October 21, 2020 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:13] Margaret Netto: and time extension which is a total of 4 years. The benefits would include $200,000 public benefit fee, purchase of the TDRs, and a payment to the future East Whisman Development Impact fee which the city has not yet adopted. And the transfer development rights to fund a 1.6 Los Altos School District projects authorized by the City Council to participate in the program with the purchase of the 80,000 square feet. This purchase will provide $10 million in new funds for the LASD project. And for the environmental, the initial study prepared for the project found that with implementation of the East Whisman Precise Plan standards and guidelines, state regulations and mitigation measures identified in the East Whisman Precise Plan EIR, the 2030 General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Program EIR, the proposed office project and associated improvements would not result in any new environmental impacts for those beyond those evaluated in those EIRs.

[00:01:14] Margaret Netto: Next steps. This project is tentatively scheduled for the November 17th, 2020 City Council hearing. And with that, staff recommends approval. Recommend the council approve the initial study of environmental significance for 600 Ellis Street. And number two, adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve this project. That concludes my staff report. I also have, there's also a few members as participants. I have Carol Near and Christie Wise from David J. Powers, and Daniel Reubens and Ryan Calveira from Fehr & Peers to answer any questions. The applicant is also here to make a presentation. Thank you.

[00:02:09] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to begin his presentation?

[00:02:22] Thomas Yee: Yes. Tim Steele, the applicant representative. Can you hear me? By the way, can you all hear me?

[00:02:33] Chair Cox: Yes.

[00:02:34] Thomas Yee: Okay. Tim Steele, who is with the Sobrato Organization, will make a initial statement and then I'll go ahead and walk the commissioners through the project. Tim?

[00:02:54] Thomas Yee: Tim has his hand raised, so...

[00:02:56] Chair Cox: He's on mute.

[00:02:58] Thomas Yee: Oh.

[00:03:00] Tim Steele: Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. All right. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tim Steele and I'm the Senior Vice President of Real Estate Development for the Sobrato Organization. We are pleased to be here tonight to present to you our new project that is located within the recently adopted East Whisman Precise Plan area. As staff has indicated, we were granted a gatekeeper roughly at the same time the city initiated the new precise plan process and have been working with staff on our project design in parallel with the city's redevelopment or development of the plan for over the last two years now. We are excited to bring you this precise plan conforming high quality design project forward for your consideration.

[00:03:50] Tim Steele: Our primary architect, Studios, has been with us from the beginning of this process. However, I do want to mention that our collective friend, David Salvarolo, was the initial principal. I want to acknowledge all his hard work and leadership in bringing this project forward. However, he recently retired and his colleague and partner, Thomas Yee, has taken over as the lead architect and will be presenting the project tonight. Our core design team is here also including our landscape architect and our civil engineer, and we are available to answer any of your questions following Tom's presentation. With no further delay, Tom, please walk us through the project.

[00:04:32] Thomas Yee: Yes. Thank you, Tim. And thank you, members of the commission, city staff, Stephanie, the zoning administrator. We're very pleased to present this project this evening. It's very unusual to present a project in this manner, so we'll do our best. So I'm going to go ahead and share screen.

[00:04:59] Thomas Yee: Can everybody see my screen? Okay. As Tim mentioned, we've been working on this project, my partner David Salvarolo originally, and then myself more recently in the last year, to address this project and really create something that is unique for the City of Mountain View. We've in this two and a half to three quarter year process, we've collaborated very closely with city staff and in several meetings with DRC and several meetings with this group, the EPC. And we think because of that collaboration, we created a project that really encompasses the goals and objectives for the city and specifically the East Whisman Specific Plan. We have a project we think is really first rate, that complies completely with the principles and goals and objectives of the East Whisman Plan. And also is consistent with all the design guidelines that are apropos to the employment character area in which this site is, this project is located. So we're consistent with all those design guidelines. And consequently, we're able to design this project without asking for any exceptions within the East Whisman Precise Plan. So we're in complete conformance with those guidelines.

[00:06:32] Thomas Yee: The project as Margaret mentioned is located in the North employment character area. Here is the site right there, if you can see my cursor. Freeway 101 is right there, NASA Ames is across the freeway to the north. Freeway 85 is here, 237 is here, North Whisman Road is here, Ellis is here, and that's the project site. So we've got great access. We've got great access to the VTA, which runs along here toward the Whisman station, and the North Bayshore NASA station just on the other side of 101.

[00:07:14] Thomas Yee: Here is a blowup of the site in its existing condition. Here's Ellis Street right here. Fairchild right here. This is the site that you see here, the 4.45 acres of the site. It has a little bit of a dog leg to it on the east side. This is the building that will remain, 636 Ellis. These are the two existing buildings that will be removed as part of the development project.

[00:07:45] Thomas Yee: These are some site photos. I heard at the beginning of the meeting that several of you have been out to the site. You can see the top picture is a view of the site from the northeast corner across Fairchild. Here is a view across Fairchild looking at the two existing buildings. A view across Ellis looking at the 636 Ellis building. And so again, our plan is to retain the building on the corner, 636 Ellis.

[00:08:19] Thomas Yee: As I mentioned earlier, the project was conceived early on with the notion of trying to work with the city and promote its goals as the East Whisman Precise Plan became came into fruition. And this is an excerpt from the plan. We felt our project fit right in, and we wanted to again promote and reinforce those goals and objectives. One of which are to promote the future linkages for publicly accessible pathways for bicycles and pedestrians. You can see our site right here. This is 101. Our site is this L-shape right here. And so part of our plan was to locate the parking garage just north of our south boundary line to allow for this future connection that's highlighted in the East Whisman Precise Plan. So we're making way for that and providing for that future connection. We're also cognizant of the fact that this project has very great proximity to the VTA, the Middlefield station, and great access from 101 and 237.

[00:09:33] Thomas Yee: This is the site plan of the project. Again, for orientation, this is Ellis Street on the bottom of the screen. Fairchild on the right. This is the site parameters, this shape right here. This is the 636 Ellis Street building on the corner. This is our building right here. The six-story, 259,000 square foot office building, situated fronting onto Fairchild, which again reinforces one of the Precise Plan objectives. We located the garage toward the south side of the site, again away from as far as possible from direct view from Fairchild or Ellis. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we're locating the garage just north of the property line some distance to allow for this future pathway in the precise plan to occur. And so again, we're making way for the goals of the precise plan.

[00:10:34] Thomas Yee: Internal circulation. The primary entrance will be off Ellis. That will serve as the main vehicular access to the site. There is a secondary entrance on Fairchild, which will be the service access to the garage and service areas, for example, the loading dock on the building. We also worked very closely with EPC, your commission, and with staff to eliminate the driveway which used to be here in the current condition. By eliminating that driveway, we're reinforcing the pedestrian linkage along Fairchild and also creating a nice little pocket here open space wise, which James Stockham will get into, the landscape architect, between the two buildings. And then the blue lines indicate the circulation pathways through the site.

[00:11:27] Thomas Yee: This is the landscape plan which we developed with the Guzzardo Associates. And I'd like to turn it over to James to pick it up from here and describe some of the features on the landscape and open space plan. James?

[00:12:01] James Stockham: Can you hear me?

[00:12:02] Thomas Yee: Yes. Are you there, James?

[00:12:04] James Stockham: Yes, great. So let me just go over the high-level improvements we made since this was last in front of you. And we've taken a lot of good approaches recommended by the EPC and the DRC to further enrich this plan. Some of the high-level items are, we wanted to respect the open space bolstering, so it's now 20% larger. And not only is the open space larger, but it's also heavily programmed throughout the site. And it serves both the office we think and the community at large. So that was a great recommendation by the EPC. Another element is we enhanced the key corner, that was EPC and DRC great suggestions, and we'll go to a slide with a little more detail on that. And closing the Fairchild drive cut was another good element, as Tom mentioned, that enabled a bridge between both buildings and by eliminating that flow through traffic, vehicular traffic, it now is sort of given back to the pedestrian as a grander plaza if you were to sort of separate and close off that section of parking. And at the end of that is a raised gathering area that could double as a stage. So you can envision this really being bolstered and activated.

[00:13:32] James Stockham: On the screen here, the key corner. We went through several iterations with DRC and EPC, and we agree with all of it, and we think this is a really bolstered product. It now serves as not only a gateway for the immediate Whisman area that this lives in, but also on the pedestrian scale it's activated and it's monetized. There's a rich mosaic of paving, there's a special palette of planting that will set this off, and there are some elements like artful seating elements that will tie into the rest of the site that will be available for public use. And there's some sculptural light elements as you can see in the rendering.

[00:14:13] Thomas Yee: Can you also mention the specimen tree?

[00:14:15] James Stockham: Yeah, go ahead. So yeah, there's a pair of wonderful heritage trees, which is why the sidewalk jogs as it does. We're respecting those and then we're adding another scale element, a special specimen tree on the corner there. So it'll be some day one interest as a gateway to this micro neighborhood.

[00:14:34] Thomas Yee: And James, can you also talk a little bit about some of these programmed areas on the start of the landscape concept, please?

[00:14:42] James Stockham: Yeah. So before you saw this, the existing building wasn't really monetized on the site, it was dressed up but not sort of activated. So we've got the key corner and the area between the key corner, existing building, and the new building, which is all activated. These are all, some of them are adjacent to stormwater areas, which was another EPC bullet point. So we're now monetizing a few of the stormwater areas with observation decks and some platforms that span part of that. The outdoor dining and flex use area adjacent to the building has been enlarged, and we feel that'll be a great activator. There's an arrival plaza adjacent to what we think of the parking area as as much of a pedestrian plaza as it is sort of a day-to-day parking area. It's easily closed off, sectioned off, you can bring food trucks in. There's a great arrival experience now underneath the bridge of the building that it's all pedestrian scale and pedestrian material. So I think that'll be a great experience.

[00:15:42] Thomas Yee: Thanks James. And I just want to also touch on a couple of the massing concepts I alluded to earlier and how we dealt with the site. As you can see, here's the site, the office building, the parking garage, the connector. We looked at the setbacks, so this complies with the precise plan as far as setbacks from public streets, side yards. Again, we place the garage away from the direct views from public streets. We also looked at several options for the massing of the building. And what we decided to do with consultation with staff and EPC and DRC was to inflect the building so that it's orthogonal and perpendicular to Fairchild. We think that creates a great frontage along the street and of course along 101. And the massing of the building also complies with the precise plan in terms of creating an innovative concept and breaking down the mass so that there are scaled elements in the building arrangement and the massing arrangements.

[00:16:50] Thomas Yee: The other thing it does is by inflecting the building, we're creating the building's main entrance right here. And so again, the precise plan really makes a point of having buildings emphasize their main entrance, and that's what that what happens there. We also looked at these heat map diagrams. This is one of a series of probably 30 or 40 studies we did at different times of the day, different times of the year, in terms of studying what are the areas of the building that we need to be concerned about so that we can make smart decisions about the design of the curtain wall, shading elements that that take away direct sunlight on the building. Our goal is to to reduce heat gain on the building, therefore reducing energy usage and cooling loads and so on. And our goal and so these diagrams really helped us achieve some of these design objectives as well as create, you know, utilize quality materials, which is again called for in the precise plan. And our goal is to achieve LEED Platinum with this project, and that is something that the ownership has committed to.

[00:18:11] Thomas Yee: These are floor plans that show the six different floors of the building, from the first level, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. One of the things that we did in the designing the building was also to learn from what James and the team did on the ground level for open space and bringing some of those concepts upstairs to the building. So on level five, in the connector between the garage and the building, there's an open space opportunity, a deck. As is the case on floor six. Level six, there are also two decks, one on the west and one on the south and the east. And so again, we're trying to extend that concept up into the building, which we think is going to be a real positive.

[00:18:58] Thomas Yee: We did look at some precedent ideas about buildings of this scale. Undoubtedly many of you are familiar with this project in Mountain View, but we also looked at examples in your neighboring communities as well as as examples outside the state. And so we'd like to do now is just to walk you through a few of the perspective views on the building.

[00:19:25] Thomas Yee: This is a view from the east looking west toward the building. Here you see the building, the office building, six stories, without the landscaping just a to illustrate what's happening. And you can see these deep overhangs, which Margaret alluded to in her staff report. These are five foot long overhangs that extend beyond the curtain wall of the building. They provide valuable sun shading capabilities for the building to cool the building down, and also extend to this architectural language on the building. We also indented or recessed the first two floors on the east side to again emphasize the main entrance to the building. And you can see these view, the view down below shows it in the context of the landscaping.

[00:20:13] Thomas Yee: This is a more developed drawing of the main entrance, as if you were standing on the west side of 636 Ellis looking toward the new office building. You can see the main entrance here, with the recessed two-story expression, the horizontal thin panels that extend and create this eyebrow across the length of the building. The connector to the garage, the drop-off point there for for buses and vans. So we think this is going to be a tremendous space, plus the special paving between the two buildings as James mentioned would be an opportunity for gathering space and for special events.

[00:20:53] Thomas Yee: This is a an elevation of a view of the west side of the building looking east. You can see again the the variation of the facade, the horizontal expression, the connector piece to the garage. And I'll also add the photovoltaic panels on top of the garage, which serve as the the roof of the garage is part of the the LEED Platinum elements so that we're creating and creating energy on-site and saving it on-site for use by excuse me for use by the project.

[00:21:30] Thomas Yee: This is a view of the project from the northwest going on 101 looking to the south. This is the six-story office building. One of the issues, one of the goals of the precise plan was to because this is a gateway site was to really create a handsome mark for the City of Mountain View as you enter Mountain View from this side of of the freeway.

[00:21:58] Thomas Yee: And then this is another developed drawing again looking back toward the toward the east side of the site. Here's the main entrance and in these prominent extensions on the building, these concrete floor panels that will again create valuable shading to the project, and you see little peek outs of of open space on these upper decks which we think is a great way to extend the open space concept into the building. Okay, so that's our presentation. And we'd like to go ahead and open it up to the commission commissioners and staff for any questions or or any comments. We appreciate you taking the time to to to view our presentation.

[00:22:44] Chair Cox: All right. Thank you very much for that presentation and also thank you to staff for the introduction. Since this is a public hearing, we will start with questions from the commission, then move to public comment, and then move back to the commission for deliberation and action. So, let's start with the commission. Are there any questions to the applicant or staff? Please raise your hand. Commissioner Lo.

[00:23:27] Commissioner Lo: Thank you for the great presentation. I have a couple of questions. One is, given the proximity of this project to Highway 101, what are some of your consideration for mitigating the noise and air pollution from the highway?

[00:23:49] Thomas Yee: Well, in terms of the acoustics, we feel like some of the mature landscaping at the ground level, because we are replacing 23 heritage trees with about 100 other trees, we think that plus the landscaping and some of the low walls in the landscape zone will be will be important in in mitigating both wind and noise at the ground level and protecting pedestrians and and tenants as they use these outdoor adjacent outdoor spaces. Some of the other features that James alluded to, like the Zen Garden and those other spaces adjacent to the building will also be even more protected because they're smaller scale buildings.

[00:24:33] Thomas Yee: In terms of the acoustical issues Commissioner Lo that you raised, we are looking very carefully at the the curtain wall and the facade design of the building. The glass, the glazing systems. We've we've looked at insulated glass feature elements as as part of the facade treatment. Insulated glass does provide some acoustical value in mitigating noise from the freeway. So we think that's something we're going to investigate further as we get into the specific design development phase of the project. So again, those are are areas that we're looking at.

[00:25:11] Thomas Yee: Some of the upper decks on the building, which are are used, for example, the fifth floor deck which is between the garage and the building, is actually, you know, we're using the building to shoulder the noise from the freeway because it's actually behind, behind the building there. And and the decks up on floor six and also utilize the building as a as a kind of a shoulder and protection as sort of a leeward side of the noise, so to speak, from the freeway.

[00:25:55] Chair Cox: Okay, other questions, Commissioner Lo?

[00:25:58] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, sorry.

[00:26:00] Commissioner Lo: I heard that you mentioned an observation deck over a stormwater treatment area. Could you give a little bit more information about that?

[00:26:20] Thomas Yee: Sure. James, can you touch on that, please?

[00:26:23] James Stockham: Am I on now?

[00:26:24] Thomas Yee: Yeah, there you go. Okay, please go ahead.

[00:26:32] James Stockham: Yeah, so there's a few stormwater treatment areas adjacent to the building that were, you know, stormwater treatment areas in the past historically have been sort of shoved off to the back 40 and they've just been utilitarian. But through the commission's recommendations, we've embraced some adjacency of pedestrian activity to them. And there's a few that have raised decks that, yep, you're almost there. There's one there. So it's sort of a deck at grade. And then as the stormwater treatment area recedes at a typical 3 to 1 slope, you'll have sort of an overlook that extends out and interacts with that stormwater treatment facility. And we think these can be beautiful things, and we're trying to embrace them and use them as a pedestrian amenity. And there's another one just to the plan north of the existing building as well. And the one just to the plan north of the existing building actually bridges over. Yeah. So you know, it's certainly an attractor of wildlife, and we think we can have a really interesting plant palette that makes it quite interesting.

[00:27:47] Commissioner Lo: So the one along Fairchild, that deck is accessible to pedestrians?

[00:27:51] James Stockham: The one along Fairchild... I'm seeing the cursor circling, so I'm assuming that's a deck.

[00:27:56] James Stockham: So yeah, on the upper portion of the screen there, the darker portion of the screen next to the stormwater treatment area, is an accessible deck. Yeah, it does span and sort of cantilever over the drop of the stormwater treatment area.

[00:28:10] Commissioner Lo: And is the open area between the new building and the old building intended to be publicly accessible?

[00:28:29] James Stockham: That indeed, indeed that is publicly accessible. The outdoor amenity area immediately hugging the office building to the plan south is privatized for a dining experience.

[00:28:35] Commissioner Lo: Oh, okay. So that's the dining area. Okay.

[00:28:51] Commissioner Lo: And for the key corner, I appreciate you know the addition of a specimen tree. I was curious why you decided to choose the Blue Palo Verde?

[00:29:08] James Stockham: It's a preliminary choice. We think it would be very distinct and interesting. We're certainly open to recommendations or suggestions if that's not taken well.

[00:29:22] Commissioner Lo: I didn't mean that, I was just curious what's the reasoning for it.

[00:29:25] James Stockham: Distinctness. Yeah. To set it off.

[00:29:32] Thomas Yee: Hey James, can you describe for example the the size of the tree when it gains maturity? It's coverage and is it a deciduous tree, its shape, and so on. What are some of the factors that led you to this decision, or this recommendation?

[00:29:52] James Stockham: Yeah, great. So there's nothing else that quite looks like it. It has green bark and sort of green branches. It's very airy and light, so it won't completely block the existing building and its functions. But it will have a nice horizontal scale. It has a little bit of a whimsy to it.

[00:30:16] Commissioner Lo: And so what will be its maturity size? Like will it reach about 20 or 40 feet high, or?

[00:30:24] James Stockham: I think somewhere in the middle of that, yeah. So 30 feet, yeah.

[00:30:28] Commissioner Lo: Okay, so it's a kind of like a medium sized tree that you want there that you don't want to block the building completely but it will provide sufficient shade to the people who are walking in that corner.

[00:30:36] James Stockham: That's right. Yeah. And we also want to respect those those two existing heritage trees which will have a presence as well. Right, to give them space. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's it for now. Thank you, Chair Cox.

[00:30:59] Chair Cox: All right. Let's move on to Commissioner Schmiesing.

[00:31:05] Commissioner Schmiesing: Thank you. Um, just a couple questions. I was wondering, this might be a question for staff, but the three-year extension, so the seven-year timeframe. Has the school district weighed in on that and the change in timeframe for the TDR? Is there any impact on the school district from that?

[00:31:41] Margaret Netto: Um, those the TDRs would have to be paid for as part of the conditions of approval. So um, so that um, that would already have to be paid for. So that's not part of the development agreement.

[00:31:56] Commissioner Schmiesing: Okay, so, like, I might be naive or just not understanding, but they have to pay for the TDR within the current timeframe, or if they get the approval for the seven-year extension, would that change the timeframe for paying the TDR, and if so, does that impact the school district at all?

[00:32:24] Margaret Netto: Tim, did you think you can answer that question?

[00:32:29] Tim Steele: Yes, thank you. I had my hand up, no one was acknowledging my hand. Oh, it's blue and it won't wave. Sorry. We're technically going to be the first of the six to purchase TDRs. We're going back and forth on developing their first purchase agreement with the district and their district's attorney. It's just like a purchase of land or property, it's a PSA that acknowledges this. Right now, without getting into the final deal points because the contract hasn't been agreed to completely, there's a very similar time period for us to close that aligns with the development agreement timeline. And the alternative is we won't close if we can't build a building. There's a lot of money and they know it, and they can't sell any of the others to anybody else unless someone was building a building. So we want to work together to kind of hold this together as much as we can and be able to purchase it at the full price that we negotiated pre-COVID, and to kind of hold on to that price a little bit longer until we get a little bit of a market again and hold that price up. That's where the need for a development agreement to kind of hold everything together for a period of time to let COVID settle down and let the market return. Does that, does that kind of hit your is that better, does that get to your question?

[00:34:07] Commissioner Schmiesing: Yes, thank you.

[00:34:08] Commissioner Schmiesing: Let's see. I think, well I was definitely encouraged to see the drawings that look at the bike lane accessibility. And again, maybe more of a staff question, but just driving around the area, there are so many great things in the transportation plan that encourage biking, but I know the area isn't fully bike-laned out, like there's still chunks of road that don't have great protection for bike lanes, and was wondering what the timeline is for the city in terms of bike lanes in that area and kind of what the thought is there.

[00:35:01] Margaret Netto: Renee, did you want to answer that question?

[00:35:10] Renee Gunn: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Renee Gunn. I'm one of the public works engineers working on this project. Um, so we do have a couple of projects that are already in the works, um, for bike lanes. There's a project that is going from Manila Drive, which is north of 101, down to the intersection of Fairchild and Ellis, basically includes bike lanes underneath the 101 bridge. Um, that project is close to going out to construction. But the major bike lanes on Ellis and Fairchild aren't scheduled as CIPs at this point in time. Um, we would sequence those depending on development and basically as they pop up we can do those.

[00:35:56] Commissioner Schmiesing: I think those are my only questions. Thank you.

[00:36:06] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you. Let's go on to Commissioner Capriles.

[00:36:11] Commissioner Capriles: Thank you. Um, I wanted to ask the staff a question. Are there any other projects in the pipeline that are in line to purchase some of the transfer development rights, or is this the only project?

[00:36:36] Stephanie Williams: Uh no, council has authorized, uh, I believe five other gatekeepers to start part of that program.

[00:36:44] Commissioner Capriles: Okay. And are they all proposing to go into the East Whisman area?

[00:36:51] Stephanie Williams: They are not. There's one other office project that's in the East Whisman area.

[00:37:02] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, okay. Now, I, you know, to Commissioner Schmiesing's question, you know, we just wanted to understand what the, if there was any hold up on the development agreement that would impact the Los Altos School District from proceeding with their projects. So I guess this is all kind of a learning for all of us because we haven't had a project before us that, you know, we had to consider the impact of one project on another, and this one is a little more tricky that we haven't seen. So just curious to know if that development agreement would hold up the Los Altos School District from proceeding with that school.

[00:38:00] Stephanie Williams: So the MOU is got to be active. It's I believe it was a 10-year MOU. So the idea is that all of the TDR units be allocated within that time and paid for. But at this time, the projects that were authorized by council as gatekeepers are making their way through the development review process at different paces.

[00:38:36] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, okay, I think the pandemic has kind of slowed us all down on these things, so just was idly curious of the overall impact, and hopefully we can at least take one step forward. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

[00:38:58] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:39:02] Vice Chair Cranston: Uh, a couple questions, overlaid a bit. I guess first for the applicant, is there any, in the current plans, is there any plan for a fitness center or anything like that in the building?

[00:39:12] Thomas Yee: Uh currently in the plans, there is there is no plan for a fitness center. Although we do have facilities for bike storage and shower facilities for for same.

[00:39:27] Vice Chair Cranston: And I guess this is a question for staff. Um, in my reading of the conditions of approval, basically the building code that would come into place is when they, when they actually file the final documentation to square the permit, and so any changes in the building code between now and when those are filed would be applied at the time that they file for the permit? Or is that locked in now at the beginning of this process?

[00:40:06] Thomas Yee: I think I can I field that one, Margaret?

[00:40:09] Margaret Netto: Sure.

[00:40:10] Thomas Yee: Um, if the EPC approves the project today and the city council approves it in November, then we'll have the approval as of 2020. I think it's we're gonna consult with the applicant, the Sobrato Organization, and determine, you know, when the building will be designed further to a point where we can submit it for for building permit with the City of Mountain View. At that time, once they give us the go ahead to proceed with the project to the next phases, we're going to need to anticipate what the applicable code is at the time they quote drop the flag so to start. And so we do this all the time. We work with a developer to anticipate a building permit goal, and then we, you know, it's our responsibility to check with the City of Mountain View what the prevailing codes will be at the time we think the application will be submitted to the city for a permit and plan checking.

[00:41:17] Stephanie Williams: But generally the building code applicable to a project is whatever's in effect when they submit their building permit.

[00:41:24] Vice Chair Cranston: Right. Thank you. In the same way, I think it handed to me as well.

[00:42:20] Tim Steele: Yeah, I was just going to add to that, that if you're asking specifically to the development agreement, we are not asking for any extensions of any fees or anything beyond. There's nothing locked. The only thing that is essentially being extended is the entitlement itself rather than timing out in two years times out in seven.

[00:42:45] Vice Chair Cranston: Actually, my question is, with, folks have been mentioning COVID-19 and I realize that it's very early in what we're learning about this disease, but there has been some indication that ventilation is an extremely important element of reducing the risk of transmission. Um, there are indications that this is going to be with us for a long time. And so I just was, if I just want to be sure that as the city looks at, if there's any decision to require additional ventilation or if there's any plans particularly for a fitness area, which has been identified as an area where improved ventilation is required, that those kind of things would be required at the time that the applicant submits their plans and not get locked into something that today doesn't account for that. So it sounds like if something has changed in the codes, Stephanie and Margaret, that'll get factored in and the applicant would have to apply that. So I guess that's I would feel better if there was a, if there was a known location for a fitness center that the applicant was kind of anticipating that even regardless of any specific code requirements to make sure that those, um, I don't think this disease is going away. So building a COVID, not proof, but a more COVID-tolerant building would be a good thing.

[00:44:13] Thomas Yee: Great, very good questions and good comments, Commissioner. I think those are we're designing other projects that have taken those what you just mentioned into account. We are designing a fitness center right now in South San Francisco for another client, and those issues have come up, air changes, ultraviolet filtration, a number of systems that are really not even in the code today that we're looking forward to looking to again innovating, thinking forward about exactly you say this COVID thing or things like that may be with us for a while. So those are issues that are higher filtration systems, higher air changes, more outside air, those are all issues that we're aware of.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Thomas Yee: I think the other thing which is germane to your comment is the amount of adjacent open space to the building. Those are going to be very, very valuable. You know, because it's been fairly clear I think to many people that outdoor spaces are, are outdoor dining, outdoor recreation, those kinds of features which are inherently planned into this project are going to be extremely valuable not only to the public but to the tenants in the building. So again that strategy's already been in place.

[00:45:39] Chair Cox: Okay, do you have more questions, Vice Chair Cranston?

[00:45:44] Vice Chair Cranston: I'm done, thanks.

[00:45:47] Chair Cox: Okay, let's move over to, it looks like Commissioner Lo has a follow-up question.

[00:45:56] Commissioner Lo: Thank you, Chair. I do have a follow-up question for the staff regarding the permit extension. What are there any drawbacks for the city to grant an extension like this? And also, are there any other developers who are asking for similar extensions?

[00:46:23] Stephanie Williams: So a development agreement is there's negotiated terms, so in terms of drawbacks I don't think there's any drawbacks for the city. It's, you know, within our control as we approve it, as to what are the negotiated terms. In terms of who else has received a development agreement, Intuit in the North Bayshore had a development agreement most recently, the LinkedIn campus in the East Whisman area also had a development agreement, and there was numerous other ones in the past, but those were the two most recent.

[00:47:22] Chair Cox: Okay, then I'll ask. What questions I have. So, this is to the developer. So, can you give me an idea what's going to gate your decision of when to start building? I mean, are you looking for a particular level of COVID being done? I mean, are there other financial considerations, like what what get you out of the gate with this?

[00:47:59] Chair Cox: I'm not asking you to tell me what time. I'm, I'm, no I'm not asking you to tell me what time, but you know, the kinds of things you're looking for.

Unknown

[00:48:20] Tim Steele: been very optimistic about where how the Valley will come back, how our large employers are going to come back.

[00:48:28] Tim Steele: Um, you know, we've been doing this for a year now, almost a year, and watching what's happening and we're starting to see some improvements.

[00:48:36] Tim Steele: We're starting to see larger companies who once said we'll never go back to work starting to say, well, you know, that that might not be, you know, a real reasonable, rational thinking for the future.

[00:48:51] Tim Steele: There's probably going to be some modifications to how we come back, how, you know, are we working seven days a week or are we going to move back to four or five as far as commuting.

[00:49:02] Tim Steele: But the ideas where we were hearing spaces are going to, you know, have to have all this expanded space within a building is is really more of a temporary thing

[00:49:13] Tim Steele: because once we start getting that, you know, the herd mentality or things kind of settle down, and people start going back to work, um, they, we're going to probably start seeing similar kinds of occupancy. Which means then the demand for real estate starts to pick up again for new space.

[00:49:30] Tim Steele: What is unique about building in this market, which we are also optimistic about, is this is a building that, as Commissioner Cranston was asking questions about, this is a building you get to build from scratch.

[00:49:44] Tim Steele: This is a building you get to put in a new ventilation system and a new fitness center, and new bathrooms, and you need to, you get to build it the way you want and how you want to anticipate dealing with your employees in that building. From scratch.

[00:49:58] Tim Steele: You're not redoing someone else's, you know, old school or whatever. You have an opportunity to grow into a brand new building with brand new approaches to how to deal with COVID or other future pandemics.

[00:50:12] Tim Steele: So, we are optimistic. Will it be tomorrow? I, I kind of think there's a little bit of warmth out there with some interest that we might start sooner than later if we can get this approved.

[00:50:28] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, thank you. Now I have a question back to staff. So as far as I can tell, maybe you can confirm this. Uh, all the other TDRs that were lined up as far as we know, no one's backed out yet. Is that right?

[00:50:52] Stephanie Williams: There has been discussion that some developers may not want to pursue, but um, it's not over till it's over.

[00:50:59] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, what, what would you do if it turned out that somebody wanted to back out? Would you uh, try to sell the TDRs to someone else?

[00:51:09] Stephanie Williams: Yes, I do, I do want to make it clear that the TDRs are sold by the school district and not the city. We are helping facilitate that through, through the development process, but yes, there would be a secondary market if the TDRs that were allocated to specific properties were not um, pursued.

[00:51:34] Chair Cox: Okay. And it does sound like, I know we're dancing around the issue a little bit, but it does sound like there's the potential that if the project construction were delayed that there might be also a delay in the receiving of the funds. Is that true? For some project, not necessarily this one.

[00:51:59] Chair Cox: Uh, that either goes to Eric or Stephanie.

[00:52:05] Stephanie Williams: Yes, so payment to the, to the school district would be um, at, at the time that the, the deal was finalized.

[00:52:18] Chair Cox: What does that mean? Approval of the project or building permit or what? What does deal finalized mean?

[00:52:25] Nicole Wright: And um, Stephanie if I can jump in and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, unless you're gonna answer go ahead. Well I was just gonna comment that I think under the conditions of approval there has to be a certificate of transfer provided to the city prior to building permit issuance.

[00:52:43] Nicole Wright: Um I don't know in terms of the timing whether or not the completion of the sale and transfer would occur before that time, it could occur before that time, but at least under our conditions I think that's how it's specified. But Stephanie you might have some greater insight on that. Maybe not.

[00:53:03] Stephanie Williams: No that's correct. And I think Tim um, kind of clarified earlier when they were anticipating doing that.

[00:53:14] Chair Cox: Um, then let me ask about uh community benefits. Um, has any specific community benefit for this project been identified? And there was a dollar amount I think I saw in the staff report, but not anything more than that, right?

[00:53:30] Margaret Netto: Yes, it's 200,000 dollars. To be paid 20 days after the project is approved.

[00:53:39] Chair Cox: Okay, but we didn't say what we would use the money for.

[00:53:43] Margaret Netto: Um... yeah I don't know, do you know Steph?

[00:53:50] Stephanie Williams: Yeah that's correct. It's not earmarked for any specific projects. It would go to the CIP list of projects and be allocated um as appropriate at that time.

[00:54:02] Chair Cox: Let's see. Um, yes, I just also wanted to mention to follow up on what uh zoning administrator Williams had said. I had asked at the chair meeting about uh other projects with development agreements and they had pointed out that both the Intuit project and the LinkedIn project had seven-year agreements just as this one does, so this is not a new precedent being set.

Segment 2

[00:54:06] Chair Cox: See... um, yes, I just also wanted to mention to follow up on what zoning administrator Williams had said, I had asked at the chair meeting about other projects with development agreements and they had pointed out that both the Intuit project and the LinkedIn project had seven-year agreements just as this one does, so this is not a new precedent being set. And that the Intuit project actually had people, it's not completed completely yet, but it has before COVID it had people occupying the building and so there's good reason to believe that this could work out well too. Um, those are my only questions. I see Commissioner Schmiesing with her hand up. Do you have a follow-up?

Unknown

[00:54:34] Chair Cox: And that the um Intuit project actually had people, it's not completed completely yet, but it has before Covid, it had people occupying the building and so there is good reason to believe that um this could work out well too. Um, those are my only questions.

[00:54:53] Chair Cox: I see Commissioner Schmiesing with her hand up. Do you have a follow-up?

Segment 2

[00:54:59] Commissioner Schmiesing: Sorry, just to the community benefit question, in the conditions of approval it looks like it says an estimated total contribution of 2.9 million. But you said 200,000, and I wasn't sure which was right. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong in here.

[00:55:12] Margaret Netto: Oh, um, that was for the DA. The development agreement.

[00:55:17] Commissioner Schmiesing: Oh, okay, cool. Never mind.

Unknown

[00:55:20] Commissioner Schmiesing: Oh okay, cool. Thanks.

Segment 2

[00:55:21] Chair Cox: All right. And I see Mr. Steele with his hand up. Okay. Let's see, I know how to find Mr. Steele to let his hand up.

[00:55:30] Tim Steele: Thank you, thank you, Chair. I, I would just, I was gonna say the same thing, that the East Whisman Precise Plan had a community benefit, fixed community benefit fee of $25 a foot, which is the 2.9 million that was just referenced, and then the 200 is above and beyond that, specifically related to requesting the development agreement. So both of those are included.

[00:55:59] Chair Cox: Okay, and I just have a follow-up question to staff. Um, what goes into the decision of how to price the development agreement?

[00:56:12] Stephanie Williams: It's a, it's a, it's a negotiated amount based on what is being requested and um, you know, what's going on in the, in the, in the area at the time.

[00:56:24] Chair Cox: All right. Okay. Are there other Commissioners with questions? All right, not seeing any, I will close the initial questioning from the commission and go over to public input. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. EPC Clerk Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Clerk Whitehill, are there members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Unknown

[00:56:27] Chair Cox: All right. Okay, are there other uh commissioners with questions?

[00:56:36] Chair Cox: All right, not seeing any, I will close the initial questioning from the commission and go over to public input.

[00:56:46] Chair Cox: Uh, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6.

[00:57:00] Chair Cox: EPC Clerk Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Uh Clerk Whitehill, are there members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Segment 2

[00:57:11] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: We do have one member. Just give me one second. Let me get set up. Alright. So Bruce England, I'm going to allow you to talk. Go ahead.

Unknown

[00:57:12] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: We do have one member. Just give me one second let me get set up.

[00:57:25] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: All right. Um so Bruce England, I'm gonna allow you to talk. Go ahead.

Segment 2

[00:57:35] Bruce England: There we go. I had to unmute. Can you hear me okay?

Unknown

[00:57:37] Bruce England: There we go, I had to unmute. Do you hear me okay?

[00:57:39] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Yes.

Segment 2

[00:57:40] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Yes.

Unknown

[00:57:41] Bruce England: Okay, thank you commissioners and staff. Um, just a few comments on this project.

Segment 2

[00:57:42] Bruce England: Okay, thank you, Commissioners and staff. Um, just a few comments on this project. I, I've been looking at a lot of different plans and proposals and things related to the area and I see that improvements to Fairchild where Ellis connects and then going, uh, I guess it's west from there, that that's called out a low priority according to the Bicycle Transportation Plan. And any of you, if you've ever happened to bike along there, it's really miserable. The road surface is awful, and there's virtually no lighting until you get to North Whisman Road. And I'm wondering if that could be given a higher priority, given this project, or at least aligned with the, with the project. Um, second, I'm not sure about the tree choices along the roadways, but if they could, if the trees could be not cone dropping and not low hanging, that would be great. There are a lot of trees in that area that do drop cones along the bikeways, and they're not particularly good if you happen to be biking through there. Also, with the landscaping, if they could, if trees and landscaping in general could be chosen to protect migration paths through the area, um, yeah, I mentioned the lighting already, and uh, the resurfacing of Fairchild. Um, I think that's it. Thank you.

Unknown

[00:57:47] Bruce England: I've been looking at a lot of different plans and proposals and things related to the area. And I see that improvements to Fairchild, um, you know where Ellis connects and then going, uh I guess it's west from there, that that's a called out a low priority according to the Bicycle Transportation Plan.

[00:58:06] Bruce England: And any of you, if you've ever uh happened to bike along there, it's really miserable. The road surface is awful and there's virtually no lighting, um, until you get to North Whisman Road. And I'm wondering if that could be uh given a higher priority given this project or at least aligned with the, with the project.

[00:58:26] Bruce England: Um, second, uh I'm not sure about the tree choices along the roadways but if they could, if the trees could be not cone dropping and not low hanging that would be great. There are a lot of trees in that area that do drop cones along the bikeways and they're um, not particularly good if you happen to be biking through there.

[00:58:45] Bruce England: Also with the landscaping, if the trees and landscaping in general could be chosen to protect migration paths through the area. Um, yeah, I mentioned the lighting already and uh the resurfacing of Fairchild. Um, I think that's it. Thank you.

[00:59:02] Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you Mr. England. Are there other members of the public that would like to comment?

Segment 2

[00:59:03] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Mr. England. Are there other members of the public that would like to comment?

Unknown

[00:59:15] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: No one else at this time has their hand raised to comment.

Segment 2

[00:59:16] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: No one else at this time has their hand raised for comment.

Unknown

[00:59:19] Chair Cox: All right. Thank you. Not seeing any others, we will go back to the commission for deliberation and action. Please raise your hand if you would like to comment or ask additional questions.

Segment 2

[00:59:20] Chair Cox: All right. Thank you. Not seeing any others, we will go back to the commission for deliberation and action. Please raise your hand if you would like to comment or ask additional questions. All right, I'm waiting. Ah, there's Commissioner Hehmeyer.

Unknown

[00:59:37] Chair Cox: All right, I'm waiting. Ah, there's Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:59:50] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Chair, I can start us off. Um, I really like the changes we've seen to this since its last iteration, um...

Segment 2

[00:59:51] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Sure, I can start us off. Um, I really like the changes we've seen to this since um, its last iteration. I desperately miss the LEED Platinum building I used to work in, and I think this is a the right kind of development. And that really has been thoughtful about open space, and um, among the improvements that I like the most, I really do think eliminating the driveway on Fairchild will help improve pedestrian circulation, make it a little bit safer for bicyclists, and really draw um, to that pedestrian axis in between the existing building and the future building. Um, this is in many ways a realization of the East Whisman Precise Plan. It's high intensity, um, I appreciate that the developer has given thought to the pathway that is envisioned in the precise plan, so that there really can be improved connectivity in this new area. And um, I appreciate the landscape architectural improvements as well about integrating the stormwater retention basins and making them more inviting. Um, I do share Vice Chair Cranston's concerns, I appreciate Tim's optimism, but I think it's I think it's going to be a long time before we go back to work in the same kind of way where people are regularly going to office campuses. And I just want to ensure that there is the flexibility, and it sounds like there, to the extent possible, depending on when the building plans reflect or submitted, to allow for that kind of flexibility, because it is a quarter million square feet of office space, and I just don't know how many employees that will support and how many employees are going to be taking public transit, as much as I want to return to my lifestyle where I took public transit to a LEED Platinum building, but we're planning for the future and I like this project and the improvements that we've seen. Um, so I will be voting in favor of it.

[01:03:28] Commissioner Lo: Yeah.

[01:03:29] Thomas Yee: Alright. I think those are all very good comments. I, I don't mean to pass the buck here Commissioner Lo, but I'm going to ask James, the, our landscape architect to to jump in here and address some of the questions about the, the arborist, the status of the arborist review of our plans. Obviously we would have, you know I can tell you point blank that we will have an arborist review our report, a review of the plans, and the tree disposition. As part of the submittal we did provide a tree disposition plan that basically indicated all the existing trees that are to be removed, all the existing trees that are to obviously be retained. That's part of our normal review, to have an arborist review all those, all those items before we proceed into more detailed design. James, do you want to add anything to that please?

[01:04:42] James Stockham: Yeah, great. Yeah, so of course we'll integrate all arborist recommendations going forward, and, and paths, and, um, they'll likely be on site during construction for monitoring. I guess, is that, am I not understanding the direct question here?

[01:05:01] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, because the arborist report specifically stated no plans for the site improvements were available when he inspected the trees, and produced the tree inventory report, so I just wanted to make sure that the arborist has had a chance to be, or the arborist has continued to be involved with the project to help with tree selections and make sure tree protection is, will be respected during construction, times, and stuff like that.

[01:05:22] Thomas Yee: Yeah, we can hear you now. Yes, go ahead please.

[01:05:32] Thomas Yee: Okay. Alright. Can you hear me again?

[01:05:36] James Stockham: Yeah, I understand. So, um, yeah, we, we will have full construction detail, details and procedures for not only the City of Mountain View's preferences for existing trees are handled during construction, but our own in-house standard practice preferences for how that's done, and we understand it's not lost on us how important that aspect is of the project and we'll do whatever it takes to ensure that. If that answers your question.

[01:06:15] Margaret Netto: Commissioner Lo, that's also a condition of approval, is the tree protection. So the trees will be protected.

[01:06:22] James Stockham: Can I, am I unmuted?

[01:06:26] Commissioner Lo: Great, thank you.

[01:06:31] Commissioner Capriles: Uh, thank you. Um, I appreciate the flexibility of the applicant. Um, I think we're in a time where there's a lot of unknowns here, and I think the idea of, you know, being sensitive to the the dilation and to other other items that we have been requesting, we appreciate your honoring that. I think that's going to benefit both the both the city and the occupants and the applicant for, you know, the future needs. And so, um, I think the building design and your response to our initial feedback has been heard and we definitely appreciate that. And I think this project is a great example of what our expectations will be within the East Whisman area. We're, we're being very careful and cognizant about what we do want to put in this area because it's a, you know, a new area and one of the first that is going in there. So I hope this will be an example to the others, other projects coming to us, that we need to have that flexibility but also be sensitive to the new codes that may arise as a result of our experiences during this time. So, I too will be approving the recommendation to the council. And thank you very much.

[01:08:15] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, thank you. Commissioner Schmiesing.

[01:08:17] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, maybe for Mr. Yee.

[01:08:18] Commissioner Schmiesing: Yeah. I echo what a lot of my fellow commissioners have said. I really appreciate as a bike commuter how many different options to support active transportation as well as public transportation went into the TDM. The LEED Platinum and efforts to make this a sustainable building I thought were great. I am hopeful to see this project, I know that the timeline of course is uncertain with COVID, but unfold alongside the city's efforts to improve bike lanes in the area and improve pedestrian and bicycle transit. I would love to see those kind of happen conjointly. And I think, you know, given all the uncertainty with development at this time, and also the fact that it is a new building, allowing for incorporation of some of those additions and safeguards that such as, you know, improved ventilation that support health not just for COVID but I'm sure just in general, would be great to see. Yeah, I will also be supporting this project. Thank you.

[01:09:34] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Cranston.

[01:09:38] Vice Chair Cranston: Yeah, uh similar to my other commissioners, I appreciate that the applicant and staff have worked through the issues that we raised when we saw this the first time. I'm actually the thing that I'm, a lot of the other items the LEED Platinum and so forth I was kind of expecting, but uh I definitely will be pointing to this the use of the stormwater areas as a as something that's part of the development rather than something you quarantine off to the side, um I think is something that actually gives us the ability to better utilize the open space that's available and not just give up that area as something that's uh that's wasteland off in the corner. Um, they uh, I personally I love the Blue Palo Verde tree. I don't think of it as a particularly big shade tree, so Commissioner Lo, if you're looking for, it takes a while for those trees to to really get a good crown on them, but they're absolutely pretty trees. So uh I like the tree but I don't think you should expect a lot of shade for the first several years until that's in place. But I will be, I think the, I appreciate the applicant's work and will be supporting the project as well.

[01:10:53] Chair Cox: Okay. And I have a few comments myself. Thank you, Vice Chair Cranston. Um, yeah, with regard to the seven-year development agreement, yeah, I'm in concert with my fellow commissioners that it's an appropriate thing under the circumstances with COVID. Um, I appreciate Mr. Steele's comments and I congratulate you on your foresight and bravery as you go forward in this time of great uncertainty to produce uh what looks like to me to be quite a quality project. Um, I wanted to make a comment about the jobs housing linkage since uh I will not be on the commission when the next project comes up. But uh I understand the reason why this project was exempt because it was going first, but I charge my fellow commissioners to watch for the jobs housing linkage on ones coming forward, so that we maintain a jobs housing balance. Of course, we really don't know how and whether COVID has caused a sea change in the whole mechanics of what has been going on over the last 10 years or so, but uh it's still important to have a good jobs housing balance in order to ensure social equity and a stable and just society, so please keep that in mind as you start uh reviewing other projects next year. Um, I, I'm pretty particularly appreciative of the fact that the project uh does so well on its architectural goals for the gateway site. It's a modern attractive design visible from highway 101, uh the parking garage is placed in the back and uh buffered by trees. I think you've done, give you an A plus on the key corner treatment. Um, you know, in the, in the in my earlier days I prided myself in walking long distances around Mountain View and in the area and one of the things that I found out early on was is that walking around North Bayshore was a particularly boring experience. You know even though there were nice buildings and greenery, I mean you know the monotony of it, uh and you know no places to sit or anything, um made it something that I didn't repeat after trying it once. And so, um I have hope, I mean you know you guys are the first shot at this East Whisman precise plan, uh office project, and I mean I really like what I see. In particular I like the drawings of what the building looked like at night and, and um the overhangs, you know the glass treatment and, and the specimen tree and public seating. Um, I could even see myself going through there now that I'll, I may have more time and, um, once it's all said and done and resting there as I go on to the next leg of my journey. I like the idea that the open space requirements have been exceeded by 20 percent and that the tree canopy will be increased from 8 to 21 percent in 15 years, that's the direction we all want to go. Um, and those are my main comments. And so, uh everyone having said something, unless there are further comments I will ask if someone on the commission would like to make a motion.

[01:11:02] Chair Cox: Is that specifically towards someone, Commissioner Lo?

[01:11:03] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Commissioner Hehmeyer. Commissioner Lo.

[01:11:14] Commissioner Lo: Um, I echo what Commissioner Hehmeyer just said. I actually have one more follow-up question. And very excited about the pedestrian improvement along Fairchild, and want to make sure the trees are selected there to provide sufficient shading for, yeah, the pedestrians who are using that, as well as what Bruce brought up about trees with no cones along the bike lane. However, I wanted to point out that when I read the arborist report, it says when the tree inventory was made, no plans for site improvements were available at the time of inspection. So I just wanted to make sure that the arborist has had a chance to take a look at the plans as they stand right now.

[01:14:37] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, so I, I need to get in here and and bring up the recommendation unless I can ask Miss Whitehill to do that for me.

[01:14:58] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: And I'll just note too that the recommendation should be from the staff report and maybe that's what actually I think Margaret sharing that. Okay.

[01:15:10] Commissioner Capriles: There was an inadvertent reference on the agenda to a resolution for recommendation on the initial study, so I want to make sure we pull up the right one. There we go. I'd like to move that the EPC recommend the City Council approve the initial study of environmental significance for the 600 Ellis Street project, pursuant to section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act, exhibit 1 to the EPC staff report. And adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a planned community permit and development review permit for a new 259,095 square foot six-story office building and eight-level parking structure. 80,000 square feet of transfer of development rights from 2535 California Street, 506 Showers Drive and 350 Showers Drive to 600 Ellis Street in relation to the Los Altos School District TDR program. And heritage tree removal permit to remove 23 heritage trees located at 600 Ellis Street, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 2 to the EPC staff report.

[01:16:43] Chair Cox: Okay. I just didn't know if there were other pages. Alright, so then, okay, so having heard that, do we have a second? Please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Schmiesing. Okay, uh, then uh having a second and a um motion from Commissioner Capriles, uh Clerk Whitehill would you please call the roll?

[01:17:29] Chair Cox: Aye. So the resolution of recommendation to the city council passes 6-0 with one person absent. All right, thank you very much, uh Miss Netto and Whitehill and and Mr. Steele and members of the development team. Alright, so let's move on now to public hearing item number 5.2, a 44-unit condominium project at 2645 to 2655 Fayette Drive. Uh we'll start again with commissioners, uh making disclosures about contacts with the applicant and site visits. Please raise your hand. Oops. Okay there we go, Commissioner Lo.

[01:19:08] Chair Cox: And that's true for me as well, um, no invitation but I did go to the site twice. Alright, so having uh gone through that, there is now, I see a staff presentation from Mr. Eric Anderson, Project Planner, and Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator.

[01:19:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Alright, you can hear me? You can see my screen? Great, thank you very much, Chair Cox, thank you um, Commission. This is a 44-unit condominium uh project at 2645 to 2655 Fayette Drive. Again my name Eric Anderson, project planner, I'm also joined by Stephanie Williams. This slide shows the location of the project site relative to major streets around, San Antonio Road, Fayette Drive, Del Medio Avenue. Uh it's located half a block away from the recent San Antonio Center projects. Uh across the street from the Dean development, which is a five to seven story apartment project that is nearing completion. It's also bounded on the south by a four-story apartment project facing El Camino, and a three-story apartment project on the east, on the west. Uh and then there's a future mini park associated with the Dean development across the street, and a future linear park uh from an agreement with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission uh that's going to be built immediately to the east. The project includes 44 condominiums. Uh it is requesting a density bonus, which uh affects uh the implementation of the San Antonio Precise Plan with the project. It has 44 units, uh it's six stories, about 77 feet to the top of the highest parapet, about 90 feet to the top of the elevator tower, with setbacks from the facade. It has a roughly 2.5 floor area ratio. Uh it is providing more than the required parking in uh the San Antonio Precise Plan or the um parking standards related to density bonus. It is proposing to remove uh eight heritage trees and it would relocate the remaining heritage trees, one of the palm trees uh elsewhere on the site. You can see the site plan here, uh there is a proposed publicly accessible plaza in the uh lower right hand corner. The garage down to the the the driveway down to the garage is visible at the top, and behind it is a an amenity area for the residents. In 2016, a 24-unit condominium project was approved at this site. Shortly thereafter, Council approved a gatekeeper request to rezone the site into the San Antonio Precise Plan. Uh this proposal was associated with roughly triple the the prior density. The applicant's first submittal under that gatekeeper in early 2018 was similar in scale and design to this current proposal, so it had 44 units. Uh and it incorporated the requested density bonus which you see before you. The council approved consideration of that density bonus at a study session in early 2019. Specifically, what was presented to City Council was similar to the current proposal, um some minor changes to uh facades, uh design, uh a change to the public benefit proposal, and a change to the income level uh and size distribution of the BMR units. Uh council supported the density, ownership and unit types of the project. They were also asked to consider uh community benefit options, since this project is subject to community benefit requirements in the San Antonio Precise Plan. Uh they identified potential transportation improvements as well as BMR. Uh so here are two of the major views that uh would would face the public uh for the project. On the right you can see the view facing Fayette, uh you can see the prominent entry clad in brick veneer, the rest of the facade is broken up into smaller masses with an upper floor step back, as stipulated by the Precise Plan. The ground floor is active uh with unit entries and landscaping. The uh left side is the view facing the SFPUC, so this would be visible to people using the proposed linear park along the SFPUC. Uh the project uses balconies, materials and plane changes to break down this facade into smaller masses. It also includes a rooftop open area which you can just barely see sticking up over the uh the middle of the building there. Uh which does require a provisional use permit in the San Antonio Precise Plan. As I said earlier, they are requesting a rezoning into the San Antonio Precise Plan, so that requires both a rezoning action for the uh for the city's zoning map as well as San Antonio Precise Plan amendments to modify maps and other language relevant to the precise plan. The project would be integrated into a residential only area of the precise plan uh similar with similar standards to this area um uh on the uh Ortega side of the of the uh precise plan. These standards would allow more height and more FAR and would require less coverage and fewer parking stalls than the R3D zone that it's currently in. But note that the project would comply with the parking standard either way. This zoning amendment is consistent with the 2030 General Plan. The project does include affordable units pursuant to both the city's BMR program and the density bonus. Uh it's proposing four very low income and one low income unit. This is the amount, combination of three separate requirements from both the city and the state. The first requirement is the city BMR program. Uh they were exempted from the new standard of 15% based on their having submitted all required uh items by the end of last year. Um and so they under the uh old standards they're required to provide 10% affordable units, so that's 4.4 units. The density bonus uh in order to uh get their their additional units they need an eligibility of of at least four very low income units which they're providing. And under state law there is a replacement requirement for any units that were occupied within the last within the five years prior to the uh application by uh residents uh of lower income, and so based on that uh replacement requirement they are required to provide these four very low income and one low income unit. The density bonus request as I said they qualify based on the provision of the four VLI units uh for the density bonus calculation, and then as well the four VLI and one LI unit for the replacement. Uh as a part of the density bonus request they are allowed one concession and their requested concession is that the size of the BMR units would not match the distribution of sizes of units in the project. So all of their BMR units would be one bedroom units, uh whereas there is a mix of two and three bedroom uh uh units throughout the rest of the project. They are requesting four waivers, and uh again the distinction between concessions and waivers is that concessions are uh related to cost reductions in order to provide uh the reduced rents or reduced sales prices for the BMR units. Waivers are for physical constraints, and they are allowed an unlimited number of waivers to development standards. Uh and so the waivers uh that are related to physical constraints on the number of units that they proposed are FAR, height, uh they are requesting a sixth floor residential transition waiver which you can see highlighted with this uh this small box here, and they are requesting a fifth and sixth floor height at frontage transition waiver uh which you can see in this box here, the fifth floor outline is here uh and the sixth floor outline is right there. In addition as part of the San Antonio Precise Plan as well as the uh rezoning request to uh um as well as the request for additional height allowed by the Precise Plan, uh they are uh offering a $691,512 public benefit. This um is divided into three different parts. The first uh has to do with the uh BMR units, because the BMR units are for low and very low income, uh staff has found that uh units at that level often have trouble uh affording ongoing HOA costs or other assessments. And so uh the project is providing uh $250,000 approximately, uh there is still some analysis that needs to be done by the housing division staff to determine the exact amount for this, but approximately 250,000 for this HOA reserve to ensure that the units can be uh afforded by at a at very low and low income levels. Uh in addition the applicant will construct...

Segment 3

[01:29:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: a crosswalk to connect the project and the SFPUC linear park with the future mini park across the street. They are covering 25% of that as part of their project conditions of approval and then offering the remaining cost, the remaining 75% as public benefits. And the remainder would be deposited into the San Antonio precise plan public benefit fund, which would go to other public transportation improvements in the San Antonio area.

[01:30:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Because it is a rezoning, it was not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, so they conducted an initial study and there were no unmitigable impacts. So a mitigated negative declaration can be... was prepared for the project. Mitigation measures apply to air quality and noise and vibration and have to do with construction. The next step for the project is City Council. Final action tentatively scheduled for November 17th, 2020.

[01:31:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Here's staff's recommendation for the project on two slides. In summary the project is consistent with the general plan, it's consistent with the San Antonio precise plan, the subdivision map act, and city code, as well as state density bonus law. And so staff recommends these actions: recommending the City Council approve an initial study mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the zoning map amendment, approve amendments to the San Antonio precise plan, approve the project, and approve the vesting tentative map for the condominiums. That concludes my presentation, happy to answer any questions you might have. The applicant is also here with their own presentation. Thank you very much.

[01:32:05] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Eric, and now let's hear from the applicant.

[01:32:13] Emeric McDonald: Thank you very much Eric. Good evening to the Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners of the EPC, and city staff. I'm joined by our architect, Maren Moegel from Studio T Square, who has a presentation that I am hoping she will share so that I can speak to those slides.

[01:32:45] Maren Moegel: Yeah, um, the host is disabled so somebody needs to give me permission to share the screen.

[01:32:53] Brittany Whitehill: You should have permission in just a minute. I just made you a co-host. Are you still unable to share?

[01:33:11] Maren Moegel: No, it's great, it's working.

[01:33:14] Brittany Whitehill: Thanks.

[01:33:17] Emeric McDonald: Okay. Thank you. So my name is Emeric McDonald, I'm the managing member of Octane Fayette, the project applicant. We're very pleased to present what we believe is a great project providing much needed ownership housing to the city of Mountain View. We purchased the property in 2014 and are very happy to see it finally coming to its entitlement approval. Having been a Mountain View apartment renter myself for almost 20 years, I'm familiar with the significant concentration of apartment complexes in Mountain View. Buying a single family home, detached home, can be prohibitively expensive, and as a consequence we're very excited to bring this stacked flat ownership condominium project to fruition. I'll make a few general comments about the project and then turn things over to Maren. Our planner Eric Anderson did a great job describing a lot of the attributes of the project so I'll try not to belabor repeating those, but I'd like to emphasize the following: some of our beliefs. Ownership builds community. And these condominiums represent a stepping stone from apartment living, of which there is much, to detached ownership housing. Location is important. The sort of nexus from a transportation perspective of El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, public transit, and the neighboring San Antonio Center which has seen a lot of development create an opportunity for a great urban suburban lifestyle. The density of the project is appropriate at 2.5 FAR and six stories. Considering especially the 50-year plus life cycle of a building like this, this will represent density you know that would be used for decades to come. And as was mentioned in the presentation, being fully parked with two floors of underground parking will reduce the overflow of parking onto the city streets. The unit mix is larger multi-bedroom units targeted at meeting the needs of families and people working from home, as is more commonly the case now with COVID. And has a different mix and density than you would find in a typical apartment complex. Just as an example, The Dean across the street has two thirds of its units as studios and one-bedrooms, with an average of 685 square feet. The average unit in our complex is 1370. We feel we have wonderful amenities with the public plaza which Eric described at the front of the complex, and then within the complex, a pool, spa, barbecue, club room, rooftop deck, and then easy access to the two parks that he also described: the mini park and the Hetch Hetchy park. The project provides a substantial public benefit, the 2.5 million corresponds to what Eric described as 691,000, which is approximately 700,000 plus about 1.8 million in direct BMR subsidy by the provision of BMR units. Next slide please.

[01:36:19] Emeric McDonald: Just showing the location generally, El Camino and San Antonio. This is an aerial perspective which shows the building there circled, appropriately massed and contexted with the Domus apartment complex there as well as The Dean, the two newer complexes. Next slide please. Just going to a site plan, showing the generous spacing proportions around the building and its footprint, and more in perspective with regard to the Hetch Hetchy park, linear park that was described, as well as the future park across the street. Identifies also the crosswalk which we've always thought would be a good idea on this stretch of Fayette, which is reasonably long and you have to go all the way to Del Medio or to San Antonio Road. So having one somewhere in the middle, final location to be ultimately established with, in conjunction with public works, is I think going to be a great addition and allow people to transition from the Hetch Hetchy park to the future park. And our public plaza with its seating, chairs, tables, etc., would be a great stopping point for a rest and grab a beverage. At this point I'd like to pass things over to Maren, Maren Moegel from Studio T Square, our architect. Maren?

44-unit condominium at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive

[01:37:47] Maren Moegel: Yes, good evening. Can you all hear me okay? Can everyone hear me okay?

[01:37:58] Chair Robert Cox: Thumbs up. Yes.

[01:38:01] Maren Moegel: Okay. Um, so I'm Maren Moegel with KTGY architecture on the project. First off, it's exciting to be here and I wanted to thank all commissioners and staff as well for all the great feedback we received in the process, and great suggestions that have greatly improved the design.

[01:38:20] Maren Moegel: So a couple more comments to this site plan here. The project is really greatly integrated into the greater neighborhood as well as the immediate neighborhood. The key feature here is the plaza as Eric already mentioned at the corner of the Hetch Hetchy and Fayette Drive right across from the future city park, and this plaza will be publicly accessible. We focus very much on the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk on Fayette Drive.

[01:38:52] Maren Moegel: And with that, the driveway into the underground garage, there's two levels of underground parking in this project. The driveway is to the north of the, on the north end of the project, so that it doesn't interfere with pedestrian crossing from one side to the other side from the linear park to the future city park.

[01:39:17] Maren Moegel: A quick note about the setbacks from adjacent neighbors. The minimum setback from the three-story apartments to the northwest side is 30 feet. And where you see the pool area, it's a 48 feet minimum. And we'll get to that later, there's greater stepbacks on the upper levels.

[01:39:38] Maren Moegel: So here in the enlarged site plan, so on the bottom right you can see the plaza. It's really nicely designed with enhanced pavement materials. We have some great lighting, inset lighting on the plaza, lots of landscaping, and sort of a lounge area with nice seating and wavy benches. There's also a small fountain integrated and bike racks for visitors as well as for the residents.

[01:40:12] Maren Moegel: Lots of planting also and then walking up from the plaza towards the northwest, there's lots of planting and street trees and specimen trees, a second row of specimen trees next to the street trees. So it's a really great experience on the sidewalk. Street lights, and then again these nice furniture, these wavy benches, and bioretention planters, regular planters, enhanced pavement when you get towards the driveway and service area. So, a really great pedestrian experience here.

[01:40:48] Maren Moegel: For the residents, there is this sort of courtyard here with a pool, a spa, with a generous barbecue area. And then we have this open-air club room which is adjacent to the indoor club room. And just on the ground floor, so the building will extend over that on the second level. Again, it's nicely landscaped and screened along the edges. On the edge facing the linear park, Hetch Hetchy, we also have just enough planting to soften the architecture without blocking too much light from the residential units.

[01:41:30] Maren Moegel: So we are looking at this design as a truly four-sided architecture. So we are really paying attention to all sides of the building. We're creating high-quality, sensible design with equal attention to proportion and detail on all four sides. The most prominent feature is a base which has brick veneer and a sort of a tower element next to it on the main side. There's large projecting masses of white stucco and then small receding masses of lap siding. So we're really playing off different types of material to further reinforce the broken-down massing into smaller elements.

[01:42:17] Maren Moegel: The materials we feel are very appropriate to the transition between the more maybe traditional existing environment to the more contemporary, modern architecture along San Antonio Road. So just for orientation here on the slide real quick, on the bottom left you see the main facade facing Fayette Drive with the main entry and the entry into the garage as well. The lobby is on the left. The image on the bottom left is the elevation that's facing the linear park or Hetch Hetchy. And the image on the bottom right is looking at it from the pool area.

[01:43:05] Maren Moegel: What you can see already here on the image on the top left is the massing stepping down towards the apartments on the northwest side. So zooming in a little bit more, the Fayette Drive frontage, strong ground floor elements with a brick veneer and where the main lobby entry is, we're...

Segment 3

[01:43:16] Maren Moegel: So zooming in a little bit more, the Fayette Drive frontage. Strong ground floor elements with a brick veneer. We're reinforcing this corner with both a heavier kind of a base and then a awning that is also stronger than most other awnings on the more secondary sides of the building. We have an offset tower element, we're stepping back the main massing on the sixth floor by over six feet. And then we have recently received some great input from staff and have slightly revised the cornices to be much thinner. A very thin profile, and we achieved that by tapering back the profiles on the bottom so they look much thinner on the front. And then I want to highlight the ground level. It is designed to be really residential, it gets a very residential feel. So we are looking, using a lot of warm materials there, both in the awnings that are covering the unit entries as well as sort of the stoop entries. Just to mention real quick there's for the ground floor units there's these two places where we're creating stoops and little stairs connecting those ground floor units to the sidewalk. And all these areas are enhanced with warm materials that really give it a nice residential feel.

[01:44:55] Maren Moegel: Then the elevation along the linear park, Hetch Hetchy. We worked closely with staff on improving this facade over the last few weeks. And one major move we made that's a really great improvement is moving the balcony you see here in the middle further to the left. And that has really improved the overall proportions of this elevation. So the awnings on this facade here are a little bit smaller, a little bit simpler than the ones on the main street frontage, but otherwise we are really designing this facade here also as a public frontage. It's equally important. And we are, as you see, landscaping it to soften up the facade and the look a little bit. The railings I want to mention here for balconies, they have some small variation in railing as well. We have predominantly glass railings, and where on the ground floor is with brick veneer, we are switching over to a picket fence, picket style kind of railings. So there's variation in those as well.

[01:46:11] Maren Moegel: This is the elevation as you see it from the 3-story apartments to the northwest. So the left portion here is the minimum setback of 30 feet, and we are stepping back on the fifth floor by 12 feet, and then another 14 feet on the sixth floor. And the other portion of the facade is as I mentioned earlier 48 feet back. So also here we are paying attention to the level of detail. So it provides variation and a nice play of shadow and sun with the awnings and the balconies and decks, and the variation in material to further enforce the different massing portions with siding versus stucco.

[01:47:01] Maren Moegel: Yeah and with that, we really again appreciate staff's highly collaborative spirit along the process, um, and we feel we designed a great project that really fits well into the neighborhood and complements the existing as well as the recently built projects in the close neighborhood. I enjoyed working on it and along with my team here at Studio T Square we're really proud of the design. With that, questions and comments are very welcome. We have our landscape architect here as well, Nick Samuelson from the Guzzardo Partnership in case you have specific questions about the landscape features.

[01:47:43] Chair Cox: Okay, uh thank you very much. So having heard from staff and the applicant, since it is a public hearing we will now take it back to the commission for questions. Please raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question to staff or the developer. Going once... Ah, Commissioner Lo.

[01:48:20] Commissioner Lo: You can count on me on questions. I have a few. Maybe I'll start with the HOA reserve for the BMR units. I'm wondering the amount that's set aside, how long is that expected to last?

[01:48:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We are working with our housing division to determine a value that can be... that can be there for the duration of the unit, right? So that they can... that can accrue interest and that they can tap when they need to.

[01:49:06] Commissioner Lo: So, 10 years plus or?

[01:49:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, it should be more than 10 years.

[01:49:16] Commissioner Lo: Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:49:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: By the way, if I could ask the applicant to unshare your screen so that we can see each other. Go ahead Commissioner Lo.

[01:49:35] Commissioner Lo: Okay. So, I have another question about where the property line is right next to the linear park. I'm wondering if there might be an opportunity to open that up so that the open space is even more open?

[01:49:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, unfortunately the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has a lot of very strict policies about limiting access. Uh, so they don't allow access between private property and their, um, their property, uh, without a specific license to do so. Uh, so that, that's probably not going to be approved by the SFPUC.

[01:50:33] Commissioner Lo: They approved the park, but they... it's unlikely that they will approve removing the fence.

[01:50:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exactly, exactly. So... I don't know if Renee or our public works representative can speak more about this, uh about the nature of our agreement with the SFPUC for this park.

[01:51:01] Renee Gunn: I agree with Eric. He said it correctly, SFPUC has some very specific rules about it. Um, in previous versions of this project they specifically asked us to remove a gate that was between the two projects.

[01:51:19] Nicholas Samuelson: Is it okay if I comment on that right now? From our services close. I'm the landscape architect, Nick Samuelson from the Guzzardo Partnership, and we actually are the landscape architects working on the Fayette Park with um AMRYSTAR and Public Works. So we're working on both projects. And we can't do the access as you've noted between the two. But we did um work on, as part of Fayette Park, having um an open wrought iron fence, is the detail that they've used before. So there's a lot of transparency between the two, and we carried the planting that we're using in the park through that fence so they feel like they bleed together a little bit more. So we tried to do what we could to connect those two so they felt like they're part of each other.

[01:52:09] Commissioner Lo: Mm-hmm. And the linear park, what's under it? Are they...

[01:52:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It contains the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct water pipes. So it's basically water for a million people on the peninsula.

[01:52:27] Commissioner Lo: Yeah. So therefore it's paved on top, and any landscape that we do in that park will have to be in planters?

[01:52:41] Nicholas Samuelson: Sorry... it has... they have very strict rules about the planting there. You can't have planting over I think it's like 12 or 18 inches tall. Um, we got away with putting trees in by putting them in planters and setting a certain distance away from where the pipes actually are. But that was a, that was a negotiation we had to go through just to get that to happen. We're happy we were able to do that because having some shade and scale in there is going to help a lot.

[01:53:10] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, exactly. Okay, great, well thank you for making the effort, given all the rules.

[01:53:21] Commissioner Lo: Let's see. I'll come back for more questions and let other commissioners ask theirs.

[01:53:37] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Commissioner Lo. Commissioner Schmiesing.

[01:53:46] Commissioner Schmiesing: Thank you. I had a question... if there was any information on the demand for 1-bedroom BMR units versus larger BMR units?

[01:54:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we don't have any... staff does not have any information about that. Um, I'll I can tee it over to uh the applicant, but I I will say that obviously in in the housing crisis that we're in, there is demand for BMR units generally. Um, so uh with that I don't know if uh the applicant has any additional information about that.

[01:54:28] Emeric McDonald: Well, I'm very happy to say that we're supplying five. The last I looked at the Mountain View website with regard to ownership BMR, I think there were eight total in the city. Uh, so making a contribution of five. And them being one bedrooms makes them more affordable, there there is a price gradation as you go to larger units, so it makes them the the most affordable in that sense. The sale price of a VLI, uh, one bedroom for is a, a shade under 200,000 at present, and perhaps that changes by the time we complete construction, but, uh, we're happy to be contributing to that existing relatively small stock of ownership BMRs.

[01:55:14] Commissioner Schmiesing: Thank you. And then... oh...

[01:55:20] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Could you clarify the 200,000 figure, I'm sorry I want to make sure I heard that right.

[01:55:25] Emeric McDonald: I believe that is the price that someone who is buying a BMR 1-bedroom unit would pay for the unit. 197,000 dollars.

[01:55:37] Commissioner Hehmeyer: That's the BMR price for... and the market price that you're anticipating?

[01:55:43] Emeric McDonald: You know, so that a 1-bedroom unit is... a 1-bedroom units here I think um from I think 625 to 770 or a little over 800 square feet. And sales prices could be you know $1,000 a square foot, it could be you know 7, 800, 900,000 dollars. So it's obviously it's you know $700,000 lower than the market price.

[01:55:46] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Thank you. And I apologize Commissioner Schmiesing.

[01:55:48] Emeric McDonald: You know, 1-bedroom units are I think from 625 to 770 or a little over 800 square feet, and sales prices could be you know a thousand dollars a square foot, it could be you know 7, 800, 900,000 dollars. So it's obviously, you know, 700,000 dollars lower than the market price.

[01:56:05] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Thank you. And I apologize Commissioner Schmiesing.

[01:56:11] Commissioner Schmiesing: Oh good. I wanted to just ask, we received a letter from the Mountain View... MVSPC... and they had a couple questions. Uh... they were wondering what kind of amenities would be included in the publicly accessible plaza that is proposed.

[01:56:42] Emeric McDonald: It has chairs and tables, wave benches, and bike racks. And, like, they're illustrated on the, on the plans. You know, in, as we can see them. And we have, we have backups to show what they actually look like in real life if you're interested in taking a look.

[01:57:00] Commissioner Schmiesing: I think that's all my questions for now, thank you.

[01:57:04] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Commissioner Schmiesing. Are there other questions from the commission? I'm not seeing any, so I will ask some questions.

[01:57:27] Chair Cox: This is back to staff. I did go over to the site and there is a, as you noted in the staff report, a three-story residential rental townhome project that is adjacent to this six-story project. And, um, that's a bit of a departure from things that we've seen in the past where we typically have gone up only one or two stories from an existing project. Um, I understand that, you know, given the rules the state has given us these days with the state density bonus, um, you know there's, there's... it isn't as easy to maintain the rules we had in the past. But I'm just wondering what, uh, it did look like you did try to do something in terms of making the transition less abrupt. Could you maybe talk to that a little bit?

[01:58:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, so the project is being rezoned into the San Antonio Precise Plan and the maximum height uh for the area that it's being rezoned into for the San Antonio Precise Plan is four stories with an allowance for an additional story with public benefits or a high quality public open area. Um, the uh, it's also in the San Antonio Precise Plan uh, including a residential transition zone uh across that um, west side uh of the property, to enforce larger setbacks as well as step downs to the height of the um the the existing uh three-story apartments next door. So the project is implementing those standards, uh, as modified by the state density bonus. Um, the, you know, some of the ways that the project is uh complying with those transitions, uh, you know, you can see... um, I can I can bring up the um... a clearer view of the step down here.

[02:00:37] Chair Cox: Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Okay, thank you. Let me ask about the conditional permit for the rooftop deck. I mean how will you be determining what the appropriate hours are?

[02:00:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We have standard conditions of approval related to appropriate hours. So the the condition of approval I believe says from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.

[02:01:02] Chair Cox: Okay. And that's all days of the week or?

[02:01:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right.

[02:01:07] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, let's see. What other questions... This is to the applicant. I couldn't quite tell by looking at the diagrams, are you using stackers in the parking garage?

[02:01:19] Emeric McDonald: No. No stackers.

[02:01:22] Chair Cox: No stackers. Okay, and is there tandem parking?

[02:01:24] Emeric McDonald: No. Very normally parked. Regular standard parking, full-size spaces.

[02:01:30] Chair Cox: Do you have tandem parking in the garage?

[02:01:33] Emeric McDonald: No. No tandem parking.

[02:01:38] Chair Cox: Okay, wow.

[02:01:40] Emeric McDonald: Yeah we think that's important. All that stacker, tandem stuff is just a nuisance. For anybody. And uh so we made that a priority, and that's why we have two full floors of underground parking.

[02:01:54] Chair Cox: Alright. Oh... Are those garages fully parked by EV units or some subset?

[02:01:59] Emeric McDonald: We have 44 of the parking units are prepped to be electric vehicle prepped, so every unit will have at least one space that's electric vehicle prepped.

[02:02:09] Chair Cox: Okay, and so I mean like, how does the guest parking work? Is there like an overlay between guest parking and ownership parking or is there a separate segregated guest parking area?

[02:02:23] Emeric McDonald: As you go down the ramp, there is a open public area prior to going through a gate, which would be presumably card controlled by residents. That area as we have it currently designed has 11 public parking spaces plus a, um, an accessible space. Uh, we need to have 12 by virtue of our numbers, there was a little bit of uh lack of clarity with regard to those numbers in terms of what we needed to comply with based on the calculated density bonus. So we have an agreement as a condition of approval to either make room for a 12th spot before the gate, you know, on the public side of the gate, or to provide a mechanism by which a spot would be made available on the private side of the gate. But it looks like what we most likely would do is make a minor rearrangement of some of the storage areas so that we can have all the guest spaces in the publicly available portion of it that is before the gate and prior to the private, you know, section.

[02:03:35] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you. What's the term for the affordable units? Is it like 55 years or...?

[02:03:43] Emeric McDonald: By condition of approval, it's in perpetuity. It's my understanding.

[02:03:46] Chair Cox: In perpetuity, okay. And so then let me ask you... I'm just trying to get my head around the HOA reserve, I know we talked about this once in the past, but you know these ownership uh BMR units are as you mention pretty rare. I mean, you know, the 1101 West El Camino was the last time we saw these. But, um, in any case, uh is the idea of the HOA reserve, um, to have a set of money that's set aside in case there's some emergency situation or is it, you know, intended to be something that, um, you know, that, that the, uh owners of the BMR units are normally expected to draw from?

[02:04:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No. So the the sales price is set at a point that assumes regular HOA fees. But ownership comes with unpredictable costs. And so, we... at some point or another there will be a major assessment that will affect... that the residents will have to have to pay for. And so it is those those emergency situations that this is intended for.

[02:05:17] Chair Cox: I see, okay. That makes more sense to me then. And let's see... what other questions... Those are my initial questions. Let's go over to Vice Chair Cranston.

[02:05:37] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess a clarifying question for the applicant. Commissioner Schmiesing read a question that a member of the community asked about a public open space, and when I look at the drawings I don't see any public open space. I see common private space in the pool area, but I don't actually see any public open space on the on the property. Is that, which is correct?

[02:06:05] Emeric McDonald: There is public open space uh in front of the lobby, there is a plaza that is open to the public that is available for public access.

[02:06:15] Vice Chair Cranston: But the area where the clubhouse, the patio, the pool, is private?

[02:06:20] Emeric McDonald: That's private common, common space for the residents.

[02:06:26] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay. And there is a fence between the property and the adjacent property to the west... I'm assuming so that that private common open space is available to residents as opposed to just anybody walking in to use the pool, for example.

[02:06:44] Emeric McDonald: Uh, yeah, the the that portion of the property, kind of upper left in the diagram it's shown, is accessible only either through the lobby or gates on either side of the property.

[02:07:00] Vice Chair Cranston: Um, and then I guess this is a question for staff and a question for the applicant. I I had understood that the requirement for placement of BMR units is that they must they need to be distributed evenly throughout the entire property. Um, all the placement in the drawings has them on the Fayette frontage. There is nothing along the Hetch Hetchy side, there is nothing along the west or the or the side towards the apartment structure. So, um, I guess staff, is it... it surprised me, I thought they weren't, they would need to be more distributed throughout the property as a whole. And then maybe the applicant, why you chose to put them all on the Fayette facing side of the property.

[02:07:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so there is a kind of, um, single standard that would apply here, that's the standard of matching both the size of the units, uh, throughout the property as well as, you know, similarly distributed. Um, our interpretation is that the concession would apply to both of those given the, um, given that it's a single standard and that the, um, the constraints on the actual location of BMR units of, uh, of 1-bedroom units is such that you, you can't put them anywhere, right? You, they can only fit, um, along certain frontages and, um, in locations where the building design has certain dimensions.

[02:08:47] Emeric McDonald: The only thing I'll add to that is that, um, you know, different people like different things. Uh, the first-floor units have, uh, an external access, a stoop as was described by our architect, so, so you can enter your unit as if it's more of a residence rather than going through a lobby and a hallway in order to get to your unit. So the first four units on the on the Fayette side have that access. The other two that are on the second and third floor, that that side of the building does face the street but it faces the new, the new mini park, uh, which is which is going to be very appealing as a, as a bit of an aesthetic.

[02:09:26] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay, I guess I can't see... it's not apparent to me that there are entrances on the first-floor drawings, but uh, I'd have to look at it more closely. Okay.

[02:09:39] Emeric McDonald: We can bring that up, we can bring that up if you'd like. It's on the drawing. Let me look while you take Commissioner Lo's question.

[02:09:51] Chair Cox: Okay, moving over to Commissioner Lo.

[02:09:55] Commissioner Lo: Thank you Chair Cox. I have a couple of follow-up questions. One is, I'm wondering what's the perimeter of the underground parking lot. Uh, because I see trees in the courtyard, um, in the drawing. And I'm wondering where, yeah, where the underground structure ends.

[02:10:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's... I don't know exactly how many feet back from the property line, but it does follow the property line pretty closely. Um, probably about 8 or 9 feet back from the property line. I'd, the applicant might know exactly.

[02:10:36] Maren Moegel: Yeah, the garage is about a good 7 feet from the front property line and on other sides it's a little further away from the property line, so it basically is below the entire, almost the entire site with setback. And the trees that you're seeing in the courtyard, some of them are on top of the garage in planters.

[02:11:01] Nicholas Samuelson: Okay, so the two palm trees and the four or five along the top side are actually in grade. They're over, they're not on the garage. But the, all the other ones are.

[02:11:25] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, okay. Thanks for clarifying that. And then my other question has to do with, now that you mentioned transplanting the palm, um, I I appreciate your effort of, you know, um trying to trans plant transplant that palm tree. Um, I'm also curious about there's one more heritage tree which is a coast live oak number 11. Um, is that tree in a good enough shape to be transplanted? Since it's a native oak, to in my mind it has a lot more value um for the the environment and our public health than the palm. Palms are beautiful, uh I don't mean to uh say I don't like them, but I'm just wondering uh whether that that oak was considered.

[02:12:23] Nicholas Samuelson: Um, yeah, I mean the palm... it's really just about the site and the limitations that we have here. Um, palm's nice and upright and vertical, and can fit in the tight spaces that we have to put a tree. Um, an oak just didn't seem like it was um a really appropriate to try to fit into the little areas that we had around the perimeter. So, and it, you know, the palm tree at the edge of the pool is gonna work really nicely we think back there. So that was a reason, but otherwise yeah the oak would be nice.

1

[02:14:10] Emeric McDonald: I think it's a tremendous pedestrian benefit so instead of walking on a sidewalk where there's a curb and parked cars and things, and cars going right by you, there's now a four-foot landscape strip after the curb before the sidewalk. So we give up five feet of our property along the entire frontage for that purpose and I think it really enhances the pedestrian experience.

[02:14:31] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, that's, that's great. I really like that. So you're, you have trees on both sides for the pedestrians, right?

[02:14:38] Emeric McDonald: Exactly, exactly.

[02:14:39] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, that's really nice, thank you. Um, yeah, I think that's, that's all my questions. Thank you.

[02:14:51] Chair Cox: Right, thank you. Let's take it back to, uh, Vice Chair Cranston.

[02:14:58] Vice Chair Cranston: I did find the, I did find the entrance, sorry I missed that. Um, my other question, I guess maybe it's kind of a peripheral question. Um, I can't remember the staff member's name, it was Public Works. I noticed that the drawings on the future park across the street don't currently include using the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way on the opposite side of the street. Is the agreement with the SFPUC only for the, the park between Fayette and El Camino? And no agreement is put in place to use that space on the opposite side of the street?

[02:15:37] Renee Gunn: That is correct. The current agreement that we have with SFPUC is for the portion between El Camino and Fayette. The portion across the street that's a parking lot right now is SFPUC right-of-way and, as much as we can figure out, there is a lease there for the adjacent property owner to use it for parking.

[02:16:02] Vice Chair Cranston: Oh, they control that right now, or they have...

[02:16:05] Renee Gunn: SFPUC owns it, and um, somebody else is using it for parking.

[02:16:06] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay. Thank you.

[02:16:17] Renee Gunn: Welcome.

[02:16:18] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Cranston, uh, leave your hand up or down? All right, I... Okay. Um, any questions from Commissioners Hameister, Meyer, or Capriles? Nope. Nope. Okay. All right, then that'll be it for the questions. And uh, initial questions. And then let's take it over to the public to see if there's any public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. EPC Clerk Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Clerk Whitehill, are there people on the line that would like to talk?

[02:17:08] Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you, Mr. England. Um, Clerk Whitehill, are there any others now?

[02:17:11] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: No one else, uh, wishing to speak at this time.

[02:17:13] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: We do have one attendee who would like to talk. This is Bruce England. I'm going to allow you to talk and start the timer.

[02:17:23] Bruce England: Thank you. Um, thank you Commissioners and staff. Um, this, um, Bruce England speaking on behalf of Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. Um, at least one of, uh, our points was already raised by Commissioner Subramanian. Um, I'll mention a couple of others. Let me go back to the letter. I'm sorry we submitted the letter, I submitted the letter very late. There was just too much going on, I wasn't able to do it, um, until late. Um, so the, the fencing next door was already discussed. But the drawing shows fencing at the property line but it also shows it facing Fayette. And I'm not, listening to the feedback, and I'm not sure it was clear to me if there would in fact be fencing facing Fayette. Um, and if it has to be there. I'm just not sure. It just doesn't seem open, um, at all, based on my looking at the drawings. Um, and then on the landscaping choices, um, I'm just not sure about this part, but as I said on the last agenda item, um, the need to protect migration paths, um, for animals. And to not allow any cone dropping or low hanging trees adjacent, um, to the bikeways. Um, and during the construction phase, if you could require that sidewalks and walkways are not blocked unnecessarily, that unfortunately happens quite a bit with projects around Mountain View and it'd be good to actually have that requirement set up front. Um, and I realize this is going to City Council on November 17th, but if there is any delay in the process, if there's a chance, uh, to bring this to BPAC for their review, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. And that is it for me. Thank you.

[02:19:14] Chair Cox: All right, then I will close public comment at this time and bring it back to, uh, EPC, uh, deliberation and action. But, uh, before we do that, I'd like to know if the applicant can answer Mr. England's questions.

Segment 4

[02:19:30] Emeric McDonald: Um. As far as fencing is concerned, the fence along the Linear Park is mandated and specified by SFPUC. Um, we didn't have any input with regard to that. Uh, there is space between the building and the SFPUC right-of-way, and that becomes, in a sense, private property, and so there is a short period of fencing and gate, uh, which would allow entrance along the side of the property there. I'm not sure if that's what he's referring to. The fence, I believe, for SFPUC may continue all the way along the SFPUC right-of-way right into the sidewalk. I'm not sure if that's the... Eric may be able to answer that question. I'm not sure. But it's specified by them and it's their right, is my understanding.

[02:20:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, there's no, um, other than, you know, maybe small fencing, uh, around the driveway, uh, and obviously the delineation of planters and private patios, uh, along the frontage, there's no proposed fencing, uh, in this project. There's no, um, I mean, set way back along the Hetch Hetchy, there's no fencing in front of the, uh, the plaza. Um, so I hope that answers the question as well.

[02:21:02] Chair Cox: And about the cone dropping trees?

[02:21:05] Emeric McDonald: I'll defer to our landscape architect on that.

[02:21:10] Nicholas Samuelson: No, so along the street, we have crepe myrtles and the street trees are red maples. So they're not dropping any cones along there. And they'll be limbed up to not have branches low enough that they'd interfere with anybody.

[02:21:28] Chair Cox: All right, thank you for that. And then now let's take it back to the commission for, uh, additional questions and comments before we would have a resolution. Please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Lo.

[02:21:49] Commissioner Lo: Quick question about the, um, trees on the frontage. Um, crepe myrtles are great, but we have so many around the city. Um, would you be open to considering some other species, uh, perhaps larger stature trees there to provide more significant shade, um, to make that pedestrian experience even greater?

[02:22:17] Nicholas Samuelson: We're definitely open to using something more interesting than crepe myrtles. It's, um, I think we picked them because, you know, it's getting some color along there. Um, they have nice branching structure, too. Um, but we also thought the scale was good, um, because, you know, we had the higher, the bigger story street trees and these were kind of the second tier in that and they're closer to the building. So, um, we're happy to look at other species or if you have some recommendations for that, too, so, that definitely would be good.

[02:22:54] Commissioner Lo: Great, thank you. Um, and then are there any other sustainability features that, um, you would like to talk about?

[02:23:06] Nicholas Samuelson: Um, well just for the whole project, or just the...?

[02:23:11] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, yeah, right, so maybe for the architect.

[02:23:20] Emeric McDonald: Space for solar on the rooftop. I think that would be, you know, the other significant one.

[02:23:31] Commissioner Lo: Great, thank you.

Unknown

[02:23:34] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Are there other commission comments or questions? All right, I don't see a hand up so I will lead off with my comments about the project.

[02:24:01] Chair Robert Cox: So let's see. I'll start with the community benefits. I like the idea that they're being targeted for the San Antonio area, since this is the area that will be impacted by the new project. And, you know, I hope that will continue, you know, as time goes on, that when new projects come up that we'll be able to target the community benefits in the vicinity because that, as I've mentioned in the past, that's one of the things that helps give public approval to a project is that, you know, the people who will be facing the impact of the project see the benefit of having it there. So I want to thank you for that.

[02:24:43] Chair Robert Cox: I had some initial concerns about the rooftop deck as, you know, this is a rather tall project and there are other less tall projects in the area and whether the noise would continue. I think that having a good rooftop deck agreement when that happens is a good one, good thing to do. I think that, um, when I think back on the first development project I ever got involved in, it was the Madera apartment complex that is a block, half a block away from my house. And one of my main concerns was about the rooftop deck and it's turned out that that has not ended up being the area of most concern once we had a really good agreement.

[02:25:32] Chair Robert Cox: And so, I mean, in particular, it's good that you're not going past 10 p.m. at night, people, you know, people need to sleep. And so, I mean, you know, just outreach to the residents about what goes into that can make for a good agreement and good neighbor policy. And yeah, I mean, you know, if I think about Madera, the only significant problem area still is the move-in, move-out issue where they're not using the appropriately designated places. So anyway, I'll leave that as a comment for you to think about.

[02:26:18] Chair Robert Cox: In general, you know, as I've said much in the past, I'm concerned about the direction the state has set, and yet in this particular case, I mean in terms of dictating rules that override local rules, and I'm bothered somewhat about, you know, whether that means that, you know, in principle, that the precise plans that we work so hard on are just generally disregarded. I want to thank Eric for answering some questions that, you know, led me to believe that they're not completely disregarded.

[02:26:55] Chair Robert Cox: And in this particular case, because we have such a need for ownership housing at a lower entry point in the city, I'm actually glad that the state density bonus law is working in the direction that I like of giving us more of that. So, it's a, you know, just like occasionally in a family a bonus baby is a blessing in disguise, I'm looking at the state density bonus law as being a blessing in disguise in this case.

[02:27:30] Chair Robert Cox: Let's see, I like the idea that you put the crosswalk between the project and the new park that's on The Dean. I think that's a key benefit. And, you know, I mean in general, I mean one of my biggest concerns about San Antonio area and San Antonio Precise Plan is that once, you know, the units in The Dean are occupied and the office building comes back, you know, like the one for Facebook, and the WeWork complex, you know, is occupied, about whether it will be easy enough for pedestrians to cross back and forth across San Antonio Road without significantly disrupting traffic. So anything that you're doing on that regard I think is a good thing. You know, please keep it in your back pocket, as time goes on I'm concerned that it's going to be a long-term issue.

[02:28:33] Chair Robert Cox: And let's see, I like the idea that you designed the architecture on four sides because it's open to so much open space. Yeah, I mean that's good foresight in that respect, and I do appreciate that aspect of it. I also appreciate that the units are going to be done in perpetuity because, you know, in spite of the cycles going up and down in the Silicon Valley area, the need for affordable housing has been the one constant in our turmoil, and so you're doing a lot to address that. So I appreciate it as well.

[02:29:11] Chair Robert Cox: And finally I'll say that you get an A+ from me on the parking. It's always been one of my favorite issues. I know that if I'm in an ownership unit, I mean I've been now eight years co-chair of the, I got drafted actually into being co-chair of the residential downtown parking subcommittee of my neighborhood association, and one of the things that I find as a constant with that is that in general, people don't like tandem parking. I mean in places where I see, you know, long narrow driveways that can accommodate four cars, invariably what happens is one car is parked in the driveway and the other three try to park on the street.

[02:29:58] Chair Robert Cox: And so, I mean, you know, you're doing a good job within this project to think toward the future and not have, you know, arguments between the neighbors over parking. I mean, it just is something that doesn't make for good neighborliness. And I appreciate also that you're not using stackers. I understand that in some instances, you know, it's the only way to make a project work, and yet I'm more concerned about them in ownership projects because of the sense that people might have with the regret that comes with the annoyance of having to do the waiting and moving in and moving out. So you guys are really on top of my list for that.

[02:30:39] Chair Robert Cox: So, given that Eric has said to me that this will be the last development project I review at the EPC, I'm glad we're going out with a smile. So, at least that's my view of it. So anyway, now I will take it back to the rest of the commission for their comments and I see Vice Chair Cranston with his hand up.

Segment 4

[02:31:07] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess, um, first I'd like to thank Eric for taking the time to answer all of my questions that I submitted earlier in the week. Um, if I, in general, I like the project. If I have something that I'm frustrated with, it's in the, I was looking for something that said that we have to replace six BMR units with six BMR units, but it sounds like the law says we only have to replace it with five. Um, I have, really wish that you would go ahead and keep the BMR that you've got listed on unit 2A, two- 2.8 on the second floor, um, keep that, make that two-bedroom unit a, a BMR unit like it says in the drawing rather than taking it away. Um, but I just, I mean the design of the property I think is, is fine. I don't have, and the the fact that you set, the setback exceptions, I don't have a problem with because the, um, the choice to move the property to the Fayette, uh, Hetch Hetchy, uh, park means that there was a, a greater distance between the property and the three-story building next door. I stared at that for a long time, um, when I was there looking at that. Um, again, my only, my only regret is that we're going from six... likely to be BMR units to to five. Um, I understand and I guess it was a clarifying question with Eric, it's, in the, in the City of Mountain View BMR ordinance, we did not include a very low-income tier for ownership property, but it sounds like in order to qualify for the density bonus, the applicant has to have the very old, very low-income level to be able to get the density bonus support, is that accurate?

[02:33:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so the, uh, the BMR requirements that this development is subject to, so this is before council amended them last June, um, set an expectation of 10% moderate income, but also did not stipulate that providing very low income in lieu of moderate income would not be, would not comply. So, um, under those standards and under the way that we've been interpreting those standards consistently, like, going all the way back to the 1101 El Camino project, um, we have always interpreted those standards as saying that if you are providing income below the expectation, then you are complying with the expectation. Um, now, in our new BMR standards, we have a specific requirement that says, you can provide low and very low income units, but in doing so, you have to also provide this, um, HOA reserve. So that's in the new standards that this project is not subject to.

[02:34:19] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess I don't know whether other... I would, as somebody who has lived in an HOA and paid HOA fees and and seeing those kinds of things, inside of those kind of large expenses that come up, I'm... I mean, I, I, I don't know what kind of analysis staff is going to do, but I'm, I'm, that makes me nervous, okay? Quite frankly. I would rather have, two, I'd rather have two moderate-income BMR units and give up two of the, you know, and get an extra unit and give up, you know, one of the very low income ones, and less of the money has to be that, that reserve is more can be handled by somebody with a higher income level. Um, because it's... I mean, we've in my previous HOA, you don't know what's going to happen until it shows up. You know, and the, you know, there are certainly, you know, construction, um, requirements and protections that the builder has to supply for a period of 10 years, but if 11 years from now the pool dumps into the parking lot, um, that's a big expense that's going to get dumped on all the unit unit owners, and I'm just worried that calculating what that reserve is is going to be very difficult to be realistic. So I would, I would personally trade off moderate, you know, getting an extra you know moderate income unit uh or switching one of the very low income units um to a moderate income unit on something like ownership housing like this to get the extra unit, so that the six that the six units that are in existence on the existing property are still there, and it probably offsets to some extent the the applicant's um lower income that they the applicant is going to receive on a very very very low income unit versus a moderate one or two moderate income units. So I don't know whether that's I don't have a specific proposal, but I'm, a combination of the reserve and the loss of what I field is actually six below market rate or market rate units on the property today and only having five in the future, I don't know...

[02:36:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, just to uh uh remind the commission, the four very low and one low income unit are required by state law.

[02:36:52] Chair Cox: Okay, um let let me ask the following question on on that. Is there, is there requirement that special assessments uh take money from the uh HOA reserve and you know be spread out, be spread out among all the units, including the BMR units, or is there a way that the BMR units can be exempted from special assessments and just have them applied over the rest of the units?

[02:38:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, yeah I mean I, I, I don't know the the outcome of that. I'd, I'm sure that there are examples that our housing staff are studying, um, because they are looking into this, they're they're doing a lot of analysis on this right now to determine the appropriate level uh for this reserve, uh looking at tons of examples from surrounding communities and and um and when those have um have been required for um for BMR units. So um, we're doing the analysis, uh we're going to have a number, we're expecting something on the order of you know $50,000 maybe more uh per unit uh for this reserve, and that's um, and that's the... the only information that I have for you at this time.

[02:39:38] Chair Cox: I see Commissioner Capriles' hand up, oh wait a minute, Vice Chair Cranston are you done with, are you going to make comments at this time, or is it still questions and are you doing with the floor?

[02:39:47] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess since I've been in an HOA... I guess I'd be worried about an exception for the BMR units. One of the things that we don't want to have wouldn't want to have to do is that the, that the rest of the the owners feel that the BMR unit owners are somehow not recreating a division between them. So um, in my previous in my it was always based on square footage, so since the one bedroom units are generally smaller their percentage of an assessment would be likely to be less relative to two and three bedroom units, but in our association um, and it was this was state law, you don't pay your assessment, the HOA can go take your freaking house, okay? So um, you don't pay the assessment, um, you don't have the reserve for it, the HOA can go come after you, so I don't know that that would be... I don't know how that would work in a, in a BMR unit, but it's, I mean that's, the law basically says, I can come after you for you to pay your bills.

[02:40:50] Chair Cox: Did anybody do that when you were at The Crossings? Did it ever happen?

[02:40:56] Vice Chair Cranston: It never got to the point where we ever had to actually foreclose on a house. We generally found a payment plan or something like that that people could work through.

[02:41:04] Chair Cox: Okay. All right, back to Commissioner Capriles then.

[02:41:10] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, I just wanted to uh make a couple comments on the project itself. I first of all, I'm delighted to see us get some um you know, homes that can be purchased, and I think we've needed that for some time. Um I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the landscaping and extending the sidewalks and, you know, making this a very uh walkable and pleasant um living area for people, in consideration for, you know, the neighbors around, the way the structure has been uh put together is another, you know, kudos to have that consideration. And the flexibility of um uh choosing some other tree specimens for us that would be, you know, very appreciated. I want to take into account the comment from Mr. England in making sure that we've got trees that are not dropping things all over the place and making it uh uncomfortable for bikes and pedestrians uh utilizing that area. I appreciate the um, uh, public space that you've um offered across the from across the park and I think that is another uh very appealing um addition to to the neighborhood so people feel like they have they have another area where they can sit or they can visit and you know bring the community together essentially. And of course the crosswalk over to the park is a, you know, another, you know, welcome uh thought and idea to bring the community together. So I I will definitely approve the recommendation to the uh council for this project. And uh appreciate the flexibility of the applicant in in hearing, hearing our, our concerns and um kind of working through the HOA issue that Vice Chair Cranston brought up. Uh is certainly another consideration that I think that we should uh uh certainly take a little more uh investigation into it. It's not an easy one, but I think uh Vice Chair Cranston brings up some good points, so. That's my comments. Thank you very much.

[02:43:49] Chair Cox: Okay, other Commissioners with comments on the project? Commissioner Lo.

[02:43:59] Commissioner Lo: Um, I echo what has been said so far. Um, I'm in particular excited about the op- being able to offer the stacked flat ownership units, which also include the family, the larger units, the family size units, which are um, not, have not been that available um in other development projects in the city. And really appreciate the BMR units as well. Um I think this location is really great because it's um across the street from a future city park and right next to a future linear park, close to shopping and transportation. Um so overall, I I do like the project. Um, I do wish that um, the project could have had more space to accommodate larger trees which are so important to our city, we are losing canopy coverage. Um so if there's anything the project can do further um in terms of bringing more larger um climate resilient trees to the the landscape design, um thank you.

[02:45:24] Commissioner Schmiesing: I don't have much new to add. Um, I certainly echo all of the comments of my fellow commissioners. I think Vice Chair Cranston brings up a good point for consideration. Um yeah, excited to see ownership for um, middle income people hopefully, and um excited to see the way this project has really taken into consideration integrating itself into the surrounding community, whether it be those connections with the parks, um the community benefits package going to the San Antonio area. Um yeah, thank you.

[02:46:02] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, any other comments, Commissioner Capriles?

[02:46:09] Commissioner Capriles: Um I just wanted to um thank both the applicant and the staff for their patience and working with the SFPUC. We know it's not easy and it takes a lot of a lot of uh patience because some of the some of the rules don't make any sense to us either. So I just wanted to let you know that we're we're aware of the challenge you have of working through that. So thank you and I applaud you for your patience and working through all of that.

[02:46:43] Chair Cox: Yeah, I'll echo that and also uh complement you on working through all of the new state regulations having to do with density bonus, SB 330, and all of that, you know, that made it very hard to design the project uh to be in compliance and also be successful, so, good work. All right, um last chance for comments before uh we call for a motion. Please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Schmiesing.

2645-2655 Fayette Drive

[02:49:09] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So would some Commissioner like to make a motion? Raise your hand, please.

[02:49:19] Nicole Wright: And sorry, just to clarify, just because there was something said at the tail end, so that there couldn't be a motion that would violate the law, sorry, Commissioner Cranston, just to be clear. I mean, the 5 BMR, just to be clear on that slide, the 5 BMR units that are being that are included in the project satisfy the state density bonus law obligation and the city's BMR requirements. And I'm just not sure if maybe that's what you were referencing, but I just want to be clear about kind of what's being said because that's what that's what it satisfies, and that's the obligation.

[02:50:03] Vice Chair Cranston: So I'm what I was prepared to propose was basically dropping two of the very low BMR units and replace them with two market rate units or even three market rate units. So that, you know, the, number one, it reduced the risk to the HOA on that going in the future, and also gave us more mix across income levels. But if the laws say that it has to be four very low, then a proposal that would trade more moderate for some of those very low doesn't fly because the law says if you want to do the density bonus you have to do the four very low. And that's what I meant by, Nicole, by what I was saying, that it would in order for them to get the density bonus they have to have the four very low, and so I can't trade those off for something else. Is that accurate?

[02:51:05] Nicole Wright: Yes. Yes, I appreciate the clarification in terms of mixing the units and that that's correct. I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page in terms of kind of what was being said, but correct.

[02:51:14] Chair Robert Cox: I mean, it sounds like one thing that could be done is, you know, but I don't think this is what you would want to do, is you could you could make a recommendation that the council ask for an additional BMR unit, okay? But that will come at the cost of the project. I mean, the developer would have to swallow that, and so it's not a trade-off. But that wouldn't be violating the law. But I don't hear you saying that you're interested in going in that direction. Is that right, Mr. Cranston?

[02:51:48] Vice Chair Cranston: I would I mean, I would like I'd like to have a sixth unit, and for me it would be I would not ask for another very low or low, I'd ask for it to be a market rate unit, so. Um, but I my understanding was that the density bonus law, the fact that that the clie- the applicant is able to ask for the concession to reduce the size and mix in order to make the project viable, leads me to believe that the addition if they can't handle the mix across the unit size, that says that the viability of the project would be in question if they add a a market rate unit. So I'm I guess I not knowing the economics, and maybe Eric knows that, I'm just I'm it sounded just it sounds like the density law basically says the applicant says this is what it is, and we have very little ability to say otherwise. I would like to get a sixth unit. I would not ask for it to be very low or low. I'd ask for it to be moderate. But I don't know if that's feasible for the project to still be viable.

[02:52:55] Emeric McDonald: Vice Chair, if I could if I could just chime in. In the report it it describes that there are six apartments on the on the property, but actually there are five apartments on the property and then there's a detached single-family home on the front of the property, and it sounds like you visited it and I know there's a green fence in front of it so you can't see it that well, but the front of the property is a is a detached two-bedroom home. And that that home was never occupied by a a person of moderate or lower or very low income. And at the time when the relocation was took place, he he was interviewed, and he voluntarily said I I my income is in excess of those requirements, I I I don't qualify for any relocation benefit. I I voluntarily vacate. And so that that home, that house at the front of the property, was never occupied by someone of a lower of a lower income. The five in the back, four of them, they they they were able to, you know, meet with those people, and three of those were VLI and one was an LI, and then one evaded communication. I think he was proud and didn't want to have any relocation assistance, but by definition of the laws, a a percentage of his unit counted toward counted toward a VLI, and that rounds up to an additional one. And that's how an additional one VLI was added to the requirement. I don't know if that helps.

[02:54:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And and I would just add that um you know at this stage in the process there's a lot that goes into kind of determining uh community benefits and determining finishes and determining design and all of that stuff. And it's all calculated in the pro forma, and and to add an additional BMR unit at the end of the process would be uh disruptive to that. Um I can't speak for their pro forma, we don't have insight into that, but uh it's generally not something that is um uh that that projects can usually handle at the end of the process.

[02:55:04] Commissioner Hehmeyer: So maybe I'm just trying to think about, because in some ways a community benefit is the fact that you would have an ownership BMR unit in perpetuity. So I don't know about the calculation and it sounds like it's still being negotiated what what that reserve would be for for the BMR units. Um, but I wonder, Nicole, is it is it true that state law about HOAs is the same regardless if it's an BMR or regular unit, right? So is it is it possible that the HOA of this future development could go to the BMR units and somehow create this, you know, sense of you're not paying your way to the BMR unit owners? I think that's what we're trying to avoid, is trying to figure out some safeguard to to figure out some protection when that unexpected expense does arise.

[02:56:01] Nicole Wright: So, and and I I can't speak to kind of the the HOA requirements with respect to assessments, it's just not an an area of of law that our office really practices in, and I definitely don't have, you know, any any experience with that. But I I think in discussing earlier the um the reserve fund, and I'm not sure if it has a particular name, but under kind of phase two of the BMR ordinance, I think that was intended to help address this situation, right? Um, at least in some respects. Um, and you know, Stephanie or Eric can can jump in on that piece of it, but that's kind of my general understanding of kind of the use of those reserve funds is to assist with, you know, as needs arise to have a a funding bank to pull from for the BMR units. Which, I mean, is not applicable for this project in terms of phase two, but they are offering that as part of their um community benefit for some some amount of funding. But I think one of Eric's comments earlier was that our housing folks are kind of currently looking at how to implement that that reserve funding requirement. But Stephanie, maybe you have more to add.

Segment 4

[02:56:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Either one, whatever, I, I, I...

2645-2655 Fayette Drive

[02:57:11] Stephanie Williams: Yeah, I was just gonna say, so previously the providing onsite units wasn't the requirement, people were allowed to pay in-lieu fees, and so this is a somewhat recent um thing that we're looking into, especially with the adoption of the phase two. Um, so it's it's it's an it's an evolving thing, and Eric spoke to this earlier, but you know they're they're looking around to to some other communities that that have been doing this for um a while more than we have, uh because our previous BMR on you know mostly all BMR units were were done as part of um density bonus projects which were pretty few. And so now that the requirement is that you provide them onsite, um you know this is this is becoming a uh a very important topic.

[02:58:14] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Wow, thank you. I I appreciate the clarification. I just wanted to make sure I if there was some way to reimagine, you know, what a community benefit would mean if it or how that calculation could be done, but I think I understand it a little bit more clearly now.

[02:58:39] Chair Robert Cox: All right. Um, if there are no other questions, then I'm interested in entertaining a motion from the floor. Please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Schmiesing.

Segment 4

[02:58:54] Commissioner Schmiesing: Um, so to clarify we're not adding anything else onto um the language um and is it okay if I use the language from the agenda or this works too, sorry Eric.

2645-2655 Fayette Drive

[02:59:12] Nicole Wright: Either one, Eric has it up, but either way. Sorry Eric.

[02:59:16] Commissioner Schmiesing: Okay. Alright. And sounds like we're just um putting forward the recommendation from from the staff, correct?

[02:59:25] Chair Robert Cox: If that's what you want.

[02:59:27] Commissioner Schmiesing: Okay. Just clarifying with my fellow commissioners. Alright, then um I recommend that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve an initial study, mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring or reporting program for the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive residential project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Exhibit 1 to the EPC staff report. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council...

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Commissioner Schmiesing: approve a zoning map amendment for the properties located at 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive from the R3-D multi-family zoning district to the P-40 San Antonio Precise Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 2 to the staff report. Three, adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve amendments to the P-40 San Antonio Precise Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 3 to the staff report. Four, adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Planned Community Permit, Development Review Permit, and Provisional Use Permit for a six-story 44-unit condominium project with a state density bonus and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the removal of eight heritage trees at 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 4 to the staff report. Five, adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a vesting tentative map to create 44 condominiums and one common lot at 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 5 to the staff report.

[03:01:13] Chair Cox: Okay, do I see a second? Thank you. Please raise your hand. I see a second from Commissioner Hehmeyer. All right, uh, Clerk Whitehill, will you please call the roll?

[03:01:30] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Sure. Commissioner Capriles.

[03:01:32] Commissioner Capriles: Aye.

[03:01:33] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[03:01:35] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Aye.

[03:01:36] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Lo.

[03:01:39] Commissioner Lo: Aye.

[03:01:40] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Schmiesing.

[03:01:42] Commissioner Schmiesing: Aye.

[03:01:44] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Yin is absent. Vice Chair Cranston.

[03:01:57] Vice Chair Cranston: I abstain.

[03:01:59] Clerk Brittany Whitehill: Right. And Chair Cox.

[03:02:02] Chair Cox: Aye. So it looks like the motion passes with five ayes, uh, one person absent and one abstention. All right, I will now close our public hearings for this evening. Thank you very much, um, staff and applicants, uh, for working that through us, through with us. And we will move on to item number 6, uh, Commission, staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Uh, we'll start with, uh, Mr. Anderson.

[03:02:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you, Chair Cox. Um, nothing too special to report, I can, um, say that our, um, items that we were planning on holding on November 4th have been delayed and so that, that meeting will, uh, be canceled. Uh, so the next meeting after that is November 18th. Um, and Chair Cox, you will get an opportunity, I think, to review another project at a study session. Ah. We are, um, uh, likely going to be reviewing the, um, new office building at the corner of California and San Antonio, Malone Guyer. Uh, another TDR project. Um, there are also, um, and then also upcoming we are scheduling our December 2nd EPC retreat. So we've got some, uh, fun and educational items planned for the EPC, um, including some information about, uh, state legislation. So, really, really fun stuff.

[03:03:48] Chair Cox: I'm hoping to go out with a bang.

[03:03:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And we, and we hope that you can, um, share all of your, uh, profound wisdom with the EPC before you leave. So.

[03:04:05] Chair Cox: Ah, I see. You're expecting it to be something that I can do in five minutes or less. I don't know what that says about how much wisdom you think I've accrued. Anyway, moving on. Are there other...

[03:04:19] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Is that officially deferred to December 16th? Or is December 2nd tentatively the last one for the year?

[03:04:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, December 16th was never a regular meeting because of the holidays. It was, it was not approved with the original, um, uh, list of, of meeting dates.

[03:04:35] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Okay, thank you.

[03:04:38] Chair Cox: All right. Okay. So, are there other, uh, Commissioners that would like to make, uh, announcements?

[03:04:55] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess it's not really an announcement, I guess it's a request. I was told that the, um, the, the event that was held a couple weeks ago on, I think, green streets or something like that, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm not, I'm not remembering the title of it, that, that, uh, one of the city council members was involved with, that, that was going to be recorded and might be available later to listen to, but I hadn't heard anything on where if that was recorded and if it's available. So if that could be shared for those of us who are not able to attend, that would be great.

[03:05:30] Commissioner Lo: Eric, is that the one that you shared recently?

[03:05:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I believe the one that I shared was regarding trees. Um, but I can look into the Green Streets Symposium and see if that was recorded as well.

[03:05:45] Commissioner Lo: I believe they were all recorded.

[03:05:49] Chair Cox: And, uh, Commissioner Lo, are you going to tell us about the meeting that you had? In the reports?

[03:06:01] Commissioner Lo: Which meeting?

[03:06:02] Chair Cox: The one where Councilmember Hicks spoke and also the gentleman from Palo Alto.

[03:06:08] Commissioner Lo: Oh, um, sure. Yeah, Canopy held a webinar, um, I believe it was last week, on the topic of, um, trees and development project review best practices. Um, Councilmember Alison Hicks spoke about the vision of a, you know, with really tree-lined, um, streets and, you know, beautiful open green space for everyone to enjoy. And then, um, a retired, um, city planning arborist spoke as well and shared, uh, some of his knowledge and experiences from working, working in the City of Palo Alto. So that webinar is, was recorded and the link was shared by Eric already. Um, is that the one that you were, you were referring to, Chair Cox?

[03:07:04] Chair Cox: That's right. I, I attended that and I found it very, uh, very interesting and informative and in particular, uh, the comments from, um, uh, Councilmember Hicks. Uh, she had a really beautiful slide deck of, you know, what a tree-lined, uh, city looks like, and, uh, drew from examples, uh, in the Bay Area but also in other places in the US. So I mean if you ever get the chance, uh, to see that, I think that's worthwhile. And I also enjoyed the comments from the, uh, former Palo Alto arborist, uh, where he talked about the challenges of trying to preserve heritage trees on projects and what techniques are worth using. So I highly recommend it to, uh, members of the Commission who are interested in that subject.

[03:07:56] Chair Cox: So I will also add that I have a few announcements and reports. Um, so at 2 o'clock today, I spoke briefly at the Senior Advisory Committee meeting about the role there. They have been rotating through the, uh, different boards and commissions to try to learn more about them and to also understand what the issues that they address that, uh, um, particularly interest seniors are. And so I thank Commissioner Capriles, she had the original invitation, she yielded to me as the chair to go speak at that. Uh, I did mention to them that, uh, you know, depending on your definition of who's senior, that, uh, we could, if we take the very broad definition of 55 and over, we have three seniors on the, um, on the commission. And, uh, but I said, you know, it's not that, uh, that, you know, they're seats reserved for seniors, it just happens to be that way. It would be Commissioner Capriles, myself, and Mr. Cranston is smiling because he knows that he's over 55. So, but the youngest of the three of us. So anyway, uh, and then the rest of you are all just young people. So that was one thing that happened today. And, let's see, they did... it was interesting, I mean, the most of the questions, there was a Q&A after I gave my, uh, short presentation. And the things that they were most interested in were, um, ADUs. Because, uh, you know, in terms of a, you know, living opportunity for seniors, you know, granny and mother-in-law units were the slang terms that we used to use for them. So, uh, I was not able to tell them what the cost of the permit was or, um, you know, whether it was done on a square foot basis, I referred them to the Community Development Department. But Eric, if you know it offhand, I'll shoot it back to them in an email. Okay, so that was one thing.

[03:10:05] Chair Cox: Uh, I want to make a pitch as an announcement, uh, as I did last time, for the upcoming virtual meeting of the Mountain View Historical Association. Our former EPC chair Baird will be speaking on November 1st from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, uh, and doing a presentation honoring the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage in the United States. So, uh, put that on your calendar, it will certainly be a memorable, uh, experience.

[03:10:35] Chair Cox: And, um, the third thing I just wanted to say is, and I'm sure none of you are going to forget, but for anybody watching, don't forget to vote before November 3rd. And if you didn't get a chance to see the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association City Council Forum, it is online at our website, www.omvna.org. Uh, the video is there to watch. And there is also a downloadable copy of our special city council election issue with statements, uh, from the candidates on their positions on the issues. So, please take advantage of that if you haven't had the chance to do it already. So those are my reports and announcements. And I'll ask if there's anybody else from the Commission that has something they want to talk about before we close the meeting.

[03:11:34] Chair Cox: All right. Not seeing anything else, I will then go on to item number 7, and adjourn the meeting at 10:28 PM. Thank you all for your attendance and to staff for their excellent work tonight.

• ← Previous
• Next →