. I wonder what's the thinking process behind combining the twos and the three into one range?

[01:42:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, staff was seeing the mix of condos and apartments being built in the Summerhill, Miramar projects. In ownership projects, there is actually a little bit of a market for three-bedroom units. It's, the market just isn't there in the rental. So you see a lot of the apartment projects maxing out at two bedrooms.

[01:43:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, in order to provide flexibility, but also acknowledging that there is a market in the ownership, staff is certainly open to adding the three-bedroom back in. And certainly, the goal of having the range... you know, it's not just flexibility, it's also, I think, a little bit of clarity in the policy and the implementation, right?

[01:43:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That it's not necessarily a hard standard that if you don't meet this in every project, you're gonna be denied. I think the range also kind of helps communicate that. So, you know, certainly we would be... you know, hopefully that answers your question.

[01:44:16] Commissioner Kammy Lo: So these are guidelines, is what you're saying, right? They're targets, yeah. So as a whole, for the whole plan area, we try to hit this, but we're not going to hold individual projects to... That's right. Okay, thanks.

[01:44:36] Acting Chair Cox: So Commissioner Lo, I didn't get an idea of where you were on the issue.

[01:44:41] Commissioner Kammy Lo: If that's the case, then I'll be okay with spelling out the three bedrooms, having its own... Okay.

[01:44:49] Acting Chair Cox: So what I think I'm hearing from the commission is that there's a majority support for a separate three or three plus category. Did we want to suggest a number or did we want to just ask that the category be put back in, or...?

[01:45:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Can I, can I throw out a an option here? Sure. After talking to you on Monday, staff developed this as a potential option, this alternate 30 to 50, two, 10 to 30, three.

[01:45:22] Acting Chair Cox: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I like it. I would go with this. And what do the other commissioners think? I think I see at least four heads nodding, maybe five, and a smile. So that's better than five. Okay. Okay, so we'll go with the recommendation, this new one that you just put up. Oh, Commissioner Yin.

[01:45:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Quick question, since you said it really wasn't something we were going to find, a three bedroom plus units aren't something we're going to find in rentals, but it would be for ownership, and I know that the current council is really aiming for a bit more ownership. We have a policy that aims for ownership specifically?

[01:46:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, in the new kind of diverse housing strategy that replaces the affordable housing strategy, it gets into that, you know, aiming for kind of an even mix of rental and ownership.

[01:46:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, so policy-wise, we are aiming for that as well. And so if we include this, it's doable. Yeah. Okay.

[01:46:26] Acting Chair Cox: Yeah, I think one of the things I like about having it this way is it does put the thumb on the scale a little bit toward ownership or partial ownership projects like Summerhill is doing. And so that's a good solution. So thank you. And let's see, let's go back to the next. So were there other questions that we wanted to raise on the character areas, or is this the only one? Okay, I think that's it for character areas.

[01:46:56] Acting Chair Cox: So then the next thing we wanted to talk about was height exceptions. So I'll let Commissioner Cranston lead off of that one.

[01:47:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm, I understand the desire on the part of the developers. Part of my question for where this came from in council was to try to better understand what's the, what the outcome we were tending here. I'm the one that asked the question if there was support for this in the community meetings because I have not, I have not heard people say, oh yeah, let's build really tall in Mountain View.

[01:47:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I think the, certainly I think the way that staff kind of is trying to kind of break it up, if you're gonna, if we're gonna have the extra height, it's a, seems like a reasonable approach. But I, more than anything else, I'm worried about Middlefield becoming a canyon. In general, if height is not visible, it doesn't bother me as much, okay?

[01:48:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The challenge right now is that you've centered this right on the Middlefield station, which is very close to Middlefield Road. I understand the feedback with, I guess, the consultant about it being a 750 foot, 750 feet being what people can walk, but what it's going to do is this puts, it encourages all the height right along a major road that's going to, it's basically going to be the southern part of an area that is, everybody has to hide behind their shadow in the rest of North Bayshore.

[01:49:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm, I'm, I was, I'm not in general in favor of the increase in height. If there were, I might be persuaded if there were more restrictions on how it was applied so that it was, could be, that we're not going to end up with all of the 135 foot buildings right on both sides of Middlefield Road.

[01:49:27] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I would feel less, I might feel less ugh about it. But right now, the way it's set up, it's more likely to actually concentrate them right along Middlefield, which is the opposite of what I thought we were trying to go for here. So that's just my initial comments.

[01:49:56] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. I'll throw a few comments in here. I guess my initial comment on this, this subject is just that I was just a little bit surprised, you know, when I met with the Google representative and I, you know, they gave me the sheets of paper and here are these 10 and 11 story buildings.

[01:50:18] Acting Chair Cox: Because I did attend the community workshops and we weren't talking, you know, that level of height. And I'm not saying that, you know, I mean, I'm against it out of the box, but I guess what I would really like is I would like a sense of really what are we buying into when we go ahead and do this.

[01:50:39] Acting Chair Cox: I'd like, I think what I would recommend is that when you go to council, you know, at least the presentation that you give, you know, has some mock-ups of what this will look like, you know, particularly like, how does this stand out with regards to the rest of the Precise Plan area?

[01:51:02] Acting Chair Cox: And you know, what does it look like, like if I'm standing on Whisman Road, you know, from, you know, the, you know, single-story developments that are on that side of the road, what are they going to see? And, you know, and also the idea of what Commissioner Cranston just brought up, the idea of what does this alternative versus having the height spread out over a wider area, you know, look like as an alternative.

[01:51:31] Acting Chair Cox: That's the kind of thing that, that I'd like to see so that I'd like the council to see it, I guess, so that they have a good sense of, of what it is they're buying into, and then they can make the right judgment. I mean, you know, you can have good projects, you know, with large heights, and you know, we can have ones that don't work that well.

[01:51:53] Acting Chair Cox: But, I mean, you know, another thing, as Commissioner Cranston says, you know, to get the sense of what it is looking when you drive down Middlefield Road. I mean, I think in terms of disclosure, that's a real good thing to have. So those are my thoughts on that. Commissioner Capriles.

[01:52:15] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I think we need to look at, um, you know, when we originally looked at the, starting with the Precise Plan, we felt like it would make more sense to have higher density around this, the transit station simply to have people closer to public transportation and this sort of thing.

[01:52:39] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: But, you know, again, what, what we're giving up, when we do see projects that are higher stories, and you know, we look at higher stories of being eight, you know, we also look at the design. So, I think what, my concern is from a height perspective is that somebody's gonna build an 11 story high something that that is just a great big block of units.

[01:53:11] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: And there's no creativity in what the design is, and you know, that they could vary, you know, the building designs within, within the project. So, you know, that, it's really hard to say, oh, we've got height exceptions because you know once you start exceptions, guess what, everybody's gonna take em.

[01:53:37] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: So, I, I'm a little reticent to just, you know, give carte blanche uh height, height exceptions out there without some uh concern about the design of, of the units and buildings, is there any, in any complex because, you know, I don't think any of us wanna see the um uh you know, the canyon effect.

[01:54:06] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: And I know that we're talking about the, you know, the separations of the buildings and all that sort of thing, but this is Mountain View and many people would like to still see the mountains. So that's, that's one of the things that I, I think is important to point out. And I think that's why we didn't hear people, you know, saying, yes, let's do 11 stories, because they don't want that shadow effect on existing properties that are in that area.

[01:54:36] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: So, I, I think we just need to be very cautious and careful, uh, to, to limit the heights, you know, within this particular area. Uh, you know, what, I don't understand what the real point was to put a circle around this particular area, other than being close to the rail station. Was there any thought behind, you know, this particular area?

[01:55:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, it's a, kind of a comfortable walking distance, it's the area where we're really trying to get a lot of neighborhood commercial uses kind of focused in this, you know, kind of dense, walkable area that, where you can kind of jump from business to business, you know, on a single trip, and trip chain again with the, with the light rail.

[01:55:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, we're also looking for some really high-quality open areas in this area, to really encourage, um, gathering, events, um, kind of be a marquee open space for the East Whisman area, a place to really give it a sense of place and an identity. Um, so those are all the things that we're kind of trying to look for in this area, and, and, um, in order to help kind of incentivize that vision, uh, some additional height, uh, would help to help incentivize that vision.

[01:56:06] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Because I also noted that we, uh, we're taking out the C street, you know, in order to promote more walkable, bikeable areas, you know, in that area. So I'm just trying to make sure that the decisions that we do make from a height and open space and all of that is, is gonna make sense.

[01:56:31] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Um, what, what is, what is located like outside of this, this area that would, um, eliminate, you know, varying heights, you know, beyond this? Have we got single family homes? Have we got...

[01:57:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. So, so this height, this, this location right here is currently under construction. You see where my cursor is? Yes. Is currently under construction. I think it's three to four story apartments, or maybe just three story. And this site is currently vacant, no plans to happen there.

[01:57:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This site is the, um, Orchard. There's no current plans for anything else there. Uh, the rest of this is part of the Precise Plan. So it's either going to stay what it is today, this is a six story office building. Um, you know, these are four story office buildings. This is a large four story office building, the Symantec headquarters, the big kind of teal colored building.

[01:57:49] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Okay.

[01:57:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so these are, it's either going to stay what it is today or it's going to be redeveloped at higher intensity office and residential. Um, and the nearest existing neighborhood is, is across North Whisman Road. Um, I don't know exactly how far away it is, but I can, I can look it up if you'd, if you'd like to know.

[01:58:15] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: No, that's okay. I'm just trying to get a general idea of, you know, what would be in the adjacent areas where the taller, taller buildings would, you know, be giving their massing heights to. But, uh, in general, you know, I think, I think we give height exceptions per project. I wouldn't want to just see this in general in the Precise Plan.

[01:58:46] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I think it has to be, what does the project look like, and what does the rest of the area look like. So in general, to say, sure, build 11 stories, you know, not sure what that message brings to developers. So in general, I think we ought to review it per project.

[01:59:09] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Yin.

[01:59:13] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just a couple of quick clarification questions. For this increase to take place, as it is in the staff report, there are bullet points, six of them. Do all of these requirements have to be met in order for the height to jump up?

[01:59:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, all of them.

[01:59:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, great. And the second clarity question was to confirm that FAR and density doesn't change. It's just the height in order to accommodate the neighborhood commercial that they might be putting in.

[01:59:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The neighborhood commercial and the open space, yes.

[01:59:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And open space. Okay. Um, I was listening to what the other commissioners had said, and I totally, I get it. And especially since neighborhoods had given input, community input. Um, I personally am not so averse to extra height if it gains us the neighborhood commercial space, because we're trying to develop a neighborhood, and I think tying more use and service into the area helps cut back on trips and just makes it more of a neighborhood.

[02:00:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, so, but that's just personal. I understand their point, so I'm just wondering if maybe there's some things we can look at, such as increasing the setback at certain heights. If they are going to take place, so let's say at three stories it has to set back at an additional amount. Or maybe just the set back in general, you get more sidewalk, a little bit, if it's going to go higher.

[02:00:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, things of that nature, design wise, that we can look at. Um, and as far as trying to envision what it would look like, I think 3D models are great, but there's no replacement for physical models. I think when a project comes in, if we do go project by project, that we can see it, see what it looks like on the street.

[02:01:13] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I think that gives a good sense to everyone, the community as well, what that will be and how tall that will be and how that feels. It's just a thought.

[02:01:23] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Lo.

[02:01:24] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um, yeah, a picture suddenly says a thousand words and a model probably will help too. Um, I have lived in Hong Kong, so I'm personally not against height, just for height's sake. Um, I think the criteria that we have listed here calling for, you know, it has to be a neighborhood commercial building that includes ground floor commercial, it has to have a variety of building heights, um, different, you know, a separation and whatnot, I think having these parameters um helps us to, you know, um, realize the vision that you were describing.

[02:02:13] Commissioner Kammy Lo: One idea I have to kind of get back to your, uh, concern about making this an exception is this maybe way too late in the stage of this plan, but I wonder if it might be worthwhile to call out this area as a special character area. Um, right now it's part of a pretty large mixed use character area. Um, if we were to carve out this area and, I don't know, call it special transit area, I don't know what's the label, then it can have its own specification. Um, I wonder if that might be more helpful than using an exception to allow for these kind of, uh, taller buildings.

[02:03:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the way the exception is structured, it allows it to be reviewed on more of a case-by-case basis, rather than being kind of the default expectation. Um, if we were to define a character area around this, um, around this additional height, then that would be saying that this is, this is the expectation, this is the community expectation, this is what we envision, rather than this is something that could be okay if we review it on a case-by-case basis and they provide all of these extra things that we really want.

[02:03:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so it's, it's up to the commission, you know, how, what, which of those is kind of closer to how you would want to see this implemented, if you want to see it implemented at all.

[02:03:54] Acting Chair Cox: So, I mean, we've gotten a lot of good feedback on this, but I think what I'm struggling with here is that I've heard a number of different ideas expressed, but not not a real strong consensus or direction on exactly uh what. I guess what I would summarize to this point would be I think we've heard that this is an area of concern of the commission that we'd like the council to take special interest in as they're reviewing the Precise Plan.

[02:04:26] Acting Chair Cox: Um, I've heard commissioners say that they believe that the uh the conditions for granting the exceptions are essential and that, you know, I mean that that they should remain intact and that all the commission all the conditions would be met before this would be granted.

[02:04:47] Acting Chair Cox: Um, I've I've also heard some other ideas expressed by one or two commissioners, like Mrs. Capriles's suggestion of taking things, asking for the exceptions explicitly rather than having it in the plan. Um, I don't know what, what... Mr. Anderson, what do you think is a good way to summarize what we've been saying?

[02:05:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, well let me, let me just kind of clarify another couple of other kind of key design points in the plan. Um, you know, we have this, uh, this street wall requirement, which does require buildings to step back at 75 feet in height. Uh, so these, these tall buildings would not be right at the street, they would have to step back at that height and then go up.

[02:05:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, we also have the, the internal separations between buildings and the maximum building size. Uh, so part of that is intended to reduce the canyon effect, um, but certainly we could look at increasing those minimum separations. Uh, that would further reduce the canyon effect, and, and change the, reduce the likelihood that it would be all tall buildings along Middlefield. Um, heard, uh, certainly a desire to see more visualizations. Um, I think that's certainly something that we can do before we go to council.

[02:06:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, heard about the importance of design. Um, you know, if, if the commission is interested in adding another precondition of, um, kind of needing some kind of um special or or um unique design prior to uh prior to the approval and needing to make that finding, uh, could be something we could write. Um, and then, um, those are just some uh, and then the character area idea kind of um, a little bit more kind of a focus on this area as a height exception area, um, and and what that character includes.

[02:06:57] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Um, do you feel then that you have sufficient input from us on how to modify this, or would you like something more specific?

[02:07:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, well at this stage in the game, I think we might need to send something somewhat specific to council. Um, so I don't, I don't know if you have any thoughts, Martin, on kind of how to go about figuring this out?

[02:07:24] Mr. Janes: No, I mean if you wanted to try to summarize, you know, list out some of those items that EPC had just mentioned and you as well, Vice Chair Cox. So if you wanted to try to consolidate that into one kind of specific direction that you can give to Mr. Anderson that we can forward that up to council.

[02:07:43] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, then I guess I would start it out by just saying that the the height exceptions is an area of special concern of the commission, and that, I mean, partly because of, you know, that feedback in the community workshops did not yield overwhelming support. It was a more mixed support, okay.

[02:08:17] Acting Chair Cox: And that we're looking for staff to give more visual, more pictures of, you know, particularly about what things would look like on Middlefield Road and from the adjacent neighborhoods. And just with a particular emphasis on what kind of canyon effect might result.

[02:08:46] Acting Chair Cox: And also to understand whether ask council to deliberate on whether they want just a special height exceptions in this particular area or theyre more interested in having the larger height spread over a wider area. And, you know, also whether they want a specific height exception in the Precise Plan or if they want to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Um, look to the commission if I missed something.

[02:09:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: It wasn't that you missed anything. I had another thought. If you are going to list some certain ideas that come forward, another would be a limitation would be that an entire project isn't granted this height exception. It's that if they have neighborhood commercial, whatever, maybe it's a certain square footage, that a percent of that square footage, whether or not it'd be smaller or greater than, is what is granted the height exception.

[02:09:56] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Because I would hate to see like a three block project all go up just because they provided one little shop.

[02:10:07] Acting Chair Cox: That makes sense to me too. I mean, if we talk about, you know, comprehensive ground floor retail, that's different than putting a coffee shop in the corner. So, and the only...

[02:10:20] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: And the only thing that I would add is that we would like to see some character within the buildings if they, you know, meet these criteria, certainly some more design character would be appreciated.

[02:10:40] Acting Chair Cox: Yeah, I also like this idea that Commissioner Capriles just mentioned and that you also mentioned Eric about, you know, the idea of like exceptional design as being one of the considerations. I mean, do other commissioners agree? I see some shaking heads. Okay, so I think we've converged on...

[02:11:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess I'm... I'm what I'm most stuck on is that it's across Middlefield Road. Um, I would feel very differently about this if it was pushed up, okay? Um, 750 feet is less than the distance from my business to the 16th Street BART station, and people walk it all the time.

[02:11:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: 750 feet is not some magical number. Um, but I look at Middlefield Road as, as quite frankly, a more substantial barrier to encouraging neighborhood commercial getting the open space than, um, than anything else. And so it's, um, I have questioned on multiple occasions the fact that we are dropping the height in the middle of the, the, the Precise Plan area from the 95 feet down to 75 and then back up.

N/A

[02:11:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, but I look at Middlefield Road as is quite frankly a more substantial barrier to encouraging neighborhood commercial getting the open space than anything else. And so it's, I have questioned on multiple occasions the fact that we are dropping the height in the middle of the the precise plan area from the 95 feet down to 75 and then back up. Um, that's not that far from this area that could be that people could walk to. Um, so I would be quite frankly I'd be in, I would feel far better if this was located on the north side of Middlefield Road. Um, I agree and and those are areas that are going to need open space as well, okay? Open space on the south side of Middlefield Road, um, it's not necessari-, you know it'll be great for the people that are there, but it's not necessarily, you're not going to take your kids on a walk across Middlefield Road to get there. Um, you're going to go, you're going to stick with the smaller streets, um, you know, to go play in a park. So if we can get, so if the goal here is to make it more attractive to provide more open space, then it seems like it would be more beneficial to keep it concentrated in the area above, that's that way we're more likely to get that. Um, I just, I question the the the the benefits that you're expecting to see will be derived by items bel-, under the south side of Middlefield, but we would be more likely to achieve those going farther north. And I don't believe, I believe that the 750 foot distance is quite to some extent arbitrary, um, and you know, 1,000 feet, I mean that's that's two tenths of a mile, it's not even a quarter of a mile. People walk that all the time. And so to me the physical barrier of the, of the street is, is more of an impediment, um, than the area below the, than, than anything else. So I'm, I'm open to higher, I mean, Commissioner Yin and Commissioner Lo both said they're not as struck by the height. I'm, I, I'm willing to work with the, the ad-, the additional height, but I don't think it's placed in the right location. Is my, is my biggest concern. Nobody else has really articulated that, so I may be the Lone Ranger in this, but...

[02:14:09] Acting Chair Cox: No, I don't think you are because I think you just made a good point. Um, I'm not sure what you meant with uh, like the 750 being arbitrary, whether you were looking to increase it or decrease it. I mean...

[02:14:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm saying that it doesn't need to be a nice round number in all directions.

[02:14:25] Acting Chair Cox: Okay.

[02:14:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It can be 250 feet south and 1,000 feet or 1,200 feet to the north. It doesn't have to be... it doesn't have to cross Middlefield Road. It can be a different shape. It doesn't have to be round.

[02:14:40] Acting Chair Cox: So, let me ask a question of staff, where, I can't tell from the picture where exactly is the Middlefield station. Is it where the word is there? Is that where where the the light rail stops?

[02:14:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's a, it's a platform that goes roughly from here to here.

[02:14:56] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. Okay. So it is on the north side then. Okay. So here, here's another thought leveraging off of what Commissioner Cranston just said, right, we have that Loews building up there that's on the north side that's that's asking to be higher, and if we were to shift this up, that would kind of like put it in there, while, you know, maybe maybe that's a better centering. I I am sympathetic to what uh, Commissioner Cranston just said, in that, you know, it may be easier to envision something viable without so much of a canyon effect if the larger parts of the height were on one side of the road, the road where, I mean, the part where most of it is now anyway. So I'm interested in your reactions to that, and also if you want to pose that perhaps as an additional question to Council of whether, you know, this area, if they should choose to have one, you know, should be here or where Commissioner Cranston is thinking.

[02:15:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so I I guess what I'm hearing is uh, you know, the clearer direction not not to cross Middlefield Road, so maybe seeing if you have maybe another commissioner that would get a majority with you two on that. Um, then in addition I'm hearing um, you know, potential shifting northward. Um, you know, and uh, there could be other range of considerations, I don't know if you if...

[02:16:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Are you disagreeing?

[02:16:52] Mr. Janes: Just more context to why.

[02:17:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. Do you want to say that? Lot of deliberation, thanks, sorry.

[02:17:18] Mr. Janes: I just wanted to point out a couple of things because the condition of Middlefield isn't necessarily today what it might be in 5 or 10 years and what happens south of it might be different. And so if you look at some of the...

Segment 4

[02:17:59] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. So, I guess the question is where do we want to go with this idea of of of shifting this. Do any other commissioners have a point of view on that?

[02:18:10] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'll try.

[02:18:11] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, Commissioner Yin.

[02:18:13] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, to what you said, I I'm hoping that it does get implemented out, the precise plan gets implemented where Middlefield Road isn't a barrier anymore that they're more tied. And um my thought was that because the station is right on Middlefield, if we are going to have neighborhood commercial, I'd like it more sort of clustered around that area. So um to me if it crosses Middlefield and you get the corners that have neighborhood commercial, yay. Um, so I I'm okay with it crossing Middlefield. Um, I'm also okay with it, you know, just being around the park that's going to be around the station as well, but um for commercial and retail, they tend to like to cluster. So that's it's a good option in my mind to have it cross and have that intersection be very walkable and porous between the two sides. That's the ideal at least.

[02:19:23] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um, yeah, I was going to ask staff, um, what do you envision in that south part of Middlefield and then I guess, um, sorry, what's your name? Eric provided some, but maybe you could provide a little bit more details that way we can kind of all can visualize it a little bit better in our minds.

[02:19:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Um, yeah, so the precise plan allows, you know, um, bonus FAR up to 95 feet, uh, that's seven or eight stories. Um, that could happen, you know, with an upper floor step back along, um, both of those properties, you know, both these properties south of Middlefield Road. Um, this property is uh currently owned by a residential developer and they've expressed interest in redeveloping it as residential. Uh, the site is uh identified for a uh mini park in the precise plan. Um, it is not identified for any required neighborhood commercial, so if if the commission is interested in in seeing neighborhood commercial on these sites south of Middlefield, um, we would you would either have to recommend changes to the required neighborhood commercial areas or, um, this incentive would be a way to to encourage that to happen. Um, uh, but other than that it would be allowed to be constructed as standalone office or standalone residential uh at up to uh 95 feet.

[02:21:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was gonna say, anything that encourages the neighborhood commercial, I don't know that anybody else would also want to require it south of Middlefield, but um I'd be all for it. Uh, but just having the incentive there is good for me. I again, I would limit the the amount of the building or the project that goes up depending on how much commercial there is. So that I'm pretty sold on. Um, that's it.

[02:21:56] Acting Chair Cox: So I I guess the main thing here, right, is that I don't hear uh third person jumping on the bandwagon for shifting the area. Um, so okay. Guess.

[02:22:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'll just say, as a small business owner, I would never consider putting a business on the south side of Middlefield. Okay? So if we are requiring putting neighborhood commercial as a part of getting 135 feet, I certainly wouldn't rent a space. And then and what I don't want to see is what we have along El Camino Real right now, which is where we've required developers, residential developers to put retail space on the ground floor and then it sits there vacant for year after year after year. So um I'm just I don't I'm I'm highly skeptical of the value of expanding the area to that side of the street and expecting that part of the requirements is they provide put neighborhood commercial when it's not a particularly attractive area for a small business to go into. So I think it's an I my gut says it's an unrealistic expectation to that we would ever get what all of these criteria anywhere south of Middlefield. North of field, north of Middlefield, I think you could get it because you could tie into the rent both the office and the the residential space. But south of it there's a barrier between there and even the Whisman the further down the Whisman neighborhoods to the south uh as well. So I just I I don't think we're being realistic on whether whether this would be whether this would be realized in that area of the of the that's my view.

[02:23:44] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: So should we just recommend to council that they consider extending the area north not necessarily eliminating the the south area, but, you know, they may not, they may decide not to do the commercial part of it if they're if they're not, you know, if they don't want the height exception. That's my understanding.

[02:24:11] Acting Chair Cox: Um, how about how about the idea that um that the feedback that the EPC gives that there was an that there was some discussion about this subject and the points that we raised and that, you know, council may want to consider that as they consider this.

[02:24:31] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So if I may. Just to, so since there will be um a formal motion on this including some of the direction that's being provided, um I think it might be beneficial you've you've summarized previously I think the points where there was at least a majority um consensus. And then there was some further discussion after that. I just want to make sure that that we're clear and that Mr. Anderson is clear in terms of what we're then presenting to council as EPC's feedback.

[02:24:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And and just to kind of clarify, should the, is it adequate that the recommendation be general or should the recommendation be specific enough to implement in the, you know, to clearly implement in the precise plan, right? To to actually write precise plan language from.

[02:25:25] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I I think it could be either. I mean, I think you could just provide that indication that there was, you know, discussion on the height exceptions, if you wanted to keep it real general, there was extensive discussion, you know, about that including some of the following and kind of list them. But but I still would like to be clear about that since it is a motion that's being made to make it clear what um what you want to convey to council on that point.

[02:26:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm going to hope that this helps clarify. I think maybe then, um, Commissioner Cranston, it may not be necessary to shift it if height is already a concern for you. This is an exception. If people do all these things, then they get the exception to go higher. And if you don't think this is the south of Middlefield is there will be any takers, it actually decreases the amount of area where people will go even higher. So if it helps um...

[02:26:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the idea of trying to build a community around the Middlefield Station, I get. Okay, I like that idea. The idea of giving developers something that, okay, you go another floor or two, you can give us some more open space, that's a good thing. So in my mind is, it's less a concern about whether we allow it than it is are we going to get what we want out of doing it. If what we want is to to get more neighborhood commercial and we want to get more, you know, open space, um, as part of it, then let's put it in an area that it might actually produce that. We we're trying to center it around Middlefield Station. Well, maybe maybe it extends a little bit further north. Okay, and it becomes a place that the offices, people in the offices can walk to, people that are in other areas of the residential can walk to as well. It doesn't have to be all down in that area. And it we've listed the commercial as a as a target area, but I don't know that we've said that if somebody were to put go a little bit beyond the commercial area that we'd say, oh, no, you can't do that, but if it creates a more a little bit a little bit of a corridor. Okay. I look at Castro, people, it's it's all on a block. Okay, they're all walking back and forth along the block, you get further from those downtown blocks and people don't go there. So I am looking at this as if we if we believe that we're trying to get that open space, we're trying to get that commercial a little bit of commercial viability, then let's look at it as more than just the station itself and look at extending it partially a little bit further, giving the option of it being able to extend a little bit further, so that we actually get those things. Because I do have a concern that the 5,000 square feet is actually pretty small. You'll get a, you know, Starbucks is, you know, is what, 1,500 square feet. Okay. So you get three, you know, you get maybe one little restaurant and a Starbucks and and that's it with the 5,000 square feet that's being proposed. Could we get a little bit more, could we get a couple of restaurants, could we get a dry cleaners, could we get a bank. Those would be good things in my mind. So I'm I'm looking at as I I I like the idea of getting some of these things, I don't believe that as included we will realize the the potential benefits that this is proposing that we might be able to derive from increasing the height.

[02:28:58] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. I, here's my thought, okay? And that's that, um, I hear that Commissioner Cranston is very passionate about the idea of wanting to shift this northward above Middlefield and so I think we should take at least a straw vote to see whether there's a majority support for that. If not, then I think it's okay to echo in general comments from, you know, staff, uh, that we discussed this at length, probably at more length than anything else, and that, um, that, you know, there were various things suggested that council can consider. So, so if you're okay with that, how many people would support, Mr., Commissioner Cranston's idea of shifting the, uh, height exception area north of Middlefield Road? Let's show hands.

[02:29:58] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Before we take the straw vote, I wonder if I could throw out something. Um, I was thinking of the relationship between this, you know, commercial area with the Village Center. Um, I don't mean to throw in more things, but I'm just wondering if it might be relevant, um, because, um, that's another area where we want to get more, uh, commercial as well, right, in the Village Center, am I correct?

[02:30:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think it's a little less than a mile, maybe half a mile. I I don't know exactly, but.

[02:30:53] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Okay. So, just thinking about whether the two can be somehow, you know, drive traffic to each other and encourage more businesses for both, whether there's a creative way of doing that. Sorry for making it more complicated.

[02:31:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. Well, we, uh, certainly part of our urban design goal for Middlefield is to create an interesting, you know, uh, vibrant, active, um, bicycle-friendly, you know, that's a way to kind of link the spaces sustainably. Um, and, uh, we are also creating a number of other links through the precise plan, um, you know, paseos, links, um, you know, other other kind of walkable links that to break up the blocks. Uh, so a big a big part of the precise plan is this idea around um kind of um creating more connection to the Village Center and vice versa.

[02:31:57] Acting Chair Cox: I guess the one thing I would say about the Village Center is that, I mean, versus this location, is that this is actually a central area in the precise plan and, you know, the Village Center is kind of off to the side a bit and very close to very low density residential, so there's a limit on how high you can go there. Um, and so my hope would be that we did have that we did have a place like this more central to the precise plan where the heights could go higher and could provide some of this kind of thing. So yeah I guess I like the idea that the Village Center will develop, but I I don't believe it can bear the whole burden of what we're trying to do here. So, so anyway, I think we still need to take a straw vote.

[02:32:46] Acting Chair Cox: Um, so how many people are in favor of, uh, Commissioner Cranston's proposal to recommend shifting the height exception area north of Middlefield Road?

[02:32:57] Acting Chair Cox: Two? Okay. Well, that answers that then.

[02:33:06] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, so how many people are, uh, okay with, uh, having council described in the staff report, um, you know, the fact that we had an extensive discussion and some of the things that we went over?

[02:33:27] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I was going to suggest perhaps within the height exceptions that we extend the 750 feet to a thousand and not specify how that's going to be done and and leave the height exceptions the way they're currently read in the precise plan. And that would extend that another 250 feet. And if you want to say specific to the north I don't care, but it seems like that would kind of capture the direction that you want to go in without it being too specific. Does that make sense?

[02:34:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, so, Eric, yeah, if what I'm hearing is correct is is there's two aspects of shifting to the north, right? There's taking the bottom and shift, you know, moving it up to Middlefield Road, but then also taking the top and moving it up north. And and so what you're asking is, what if we leave the bottom where it is, but also move the top up?

[02:34:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Would you retain the restriction on the edge of the precise plan? So this this flat spot here is because it's the edge of the precise plan. Would you retain that restriction?

[02:34:55] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I don't know. If I interpret her question correctly, it would just be moving the north part of the border, so it wouldn't affect the boundary from the the precise plan. I'd be fine with that.

[02:35:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'm just trying to reach a compromise so we can move along.

[02:35:12] Acting Chair Cox: Alright. So let's let's try to do a show of hands on that proposal. How many people would support Commissioner Capriles's revised uh proposal of Commissioner Cranston's proposal to move the height exceptions area another 750 feet, 250 feet, right, 250 feet north, and that would then that would cover the Logue building, right? And some of the adjacent area. Okay, so, let's see a show of hands.

[02:35:44] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, we got five. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Capriles and Commissioner Cranston. Okay. And other people who voted for it too.

[02:35:54] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. So I think we've closed on that item. Alright. And then, um, the last thing was Commissioner Lo had some additional comments that she wanted to make.

[02:35:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just to clarify then, so is it then both pieces just when we go to make the actual motion, is it the one that you did the straw vote on of moving at the 250 in addition to the um the comments to um council that the commission had an extensive discussion considering various things?

[02:36:13] Acting Chair Cox: Yeah. I'm happy to summarize, I summarize comments, just make sure everybody's on board with that. Yeah, those those points I wasn't even so much to say that those would be in the motion itself, but that they would be included in the council report, you know, that just as when you talk about what was the feedback from the EPC. Or what did EPC talk about? Or maybe I don't know is that not how you would do that or?

[02:36:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I certainly heard a lot of support from for, you know, more diagrams, right? Right. I mean, I think that can be, uh, part of the motion. Um, exceptional design. Okay, let me write some of these down. I think that can be part of the the motion. Um, let's see. Okay, and obviously the shifting, I mean, the expansion.

[02:36:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exceptional design.

[02:37:02] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, and obviously the shifting, I mean, the expansion.

[02:37:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The expansion north.

[02:37:16] Acting Chair Cox: And I think I heard from Commissioner Yin the idea of, you know, being commensurate with the neighborhood commercial amount.

[02:37:27] Acting Chair Cox: Can you summarize again Commissioner Yin your point on that again because I want to make sure we say it correctly.

[02:37:34] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I don't even pretend to know what the proportion should be, but um if you do add neighborhood commercial, that it's not the entire project that shoots up. Okay. The proportion that of height that's given is is proportional to the amount of neighborhood commercial that's actually offered.

[02:38:12] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um, so yeah, I had sent, um, Eric some comments. You all have a printout of that and I'm looking for my copy. It's the one that has blue text on it. You want to point it out to the public? So, um, Eric, should I just run through it with everybody or how should I do it?

[02:38:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, feel free to to introduce, describe however you like.

[02:38:49] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Okay, so um here I have some um comments specific to chapter 4.3 which is on-site open space and landscaping. Um, in section 4.3.3 title open space location and context, I would like to add one point, um, which I title connecting green spaces and the text reads public and private open spaces should be connected by safe and shaded paseos, is that how you pronounce it? Multi-use paths or greenways to provide easy access to nature for all residents. Such linkages should uh such linkages also help form habitat corridors which are needed to sustain populations of pollinators and other wildlife. And then in section, I have the section number wrong here. So the first one was 4.3.1, sorry. So this one is 4.3.3, I would propose adding a section that I title trees and native plants, and the text reads climate resilient shade trees and native understory plants should be planted along streets, multi-use paths, greenways and paseos. And then I have suggested some modification to the following sections. In section 4.3.4 landscaping and sustainability, in addition to the existing text in section one large canopy trees, I added the text in blue. Um, so the whole paragraph reads open spaces should provide large canopy trees in support of the city's community tree master plan. Strong preference should be given to tree species that are adaptable to climate change threats, can foster resilience, build biological diversity, support native wildlife and are resistant to insect and disease damage. In the section title sustainability, I suggested some text here. We re- we removed private from the first sentence, so the sentence reads new open spaces instead of new private open spaces. And then I added, uh, some more content to define building heating and cooling efficiency. I expanded that to read building energy conservation through measures such as trees and green roofs. And then for stormwater management I added green infrastructure, and for landscaping I added it should be climate resilient. Um, and then there's a very minor modification to section 4.4.3 for surface parking design where bullet number five, um, there's a there's basically a typo that we corrected here. So it now it reads when site and building improvements are made, tree canopy in surface parking lots should be increased to at least 50% coverage at maturity. So those are my suggestions and I would love to hear your feedback and comments.

[02:42:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: It all sounds very good to me. I just had one quick question. Um, under sustainability, why take out building heating, cooling efficiency? I'm all for what you added, I was just curious why that was removed in your mind.

[02:42:30] Commissioner Kammy Lo: It's because this is um all under the umbrella of open space and uh landscaping. So I'm specifying what we mean by energy saving for buildings.

[02:42:43] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, I have a question back to staff. Um, so the use of the word 'should' here, does that mean that these are guidelines or requirements?

[02:42:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This is in the guidelines chapter.

[02:42:58] Acting Chair Cox: Did you review this with Commissioner Lo in advance of the meeting? Okay. And and you're largely okay with it?

[02:43:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[02:43:10] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. So then I'm supportive of it as well. Other commissioners?

[02:43:22] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think it's great. I think it adds a lot of clarity to what we want.

[02:43:28] Acting Chair Cox: Sounds...

[02:43:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So, I like that.

[02:43:32] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. I see everybody on the commission favorable toward this change in language. So when we come to do the motion we will, you know, read this into the motion then, right? Yep.

[02:43:43] Acting Chair Cox: Um, are there other points on the East Whisman Precise Plan that other commissioners wanted to bring up for discussion tonight?

[02:43:56] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Very, very small thing. Um, page 117, the graphic for the gallery. For some reason the gallery still looks like it's forward of the adjacent building setback line and looks like it's sitting in the sidewalk. It just needs to shove back so that it's in line with the adjacent property and I think that makes it a lot clearer.

[02:44:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. Uh, yeah, we can, do we, can we test that? We can, we can find another image. We can, we can find another image.

[02:44:32] Acting Chair Cox: So that one I don't think we need to put in the motion, right? Okay. Alright. Commissioner Cranston.

[02:44:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess maybe this should have been a question at the beginning. Um, the service streets. Are those public streets or they're only within a a property owner's property?

[02:45:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So a service street would need to be publicly accessible if it aligns with one of the blocks, um, the, you know, the 400-foot block standard that we have in the the civic spaces section, um, and the the green lines that we have on the the conceptual circulation plan. Uh, so if the street aligns with with those lines, it would need to be publicly accessible. Um, the if a developer is building another service street that doesn't serve those blocks or that minimum connectivity, they have the option to make it publicly accessible or not. In no cases would a service street be a public street in that it would have, it wouldn't have public utilities in it, it wouldn't be maintained by the city. Um, it wouldn't have all the same kind of uh rights and and um and uh uh maintenance obligations as like Middlefield or Ellis.

[02:46:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And the language in the precise plan today, I couldn't figure out myself, in those cases where it's not aligned with one of those things, is the aligning with the precise plan a requirement or a guideline?

[02:46:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Aligning what with the precise plan?

[02:46:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if the, if it's a service street that's not one of those things that you just described. Okay. It's, it's another service street that they've chosen to put in. Right. Is the, is the way the precise plan worded, are they required to meet the the service street thing in here, is that a is that a standard? Required to meet the service street standard like dimensions or?

[02:46:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Standards, yes. Um, yes, they would be required to meet the service street standards. Uh, part of that is just in terms of livability and character of the, um, of the, the, uh, the, the design. Um, they may have the option depending on the configuration of the site, they may have the option to apply the alley standards if they need vehicle access, but they don't want to use the service street dimensions.

[02:47:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the alley standards. I just, it seemed odd to me that we would, that something that was a, maybe this is maybe just a terminology thing. A service street would, in the that wasn't intended to be, you know, part of the network that we're trying to build out would still be required to meet that standard. Um, okay.

[02:47:41] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Wouldn't that be for, um, the public safety, fire trucks and that sort of thing to get through as well? I think it's more than just a, you know, delivery point of view or that sort of thing. I think it's more the, you know, for fire service and safety.

[02:47:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, that's part of the dimensions, that's part of the standard, but then there's also the setback standard which is not associated to that. Um, and, uh, and again it goes back to this concept of, um, you know, creating separations between buildings, which is part of the kind of overall character and design of the, um, the, the precise plan, um, creating livable spaces within, uh, within the, the precise plan, you know, within projects, uh, and other, you know, creating adequate tree canopy, uh, other precise plan goals.

[02:48:45] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Does it also, uh, limit the size of the building itself so that we don't have mega structures, that helps, by having the service streets?

[02:48:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right. Yeah. It also helps to break up the, the structures, yeah. Break up the blocks.

[02:49:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm, maybe I'm willing to sacrifice a tree along a service street to get more open space in other parts of the development. And so I'm, I I struggled with putting so much landscaping in what I perceived as something that's, you know, yes it will be probably partly accessible but if it's a choice between giving more green space in areas that that it's a little bit bigger area, then I would, I was just concerned that we would we were effectively sacrificing what could be green space other places in the development by making the service streets with sidewalks and landscaping and streets that maybe could be used in other areas of the development. Because you know service streets, yeah you can walk around it, but it's not, it's not where people are going to gather or they're not as activated, programmed, those kind of things, so I just was, um, that was my concern.

[02:50:20] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Take a walk back in behind Trader Joe's and see what they haven't done, and that's what we're trying to correct.

[02:50:29] Commissioner Kammy Lo: I don't know if it helps, but someone once pointed out to me all of downtown can fit between East Middlefield, Ellis, this once upon a time Street A, and this once upon a time Street C. So if we didn't have those, we could potentially have just project for the entire area of downtown with no break. So, I guess, and then maybe service street is the name service street, you think garbage trucks, I think they're aiming for it to be more than that, that it's a way for the public to be able to walk through and have canopy and to add connections throughout the, the area.

Unknown

[02:50:50] Commissioner Kammy Lo: project for the entire area of downtown with no break. So, I guess, and then maybe service street is, the name service street, you think garbage trucks, but I think they're aiming for it to be more than that, that it's a way for the public to be able to walk through and have canopy and to add connections throughout the area.

[02:51:24] Acting Chair Cox: Do you have a specific point that you wanted us to recommend to council or can we move on?

[02:51:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just a question for Eric. So you folks have pointed out the area behind Trader Joe's and you're going to think, you know what, that's a reality, okay? You're going to have a back end of a, the back side of retail spaces and those kind of things. Um, in my, in my head a service street is where that, that truck goes, okay? Um, I would actually prefer not to have people walking along that, so that the semi coming in, um, is, is in the middle of it. The, in the little, the little shopping center near me, the, the guys who deliver the stuff for Safeway in the morning block off the entire parking lot when they come in to try to drop off stuff. Um, so I would quite frankly rather separate some of those things and, and again this may just be terminology, um, but having those service streets that, and, you know, and maybe that's the alley standard, um, for those kind of things where there's deliveries, there's, you know, that, um, that I, that I would not necessarily want them walking through the middle of that, so that it is actually, to me it would seem safer, um, to isolate those areas rather than having them places where people are wandering around. So, um, maybe you can, am I misinterpreting the intention of these standards for that kind of a thing?

[02:52:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, the reality is that on a project by project basis, we have to incorporate a lot of interests and a lot of demands. So where the garbage ends up going, um, you know, we might try to hide that from the main public streetscape. And so then it's going to have to go somewhere that, you know, isn't ideal from another perspective. So, you know, there, there are a lot of conflicting interests, so you can't kind of pre-plan where all needs of a project site are going to be and how they're all necessarily going to be, um, uh, designed. Um, I think service streets, the, the intention in the precise plan is that service streets and alleys could serve, uh, those garbage needs, the emergency access needs, um, and other kind of incidental needs in, internal to the site. Um, part of the goal of the service street standards is to create also a pedestrian friendly environment even though there may be garbage trucks coming through. Um, so what I heard you say at the beginning was, um, can we provide flexibility for service streets that are not, uh, designated publicly accessible.

[02:54:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: In my mind it would be better that this is a guideline for those kind of areas as opposed to a requirement for those kind of areas.

[02:54:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And, and I think, you know, that may be a fairly simple question to ask the rest of the commission if, if they agree or not, or, um, but I'll, I'll leave that up to the chair.

[02:54:37] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, yeah, I guess I, I would just throw in a comment, you know, and, and echo here what Commissioner Capriles said, I mean, I... I drive past that intersection, I drive through that area behind the Trader Joe's every Saturday and I mean, I've noticed that at least when I'm there it's, that intersection between, you know, the going in back of the Safeway and in back of that um, parking area that leads down to the Trader Joe's is, is one of the busiest intersections in Mountain View and yet it isn't really called out for, uh, for any presence. And so I mean, you know, that was something that I wish had been done differently. And I think that, you know, having some guidelines spelled out like this, you know, can help avoid that. I think, and, you know, we can always have council have, um, a specific exception, you know, under, you know, under the appropriate circumstances. I mean, if I think, for instance, if the street that I live on right now, I mean it's, it's uh, 20 feet across and required a variance, and that was a case where it was good to have the variance because there was no way to do that street unless you did it that way. But, um, in general I'm more inclined...

Gap between 2:54:39 and 3:00:00

[02:56:10] Acting Chair Cox: So I don't know, I mean do you want us to take a straw poll on whether or not we change this?

[02:56:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I have a... My request would be that it's that it becomes a guideline for those streets that are not aligned, not necessary to meet the the connection network that's intended in the in the in the precise plan. It's not a requirement for those streets.

Segment 4

[02:56:34] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. So let's, let's take a straw poll then on whether or not, you know, these, um, this, this part of the precise plan should be, uh, recategorized as a guideline rather than as what's what's the right alternate term?

Gap between 2:54:39 and 3:00:00

[02:56:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, it it's expressed as a standard, but there is language um, let me see if I can find it. It's easier to flip through this way. Thanks.

[02:57:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, and then it also says...

Segment 4

[02:58:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It is, it is. But, but I think there are also, uh, other kind of engineering and other policy considerations, right? So except where the city determines otherwise through the development review or CIP process, I think would give the council some flexibility to to approve an alternate alignment if there is some greater good that could be demonstrated.

Gap between 2:54:39 and 3:00:00

[02:58:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm not hearing any other support for it, so...

[02:58:41] Acting Chair Cox: Oh, okay. Alright. Um, I think then we'll leave it as a standard. Okay. Um, so is there any other discussion before we entertain a motion?

[02:58:57] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, is there a member of the Commission that would like to make the motion? Commissioner Capriles.

[02:59:19] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I would like to move that the EPC provide a resolution recommending the City Council certify the East Whisman Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt the CEQA findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be read in title only, further reading waived, Exhibit 1 to the staff report.

[02:59:47] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: We also would recommend a resolution recommending the City Council approve a General Plan map and text amendment for the East Whisman Mixed-Use designation consistent with the East Whisman Precise Plan.

5.1

[03:00:00] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: plan to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 2 to the staff report. A resolution recommending the city council approve a zoning map amendment for parcels located in the East Whisman Precise Plan from ML (Limited Industrial), ML-T (Limited Industrial with Transit Floating), CN (Commercial-Neighborhood), CO (Commercial-Office), R3-2 (Residential-Multiple-Family), and P (Planned Community) to P-41 (East Whisman Precise Plan), to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 3 to the staff report. A resolution recommending the city council adopt the East Whisman Precise Plan to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 4 to the staff report.

[03:00:51] Acting Chair Cox: And I wasn't sure if you were going to also read in the additional direction to staff, I can do that if you'd like me to assist.

[03:01:00] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: I think there's a number five that I have to read as well.

[03:01:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The additional direction would be on number four.

[03:01:08] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Correct, the additional direction provided to staff would actually be with respect to number four.

[03:01:12] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Okay, with the additional recommendations provided to the staff.

[03:01:18] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So I'll, I'll go ahead and read those in if that's okay. I'll include them as part of the motion and then you can continue with the rest of it, the five through six.

[03:01:22] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Please. Thank you.

[03:01:23] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So for four, as indicated, a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the East Whisman Precise Plan to be read in title only, further reading waived, with the following additional direction provided by the commission: direction to staff to explore options incentivizing the LASD TDR projects. With the residential mix, alternative housing mix presented by staff with the three plus bedrooms.

[03:02:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I don't, the TDR projects are not part of the precise plan.

[03:02:10] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: It's not part of the, oh it's the linkage, oh it's on a different...

[03:02:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's actually just a, just a policy for, it's not part of any of the specific resolutions. Because it's, it's a policy to advise Council on, or it's to advise Council on a policy for reviewing the LASD TDR projects, which doesn't currently have a draft resolution.

[03:02:36] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: You're right. And I was, that would have been six anyway, I was thinking it was part of the jobs housing, but you're right, so strike that. So then it would be the alternative housing mix presented by staff with the three or more bedrooms.

[03:02:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: With two bedrooms at 30% to 50% and three bedrooms at 10% to 30%.

[03:03:02] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: And with respect to height exceptions, direction to staff for additional or more diagrams, exceptional design standards, expansion of an additional 250 feet for the area north of Middlefield Road. And for neighborhood commercial, making that height increase proportional relative to the proportion of commercial provided. And all of Commissioner Lo's proposed modifications as provided. And I believe that is it unless I failed to include something, Mr. Anderson.

[03:03:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I believe that's in section 4.3.

[03:03:58] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yes, they were all modifying 4.3. I think just referencing to the document since it was, there seemed to be general consensus accepting all of them.

[03:04:14] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: And, and there's also one in five. Under sustainability.

[03:04:17] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So yeah, they're all, it's the proposed modifications to chapter four presented. Excellent.

[03:04:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I believe that's it.

[03:04:28] Acting Chair Cox: Okay. I think Commissioner Capriles can continue reading now.

[03:04:34] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: A resolution recommending the City Council approve a zoning text amendment to remove the transit (-T) district and transit-oriented development permit, from chapter 36 of the city code, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 5 to the staff report. And a resolution recommending the City Council approve draft administrative guidelines for the East Whisman Precise Plan Jobs-Housing Linkage Program, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 6 to the staff report. And do we put any additional recommendations in for the job housing?

[03:05:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff will just forward your comments to council for their deliberation on that.

[03:05:26] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Okay.

[03:05:27] Acting Chair Cox: Thank you Commissioner Capriles and Nicole. And do I have a second?

[03:05:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Second.

[03:05:32] Acting Chair Cox: Seconded by Commissioner Cranston. Okay, so let's call the vote. Eric, did, did we miss something? You look... Okay, okay, you look disturbed. This is a happy time!

[03:06:18] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Technical difficulties here.

[03:06:20] Acting Chair Cox: I'd vote for you but I can't vote twice. It doesn't know enough to know we're done with two absent. We do not yet have a vote from Commissioner Lo.

[03:06:36] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: She can't pull her screen, she can't pull her screen up.

[03:06:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: You can do a roll call vote.

[03:06:47] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, I'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Capriles?

[03:06:49] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Yes.

[03:06:51] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Lo?

[03:06:52] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Yes.

[03:06:53] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Yin?

[03:06:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes.

[03:06:55] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Cranston?

[03:06:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes.

[03:06:57] Acting Chair Cox: And I also vote yes, so the resolution passes 5-0 with two commissioners absent. Okay, so that closes item 5.1, thank you everyone for a long and productive discussion on that. And now let's move on to item number two. Request for minor zoning text amendments to chapter 36 zoning ordinance of the city code and the R4 multi-family standard handout. Oh, I think there's a request to take a short break. How about if we come back at 10:20? Is that okay? Okay, we'll resume at 10:20.

5.2

[03:16:16] Acting Chair Cox: Alright, it's time. So let's continue with item 5.2. Request for minor zoning text amendments to chapter 36 zoning ordinance of the city code and the R4 multi-family standards handout. But as Nicole pointed out to me, because it is after 10 o'clock we need to take a vote on whether we will continue. So how many people are willing to continue? Put your hands up. Alright, it looks like we're willing to continue, okay. So let's go on, I believe there's a staff report.

[03:16:50] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Good evening commissioners, my name is Erin Horan, assistant planner, and I will be presenting the minor code amendments item here along with Lindsey Hagen, our deputy zoning administrator. And to give you some background, staff periodically reviews the chapter 36 zoning ordinance for any updates that are necessary due to recent city code updates and state and federal legislation, as well as to increase clarity and consistency within the zoning ordinance. Recently the City Council adopted the short-term rental ordinance on November 13th, 2018 and created chapter 44. So staff is proposing to add a section in the zoning ordinance to state this is a permitted use with no zoning permit required, and refer to chapter 44 for specific regulation requirements. Staff's also proposing to add the definition of short-term rentals that is also in chapter 44 into the definitions of the zoning ordinance. For communication facilities, in September of 2018, the FCC passed a declaratory ruling restricting city's regulatory authority of wireless facilities in the right-of-way and on public property, as well as reducing the time frame for review, fees, and discretionary aesthetic criteria, which effectively makes this process a ministerial review. Staff proposes to remove in three sections of the code the words 'including' to add 'excluding' in the public rights-of-way for zoning permit review of wireless facilities, and continue the review strictly with the public works department with an excavation permit, which will still require review by the building and planning department.

[03:17:47] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Staff's also proposing to amend this figure of the parking stall striping graphic. The parking stripes, as you see, are noted to be 18 inches from outside edge to outside edge. And the stripes are supposed to be 4 inch stripes each, and the interior dimension was showing 12 inches. And if you do the math there, 4 and 4 and 12 do not equal 18. So we would amend the dimension there to show 10 inches so that it will equal the appropriate 18 inches. Staff is proposing to include a height exception for roof screens. Specifically because currently it is pointed out in the height limits section that parapet walls can extend 4 feet above the maximum building height. And a parapet wall is a low wall that is part of the exterior wall of a building and can be used to screen equipment or add an architectural detail. Roof screens are usually more interior to the roof top and are used to screen larger utility equipment, as you'll see in the diagrams, the top showing the parapet wall and the lower image showing what a roof screen would look like. So staff is proposing to include a specific section that calls out that roof top screens could extend above the maximum building height to be the least amount necessary to fully screen equipment, but put a maximum up to 10 feet.

[03:18:51] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Recently, Council approved an increase of density in the R4 district to 80 dwelling units per acre in April of 2019 with the Flowermart project at 555 East Evelyn. So staff is proposing to amend the R4 multi-family standards handout to also reflect that increased allowed density of 80 dwelling units per acre. EV charging stations were passed with AB 1236, a streamlining law that requires cities to expedite permitting of EV charging stations. So staff is proposing adding a section to clarify this exemption from a zoning permit and refer to chapter 8 for building permit requirements. And currently, it is not clear how EV charging stations and ADA parking spaces are counted in the total required parking spaces. So staff is proposing to clarify that and add language that states that the total required parking spaces is inclusive of EV charging stations and ADA parking spaces.

[03:21:45] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: And this is a demonstration to show what that has looked like. This is an office project on 1001 North Shoreline. You can see the detail on the right that's showing the building height was up to 65 feet, and an additional 8 feet of a roof screen was added there to screen the HVAC equipment, and there was a telecommunication facility that was screened inside there as well. Today, mechanical equipment, such as AC units, are not explicitly identified in accessory structure setback requirements, and historically, staff has applied the same standard that is mentioned for pool equipment, that are allowed 3 feet away from any property line. So staff is proposing to add a section to specify that mechanical equipment, such as an AC unit, to be allowed only in the side or rear setback, 3 feet from the property line. Not allowed in the front yard or visible from the public street, and can be allowed in the street side yard setback within a fenced yard. So the diagram here illustrates where you could potentially see something like an AC unit. If you see this lot, in the back where the black squares are, there's a 3 foot minimum from the side, 3 foot minimum from the rear. And it's on the street side yard within the fenced yard, which fences on a street side yard have to be minimum 5 feet from the property line. Staff is including this additional text that we had to modify that is not shown in the draft ordinance. The section for the mechanical equipment text, we'd like to add, it should read 'the side or rear yard setback'. So we're including this language to add to the draft ordinance.

[03:23:53] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: For office definitions, currently there are multiple subcategories that are not all located under the office category definition section. So for instance, the administrative office definition is located under A, and staff is proposing to remove that and consolidate it with the other office definitions under O. Staff's also proposing to amend the industrial land use table, where under office, there's a subcategory of 'financial', which doesn't align with a specific financial definition. The definition that is found is under 'banks and financial services'. So staff is proposing to remove the financial subcategory and include the banks and financial category instead, with the same permit requirements, and that would align as well with what you see under the commercial land use table. Staff's also proposing to add a subcategory of 'office' under the office category to show that general office use is allowed, because currently that's not made very clear. It would be following the same alignment as well as what you see in the commercial land use table. And lastly, under sign regulations. The ML, MM, and PF districts have duplicate information for the building mounted and freestanding monument signs. So staff is proposing to remove the duplicate information for added clarity of the requirements.

[03:25:34] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: And in conclusion, staff is recommending that the EPC adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve minor zoning text amendments to chapter 36 of the city code for improved clarity and consistency with legislative updates, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 1 of the staff report, with the modification presented by staff on October 2nd, 2019, revising section 36.12.55(h) for the mechanical equipment. And a resolution recommending the City Council approve text amendments to the R4 multi-family standards to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 2 of the staff report. And that ends staff's presentation.

[03:26:17] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone... well first let me just say that I did have a phone call with Lindsey and other staff members before the hearing tonight and had asked for a clarifying illustration of the roof top screening. And I want to thank you for showing that to me, that's alleviated any concerns I have on that area. So I'll just open it up to other commissioners as to whether they have particular areas of concern that they would like to discuss on these minor code amendments.

[03:26:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just a question. So the parapet is 4 feet, but the screens are 10. Why the difference?

[03:27:08] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Um, currently the code allows for a 4 foot parapet, but not all buildings are suited to have parapet walls, nor does it make sense for all equipment type. So by adding this language or trying to add clarity that it's an option to have a roof screen, we capped it at 10 feet just to have a cap. And it makes sense for the type of telecom facilities that we see proposed on rooftops of commercial buildings. They tend to need the extra length to have the antennas, for example.

[03:27:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I wasn't really questioning the need for it, it was... the difference between a 4 foot and a 10 foot. Why a 10 foot internally but only a 4 foot at the edge? Is it just because it's...?

[03:27:50] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Part of it is the visual. Yeah, part of it is the visual, even though a roof screen may be proposed at 10 feet, from the street or from the sidewalk perspective, it wouldn't read as 10 feet since it's interior to the footprint of the building. Yeah, it's kind of a sight line thing from the sidewalk if you were an average person looking up.

[03:28:14] Acting Chair Cox: Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, would someone like to make a motion for a resolution? Oh sorry, you're right. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? Seeing no comment, we'll bring this back to the commission and I'll ask if someone would like to make a resolution.

[03:28:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Margaret read the first one.

[03:28:45] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, it looks like Commissioner Cranston would like to do that, but we need to see the text. Oh well, oh yeah, you read this first and then we take the second. Okay.

[03:29:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I move that the Environmental Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve minor zoning text amendments to chapter 36 zoning ordinance of the city code for improved clarity and consistency with legislative updates to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 1 of the staff report, with the modification presented by staff on October 2, 2019, revising section 36.12.55(h) mechanical equipment. And a resolution recommending the City Council approve text amendments to the R4 multi-family standards to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 2 of the staff report.

[03:29:45] Acting Chair Cox: Okay, and seconded by Commissioner Capriles. Okay, let's take the vote. Well, I mean, do we want to do this just by a show of hands? Because we've had problems with the equipment before. I'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Capriles?

[03:29:59] Commissioner Margaret Capriles: Yes.

[03:30:00] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Lo?

[03:30:01] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Yes.

[03:30:02] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Yin?

[03:30:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes.

[03:30:04] Acting Chair Cox: Commissioner Cranston?

[03:30:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes.

6

[03:30:06] Acting Chair Cox: And I also vote yes. So it passes 5-0 with two commissioners absent. Okay, so I'll close item 5.2. And then let's move on to item 6, commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Are there reports from staff?

[03:30:24] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: So I just wanted to remind the commission that October 12th, we've set up the site visit to Hercules. And so there will be a follow up email with more details about where to meet and all that stuff from our office. And then just upcoming meetings. October 16th is a study session meeting where we will be talking about the Gateway Master Plan project in North Bayshore and also 400 Logue, which is one of the proposed projects in the East Whisman Precise Plan area. And then October 23rd, there will be one study session item where we will introduce and talk about SB 743, the vehicle miles traveled or VMT discussion, and then we will have a public hearing as well that night for the Terra Bella visioning plan. So we will be seeking a recommendation from EPC on that. And just that I think we've sent out a survey for the holiday party. Just making sure you guys respond to that so we can coordinate that accordingly. Other than that, that concludes staff's announcements.

6. Staff's Announcements

[03:31:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Staff's announcements. And don't forget October 28th is the celebration of service. So if you haven't sent your response back to Wanda Wong, make sure you do that. And celebration of service is the annual commissioners' dinner.

[03:32:01] Unidentified Speaker: Is it different than the Christmas party?

[03:32:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes, it's different from the Christmas party. This is all the commissioners from all the advisory bodies. Uh, we'll meet together for celebrating the hard work we've done on behalf of our city and eat a buffet, uh, dinner at, this time it's at the Rengstorff Community Center rather than Michaels at Shoreline.

[03:32:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So. Okay. And do other commissioners, I mean, do the commissioners, uh, any, does any other commissioner have an update that they would like to give on something they've attended?

[03:32:38] Commissioner Kammy Lo: I attended, um, a couple of neighborhood association gathering. One was the, uh, Shoreline West SWAN neighborhood. And the second one is the Cooper Park Neighborhood Association. They both happened last weekend.

[03:32:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And I'll mention that in, uh, my other role as vice president of the Historical Association here in Mountain View, uh, we held our second annual, um, Heritage Harvest Festival at, uh, Heritage Park on, uh, last Saturday. And it was well attended, and, uh, many thanks to the city staff members that, uh, helped us put all of that together.

[03:33:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, and I also need to remember, but I forgot it tonight, that two of the commissioners were given copies of our history of Mountain View, um, that I didn't bring tonight, but everybody else got one. So Commissioner Capriles and Commissioner Yin, make sure that you get those from me.

7. Adjournment

[03:33:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, um, and that's, that's it I think then for item number six, and so we'll move to item number seven, which is adjournment at 10:38 p.m. Okay. Thank you all.

• Next →