Oct. 16, 2024 City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:04:16] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right. Good evening. Let me just check the time. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of October 16th, 2024. I will call the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

[00:04:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to epc@mountainview.gov by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date.

[00:04:47] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name that you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak.

[00:05:03] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

[00:05:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjected to disruptive, racist, verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all.

[00:05:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: This commission welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters over which the commission has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise pursuant to the council code of conduct and the government code may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's comment period.

[00:05:53] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with roll call. Madam Clerk?

[00:06:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Clark?

[00:06:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:06:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:06:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:06:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:06:14] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:06:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Nunez?

[00:06:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:06:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin?

[00:06:21] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:06:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Gutierrez?

[00:06:24] Chair José Gutiérrez: Present.

[00:06:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Dempsey?

[00:06:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:06:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All commissioners are present.

[00:06:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. We will now move to item three, minutes approval. Item 3.1, Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 21st, 2024 and March 13th, 2024. Staff would like to provide an update to the proposed minutes. Staff?

[00:06:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you. Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the city's planning division. The staff noticed a few minor corrections that needs to be done to both February 21st and March 13th minutes. We received some comments from Commissioner Donahue as well, so thank you for noting that out to us.

[00:07:12] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The specific corrections that we want to make is in the February 21st meeting minutes. Please correct Commissioner Donahue's name in the second vote on item 5.1. This is just above item six and in the last sentence of the item seven as well.

[00:07:30] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And for the March 13th meeting minutes, please correct Commissioner Donahue's name in the first sentence of item six.

[00:07:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Any discussion from the commission members? Going once, going twice. Good eye. Let's see. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

[00:07:56] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comments on the minutes, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Do we have any comments?

[00:08:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We don't have any comments online or in person.

[00:08:09] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Right on. A motion to approve the minutes should include reading the following item... Oh, I'd like to entertain a motion. I can make the motion. Commissioner Cranston. Just read the blue.

[00:08:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I move to approve the minutes from the February 21st and March 13th meetings with the minor corrections as staff updates. And in the February 21st meeting minutes, correcting Commissioner Donahue's name in the second vote of item 5.1, just above item six, last sentence of item seven. For the March meeting minutes, correct Commissioner Donahue's name in the first sentence of item six.

[00:09:00] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Do I have a second? Looks like I have one from Commissioner Nunez. Let's take that to a vote.

[00:09:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion passed unanimously.

[00:09:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right, fantastic. That means we are on to item four, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

[00:09:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6.

[00:09:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have one speaker in person, Eli Robles.

[00:10:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Welcome.

[00:10:08] Eli Robles: Good evening, planning commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Eli Robles. I'm a field representative for Carpenters Local 405 here in the South Bay. I'm here to address the critical need for labor standards in the upcoming projects planned for our beautiful city in Mountain View.

[00:10:29] Eli Robles: Whether the projects are public or private, labor standards should never be overlooked. A fundamental standard is healthcare for construction workers. Construction is one of the most dangerous occupations in the U.S. and I find it deeply concerning that healthcare is often not guaranteed for those putting their safety on the line every day. Workers deserve to know that their health and well-being is being prioritized.

[00:10:55] Eli Robles: Another essential labor standard that should be adopted is the requirement to hire workers from an accredited apprenticeship program. These programs help cultivate the next generation of skilled workers, ensuring that the workforce remains strong, knowledgeable, and prepared for the challenges ahead. It's not just about building projects, but about building the future for workers.

[00:11:18] Eli Robles: Mountain View has an opportunity to get it right. I'm committed to attending every meeting necessary to remind this body the importance of labor standards and urge you to consider these measures seriously. Thank you for your time.

[00:11:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, sir. Thanks for coming out tonight. Any other speakers?

[00:11:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: That is all.

[00:11:39] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Madam Clerk. That means we are at item five, study session. Item 5.1, Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Visioning Framework. I believe we'll first have a staff presentation followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then discuss the item, including any questions. So let's begin with a staff presentation from Senior Planner Aki Snelling and Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson.

[00:12:03] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: Good evening, Chair Dempsey and members of the Environmental Planning Commission. My name is Aki Snelling. I'm a senior planner with the city of Mountain View and also the project planner for this Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan project. Next to me is Eric Anderson, our Advanced Planning Manager. And also in attendance is Martin Alkire, who is our consultant also assisting us with this project.

[00:12:35] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: Before I start with tonight's presentation, I'd like to provide a brief overview of our presentation. First, I'll start with a brief background of our presentation and then I'll talk about the purpose of tonight's study session along with providing a brief background on the precise plan project. I'll also talk about the significant outreach efforts made by the city on this project and then provide an overview of the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Visioning Framework.

[00:13:02] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: And then also we will ask the commission about the properties considered for inclusion into the precise plan study area boundary. I'll follow with next steps in the precise plan process and a conclusion for tonight's presentation.

[00:13:23] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The purpose of the item before you tonight is a study session on the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan, particularly to ask the commission to provide recommendations to the city council on the draft Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Visioning Framework, which was attached as Exhibit 5 in your packets. And then also to consider inclusion of properties located at 500 West Middlefield Road, which is the Willow Park Residential Condominium Association, 555 West Middlefield Road, which is the Avalon Bay Apartment Communities, and then also 500 Moffett Boulevard, which is the Shenandoah Square property owned by the federal government, controlled by the US Army and is actually not in the city's jurisdiction at this time.

[00:14:04] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: This map shows the core properties along the Moffett Boulevard corridor. The area in purple is the core area, the change area identified in the general plan. And then it also includes the Valero gas station up along Moffett and Middlefield, and then the Community Services Agency on Stierlin Road. And then it also shows at the very top the three properties highlighted with the black dotted lines.

[00:14:38] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: As a background to the project, the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan will be a new precise plan for the area and essentially will serve as the zoning regulations for Moffett Boulevard. This is similar to how other precise plans function in the city as the zoning regulations. So it will include land uses, development standards, densities and intensities for development, and also the streetscape standards for Moffett Boulevard. It'll also include the vision, goals, and policies for the precise plan area.

[00:15:10] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: It also implements three adopted city plans, which is the 2030 General Plan, the recently adopted Housing Element, and the 2023 to 2025 City Council Work Plan. The general plan specifically identified Moffett Boulevard as a change area and visioning it for transformation into a revitalized corridor. The change area is approximately 20 acres and is the basis for the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan study area.

[00:15:41] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: So the precise plan will also implement a policy requirement from the recently adopted Housing Element. This is policy 1.1GC, which requires Moffett Boulevard to be rezoned up to at least a 1.85 floor area ratio or 72 dwelling units. And also require which sites will have required neighborhood commercial. The Housing Element has a set deadline to have these adopted by December 31st of 2025, and this is the reason for the deadline set for the precise plan adoption. This concludes the background information and we'll move into next into our community outreach efforts.

[00:16:20] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: When the city officially began its kickoff for the precise plan, the city made substantial community outreach efforts to announce the project to the community and also to indicate ways for the community to participate in the process, including a community visioning workshop. The city mailed over 3,200 notices to property owners and tenants in the precise plan study area and also within a 750-foot radius of the precise plan area.

[00:16:47] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: For tonight's study session and for the upcoming city council study session, the city expanded the noticing to include all previously noticed properties and also properties well beyond the 750-foot radius, and then also additional properties who utilize the main arterials in the study area, so covered quite a bit more. The city also emailed over 1,250 notices to persons who signed up on the city's web page for Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan.

[00:17:15] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: And then for the visioning workshop, staff also hand-delivered notices to all open businesses in the study area and provided handouts and staffed information tables at the city's National Night Out in August and also the city's Mountain View Farmers Market.

[00:17:34] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: Following the outreach efforts, the city held a community visioning workshop on August 28th, in which 70 attendees participated. Two focus group meetings were also held on September 4th. One was held for the business and property owners in the study area, in the precise plan study area, and then also one for the Mountain View-based community organizations and associations. And then additionally on top of that, an online visioning survey was also provided on the project web page.

[00:18:07] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The text before you summarizes the key points that surfaced from all of the community input we received and regarding questions related to what participants thought about the identity, the assets, the challenges, and the vision for the Moffett Boulevard area. Some of the key points included the importance of the historic resources along Moffett, the need to support local and small businesses, the need to create a safe and pleasant streetscape for pedestrians and bicyclists, and also vision to have public spaces, and also make Moffett a vibrant destination and not merely just kind of a gateway or a pass-through to the downtown area.

[00:18:49] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: So from the summary and the community input, a draft Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Visioning Framework was prepared. Five key visioning themes emerged along with corresponding potential strategies. The first vision theme is to create a unique identity and destination for residents, businesses, workers, and visitors in the area. The second vision theme is to make Moffett a thriving hub of economic activity and uses for the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood.

[00:19:28] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The third vision theme was to create a revitalized neighborhood that embraces a range of housing and also businesses and community amenities. And then a fourth vision theme was to provide an accessible, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly multi-modal corridor.

[00:19:48] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The fifth vision theme focused on making Moffett a placemaking center of engaging and unique activities, events, and opportunities. And so the first question before the EPC is to ask, does the EPC agree with the draft precise plan visioning framework, and is there anything else the EPC would like to add and/or modify to the document?

[00:20:22] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The next three questions are regarding the three sites that council directed staff to further study for inclusion in the precise plan. And the question is, does the EPC have a preference to include any of the above three properties in the precise plan that you see highlighted in the black dotted area. Staff would like to highlight that all of these sites are large sites that could have a significant effect on the precise plan study area.

[00:20:50] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The first of these three sites is 500 West Middlefield Road, which is the Willow Park HOA condominiums. This is a 10.1 acre site with a 1.3 acre Hetch Hetchy San Francisco Public Utilities property that crosses within it. The opportunities to include this site into the precise plan would allow for new land uses and standards with an integrated streetscape and would provide clear standards and procedures than the current P or planned community district zoning. The challenge is that the site may not change in the foreseeable future because it is an older site, was built in 1971, and there are 192 separate property owners owning condos in that site.

[00:21:41] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The second site is 555 West Middlefield Road, which is the Avalon Bay community apartments. This site is 14.5 acres, and the opportunities to include this into the precise plan would allow for also new land uses and standards with an integrated streetscape and would also provide clearer standards and procedures than the current P or planned community district zoning. The challenge is that there is a current entitlement to allow development to increase apartments to 725 units with underground parking, a new amenity and rental office, and a 1.34 acre park. This planning entitlement expires in June of 2026.

[00:22:19] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: The last site is the 500 Moffett Boulevard site, which is the 17 acre Shenandoah Square property, which is not within the city's jurisdiction but it is within the city's sphere of influence and also urban service boundary. There are 126 residential apartments currently on the site. It is a large underutilized site and there have been many previous discussions with the council, the Army, and other interested parties about the future of the property. We are uncertain at this time what the Army contemplates for the site, but it may be clear in the next two to three years. Identifying any new land uses and/or densities would not be possible under the current housing element timeline to complete the precise plan.

[00:23:06] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: So at this time, staff is asking only whether the commission would like to include any of these sites into the precise plan study area boundary and not about any new densities or uses. At a future meeting, we will ask the EPC and council to select a preferred alternative which will include land uses, densities, and intensities for these sites and then also will include these requirements for the rest of the corridor as well. The process will ensure that the vision for the whole plan area is unified and internally consistent.

[00:23:42] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: A preview of that future question can help the deliberation at this meeting. These sites could be considered as future study areas if existing allowed uses and densities are maintained on the sites. The precise plan could establish procedures and minor standards for the sites as well as crafting policies and triggers for future review. This would allow the precise plan project to stay on schedule and within the existing budget and would also acknowledge the uncertainty associated with these sites. If the council prefers to adopt new densities or uses at these sites, it would impact the precise plan schedule and budget.

[00:24:24] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: So just in terms of next steps, the city council will be holding a study session on this visioning framework and the study area boundary considerations at its November 19th meeting. And in the first quarter of 2025, the city will continue its outreach efforts by holding another community workshop meeting and also to talk to key stakeholders about conceptual land use alternatives. In the second quarter of 2025, staff will bring back the preferred land use alternatives for the commission and council for endorsement.

[00:24:55] Aki Snelling, Senior Planner: So in conclusion, staff is seeking the commission's recommendations on the questions before you on the screen. This concludes staff's report, but we would be happy to answer any of your questions. And also joining us tonight are our project team from MIG, our consultants hired to prepare the precise plan, Dan Amstutz and Rishi Dody. Thanks very much.

[00:25:21] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Right. Thank you very much. Public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Do we have any public comment on this item?

[00:25:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, we do have in-person commenters. Albert Jines.

[00:25:59] Albert Jeans: Good evening, commissioners. Albert Jines. I've been in Mountain View now for 40 years. I would like to comment on whether or not to include the Shenandoah Square in the precise plan area. As staff points out, there are numerous complications which would arise if Shenandoah Square were included, since its acquisition by the city is still hypothetical and any proposed changing to its zoning would cause the precise plan to miss its deadline set by the housing element.

[00:26:27] Albert Jeans: If acquired by the city, Shenandoah Square would be truly a unique property because of its large contiguous size and it's currently underutilization. To my mind, there are only a couple of non-commercial uses which lend themselves to such large properties, namely parks and schools. I'm not sure we need more schools, but it is certain that this part of Mountain View has one of the lowest open space to residents ratios in the city, if schoolyards are excluded, and yet is experiencing a huge increase in the number of new housing units.

[00:27:00] Albert Jeans: For those of us in the neighborhood, Shenandoah Square is already sort of an informal park and open space, and has been for many years. I'm afraid that if it's included in the Moffett Precise Plan, it will be under more pressure to be zoned for other uses like housing or mixed-use development, which would be a waste of its large size. Keeping it separate from the precise plan will allow us to deal with it when the time comes as a separate topic, which I think it deserves.

[00:27:28] Albert Jeans: And the time remaining, I'd like to comment a little bit... I was at the DRC meeting just this earlier this afternoon where they were discussing 400 Moffett, and Prometheus is proposing to put a six-story apartment building on that site with no transition to the single-story mobile home park there. And apparently that's okay. I guess there are a lot of state regulations, they have the state density bonus, which lets them go from four to six stories, they're close to transit, all those things. I mean, it sounded like it was a done deal, and given the shape of the development, it's unclear how they could even make a transition from six stories down to one story in the small amount of space they have.

[00:28:07] Albert Jeans: But all that makes me wonder, you know, how useful is this precise plan going to be when this area, which is close to transit, is governed by so many state regulations now that we have to follow. So I'm in the time... in the weeks to come and everything, I'll be interested to see how that plays out. Thank you very much.

[00:28:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:28:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have four speakers on Zoom. The first speaker, Bruce England. And next is James. Bruce, you can talk now.

[00:28:44] Bruce England: Thank you. Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive resident. And I have some comments that are a little similar to Albert Jines' comments, but one area of interest is to include the section that you have a dotted line around going beyond Middlefield.

[00:29:08] Bruce England: And one of the reasons for that is that well, it's a contiguous stretch of Moffett going up to Clark. And there are intentions through public works to do a class four bikeway through there. And so they're keeping an eye on what happens with this precise plan. So, and also if Moffett Boulevard becomes some form of an extension of Downtown and Castro Street, then the design needs to reflect an intention of however that extension might pan out.

[00:29:41] Bruce England: And I was also at that meeting that Albert Jines was at, the 400 Moffett project today, and I have concerns about that also. It seems like it's putting the cart before the horse. This precise plan work should be done first, it seems to me, before these major plans like this get approved. And I don't know if anything can be done about that, but I at least want to bring it to your attention.

[00:30:05] Bruce England: There's also the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way that intersects Middlefield, and I haven't seen any discussion about that, except that I know there are letters from the SFPUC that you've received that raise concerns and objections to any plans that might take that right-of-way into account to do a trail or anything like that. Of course, there are those of us in the community who would like to see a trail happen through there, even if it's going to take a long time to get it done and to actually realize that full stretch of Hetch Hetchy right-of-way as a bicycle-pedestrian trail. But if that were to happen, then the design of that intersection of Moffett and Middlefield needs to accommodate that. And I think that that should at least be anticipated so that whatever happens at that intersection can accommodate either no extension of a trail or existence of a Hetch Hetchy right-of-way trail, or one should come to happen sometime in the future. And those are my comments. Thank you.

[00:31:12] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:31:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is James Kuszmaul, and April will be the next. James, you can talk now.

[00:31:28] James Kuszmaul: Good evening. My name is James Kuszmaul. I live actually and rent in the Shoreline Village Apartments on Central Avenue, and I grew up on Horizon Avenue in one of the single-family homes there. And tonight I just wanted to speak to the joint letter that Mountain View YIMBY and the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning sent into the commission.

[00:31:48] James Kuszmaul: I'd say there's two broad categories of points that we made. There's a bunch of details there, but the first one is on the vision. The vision items themselves seem great, they seem like the direction we want the city to be going and we want the Moffett area to be going. For the physical boundaries of the precise plan, we think it would be great for the city to expand the boundaries in the area around the transit center. The closer we are to the transit center, the more value there is in making it so that more people can live there, more people can work there, more people can shop there. And so only having this narrow strip of stuff in the precise plan right by the transit center seems like a bit of a waste in terms of the effort we're putting into the precise plan. So we would encourage an expansion of those boundaries around there, in addition to ideally including the properties that are in the staff report up around the intersection of Moffett and Middlefield.

[00:32:42] James Kuszmaul: The second category of suggestion that we raise is just around, as we move into the next stage of the precise plan, how do we make sure we're fulfilling the vision and how do we achieve that to the greatest extent possible and make sure we're not excluding valuable options. And so we include things like saying that, as I said earlier, this is near the downtown transit center, we should be looking at how much density we can accommodate there. Saying that, for development restrictions like it, if we want this to be similar to downtown, we should be saying, okay, how can we have zero setbacks, how can we accommodate development on small lots as they exist in this area. To the point in the staff report, how can we accommodate lot consolidation.

[00:33:25] James Kuszmaul: And then for things outside of just what is can be developed, for the Moffett streetscape, we want, there's certain clear things that should definitely happen, like fully protected class four bike lanes along the whole route, ideally wider sidewalks to accommodate increased foot traffic, that sort of thing. But also we should be seriously considering more substantial alternatives. Right now, there is a significant section of Moffett Boulevard near the intersection of Central Expressway, which is coned off and not used or anything because traffic doesn't need to go straight through to Castro Street anymore. If we took another lane or so of traffic away in that region, we could have a lovely outdoor patio area or park or whatever you want to call it, that would be a bit more of an extension to the downtown. And if we have a more active area in that area because there's a lot more people living there, there's a lot more shops, then that can be useful. And we should be looking at things like as the transit center master plan comes online and we have more buses going up and down Moffett, do we need bus lanes there? And there's a few other points in the letter, but I will leave it there. And thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[00:34:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:34:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is Alex Brown, and followed by April Webster. Alex, you can talk now.

[00:34:45] Alex Brown: Hi friends, feels like it's been so long. I also had the pleasure of being one of the participants in the visioning process for the precise plan. I'll keep my comments brief. I'm very supportive of re-envisioning Moffett Boulevard, but I think that the current proposed boundaries are too restrictive to allow for a really robust and complete neighborhood. A lot of the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods that I talked to, including two at my table in the workshop, felt that the nearby R1 and R2 zoning isn't fair to them as property owners, and limiting the precise plan to just Moffett means that we're also significantly limiting the number of available parcels that could serve as opportunities for new buildings, residential or commercial.

[00:35:22] Alex Brown: As Albert noted, Moffett already has some recent and upcoming developments on it, and I think that to make this precise plan worthwhile, we should think bigger. 555 West Middlefield and 500 Moffett are a good start, but we can go further, both east and west, to give this plan more of a chance to take off. The more early redevelopment, the more likely we are to inspire other neighbors to join in. So, to my lovely EPC members, I think you should take staff up on question one. They gave you the option, you should add to the plan. You can do it. Embrace it. Be powerful. Thank you.

[00:35:59] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:36:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is April Webster, and followed by Calvin Ma. April, you can talk now.

[00:36:15] April Webster: Hi, my name is April Webster. I am a resident of 505 Cypress Point Drive. I've been in the Moffett neighborhood for 12, 13 years now, so I've seen it grow a bit. I want to say I'm in complete agreement with what Alex had to say. I was also at the outreach event at Rengstorff Community Center. And like him, I would like to really strongly encourage the EPC to extend the boundaries of the Moffett Precise Plan. It seems like we've taken just the main artery through that community and pulled it out. And it alone is getting treatment, but it's part of a larger neighborhood, a larger community. And I would like to push council and the city to think more holistically, think of it as a system and consider the context within that one street is built.

[00:37:20] April Webster: And the way I see it's being treated if it's just that street, it's kind of like a surgeon who considers just a joint without addressing the body within it, within where it's getting replaced or something like that. I have some experience with this. It's just a very sort of siloed, shortsighted, myopic way of thinking about how you build a city or a community. So I'd push with others to really expand that boundary out from Moffett, up to 85, and really make it a neighborhood as opposed to a street running through it.

[00:37:54] April Webster: Some other themes that popped up at that meeting, and every single group in that meeting discussed some sort of green space. They wanted a walkable community, they wanted a bikeable community, a community that had green spaces that they could spend time in, that had shade, that felt safe. They wanted traffic calming, they wanted fewer lanes, slower traffic. They wanted support for small business. They were really concerned about the existing sort of mom and pop shops in the neighborhood disappearing. There was support for small businesses not just along Moffett, but further out, expanding into the community. Something like what you see at Midwife and Baker, close to Middlefield and Independent, where you have these places where people can gather and connect with their community and build those really strong ties. And that's what we're looking for in that community.

[00:38:55] April Webster: There are quite a few people who spoke about this, all different types of people, just there's a lot of diversity there, and that theme was so common. So I really want to push for that and how we're thinking about building out this precise plan to create the neighborhood, the vision, that the people living there want to see. Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

[00:39:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:39:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The last speaker is Calvin Ma, followed by Emil. Calvin, you can speak now.

[00:39:31] Calvin Ma: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Calvin Ma. I'm speaking in my individual capacity tonight, not affiliated with any group on this topic. I'd like to echo the comments made by James, April, and Alex regarding the interest in expanding the precise plan. We all want a plan that is functional, that actually does something, is not something that we put on a shelf and call it a day. As such, we need to make sure that the spots that are covered by the plan are actually going to be developed.

[00:39:58] Calvin Ma: If we look honestly at the sites in the current location in reality, the only spots that are not already, have a project on site and not going to be there for a while because of either their condos or because they're a school or a hotel, is pretty much the only four corners around Central Avenue and Moffett, which means not a lot of spots.

[00:40:19] Calvin Ma: I also went to the workshop at the community center and I did hear also people who live in that neighborhood who wanted to be able to develop more on their property, you know, those who are on Stierlin, for example. As people have also mentioned, it is close to the Caltrain station where we're putting so much investment into, we have bike lanes projects happening on Middlefield and Moffett, and we need to be taking full advantage of all of that.

[00:40:44] Calvin Ma: If we're building a tunnel underneath Central, it needs to connect to something that people are willing to go to, right? Because the current capacity is limiting. There's literally a vacant lot on the east side of Moffett in the Willowgate neighborhood, just because it's an R2 site probably, there's not much you can do with it. We want to make sure that we're not just making a plan that goes nowhere. Thank you.

[00:41:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:41:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is Emil Abraham. Emil, you can talk now.

[00:41:26] Emil Abraham: Hi. My name is Emil Abraham. I live at 555 West Middlefield. So I love for my property and the few others mentioned included. Yeah, I was at the visioning meeting as well, and it was the plan here outlines yeah what we discussed and I think it's it's a really really really good plan. But yeah I think extending the the boundaries of this plan is is a really good idea because yeah this corridor just right now just feels like a pass-through to downtown and to the the transit area.

[00:42:01] Emil Abraham: And of my property the 555 West Middlefield, I think they have construction planned to add like 300 or so more new units, so I think all those people could also be included in this plan, and I think they would benefit greatly from extending the boundaries here. Yeah so echoing all the previous speakers, I think I agree with everything that they said. Yeah, thank you very much for this.

[00:42:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[00:42:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: That's all the speaker we have.

[00:42:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Fantastic. Thank you, Madam Clerk. With public comment having concluded, let's move to questions from the commission. Let's see what my list looks like... Oh, this is questions.

[00:42:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If I have questions on the first question that staff wants, and then I have questions on 2, 3, and 4, should I be asking questions for everything, or are we asking questions on top question number one, and then separately later on question number two and three? I'm just trying to figure out what am I...

[00:43:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: That's a great question. An excellent question. I think tonight's number one priority should be efficiency and speed, since we've got a lot to cover. So let's just say let's ask all of our questions altogether. So just ask your one, two, three, four. And when we're done with our questions, then we can move to discussion and then hopefully we can... My guess is that three of those four should be relatively quick. So why don't we just do them all together.

[00:43:46] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So questions for one, two, three and four. Let's do it. Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[00:43:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh, no worries. Thank you, Chair Dempsey. So look, I agree with the community comments, and in fact I have here my cell phone, I read as many as the community emails I could read up to I don't know, six o'clock. But I liked James's perspective and what I heard a lot from folks within the community too that had showed up for the community event in terms of pitching in and listening to what the proposed project could look like, is that the R1, R2 folks felt left out or the homeowners in general, right?

[00:44:21] Chair José Gutiérrez: And when I look at the precise plan, I get it. But this is one of those examples of where I wish that we were a little bit more efficient and narrow it in on what the end goal is here as to what a potential neighborhood makeover could be. And that how that ties into the makeup of what we're trying to do with the general goals that we have with the housing element plan, but just how we envision the city.

[00:44:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: So the question is, why couldn't we expand the borders more than what we have here? And if you look at James's email, he has a PDF that he shared with us, and he's got a picture there of what his suggestion would be for what this could possibly look like. I would encourage the staff to take a look at that.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Because the question I have is if when looking at potential properties, well there are limitations already for what you can and cannot do associated with an issue of cost, then what's the cost benefit analysis of doing that versus expanding out and encompassing more of the neighborhood to see what potential we have there for growth?

[00:45:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So thanks for the question. Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager. So we are following Council's direction from I think almost a year ago now, when before we kicked off this project, we asked Council what their priorities were and they asked us to study these three properties specifically. And so that's what we took to the community in our outreach and that's what the noticing efforts and other processes were based on. If the Council wants to go in a different direction, that's certainly their prerogative, but it would be certainly have major schedule impacts on the project and we would kind of have to go back to square one.

[00:46:08] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, great. Understood. So then the question is still the same. Have we considered expanding out because Council did want to have this be studied and if they didn't deem that as a question, I'm thinking since you brought it to the EPC, you value our opinion, that's why we're here to give that opinion on land use and zoning issues. So I'm hoping that you would consider the question that I ask so that we can possibly during the next phase of this discussion factor that in and somehow make that as part of the conversation because I think this is where we miss the point to all this. We've approved so many things there already. It's changed a lot without the precise plan being modified. And that doesn't seem right to me. I would think that if you're going to make these adjustments as you grow, you'd have to focus in on the precise plan first and then build. Why are we doing it the opposite? That's what I hear from the community, that's what I get from just reading this. And that part I don't understand and I don't expect you to answer that but I'm just throwing that out there. Thank you.

[00:47:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, because leaving the technical definition of arterial aside from the planning perspective right the character logical um ethos of the phrase gateway would probably align closer to arterial versus destination or hub. Um and so I'm trying to process that and it sounds like um if I'm hearing you correctly, um there's more public clamoring for something like um a hub, destination, center place uh kind of uh character.

[00:47:06] Chair: Thank you Vice Chair. Commissioner Clark.

[00:47:09] Commissioner Chris Clark: It's really just a follow on to the Vice Chair's question. So just so I get the history right, and reading the staff report it sounds like Council asked specifically to study the inclusion of the three sites that you're asking us about tonight. But was there any discussion as part of that is about the just a few of the properties between like Horizon and Moffett or the area a little bit of an expansion over by CSA for example. Was that just not kind of on the table at the time?

[00:47:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, I think that's what we've heard from the community thus far, the challenge is translating that of course into the regulations and the uses and that's very much part of the work that needs to occur once we firm up what the vision framework is to inform that stage of the planning process.

[00:47:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Um, that works. Um and then uh different subject here. Um two more areas of questioning. Um so it's gonna be about the the boundaries. Um I guess I'm trying to process too I know I heard Commissioner Gutierrez ask some questions around the boundaries I I um you know I'm trying to process uh I think uh Commissioner Clark also, I'm trying to process like uh some of the um like what if any restrictions are on us um as a public feedback taking body and our own um kind of disposition uh as individually representing um uh the public uh as appointed by council like uh what if any um restrictions we have with regard to saying you know what, we we do think that it would make sense to consider these or those boundaries. Obviously we're not going to be talking about like Whisman Station or anything like that right. Um but like formally speaking um what overriding like um I know that council hasn't like didn't say that um you know and in when they...

[00:47:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Council did not discuss those areas and you know, there may have been some by one or two council members there may have been some general comments about the surrounding single family homes but it certainly did not rise to the level of a motion or a straw poll or anything like that that the council ultimately gave direction on.

[00:48:19] Commissioner Chris Clark: But some of those like around Santa Rosa, some of that is R3 and might be addressed through the R3.

[00:48:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right, yeah, we as a reminder we are working on a comprehensive update to the R3 zoning district which could include increases in densities to parts of the R3 zone.

[00:48:39] Commissioner Chris Clark: Okay. Thank you.

[00:48:43] Chair: Further questions from the Commission? Commissioner Cranston.

[00:48:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I have several. The property that the Adult's Education is on, is that I'm surprised that's not listed as an education site. And I didn't think we could zone education sites.

[00:49:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So it is, you're correct, it's not listed as a public facility. I will defer to the Assistant Director or the Director on our jurisdiction over that property. Certainly should they decide to do something with it, we would have jurisdiction over any private entity that would come in and do something with it. But I don't believe that we have... I refer to the director on that.

[00:49:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening honorable commissioners, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. You're correct in the general sense that state law prevents the city from applying its land use jurisdiction over educational activities of a school district. It doesn't preclude a city from applying general plan and zoning that may not align with an educational use and it does cover instances as the advanced planning manager indicated where perhaps the school district undertakes non-educational uses or endeavors to dispose of a property through sale to a private party. And so those land use regulations would be in place and perhaps prevent a private property owner from having to undertake general plan amendments, rezonings, etc. in the event of a non-educational use.

[00:50:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks. Next question. The 1.8 FAR number, is that what we committed in the housing element?

[00:50:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, it's also what this area has as an intensity in the general plan. So the action that we would take here would bring those in alignment.

[00:50:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: What's the effect of adding the additional areas? Would those also all be required to be 1.85 FAR?

[00:51:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, adding the additional areas is voluntary by the city and over and above the content of the housing element.

[00:51:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Next question. What history do we have of actually seeing an HOA kind of disappear? For something like this. I mean I drove around a little to Willow Park a little bit and it's definitely an older area but it's lots of cars, lots of people seem to be living there and I just, my kind of impression is that HOAs are kind of a one-way trip. And so I'm trying to understand if we zone it, is it just a waste of time?

[00:51:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's a very good question. I certainly we recognize that that is an impediment to definitely near term and probably medium term redevelopment at the site. Did the assistant director want to say something? I thought I saw you moving.

[00:52:13] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Hi, good evening. Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director. I think you know just to add a little bit to what Eric was saying, yes, it is difficult. It would take a lot of work to turn over a site where there were ownership units, right? I think everybody understands that. I think what inclusion allows us to do is to, you know, make improvements to that entire streetscape all the way maybe possibly up to Shenandoah if if the commission does recommend that those are included into the plan area. And I think that's a key point so if there was going to be some, you know, modifications or any sort of development permit that came in for that site, the potential for the city or private developer to, you know, continue that streetscape would exist, which is probably a positive all the way up through on Moffett.

[00:53:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I was under the understanding that Public Works is already looking at a plan for the street anyway, even regardless of precise plan. Why is the streetscape linked to the precise plan if Public Works is already working on something to potentially eliminate lanes on Moffett and add in bike lanes and all that? Why are they linked?

[00:53:29] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Do you want to answer that?

[00:53:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I'll let Ed answer.

[00:53:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, here comes the Public Works Director. Thanks.

[00:53:40] Acting Public Works Director Ed Orango: Good evening, Commissioners. Ed Orango, I'm the Acting Public Works Director. So the Moffett Complete Streets project is the project that we're looking at for evaluating complete streets elements. It's really focused on the bike element improvements and within the existing right-of-way and existing sort of curb-to-curb. So the precise plan could outline dedication requirements, streetscape requirements for frontages which would allow for additional right-of-way which would in lieu give us more opportunities for more complete street elements.

[00:54:24] Chair: Next. Keep going. You're on a roll, Bill.

[00:54:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: This one's not related. Not for Ed. Thanks Ed.

[00:54:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sorry. Relates, since you're already up there, do you mind if I just interject with a related question? So I just wanted to clarify, you're saying that well first, I was under the impression that streetscape could be done without adding the parcels from the staff report. And since you guys are already doing it, are you saying that by adding the parcels, we can then look at the actual right-of-way and not just work within the existing? That we can then change what happens and where the curb is, for instance?

[00:55:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I think the where you get the advantage with the precise plan is what happens on the private properties. Right? So we certainly have other precise plans where modifications to the public right-of-way, you know, on the arterials that are kind of serving that precise plan area, there's some analysis and direction given to the city for those improvements to the right-of-way. What you get with including them in the precise plan is improvements on the private property side.

[00:55:49] Acting Public Works Director Ed Orango: I think I would just follow up with Eric on his, with the precise plan, very clearly that is accurate on what you get with private on the private property. But it also can dictate the public right-of-way improvements. So it can identify wider sidewalks, how you want the sidewalks to, sorry wider park strips. So it really hits sort of the dimensions of the public improvements in the right-of-way. Again the Moffett Complete Streets project is really focused as a combination of a pavement maintenance project and a bike lane project, really staying sort of constrained there. Everything behind the curb is effectively gonna stay the same.

[00:56:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: If I could maybe add another way to think about it. You can include the streetscape design requirements without including the parcels, provide the vision, guide future city investments in the right-of-way. Including the parcel as well provides that clearer connection between the right-of-way improvements, including any expansions beyond the right-of-way into the private property as an associated component of future development of the parcels and their potential proportional obligation or complete obligation depending on the circumstances to undertake or provide financial support for those improvements. So there are some advantages to including the parcel relative to the streetscape, but it's not essential to do so.

[00:57:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. So if we included those parcels and we got to look at something a little bit more holistic with the front edge and the right-of-way, does that take away all the work you've already done? For those things are moving forward no matter what. Would you then look at it from scratch if they were included to see what else could be done, what could be improved?

[00:57:48] Acting Public Works Director Ed Orango: So including it within the precise plan, it's just another once if the city were to elect to do any improvements to the right-of-way behind the curb, that would be an element that we would review. So what we're doing now doesn't take away from it. Again really focused on kind of is a pavement maintenance project with the inclusion of introducing bike lanes and other green street elements, but we are limited we are focused on the curb-to-curb. Anything behind in the sidewalk area, if the city were to elect to do improvements we could, typically we rely on the development community to do that. So when a property redevelops and a precise plan identifies a specific streetscape, then they would renovate the frontage improvements to be consistent with that streetscape.

[00:58:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. And then just one specific question and I'll end it right here with this one. There was an example in one of the comments of having the bike lane at sidewalk level. I'm not saying this is what we want, but just using that as an example of a different idea. That idea is then out because we've already looked at the street and the bike lane and what we're going to do and we're moving forward with that. We're not going to go backwards and say hey we have now more room not just curb-to-curb but the frontages as well to re-examine how we do the goal that we had in mind originally.

[00:59:14] Acting Public Works Director Ed Orango: It doesn't preclude it but for efficiency, since we have a facility that is serving the bikes we would likely lean on that facility and rather than try to impose a new facility on the corridor. Since we again this it's a combination of city funds and grant funds so we're really in a unique opportunity to take advantage of these grant funds for this complete street project on Moffett.

[00:59:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. That helps.

[00:59:48] Chair: Thank you Mr. Director. Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. Commissioner Cranston, take it away.

[00:59:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If you have curb-to-curb, is there any reason that the street side can't be raised so it's the same level as the sidewalk? And then you have a bike lane that's the same level as the sidewalk. If you control what's in between the curb, you can raise the level of the street, right? And change where the curb is.

[01:00:09] Acting Public Works Director Ed Orango: If there are sidewalk walk there to the other back of sidewalk. But the focus of the Moffett Complete Streets project is really curb-to-curb. And we can elect to do, you know with council's direction and approval, changes to that. But we really try to focus on existing conditions and maintaining existing conditions.

[01:00:29] Chair: Any further questions for the Public Works Director? Okay, don't go far, we may need you back. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cranston, back to you.

[01:00:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So related to Willow Park, okay. It's all soft story. Have we ever seen anything in a precise plan that might... The cost of dealing with earthquake retrofitting soft story structures is really high. And I have no idea whether that property had ever done any earthquake retrofits. But is there any... Have we ever seen anything in a precise plan or any other zoning that would actually put something in place that might actually help the people from not being at risk of earthquakes if they did decide to do something? Because I mean is that something that if Council decided to include it, would that be something that could be worked into a framework in some way? Or unless if it's already been retrofitted then it's not a big deal. But it just struck me that it's all soft story. And that's not great.

[01:01:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so typically those issues are dealt with in the building code. We had an initiative several years ago in our building division to study soft story buildings in the city. And that initiative, you know unfortunately we put it aside for other priorities for the city. But your comment is, you know, as a general comment, if it's something that the commission and the council want us to look at, we can see if there are incentives that could be developed through the precise plan related to that. However, one issue there is the... we would have to look into kind of the funding that would be necessary and who are the beneficiaries of that funding and how we would create that incentive. I don't know if the director or assistant director have anything to add.

[01:01:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: My fellow commissioners will forgive me, the only two people here that lived through some of these visioning kind of things are Commissioner Clark and myself. The idea of a placemaking center has a certain meaning to it, and we went through a lot of discussion about that during the San Antonio precise plan, and we have this thing we call it that was a place, and it's a vacant... And then the second item was the thriving economic hub of economic activity. In the San Antonio precise plan that was the intention of trying to make it busy, we've got the same thing built into the East Whisman precise plan, and nothing has happened. And at the same time, we're trying to ensure that downtown survives. So I am... I'm confused by the fact that we know that the world is not going shopping at stores, they're buying stuff online, okay? And the place the things that downtowns are becoming is more of an entertainment hub. And across the street, on the cross Central, we're working to build that. I'm... I'm confused by how this... are you talking about creating a competing downtown? I mean if that's... because a thriving economic hub and a placemaking thing to me sounds like you're trying to create another San Antonio Center, potentially Moffett Park kind of thing. And I'm... So I I was struck by that in the vision items. It seemed... I was worried about those. So can you comment on that?

[01:02:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, if you'd allow me to to start. I think what we're doing is trying to reflect what we heard from the community. So this isn't staff's vision and framework, it's a reflection of the community input we've received. And I'd say there was some discussion of that point at the community engagement meeting we had, and I don't think anyone wanted to necessarily create a second downtown, but people did express a desire to have something more for them locally within their own neighborhood, and not to have to leave their neighborhood to find those types of services and gathering places for them. And so I interpret it in that way, and they don't have to be the same type of place between downtown and what's created in this precise plan area. But we do need to I think respect the community's voice and figure out a way to make it the right type of gathering place and variety of uses that support those localized needs.

[01:03:30] Chair: Any further comment from staff on that particular question? We're good? Okay. Commissioner Cranston, mic is still yours.

[01:03:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I will yield to Commissioner Donahue.

[01:03:41] Chair: Thank you sir. Commissioner Donahue.

[01:03:43] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. So we already discussed the Willow 500 Middlefield, and the difficulty with getting a whole HOA to buy into some redevelopment. What about so 555 has been already approved for additional hundreds of additional apartments. What are your thoughts on whether it would be worthwhile to, if we included that property, what are the chances that they would back out of that thing that was already approved and then go forward with something under the new precise plan versus if they go forward with what they currently have they're unlikely to redevelop any, you know, near or even medium term?

[01:04:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so they did just apply for and receive a two-year extension. So that shows that they're motivated to continue their entitlement. We have not had any discussions with the applicant or heard anything from them that would lead us to think that they would want to do a different project.

[01:05:06] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Great. Okay, so then that second property, then the Shenandoah thing, the staff report says something about how there's some question about whether the Army will be disposing of that in the future. What's the likelihood of that happening and like because we want to make sure that if we include it that there's actually some likelihood that we're not wasting our time.

[01:06:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Yeah, so right now we don't have any answers on that. But you know we it may be clearer in the next few years. There are ongoing discussions between parties and it may be clear in the next two to three years we imagine.

[01:06:21] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, but that's beyond the timeline of when decisions have to be made about about that. So okay.

[01:06:28] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's right, yeah. And I think a bit of what we're trying to do here is to determine if there's a way to sort of go down the middle. Recognizing the importance of this site in the event that this city does acquire it or if it otherwise comes into the city's jurisdiction, that there's a relevance, there's a significance to this site, we want to capture streetscapes that are relevant and appropriate to some future change in use potentially, but recognizing it's perhaps not worthwhile to put that level of effort into the planning quite yet. And so maybe developing some triggers for when that the city should revisit and undertake a planning exercise for the site. So it's not it's not a perfect answer, but we think it's perhaps better to include it in the planning area with a designation for future study reflecting what the land use is in the event that entry into the city's jurisdiction does occur in the next few years for example.

[01:07:19] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. And I think my final question is if we include any of these sites, the staff report says that we can't meet the December of 2025 deadline. What are the consequences if we don't meet the deadline?

[01:07:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I'll defer that to the director, but I do want to make it clear that this future study area approach that we talked about in the presentation would not have the same impact to the schedule.

[01:07:53] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And as to the question of meeting the deadline for this housing element program, this is not a strict deadline where a consequence will accrue immediately the day after. What it is is an indication of what the city's commitment has been to completing this planning work, including resolving inconsistencies with the city's zoning for those core areas in the general plan change area. And overall ensuring the city makes a good faith effort to carry out its obligations in a reasonable timeframe. So if we miss it by a month or a quarter, the probability of some consequence the likelihood seems low. If we were to say, you know what, let's blow this up and do this major planning exercise that takes an extra two or three years, we're not sure what the state would make of that in reviewing the progress and implementation of our housing element. So we are trying to guide the city down a path that gets as close to that deadline as possible and flagging risks to completing the program on that deadline, such as undertaking focused planning for Shenandoah, for example.

[01:08:55] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay, yeah, that sounds reasonable. Thank you.

[01:08:58] Chair: Commissioner Yin.

[01:09:02] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Several of my questions were already answered through this whole session, um, and the presentation, thank you very much. One additional question I had was, will not including these three sites preclude adding them in at a later date? Or is having them be designated study areas pretty much kind of saying that they are like precise plans on their own?

[01:09:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I'll start and then feel free to jump in. I think that the difference here is that there are some things that we can say about these sites at this time. And really being able to differentiate the things that we can say about the sites now versus the things that we can't is kind of taking advantage of all of those opportunities. We can say things about the streetscape, we can potentially say some things about the frontage. One other thing that hasn't been brought up so far is we have a couple of properties here that are zoned P, which is a planned community zoning, and while there are procedures, they are not as clear as they would be if it was in a precise plan for things like minor modifications. So there are some benefits for including it in including all of these sites in the precise plan. The if we were to add them at a later date, we would miss that opportunity of maybe doing that more comprehensive streetscape and frontage planning along the corridor. We may also miss an opportunity to, you know, kind of incorporate these properties into clearer procedures. And there may be other opportunities that we may miss.

[01:12:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The... I'll just end by saying, you know, to the extent that you can do more comprehensive planning as opposed to more iterative planning, you know, to the extent that that's possible given what you know, it's it's it's a good idea to do so.

[01:12:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I think I'll just add a point or two. Certainly the city council can determine to add these properties into the precise plan at any time. The reality is that takes focus, prioritization, resources through the budget. We have many of those elements currently. And the question is, is there relevance to the precise plan area from inclusion of these properties today to achieve all of the things that the advanced planning manager said, and to perhaps ensure the city has some control if something unforeseen happens with the properties. To forego that opportunity today means we may not have another opportunity in practical terms to do that for quite some time. And so it's a trade-off and somewhat of a policy decision in the sense of the EPC making a recommendation to the council on those points.

[01:13:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I understand. Thank you. And I know that you had already touched upon the question of expanding the boundaries even beyond what you're showing. And my take is that you haven't publicly noticed any of this, and that would require then delaying the deadline.

[01:14:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Noticing is a key part of it, but I think the more important, fundamental part is what's the conversation were having with the community? And how are we being transparent with the community about what this project entails.

[01:14:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Right, that was my intention, is just to say that we haven't had conversations and workshops with community about that. Specifically I had a question about the Mobile Home Park, because it is right there, it's like we take a big dip with a dotted line, and I was just curious why they weren't incorporated into this conversation and whether or not you had had any discussions.

[01:14:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, again it's the same answer that I gave to Commissioner Cranston is we received direction from Council about what they wanted us to study.

[01:14:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. That's it for 5.1.

[01:14:56] Chair: Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:15:02] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I think I'm going last here, so bear with me everyone. If I want to not ask as many questions too, but I might have to. Cool, so I think along the lines of one of these properties, the 500 West Middlefield Road, I noticed that a letter came in or an email came in from the SFPUC. So at the risk of trying to potentially misinterpret state agency's intentions, I guess I'd like to ask staff, how did you guys interpret that letter with regard to any potential limitations or constraints that that agency's interests might put on our ability to incorporate this property into this precise plan?

[01:16:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, I'll get started here. We have a lot of experience with the SFPUC. It goes right through the middle of our city and affects a lot of adjacent properties. And this is pretty form for them. You know, they make this comment all the time. I think fundamentally what they're looking for, in the past there may have been cases when certain rights or entitlements due to the SFPUC property were made available to adjacent property owners or property that the SFPUC passes through. For example, counting that area in the area of the lot for the purpose of determining density. SFPUC rejects those actions. And so when we do our density calculations, we base it off of the area of the parcel. We don't include the SFPUC land. So that is where that language comes from. It's already part of our procedures. And as we included the SFPUC in the East Whisman Precise Plan for example, we acknowledge those constraints when calculating things like site's available density or FAR or whatever.

[01:18:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So is it safe to say there's no risk at all from us incorporating that property into the...

[01:19:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I would say that we would need to reach out and discuss with them, have a conversation with them about kind of what the precise plan entails, how it kind of has the potential of affecting their property. And from there we would kind of determine the appropriate language and or next steps.

[01:19:25] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And how intensive is that interfacing and interaction?

[01:19:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh they have meetings that we would attend where we would present for example the rezoning action and you know have a conversation from there.

[01:19:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And how often does that process take of going back and forth, if they have any kind of input or feedback? How often do they have input or feedback? How long does it typically take to get this like okay from them essentially?

[01:19:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, it's not a formal okay necessarily. We don't... Yeah. It's something that we can integrate into our timeline.

[01:20:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Commissioner Nuñez, if you'd allow briefly to clarify for the record, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is another local agency, not a state agency.

[01:20:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Excellent. That would actually make me a little more confused. But I will just plow forward because it sounds like this can be integrated into the process as being proposed by staff. So in terms of more questions, in terms of the I think Commissioner Cranston raised a concern around a potential of kind of a competing business center. I had a similar thought earlier this week as I was reading this. I guess my question is along those lines, to what extent has an economic capacity study been conducted as part of getting this part of the process complete and set forth to this commission? And if none has been conducted so far, at what point in the process can we and the public expect that to be conducted, and what would be the scope of what staff is looking for with regards to assuring or maximizing the vitality of that region from an economic perspective?

[01:22:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, the project does include some analysis of retail opportunity in the area. It has not been done yet. Right now like the director said we're reporting on what we've heard through the visioning outreach process. I don't know if Ms. Snelling or the consultants wanted to provide a little more detail about what the analysis that we're expecting to do through that.

[01:23:04] Dan Amsden: Sure, and I apologize for warning. And good evening Chair and Commissioners. Dan Amsden with MIG. So I wanted to reiterate what the director mentioned, you know we're hearing the community feedback at this point. And I think what's really key the feedback is creating activated ground floors and not just dead spaces. So that could be retail but that could be other things like gyms or exercise areas or things that are more community amenities. So this is something that was talked sort of at a high level or presented by the community. What was also discussed a lot is not competing with downtown, being more focused on the Moffett neighborhood or amenities as well. So I think that's another key piece to this. We do currently have retail and economic consultants as part of the team and they're looking at existing conditions or existing trends. This is really what I should describe the the what phase of the project, what do we want, what's that vision, but as we move into the next phase it gets into the how or what are some of those options. So as the community and all of you and council as well help sort of define what we want to look at as part of the vision, we'll get into an analysis of different types of uses and whether feasibility would be from a business standpoint also a development standpoint as well. So that is part of the analysis we'd go through as the alternatives phase that comes up next.

[01:25:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Great. And along those lines is a kind of a view of what downtown is and or the health of downtown is factoring into that formal economic study portion? Or is it being looked at cause for example what I'm hearing is right the ground floor the activation all that is that being considered an isolation within this plan for just Moffett or is it incorporating kind of like the other side of the coin if you will with regards to the downtown to inform what makes its way through to that ultimate precise plan?

[01:26:20] Dan Amsden: Sure, I'll do a quick start and then maybe pass back to staff. Uh there is also the downtown precise plan projects being run concurrently. So we do have the same technical consultants working on both projects to try and create consistency of analysis but also to understand what is the uniqueness of the two areas.

[01:26:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, that's exactly what I would say. Thank you. Nothing to add.

[01:26:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. Appreciate that. More questions. I don't think that they have to do with the economic vitality. Unless my next question is also in your scope then. So in terms of the as close to a yes or no as possible just for everyone's sake, is it safe to say that the underlying zoning of the current like what is it commercial residential arterial, is it safe to say that's going to change as a result of this precise plan?

[01:27:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, it will. Yeah.

[01:27:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, perfect. Um, to what extent is the current like direction of the um the feedback the study so far that we've conducted, to what extent is it still leaning towards kind of like that um that character of arterial if that makes sense?

[01:27:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, I would say that an arterial is a a a pathway or a a a a path that is kind of the the step up from a collector, right? You have you have these neighborhood streets that that feed into a larger street. Um I don't think, if I can if I can read into your question a little bit, I don't think there's necessarily anything in the term arterial that means four lanes for example, or lots of cars. Um, but that being said, uh the direction that we're moving forward on for the streetscape and the character of the roadway has not been defined yet. We know uh what the community has said, we're reporting on that, there's a lot of value to put on um you know reprioritizing some of that roadway towards pedestrians and bikes and creating a a more comfortable environment uh for that. Um the new zoning, the new precise plan will integrate with that vision and direction as it is ultimately materialized.

[01:29:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Right. And and just to kind of like inform a little bit more about kind of where that question is coming from, I I see the phrases um gateway and then also destination or placemaking center and hub kind of like within within the same documentation um that we received right as part of this meeting. Um which would kind of seem to be a contradiction in terms of like a gateway by definition can't be a destination like right? Um so I'm just trying to understand like um maybe I'm reading it wrong um that's probably the likeliest thing. Um but in terms of like what's the like what's the proposed character of this area that staff is proposing?

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: kind of gave staff direction. Um, and also the public hasn't really, you know, to my knowledge aside from the kind of feedback sessions, um, in a formal kind of, you know, Brown Act type uh, forum, been able to provide feedback um, around that, right? So this is also the public's opportunity to say, hey, um, you know, we have this intuitive feel around what what the neighborhood is, um, such that, you know, we here are able to consider that. Um, and so my question is, um, what formal barriers exist to prevent us or that would restrict us as a body from saying, hey, we we do think that the public is onto something here. Um, what what are those boundaries? Or uh barriers?

Segment 2

[01:30:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. I think I'll I'll tag on uh to where the advanced planning manager left off and and your prior question. What I heard from that as well was uh how does the arterial nomenclature in the current zoning relate to the future vision for what this community will be. And what I would say about that is the thought is the current uses in the CRA zoning district with the arterial nomenclature are intended to attract or serve people coming through the area, higher volume traffic, and perhaps a wider range of higher intensity uses uh to some extent. I think what we've heard from the community is a desire for uh ensuring that we provide for more localized serving uses in the zoning, and I think that care intent and attention is likely to be part of what comes in place of the CRA zoning, based on what we heard. Further reinforced by thinking about how the street design and corridor nature of that may be changed in certain ways to provide a different scale, a different context and a maybe more inviting place for people to come and to gather uh to meet the neighborhood needs. If I heard that correctly underneath your question.

Segment 3

[01:30:46] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. Uh, and we as the staff certainly respect the commission's role in trying to absorb the community's input and give voice to it. Um, I don't think we want to put any formal boundaries uh, on what the commission's recommendation is. I think what I would ask you to do is consider how the council is going to reconcile all of the aspects of your recommendations in light of this overarching need to make a good faith effort to comply with the housing element deadline. And so, um, there's more than one way to go about this. If the commission were to feel very strongly that the plan shouldn't proceed without expanding the boundaries sort of left and right, if you will, from the corridor, um, that should be the recommendation. There's perhaps another way to do it where the commission recognizes um what the community sentiment is and and you agree with that and perhaps recommend that the council consider that broadening when we return to one of the future study areas, for example, that you may designate as well. So when going about planning for Shenandoah Square in a few years perhaps, revisiting this opportunity to make a more holistic planning boundary and undertake that when we're already going to undertake a a robust planning process. That's another way to carry that forward, give voice to it, but not undermine a really important um aspect of housing element compliance as well.

[01:32:09] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Mr. Murdock, just for point you know point of clarification, the item that's here in front of us, this is a study session, so we're not actually formally voting on anything. Our aim is simply to provide summarized sort of majority sentiment comments to staff for your benefit going forward. And that's all we're doing under this item. Is that correct?

[01:32:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct. I think making uh your recommendation and sense of what the staff has provided to you, what the community input has been, and what you think the council should do with that in validating this vision framework and allowing staff to move on to the next steps in the process.

[01:32:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Excellent. Yeah. Thank you Chair Dempsey for clarifying that for the public. That's also my understanding of um the the context here. Um so last question here. So in terms of because I'm hearing there's a lot of resourcing, a lot of kind of like council prioritization, things that are kind of like the more like the soft uh barriers, if you will. Um, you know, and and obviously trusting that um to the extent that, you know, myself and my colleagues have been pointing in a way that is respectful of, you know, like council's will, disposition, staff's resourcing as well, um, to the extent that uh there was a scenario where, you know, um, the uh EPC, you know, was to provide a uh appropriate, you know, recommendation that was a little bit different from what staff has provided, um, and you know, assuming that um HCD um is looking at this, cause my understanding too is it is not like a firm deadline, but there has to be meaningful um and and like good faith and and like the disposition of progress has to be there in terms of the ambition of, you know, what's being proposed in terms of new housing development and the like trackable progress has to be there, that gets the OK from HCD, right? Um, in terms of that deadline? Without going a year, two years over necessarily.

[01:34:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, right. I think that is the assumption that we are operating under. Um, enforcement priorities can change. But I think at this time we're expecting that a good faith effort to make substantial progress on this um, will be sufficient.

[01:34:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Perfect. Those are all my questions.

[01:34:17] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, sir. And I understand we have a couple of small questions from Commissioner Cranston.

[01:34:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Uh it was mentioned several times, it's my impression that the Prometheus project is compliant with current zoning code and they can proceed without there is nothing that precludes them from moving ahead than the normal process, right? So it was asked several times why don't why aren't we doing that this precise plan first? They're in compliance with the current zoning so they can make their proposal. There's nothing that prevents them from doing that, right?

[01:34:51] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. I think uh other members of the team will perhaps speak more directly to the project at hand. But you raised a point that I did want to address earlier, which is that um, while it would be a best case scenario for the city to undertake planning before projects are submitted uh and approved and constructed, uh we don't have that luxury in most cases. Um, property owners have the right to develop their property, to file applications, and for the city to process them under the existing regulations at that time. Which is what the city has been doing um, in accordance with its obligations. So um, the sooner a plan gets into place, the sooner it can inform future development, but not in all cases will that actually play out in that sequence.

[01:35:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then another question is can you explain the diff to me between 928 Mariner Drive and 500 Moffett?

[01:35:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I don't know specifically the origins of uh the 500 Moffett address. The the Mariner Drive address is a an address used by the army in relation to its management of the site. Um I think 500 Moffett may be more commonly understood given the um higher profile of Moffett Boulevard for example and identifying the sort of geographic area or block if you will of of where the property is located.

[01:36:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the item on the council agenda, the closed session with real property negotiators talking about 928 Moffett Drive is in fact the same property that we're talking about?

[01:36:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh 928 Mariner Drive. That that's correct. It's the Shenandoah Square site by the 928 Mariner Drive address.

[01:36:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks.

[01:36:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: If there are no further questions from the commission, um before we move ahead, let me just give a time check. It's 8:35, so that we're we're more than 90 minutes in. Uh, we're gonna do comments now from EPC. I'm gonna let's just let's do it this way. Um, let's cover plan and vision items essentially everything everything that's in here except for the the three extra properties. Let's let's get everybody's comments out. Um, I'll try to kind of keep a running total here of of how people feel about things. If there's anything that's real spicy or or split on, we can do a we can do a straw poll. But for the most part, I just want to make sure we get our main comments out on the plan and the vision items and then we'll hit the three properties kind of at the end and make sure that we've got everything tied up neatly in a bow and then we'll then we'll move on. Does that sound right to everybody? Fantastic. Who would like to be be first in providing comments? Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[01:37:25] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Vice Chair Dempsey. So this has been interesting. I like this. Uh, I know it's taken a little bit of time, but this is what democracy is all about. We chime in, we participate, we we give our opinions and insights uh for the best interest of the city. And and Christian, I appreciate you being here because you've been able to clarify so much, so well, quickly. That's efficiency, my friend. I I like that, I like that approach. So, I I'm in agreement with what's been presented to us in terms of the suggestions by the staff. That's that's fine, because it's a study session. And there's room for growth. Chris Commissioner Clark had mentioned before the issue of uh the R3 study. What I would like to suggest in this conversation quickly to city council is to factor in the timeline. I'm thinking and the community too. I'm thinking that one of the reasons that perhaps the expansion didn't happen the way we thought maybe it could, where we would want to include different zoning areas that weren't included in this uh projection for what uh this precise plan would cover, is because the R3 would be in discussion still. When I look at the next steps here, uh Q2 2025 EPC and council study session to endorse a preferred land use alternative. That's the deadline that we're trying to meet. If we were to include R3, we'd miss that. Obviously. So perhaps that's why R3 wasn't included. Because that would blow the deadline. We're making a good faith effort to include that type of potential rezoning all in due time. But I I think that answers that question as to why why that was excluded. I would like to suggest though also to city council if they can hear my humble humble opinion about also including because right now I heard a lot about you all going out into the community and getting community feedback. What I got also too was that a lot of the homeowners wanted to be a part of this. That's clear. Was that presented to us here? No. I don't know why. I don't know how you designate these things to be included in the presentations or not, but I know it was there. So I would encourage the city council to possibly, if you are going to expand, look at the R1 and the R2s, right? And let's do a quick cost benefit analysis on that. Because when you look at the other three properties there in general, even though I'm saying, yeah, sure, let's go for it let's study it. Well, the value there that that would bring to us for future planning, it's all questionable. It's all challenging. There's no sure sure dunk. So we lose nothing by trying to explore the opportunity of being able to include the R1s and the R2s. So when we factor that in, I think then city council has has a broader perspective of what the community feels, what the EPC thinks of in terms of these potential plans, and how we can make the best use of our time trying to meet these competing deadlines so that we always go forward towards meeting the best interest of the city. Thank you.

[01:40:13] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Vice Chair. Commissioner Clark.

[01:40:15] Commissioner Chris Clark: Yeah, just very brief. If we're if we're just addressing item one, I think I'm I'm fine with the the draft visioning framework um that's been identified.

[01:40:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:45:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, mine will be somewhat similar to Commissioner Nuñez's. Um, the idea of some kind of unique making it feel like you're in some kind of little neighborhood from an identity standpoint, I like. But the destination piece, I don't I'm really not comfortable with competing with downtown. It's um, it's, it should be complementary to it and use that term for the next one, the thriving economic activity. I completely agree. It shouldn't be something that's independent. We're not making a new a new town center. It's you know, it's how do we connect it in? How do we make it more attractive? There's no question right now that when you walk cross Central down uh Moffett, the the large Prometheus apartment complex on one side is is just a wall. Okay. The other side with all the small businesses could be do something there that makes it more feels more connected. I think that's so um, it needs to be complementary to get people walking back and forth, the transit center there, they may go over to grab dinner in down downtown and then walk home or stop at the little market and at the that's by the the adult school, which is a cool little market, right. if you haven't been there you should go to it. Um, so I it needs to be complementary. Um, revitalize the neighborhood within the context of the space that's there is I don't disagree with it. It's just it's a pretty narrow spot to revitalize, so I if you can do something there great. Um, multi-motor multimodal to me is part of the same thing. Connecting it to downtown, connect it to the transit center. Um, I just remember on the placemaking, I remember the whole discussion, Martin in the back there probably remembers the discussion around placemaking and uh, I have a different view of what placemaking means which worries me in this context. If it's something that makes it feels like it's part of the neighborhood, yep, okay, but it's not you're not uh not competing with downtown. So the the tone of this is right now the vision is written as if it's independent, which I'm not as comfortable with. I think it needs to be connected to downtown, connected to the transit center, um, so it's it's wordsmithing, but it's enough that it worried me as I read that the vision as it's written right now.

[01:48:41] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Um, Commissioner Yin. Oh, Commissioner Nuñez, you had more?

[01:48:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: No.

[01:48:50] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[01:48:52] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Um, as far as the the visioning, um, the one thing that really stood out to me was a unique identity, and a lot of the sub categories that are listed in this box are about signage and uh markers. And when I think of identity for a neighborhood, it has nothing to do with signs. Um, because when you go to downtown, I don't even think you need a sign. You know it's downtown and it's in the design. And it's harder to do, but it is far more effective and a better place to be is when you don't need a sign to tell you you're somewhere special. So I worry a little bit that under the category of identity, we're talking about signage and wayfinding. I think those are you know, nice to have. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, but that that is not the category or or the items that we're looking for to produce identity. That's in the design. Um, I did also think about uh the downtown. Definitely don't want it's mirror image, but I didn't envision that you guys would be doing that, I'm hoping not. Um, I'm thinking that they have small businesses already, we don't want those to go away either, so I don't want to take away from the ability for them to enhance what they have there. With the Caltrain electrification, we are actually creating a little bit more of a barrier for them to get to downtown. I know that by doing the tunnel we're helping that, but it is still a barrier, no matter what. So just, you know, regardless of what what that is, it's just more difficult to cross when you go underground and then come back up. So I think it's it's nice if they have a a sort of a place of their own. Um, I don't see it completely as a corridor. I hope I know that they feel that way. I'm hoping that we're not trying to just produce a nice corridor. Um, I think you can have both connection and place. It's a both and. And and it's in the details of how we do it. So I'm not averse to the placemaking and trying to develop an area that the neighborhood feels like it's theirs, as a community building space. What else here? Yep, for now, I think that's that's the main main comment or comments I have for for the visioning. Thanks. Everything else looks, you know, really good. It's all, you know, devils in the details. So I'm hopeful.

[01:52:00] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Yin. And Commissioner Donahue.

[01:52:03] Commissioner Paul Donahue: It's interesting that this is I think the first time anybody mentioned the the train being a barrier, which it clearly is. And and as I was reading the staff report uh earlier, I was I was thinking of that, even there was a there was some email from the public also that um kind of I I can't remember exactly, but I don't think it was aware that it's basically going to become more of a barrier uh going forward. Um, so generally I agree with uh with the the five items. I was a little confused initially about it being a destination, which to me means it's drawing people in from all over the place. It's like a regional thing. But um, but now I see that it's more more of a neighborhood focused thing. So I'm not as concerned uh concerned about or confused about that anyway. Um, and I also like the other commissioners uh want to um express my desire that it's it's not competing with downtown, uh that it's not detracting from downtown, that it's basically enhancing and and making the city overall better, not not uh, you know, this side of the tracks versus that side of the tracks kind of thing. Um, yep, so those are my comments, thanks.

[01:53:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Donahue. So any further comments from any of the commissioners? Doesn't look like any. Maybe I'll let me just throw out a couple of things and then I'll I'll do my best to summarize. Although I gotta say I think it sounds like we're we're all pretty much in the same place in terms of what matters to us about this. Um, before I say all the stuff that that that's agreeing, there's two tiny little nitpicky things that I guess I was that I would point out. So if you'll permit me. Um, when we do these sorts of I don't want to call it economic revitalizations, um, we talk about coffee shops and bars a lot. And and I love them both. Um, although as soon as I saw that, then I started thinking what many of you may have been thinking which is that sounds like Castro. And then I'm like how is it different from Castro? And it was never really clear to me. So I'm gonna be in complete agreement that we need some like unique identity clarification going on here. That's gonna be really important because I don't want that section competing with Castro to the extent that it's becoming a bit of a restaurant district, I'm not sure that we want to replicate that up there. They really should have their own thing. They should be their own place. They should have their own name for that neighborhood. Um, it really should be a unique, it should be them and not just Castro North. And so I think parsing out what is unique about that neighborhood and emphasizing it so it doesn't just become a clone of of Castro 100 through 300, I I'm completely in agreement with that. Um, but want can we just can we just prioritize daycare? Just forgive me for saying this, like when we do economic development, there's a lot of folks who can't go to the bars anymore uh because they have little ones and they like to go to bed at seven o'clock and things like that. So um, let's I guess what I would say is simply that when we're talking about economic development, there's more than one way to do it. There's more than one way to do amenities, and it and it isn't always coffee shops and bars, again, both of which I love. Uh, finally, let me just say, you know, I very much support what we have here. I think having a precise plan for that change area is a great idea. Um, there's I went and drove through there uh today, you know, I hadn't been up there uh very much lately and I went and drove through there and I really you really could see the opportunity. There there are some very there are some uh definitely older buildings there that it look ripe for um either densification, some more exciting amenities, what what have you. And some empty lots too. So um, so anyway, count me count me in for I love the concept of the precise plan. I love what what we have in here. I generally love the the values and the vision items. Um, and I just think that we really need to do we really need to next do the for the next step really work on what's unique about the place and really start the branding of of what we think that how they're gonna be their own special thing that I'm gonna want to go to, um, that's separate and different from Castro. Okay, so that's enough for me. I think Vice Chair Gutierrez, go for it.

[01:56:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: I I'll be quick. So you mentioned let's give them their own name. Let's give them their neighborhood. Are the EPC? Can we do that? With land use and zoning? Can we propel that? Or is that just City Council?

[01:57:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think it's very much a role for the EPC to play. Um, the council relies on the EPC's recommendations, insights, expertise, thoughtfulness, ability to thrash through the issues more comprehensively than sometimes the council format allows. So I think yes, as this process advances, uh very much will need the EPC to weigh in on are we getting right, is it unique enough, are we hearing from the community that it's reflecting what they think reflects their neighborhood.

[01:57:31] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So just as a follow up then. So you having clarified that, that's great. So that's a call to the neighborhood. If you're interested in wanting to do something like that, chime in, email, stop by, talk to us, talk to City Council. You got 3 minutes at the dais. Go for it. Thank you.

[01:57:50] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And let me just throw one thing in. Um, I I did not go to the listening sessions, but I would be curious to know how the people that live there refer to their own neighborhood. Because I don't know. I don't know I don't know what they call it. Um, but I would be very interested to know what that is. And I think maybe there's a wonderful branding opportunity here to call themselves um, you know, something cool that makes me go hey I want to go wander around there. Okay, that's enough from me. Personally, I'm going to pose a question to staff, which is do you feel like you have a a well summarized there's more questions. Oh, Commissioner Nuñez, you had more. Go for it.

[01:58:25] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Similar question, but it was actually going to be directed to you, chair. Um, it was a a question of process clarification actually. Um, because there were a few things that um and to the extent that staff doesn't or or does need this um they can chime in. Um, but my question was around um there were a few things that like for example like the signage that were more like firm uh recommendations. Like for example I totally agree, let's recommend no like no like crazy signage or anything like that. Um, so I'm wondering to what extent does um, would it make sense to uh I saw you taking notes, uh get some straw polling um for some of these more like up down style recommendations. Um, cause I would love to formally recommend like no unique entry signage for example.

[01:59:21] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, so um thank you for the question Commissioner Nuñez. Let me put it like this. Again, my priority is we we need to move quickly because we got a lot to do tonight and it's already getting late. So whatever we do, we need to do it fast. Um, I don't I myself have no problem with straw polling specific up or down questions that you have, as long as we can be sort of speedy about it. Uh and provided staff would find that useful, I have no objection to just speed running that.

[01:59:47] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, I think in the interest of time uh and given the nature of what this is, which is a little bit higher level broader vision, happy to take the feedback. If we sort of run down the line or whoever has additional points, we can take that. I don't know if the effort of a straw poll is necessarily uh quite at this stage.

[02:00:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Perfect. Uh well then lock me down for very uh against the signage. And there is one um around the uh the boundary of the plan that will be informed by uh our discussion on uh the uh proposed addition of the sites. So I am just uh telegraphing now that that is um one where I will be trying to see to what extent the uh commission feels uh similarly.

[02:00:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah, I I do think that there's a there's a straw poll to be had here on on whether that we think the the boundary of the precise plan should go beyond the three that were that were pointed out. It seems like I thought I maybe heard that from some folks. That seems like a big ticket item for this conversation and so I think that's probably straw poll worthy. Um, and I but I didn't want to skate too quickly over what you had asked earlier. Is there anything that you raised that you feel absolutely must be straw polled? Um...

[02:00:52] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: The signage. No I'm kidding. Um no, no no it's fine. just put me down on on that um because I thought it was kind of corny when I saw the picture. I'm sorry, no no I'm sorry. Thank you staff, I love you. Um but definitely um the the boundaries one um I'm gonna hope that um maybe we reserve that to the end just because I do think that the uh property addition discussion will inform that.

[02:01:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. So maybe we'll just do that last uh if that's okay with you Commissioner Nuñez. And so if we um from staff, you feel like you've heard enough from us on the plan and the vision and you you have sufficient clarity to move forward um in a helpful way? Then we'll we'll declare item one complete, we did our job there. Now let's cover the three suggested pieces of property. Uh for and and I would ask staff to once again clarify for us precisely what we're talking about here, that they would not be formally included in the precise plan, but we're kind of back pocketing them, or what help us understand the concept before we we straw poll that or we talk about it.

[02:01:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so this is really the the the the critical path that we need to move forward on right now is do we want to include them in the boundary of the precise plan or not. These three properties. Um, if if the answer is yes, then there is a subsequent conversation that can be had, which is what do you want to see on those properties. And the the path that we want you to understand that is a very viable path is to say, for now, the precise plan will just continue what's allowed from a uses and density perspective. We can add other standards around the edges, you know with if somebody wants to do like minor modifications, some standards around um, you know, landscaping or or open space or things like that. Um, we can also add procedures and other things. Um, the the other option there is to completely re-envision these sites with new uses and densities, and that's where the uh project schedule is affected. So, the question now is just boundary, but kind of casting forward to the next step in the process, if you do include them, you'll have that question in front of you.

[02:03:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright. But the staff recommendation for now is?

[02:03:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, we didn't have a formal recommendation in the report, but we I think as you heard in our discussion, there are a lot of good reasons to include them now.

[02:03:32] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Wonderful. Thank you. Uh, 500 Middlefield. Comments on the inclusion of 500 Middlefield into the precise plan. Commissioner Clark.

[02:03:41] Commissioner Chris Clark: Well, I'm gonna spare you all the time and just talk about all three, because um I think we should include all three and it's all for the same reason. So um, having worked on precise plans before, um I have never regretted having a contiguous corridor uh and a contiguous precise plan and including additional areas which can be pulled out later. I have often regretted not including areas later on because it's much easier to remove them or do a sub-plan later on. For example, if we do acquire Shenandoah, um that can that can proceed you know as a as a sub-subset of the overall precise plan. But I think why it's important to include them all today is uh one, as as we've heard, the the streetscapes, um the planning that that can occur, and some really high level um desires uh around infrastructure and other things that, you know, if a private party were to acquire Shenandoah or or 500 West Middlefield someday, they there are standards and things in place where they know what they're getting themselves into, as opposed and as opposed to us having to then go through a planning process that takes multiple years um to get through. So I think including them now, getting all the basics in place, um makes sense. And just having that contiguous corridor from Central Expressway all the way down to 85 as opposed to just stopping at Middlefield. Um, and and then um, as Mr. Anderson mentioned, I I wouldn't um I don't think we need to plan for different uses and intensities in these three areas, because Shenandoah is a ways out, 500 West Middlefield probably isn't going to be redeveloped anytime soon, and 555 West Middlefield has an active um permit on file, um even though there was an extension granted, so I think I think we just include them at this stage and and um, and and have a high level vision especially on the streetscape, um, and then we can always make modifications later if we need to.

[02:05:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Nuñez.

[02:05:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So um, coming into uh the meeting, um, or or before like getting into and really processing the public comment, uh I my thought um is yes to all uh of the sites being added. And um at least like dispositionally, I still am a yes to all of that. Um, but the what I'm struggling with is we have people from that neighborhood, um, I know I myself have definitely you know really close to there. Um I I find myself navigating that area uh quite frequently myself, right? And so there is a um an instinctive neighborhood that's like wanting to emerge out of this area, um if that makes sense. We have people coming out to like speak to that, right? Um, and so, you know, my um, my desirable to say, hey, let's say yes to all three of these sites and also, um, you know, recommend to Council that they consider uh the possibility of incorporating that broader area as proposed by the residents um from that neighborhood um to give them a truly revitalized neighborhood. Um, to give them a contiguous and like, you know, an identified place, right? And we can call it the Adobe neighborhood. Um, but what I'm hearing is it sounds like the biggest constraint to that being a thing um is that uh we would have uh staff resourcing and like, you know, soft but still like meaningful deadlines that we would be coming up on. Um, so then when I look at the uh the sites being proposed, if they are being proposed, then that means that uh staff is viewing their road map or or they're highly sound interpret, if they're proposing that this is included, then that means that they are accounting for their own capacity to do the work of incorporating that into the precise plan from a work and labor perspective, right? And time. Um, so but here's the thing, like we don't own the Shenandoah Square. I'm hearing that it's like potentially two to three years from now. Maybe. Who knows. Um, we have the 500 West Middlefield, like, um, I think that's the condo one. Yep. Um that's an HOA. Like what are the what is the real likelihood that that's gonna get developed? Uh 555 West Middlefield. We have an entitled uh, we we have a developer that's looking to like move forward with developing that that project. So there's really low likelihood that that's also going to move. Um, we also heard that it is totally possible for us to uh, you know, give guidance on the streetscape independent of these sites. I understand that it makes sense to have um the whole corridor there, but, you know, with regards to the parcels themselves, it doesn't seem that much action is going to happen there. And one is um, I don't want to say speculative, but it definitely um leaning towards uncertain. Um so if we have the public coming out and saying, hey, we we already have an identified neighborhood, here are the boundaries we're proposing that to you, um, and we already have land that we actually have jurisdiction over with people from that land coming in saying we want this to be included, then I would say, well, then let's not incorporate these sites, or one or two of them, and reroute that staff capacity to giving the people what they want. Which is a like identifiable, revitalized neighborhood, and they even suggested boundaries for that to us. Um, so I would like to say yes to adding all three of them, but I more than that would like to say um, let's expand the boundaries um, failing our ability to kind of like play Tetris with um staff time here. Um, that's what I would that's what I would suggest. And I know that the map incorporated those three sites, but um, if if those public commenters are still watching, um, maybe we can just give you guys really nice streetscapes. Um, that would be what I would recommend.

[02:10:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Nuñez. Commissioner Cranston.

[02:10:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So um, 555 and Willow Park, um, I don't see, you know, radical changes in what we're seeing there, but I have over the years watched when the military has turned over properties to local jurisdictions and found it interesting. Some cases it works really well because the city was involved up front. In other cases it was the military sold it to a private developer and they started heading down a path and the city was like oh my god. Um, so I would to me adding Shenandoah without adding the two doesn't make sense, but I think adding Shenandoah makes sense because if we have a vision as to what it can be and we've thought about it ahead of time, then if and when the army gets around to getting rid of it, um, the congressman who's been kind of blocking it is termed out at the end of this year, so maybe it'll happen more quickly. Um, but I I I would I would add them to make sure that what we that we get in Shenandoah is what we would want in the future. Um, so it's kind of a in order to get that one, I need the other two, so I'm supportive of all three. I agree with Mr. Clark that it needs to be a continuous quarter um, but I'm supportive of that of of adding them mainly because Shenandoah is something that as I've over the years in Southern California multi locations, Colorado locations, it's not been consistent and so getting ahead of it I think is if it's that if it's that close, and if they're really having meetings with council about the location, it's probably closer than than than farther, so I'd rather do that. Um, with respect to the discussion of adding neighborhoods around it, I don't think we have never done a precise plan that overlapped residential neighborhoods as far as I know. Existing it's all been greenfield. Okay. Um, and I would absolutely positively want to I I understand why some residents there would like to do something with it, but if we're gonna look at that, it needs to be looked at very carefully. The one the the biggest anomaly in this whole thing is why is there an R1 block surrounded by R3, R4 and CRA? So there's regardless of what happens that little Franklin block. Why is it R1? Okay? It just whether we look at it here or look at it as part of our three or something, but it just it's like it's an orphan. So we somebody out of look at that and my understanding was some of the people who were wanting to be added into the corridor are were from that specific that specific block. Okay. Um, but I'd be very concerned about this adding expanding it further. I'm still um, our three, a lot of these things are naturally affordable housing and I am we've got goals to try to make sure that we preserve naturally affordable housing and a lot of these our threes could be I just I'd be we gotta look at that if we if we look at that it needs to be looked at far more carefully than just a discussion here and a couple of people that came to the session that like give me something, so I would not be in favor of adding the neighborhoods around it without a great deal of additional research and thought. Um, so I would prioritize Shenandoah and the other two over looking outside of it for now. That's me.

[02:13:47] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Yin.

[02:13:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um I'll try to keep it short. I agree ver a lot with what Commissioner Cranston had just said. So I'll just take his little spiel and add it onto mine, seconding that. And also Commissioner Clark as well. Um, for me, same thing, Shenandoah that is the the lead is to to make sure in case we do take ownership that we can um sort of plan it out. And all these were done, are OK to to include, not only because of that reason, but I also wanted to make sure that we weren't increasing the intensity right off the bat, and I am going under the the idea that by putting them in MOFFETT we are not automatically getting them up to 1.85 FAR at the very least. So I am saying yes now solely because that is the assumption. What happens later if it's 1.85 FAR...

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: in hire that's up to, you know, the public, businesses, everyone involved in the city, but I do not want it to be an automatic 1.85 FAR jump. Um, so I'll leave it at that.

[02:15:18] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, that was actually on my mind as well. So the 1.85 is only the pre-identified change area not necessarily even the these three parcels or even the Valero station I think which is outside of that change area. Is that correct?

[02:15:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well the Valero station does have a General Plan designation that's 1.85 so that would have to be included.

[02:15:43] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, that okay, that's already there then that's fine. Um okay, the um yeah I I was going into tonight I was concerned about missing deadlines, but I think that that those calmed my fears on that. Uh and also that the fact that we don't have to uh it sounds like we don't have to fully plan out these these three uh uh properties that they're kind of uh in the back pocket I think as somebody said. Um so yeah the Shenandoah I think is the thing that to to focus on and I'm I'm persuaded by Commissioner Clark also and the the um it's better to to put something in now and not regret that that that you neglected to put it in. So I would be in favor yeah of all three for the for the basically the reasons that a lot of people have already said. Thanks.

[02:16:53] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Jose is fine, I mean. This is pretty simple. You want clean water, you vote yes. You want these three parcels included, then just vote yes. It makes sense because of the potential that's there. It's pretty basic city planning. I don't need to get philosophical on this. What I will say to City Council is listen to the residents there. I know folks had chimed in and we all have our difference of opinion, that's fine, that's okay. But what concerns me is that those voices weren't brought up in the presentation that was given to us here. That's my concern. That's why I did the shout out to possibly renaming the neighborhood and having them a chance giving them a chance that they know or they may not know that they have to come and participate. So I'm with Alex and others and with some folks from that community that this is a differently parceled structured neighborhood with a very narrow precise precise plan covering certain elements that we know may or may not pan out. But I'm going to put it to you this way. If there's future potential earnings that we're going to give for profit making abilities that are associated to these properties themselves and the property owners, gosh darn it let's give the same opportunities to our R1s and R2s. They don't necessarily have to go all in, but they'll have increased property value. They'll be able to pitch into the city with whatever it is that they propose that they could do to improve their lot. Thereby enhancing the best interest of the city. You give one, you give the other an option too. Not just a certain group. Thanks. Other than that, I'm fine with it.

[02:18:34] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Uh, yup, just to to kind of um add to that or follow that up I I should say. Um so I I definitely as mentioned earlier fully agree with the value and the wisdom and all the reasons of um adding those three properties, especially the Shenandoah Square. Um I would like to um you know, propose especially knowing that Council can shoot us down at any time they want, right? They can say no. They can say they're crazy or they can say that's a brilliant idea. Like anything in between, right? Um and so right now like the the the reality I feel as I'm looking at this is that we're talking about a corridor. Even as Commissioner Clark mentioned you know hey you want to have like the cor- like this is a corridor. We're talking about a revitalized corridor. And that's fine. It would be better than not a revitalized corridor. Um but the neighborhood doesn't necessarily exist along the corridor there's a a good amount of it does but the neighborhood exists around it. Around the corridor and and so what I would say is to uh Commissioner Cranston's point the any recommendation that we would make along having that expanded boundaries would be a consideration. A vote of all that intensive research uh or you know like close magnifying glass being looked at, that would be what we would be saying is hey Council, we're getting public feedback. We're hearing we want this to be a neighborhood versus a corridor. We are suggesting that you Council consider the opportunities and potential for expanding the precise plan along these boundaries. And I just did want to have a point of uh clarification is it um to uh staff if that's okay. Um can you clarify is it actually the case that we've never added residential into a precise plan?

[02:20:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I can only speak offhand about the precise plans that I've been here for which going back to 2014. Um we have added multi-family uh areas into precise plans. Uh we on one occasion in the East Whisman Precise Plan we added a single single-family home into that precise plan just because it uh the property owner was open to it and the um it kind of made a clean boundary with the adjacent property. Um so uh we I I do not know of you know kind of whole single-family neighborhoods or duplex neighborhoods that we've incorporated into precise plans.

[02:21:31] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Perfect. Yes, yes because I remember the Terra Bella stuff um and and how that went on. So then there's the rub it sounds like we have added residential just not single-family residential. Um that is an interesting distinction. Um I would say nonetheless that we recommend to Council um that they consider the potential and opportunity of expanding the boundaries to incorporate the neighborhood to have that study to have that second look as Commissioner Cranston is um uh kind of speaking to knowing that they could shoot us down and say no. And we have nothing to lose by just suggesting.

[02:22:12] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay. And we can uh we can straw poll that here at the end give me a chance maybe I'll say my own piece. Um I'm not going to there's no more questions, good. I'm not going to surprise anyone I think by saying I agree with my with my colleagues here um I'm in support of the the kind of back pocketing those those three additional properties and and I think Commissioner Clark did a great job of explaining why that makes sense. Um I do have to say when I drove by Shenandoah today and I saw what looked like a park there, um that's I think has like a baseball field there's a bunch of big trees am I thinking of the right place? That place is beautiful. And and if there is a way for us to prepare so that maybe five years from now or something we actually have a chance to have there be an actual municipal park there, that would be amazing. Because that's not a that's a pretty rare thing nowadays um to to trip across something an opportunity like that. So I think adding those three make a ton of sense um and so there's no you'll see no daylight between me and and everybody else on that one. Question to staff do you have all of the clarity you need uh it sounds like there is some interest in having some sort of straw poll about whether we would go beyond the boundaries of the of the three additional that were identified by staff.

[02:23:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I think it was basically unanimous.

[02:23:39] Chair Hank Dempsey: The the first the three. The three were unanimous and then exactly and then just because I think I've heard from my colleagues that they'd like some clarity on whether we want to go beyond those three. Does that sound right? I'm looking for people to nod at me and tell me they would like to straw poll this.

[02:23:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: If I could just clarify uh what I heard from the commission, um it was broad support to add the three. I did hear Commissioner Nuñez say if it was a tradeoff he would be willing to forego adding the three sites if it allowed broadening the planning area into the R1 R2 areas. Is that fair synopsis?

[02:24:17] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Confirming that yes and that it would not be my preference to go that route but if necessary yeah right.

[02:24:24] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay, so I'm not yet seeing straw poll conditions here but Commissioner Donahue it looked like you had a comment. What are you thinking? Commissioner Gutierrez.

[02:24:35] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: The the straw poll would be for um suggesting recommending to Council that they uh look at the additional boundary as recommended um to us by the public commenters um looking at the properties beyond that uh current uh slide 16 in our our packet um and most of it appears to be uh like multi-family as well so.

[02:25:04] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay. So that's that's the one that you would like to see. Alright. Is that clear to everybody before we straw poll this what it is we're straw polling? About whether we would like to see consideration of the boundary of the precise plan going beyond what was recommended by staff to include what was shown you said on page 16?

[02:25:23] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Beyond what is shown on slide 16 on page 8 of the packet.

[02:25:29] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay, right. Using the...

[02:25:34] Chair Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Nuñez, can you um speak into the microphone please?

[02:25:37] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah, let's we got to get let's get clear on this before we ask anybody to give an opinion. Yeah, so it is going beyond uh yes. Uh it is going beyond uh the uh current outline in slide 16 on page 8 of item 5.1 uh packet um the slides that were presented. And uh using the purple outlined area in the letter submitted to us by James Kuszmaul on behalf of Mountain View uh Coalition for Sustainable Planning and YIMBY as the starting point for Council's consideration uh of um expanding the boundaries to include a more holistic neighborhood.

[02:26:22] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay. Well tell you what, let's uh we do need to move quickly so let's just put that to the commissioners um just a quick show of hands because this is a study session. Who who would like to have that be a recommendation to uh to the Council? One, two. Okay. Let the record show. Thank you. Uh anything further uh Commissioner Gutierrez? Commissioner Clark.

[02:26:48] Commissioner Chris Clark: Just um super quickly. Um I I think what we can have uh even though there wasn't majority support there like what we can highlight in the report that goes to Council is that you know we did hear feedback that there was interest in expanding the boundaries and if that's something they want to take a look at that's um just kind of highlight it as part of the discussion that occurred because I think it was a significant piece of the discussion.

[02:27:13] Chair Hank Dempsey: Yeah. And and if I may, I would add you know I I actually had some interest and curiosity about expanding expanding some of the boundaries I I couldn't draw you what I think the map should be. Um but I think that one thing I did actually hear from folks is that there is community interest in going a little bit beyond the boundaries of what was drawn that you don't want it to just be the artery it's it's a living breathing neighborhood and sometimes that goes a little farther out like if you go look at Castro. Castro is not just the downtown precise plan is not just Castro. It expands out to the sides. And so I think that's an interesting question so maybe we don't know what the answer should be but it sounds like there's interest in that uh inquiry happening on behalf of staff if that sounds fair to my colleagues. Okay. Alright, I think we're done. Um...

[02:28:00] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Oh yeah, go ahead. So so can we do a straw poll just to say if we're in support of expanding the boundary? Let City Council look at it that way?

[02:28:10] Chair Hank Dempsey: Could we do curiosity or inquiry? Let's let's see if we have...

[02:28:18] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: I would be down to straw poll curiosity. I'd just have to eat up more time if you could if you want a straw poll something I'll give you one straw.

[02:28:24] Chair Hank Dempsey: But we got to do it quick.

[02:28:26] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay, I need help with language then because right now we have different attorneys here speaking at the same time. So we are interested in possibly expanding the boundaries. All those interested in possibly expanding the boundaries beyond the three. Who is interested who wants to provide that little bit of direction to Council? Or what language would you prefer to use? And if not by now if City Council doesn't understand what we're trying to do here... come on man.

[02:28:58] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: And sorry to speak out of order. This could be like 100 in 100 years in the future whatever comes out of this so like I think we owe it to just to to get it right.

[02:29:08] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay. So say it one more time. Let's put our hands up and let's move on to the next item.

[02:29:14] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: The EPC is curious about boundary openings within the neighborhood.

[02:29:23] Chair Hank Dempsey: All those feeling curious about that question? Let's put let's put the hands up. Let the record reflect three. Thank you everyone for your patience. Um looking to staff, is there anything further you need from us on this item?

[02:29:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No thank you.

[02:29:40] Chair Hank Dempsey: Are there any further questions or comments from the commission on this item? Boom. Alright. Time check. It is now 9:30. We're two and a half hours in.

[02:29:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Do I have to make a motion for a quick bio break?

[02:29:52] Chair Hank Dempsey: That only seems compassionate. If there's no objection from staff, can we do a a five minute recess uh in order? Five minute recess. We'll reconvene back here in five minutes. Thank you.

[02:37:45] Chair Hank Dempsey: Alright. Knock, knock, knock. We're going to uh let's gavel back in. Our recess is over and thank you everyone for bearing with us. I know it's been a little bit of a long night. Let us move now to item 6, public hearing, specifically item 6.1 Residential Development at 2645 through 2655 Fayette Drive Builder's Remedy. We'll first have a brief presentation by the City Attorney, followed with a staff presentation, then an applicant presentation, followed by questions from the EPC, and then followed further by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action. Uh do any commissioners uh wish to make disclosures such as contacts with the applicant or site visits?

[02:38:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, I drove past it. Right, it's mostly a vacant lot right now.

[02:38:45] Chair Hank Dempsey: Duly noted. Um any other disclosures commissioners would like to make? Alright, thank you. Uh let's begin then with a presentation by our City Attorney Jennifer Logue. Madam Attorney.

[02:39:00] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Wonderful, thank you uh to the Chair and Vice Chair and members of the commission. I am going to wait for the slides to pop up and then I'm going to provide some high-level background information about the Housing Accountability Act and Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act to help guide your deliberations this evening. I want to provide one caveat, this is not an exhaustive explanation or description of the Housing Accountability Act. There are many, many provisions in it. I am talking about the ones that will be applicable for your deliberations this evening. And I also think it's important to keep in mind that there is a lot of disagreement amongst lawyers about how these provisions would be interpreted by the courts. We are in um a legal uncertainty right now because there is no binding case law that interprets any of the provisions that we're trying to apply. So I am going to be focusing my presentation based on the plain language of the statute as opposed to how it may be interpreted by a court if challenged. Okay? So, the first slide is um talking about the Housing Accountability Act. It's found in Government Code section 65589.5 and I put that up there because I think a lot of people say SB 330 and they talk about all of the Senate bills that enacted all these laws but really what we're talking about is a Government Code section. And in that Government Code section, there are many, many provisions in the Housing Accountability Act. Um but what's important to note is the stated intent of the Housing Accountability Act. The stated intent is to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. So that's a big deal, right? Clearly the state legislature has spoken and they want to see, they want to facilitate the development of housing. Um it's also important to note the interpretation and implementation of the Housing Accountability Act, and it's going to be the policy of the state that it be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and approval of the provisions of housing. So again, it's clearly designed to facilitate the development of housing.

[02:41:41] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Next slide, please. So now I want to talk about Builder's Remedy. Um Builder's Remedy is one of many provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. And the Builder's Remedy provisions apply to only qualifying housing development projects. What are qualifying housing development projects? These are projects for which a preliminary application was submitted to the city before it adopted a substantially compliant housing element, and they are housing projects where at least 20% of the total units will be sold or rented to lower-income households or 100% of the units will be sold or rented to moderate-income households. Okay? The preliminary or the the project you will be considering tonight does qualify as a Builder's Remedy project. The application was submitted before we adopted, so that's why we are here this evening considering this as a Builder's Remedy project. And there's no dispute about that. Um what does that mean now for your consideration, what effect does Builder's Remedy law have on a local agency's decision-making authority? Um Builder's Remedy law limits a city's ability to deny qualifying housing development projects. It limits the city's ability to condition approval of a qualifying housing development project in a manner that renders the project infeasible for affordable housing development. And they've provided a definition of feasible. Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. That's pretty vague. So, you know, it's possible that there may be litigation over that. It's pretty vague. Um and then finally, it prohibits a city from denying a qualifying housing development project based on inconsistency with zoning ordinances and general plan land use designations. That's not a limit, that's a prohibits. So zoning ordinance requirements and general plan land use designation requirements are just off the table once you get into the Builder's Remedy world.

[02:44:14] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Next slide, please. Okay, so the question on the minds of planning staff, city officials, legislative bodies throughout California is what control do we have left in the world of Builder's Remedy? Um so this is where I'm going to rely on the plain language of the Housing Accountability Act. I do believe that local agencies do have some control left. Based on the plain language of the Housing Accountability Act, local agencies are allowed to require housing development projects to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to and consistent with meeting their share of the regional housing need. However, those standards, conditions, and policies must be applied to accommodate development at the density permitted or proposed on the site. So, you we can apply certain objective, written, quantifiable standards, so long as they do not reduce the density of the project. Okay? What does objective mean? It has a special defined meaning for these purposes and it means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. So it's a pretty tight definition. No discretion is allowed. If there is any discretion allowed, it's not objective. Um another area where this is, and this is a big point of contention, is fees. Um I have read multiple arguments that we cannot apply fees. But when you read the plain language of the Housing Accountability Act, it appears that the city can. And I quoted the language because it's important to understand that I've heard the arguments where they say oh you can't impose the fees because the fees make the project infeasible. And infeasible, infeasibility is discussed within the Housing Accountability Act. But you have a provision, 65589.5(f)(3), which says nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project. So it will be an argument about what nothing in this section means, right? I think, you know, it's arguable that nothing in this section means that it's a standalone provision, that you can still impose fees so long as you meet these other requirements: they're otherwise authorized by law and they're essential to provide necessary services and facilities.

[02:47:22] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: A couple of other things I think that are not really at issue here tonight, CEQA still applies. It's clear that CEQA still applies to these projects. And projects can be denied for health and safety reasons, um but the Housing Accountability Act says these are expected to arise infrequently. The conditions that would meet this health and safety standard or conditions are expected to arise infrequently. So it's not going to be an easy one to rely on. Um compliance with state and federal law obviously, if denial or imposition of conditions were needed to comply with specific state or federal law, um we could do that. And then there's also a carve out for land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation. Um and like I said, those are special circumstances that really aren't present tonight, but I just wanted to point them out to you. And so now I think I'm just going to close for you. It's basically with this legal backdrop that staff prepared the subject staff report and that you should consider the housing development project before you tonight. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, there's no binding legal decisions interpreting many of these Builder's Remedy provisions that are giving rise to disputes between local agencies and developers. Therefore, Builder's Remedy projects are currently being considered during a time of legal uncertainty with regard to some of these provisions. And that makes your decision-making very difficult. As you may know, the city has received two written threats of litigation, one from Cal HDF and the other from YIMBY Law. Given the legal uncertainty that I just talked about, it would be prudent to take into account these threats of litigation as you consider staff's recommendations and decide whether to modify or support the recommendations. Enforcing some standards or conditions and policies may be worth it, may be worth the litigation risk, while others may not, given the time and expense of litigation. So as you deliberate tonight, that is just something that you should keep in mind. And finally, I'm not saying that you should be afraid of litigation, I'm just saying that as you deliberate tonight you should be informed of the possibility and what consequences that would provide the city. Thank you.

[02:49:53] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you very much. That was really helpful. Um we will now have a staff presentation by Principal Planner Diana Pancholi and Project Planner Jeffrey Tsumura.

[02:50:04] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Okay, good evening commissioners. My name is Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the City's Planning Division. I'm joined by Project Planner Jeffrey Tsumura over Zoom. The item in front of you tonight is a residential development proposal at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive. A little over half an acre project site is located to the south side of Fayette Drive between Del Medio Avenue and San Antonio Road. The site is currently developed with a single-family home and six dwelling units and a 6,900 square foot commercial building. The general plan land use designation is High-Density Residential and zoning is Residential Only Use Restricted Area within the P-40 San Antonio Precise Plan. The surrounding uses include residential multi-family buildings to the northwest and to the southwest, a city park, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission open space area Fayette Greenway, to the southeast, and another city park, Fayette Park, across the Fayette Drive to the northeast.

[02:51:11] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The project applicant is requesting a Planned Community Permit and a Development Review Permit, to construct a seven-story, 70-unit condominium development with a two-level parking garage, replacing existing residential and commercial buildings on site. Along with a Vesting Tentative Tract Map request to create 70 residential condominium units on single lot. The proposal includes 20% affordable units for lower-income households, fulfilling the Builder's Remedy criteria as described by the City Attorney. The project is also requesting a Provisional Use Permit for a roof deck proposed above the seventh floor. A Provisional Use Permit is required for upper floor amenities above the third floor of a proposed development per the San Antonio Precise Plan. The project also includes a request for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove nine heritage trees on site. The project includes 101 parking stalls distributed within two parking levels. Although the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and therefore not required to provide any parking per Assembly Bill 2097.

[02:52:28] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: A little bit about the site plan, the proposed site plan includes project frontage along Fayette Drive, an at-grade and a below-grade level of parking, a striped accent paved plaza at the entry lobby along Fayette Drive at the project's southern corner, and a trees and landscape area along the frontage. Vehicular access to the site and the parking garage is provided at the project north corner along Fayette Drive. Low water use ground cover and California native accent trees line the remainder of the perimeter, primarily along the shared property line with the Fayette Greenway park.

[02:53:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The proposed multi-family residential use is consistent with the general plan land use designation and the residential only use restricted zoning within the San Antonio Precise Plan. The project as proposed meets a few development standards in the Precise Plan but does not comply with all the standards such as FAR, height, setbacks, stepbacks, common usable open space, personal storage requirement, paving coverage, etc. However, as just described by the City Attorney, pursuant to the Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not disapprove the project based on the project's noncompliance with these development standards.

[02:53:43] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: A little bit about the project design. The project features a contemporary architectural design with materials such as stucco, lap siding, and thin brick in warm neutral tones. The elevation provides large glazing for residents and the overall building base incorporates brick veneer and stucco base to screen the ground level parking garage. The massing is vertically articulated by balconies, which helps to break large spans of wall plane, as well as provide private open space for the future residents. The building frontage design does not meet the Precise Plan requirement for setback along the Fayette Drive frontage, and the step backs above four stories. Project is also not consistent with the Precise Plan's neighborhood transition setback requirements, but pursuant to the Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not disapprove the project based on the project's noncompliance with these standards.

[02:54:40] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Regarding landscaping proposed in the project, the project includes approximately 19,000 square feet of open area and landscaping. This includes the ground level landscaping, pedestrian pathways, outdoor patio, upper floor courtyard, and approximately 3,000 square feet of roof deck above the seventh floor. The project meets the open area landscape coverage requirement of the Precise Plan, but does not meet the common usable open space requirement and is deficient by 6,000 square feet. Staff had strongly encouraged the applicant consider modifications to the project to provide additional landscaping opportunities, but the applicant has indicated that a change in the site and the landscape design would render the project infeasible for development. The landscape plan utilizes a number of low water use and native plants. However, it is unclear at this time whether the proposal will meet the City Council 75% native landscaping goal. The applicant has not confirmed whether this project meets the intent of providing 75% native landscaping at this time.

[02:55:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Regarding the tree removal request included in the project, the project site currently contains 16 trees. This includes nine heritage trees and seven non-heritage trees. All 16 trees are slated to be removed due to their location within the proposed building footprint. This makes preservation impossible without compromising the project design. Additionally, some of the trees, particularly the heritage trees, show signs of poor health and structural decline. To mitigate the loss of the trees, the applicant will be planting 26 total trees across the site, at a 2:1 replacement ratio for the heritage trees and 1:1 replacement ratio for the non-heritage trees. Staff had requested the applicant to explore the preservation or relocation of on-site trees, particularly for a heritage palm tree that was originally to be relocated as part of the previous project entitled on this site. However, the applicant has indicated that the available landscape area on the project site is now not suitable for replanting these trees and the project materials do not show if an option to transplant these trees have been explored or evaluated yet.

[02:57:09] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Now regarding the project's affordable housing plan. Affordable housing component of the project includes 20% of the total units for lower-income households. This exceeds the City's 15% BMR unit requirement and qualifies the project for the Builder's Remedy. The proposed 20% equates to 14 units at 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). City's BMR ordinance requires affordable units to be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and have a proportionate distribution of units by number of bedrooms to market rate units. The project includes 5 studios, 6 junior one-bedroom units, and 3 one-bedroom units. This does not align with the City's requirement. However, as a Builder's Remedy project, City staff recommends approval of the project as currently proposed, notwithstanding its noncompliance with the proportionality requirement for BMR units. In addition to that, under the Builder's Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, the applicant must provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure that all affordable units remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years, and that is being proposed here. The six existing dwelling units on the property are currently vacant and therefore not subject to the City's Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. But these units to be demolished are subject to the replacement requirements outlined in the state law, and the proposed 14 affordable units included in the project will fulfill this replacement requirement.

[02:58:48] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Regarding parking and transportation, the project is located, as I mentioned before, within one-half mile of a major transit stop and is not required to provide any on-site parking spaces as per Assembly Bill 2097. However, the project is proposing 101 vehicular parking spaces and 83 bicycle parking spaces on site. The project application includes a Transportation Demand Management Plan. The San Antonio Precise Plan identifies specific Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for project proposals above 1.35 base FAR. This includes measures such as joining the Transportation Management Association, providing transit pass subsidies for all residents for 10 years, and TDM monitoring, etc. Although the applicant has submitted a TDM plan, they have also stated not committing to implement the TDM measures in the TDM plan they submitted due to the applicability of the Builder's Remedy. At this point of time, the City staff recommends conditions of approval requiring implementation of the applicant's submitted TDM plan.

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: the plan, which does not include joining the Transportation Management Association or agency. Additionally, typical project review of this scale includes preparation of a Multimodal Transportation or an MTA analysis to determine the local-level project impacts, including bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular movements. However, an MTA study was not prepared or imposed due to the applicability of Builder's Remedy in this particular case. The Precise Plan also outlines a streetscape including a 4-foot-wide planter strip and a 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk. The proposed plans show a 6-foot-wide attached sidewalk with planting behind the sidewalk. Staff received a public comment requesting Precise Plan compliance for a detached sidewalk, and staff would like to mention that this would impact the building's location, site design, safety, and the ADA provisions on the site as well. Therefore, as a Builder's Remedy project, city staff recommends approval of the project as currently proposed, notwithstanding its noncompliance with the Precise Plan standards.

[03:01:13] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The project is also subject to the city's Park Land Dedication Ordinance. This requires either the dedication of park land or the payment of in-lieu fees. Given that the San Antonio Precise Plan—San Antonio planning area is deficient in the park plan, and given the proposed development is constrained to provide adequate park land on site, a fee is being assessed rather than land dedication. These funds will contribute to park and recreational facilities in or near the project area. As part of the city's ongoing effort to reduce financial burdens on housing development, Housing Element Program 1.8 aims to update the Park Land Ordinance to reduce in-lieu fees by at least 20% on average across a range of typical projects. The timeframe for adopting reduced in-lieu fees to reduce cost on residential developments is at the end of year 2025. In good faith effort to encourage housing production by lowering fees where feasible, staff is recommending that the park land dedication in-lieu fee for this project be calculated at the lowest fair market value per acre of land for the current fiscal year 2024-2025. Additionally, staff recommends an early implementation of the Housing Element Program 1.8 by applying the anticipated 20% reduction to the in-lieu fee for this project. This would both align with our Housing Element goals and support the financial viability of the development. A condition of approval will require an 80% park in-lieu fee.

[03:02:58] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Regarding the environmental assessment of the project: In 2020, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 44-unit residential development previously proposed on this site. Project impacts to the air quality and noise impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels with the inclusion of mitigation measures and application of city standard conditions of approval. As part of the environmental review of the current 70-unit development project, city has prepared an addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with the CEQA guidelines. It is found that the proposed project would not result in any new impacts which were previously disclosed in the previously adopted IS/MND, would it result in and would it result in substantial increase in severity or magnitude of any significant environmental impacts previously identified. The project is determined to be consistent with the city's VMT policy and have a less than significant VMT impact as well.

[03:04:10] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Regarding community meetings and public comments: Typically development projects of this scale and size are encouraged to conduct a neighborhood meeting to gather community input during the project review phase. Although staff strongly encouraged applicants to host a neighborhood meeting to engage with the community, the applicant has declined to conduct a meeting for this project. Similarly, the applicants declined to attend a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting to discuss the project design. These meetings are not mandatory, but applicants are typically, you know, they participate as a way to get design feedback from staff and the community.

[03:04:55] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: After we published the agenda for this item, staff has noticed a few minor corrections that we would like to bring to your notice and recommend as part of today's recommendation. This includes minor corrections to Exhibit 1, project resolutions, and the attached conditions of approval. Specifically, it needs correction to Condition Number 42 in Exhibit 1 to require 83 bike parking spaces instead of 89 bike parking spaces. That was a typo, a mistake. And also removing the second correction is to remove sub-bullet B regarding electric requirements under Condition 108 about reach code requirements. In conclusion, the project is found to be consistent with the applicable development standards, achieves General Plan and Housing Element goals by increasing market-rate and affordable housing opportunities in the city, and helps meet city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution conditionally approving the Planned Community Permit, Development Review Permit, Provisional Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Builder's Remedy project with the few minor corrections as stated earlier in this presentation.

[03:06:25] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I would also like to note staff did receive six public comments on this item, which have been provided to the EPC prior to the meeting via email, and also was uploaded on Legistar for the public to view. This concludes staff presentation. Staff, including Community Assistant Community Development Director Blizinski and our City Attorney Jennifer Logue, are present here tonight and available to answer any questions you may have. Additionally, the project owner, the applicant is also present here tonight and will be presenting a brief presentation for you. Thank you.

[03:07:03] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you.

[03:07:05] Public Speaker: Good evening, commissioners and staff. Thank you very much for taking the opportunity to evaluate our project. First, I'm going to have, introduce Brenna Weaver, our architect, to speak about the building.

[03:07:16] Public Speaker: Hi, everyone. As Emric mentioned, I'm Brenna Weaver, a principal at BDE Architecture, and I am going to lead you through the design of the project. We'll just wait a moment for the presentation. Okay, great, thanks, Diana. So from this first view, you see a perspective of the building from Fayette Drive, and this is on the corner of Fayette and Hetch Hetchy that runs parallel to the building. And what we want to talk about here a little bit is how we focused the design on the entry. You're seeing here the entry to the building, as Diana mentioned, we're using a palette of brick veneer, siding, and stucco. And we've decided to accentuate this entry corner in a few ways. Firstly, at the ground plane, as Diana mentioned, we have a plaza with seating, planting, a water feature. And then as we start to accentuate this corner architecturally, we have a three-story frame that's in that same brick veneer material to help identify the entry to the building. We've also brought that brick veneer up to the very top floor, the seventh floor. Typically on the project, the brick veneer is used as a base, as a base material around the building on the lower floors, and we're accentuating that corner by bringing it up to the top floor. We've also used a different window type where that brick veneer extends up. We have two windows with a darker material in between them, so they give the appearance of a larger read of a window to help identify and accentuate that corner. Furthermore, there's some cornice detailing on the top of that corner as well, as well as trellises and balconies like Diana mentioned.

[03:08:59] Public Speaker: Go to the next slide. The next slide, we're going to see a view of the building in its context. And we're now standing, you know, you can see Hetch Hetchy there looking towards the project, and I think this is a great example of how that materiality that is so prominent at the front of the building, we're really carrying around throughout the building. You can see those brick veneer three-story pop-ups continuing along this facade, as well as the balconies wrapping the corners. And I think this is a great view to show how the building is appropriately sized within the context.

[03:09:33] Public Speaker: On the next slide, we're going to look at the floor plan of floor two. We touched on the first floor where we're prioritizing the parking and the building entry. The second floor is our first floor of residential units. The residences then continue up to floor seven. We have a majority of two and three bedroom units. They're nicely sized units, and many of those units do have balconies. Here on this floor plan, we're also highlighting the active courtyard that we have. The courtyard is programmed with a spa, an outdoor kitchen, lots of planting of course, and seating. And then actually just page south of that spa is a large rectangle, and that's a clubhouse, a community space for the residents to use. So those are some of the design high points, and I'm going to pass it back over to Emric who's going to touch on some other aspects of the project.

[03:10:23] Public Speaker: Thanks, Brenna. You may have been familiar with this project. It has been through a couple of previous entitlements. It's in a fantastic location. It was interesting to hear your discussion regarding the Moffett corridor, and this is an area where it really does provide an opportunity for someone to live and walk to virtually everything they would want, from grocery to coffee to restaurants to movies to a hotel, you know, to transit. And so for that reason, you know, we think it's extremely attractive. We mentioned here that, you know, over 1,000 plus apartments virtually touch this property, and yet none of them are ownership. And as a, you know, more than 16-year apartment dweller in the south side of Mountain View, this would have been the kind of thing that I would have been very attracted to, wanting to own. The public parks, that from the Hetch Hetchy as well as the park across the street, make it very appealing. I mentioned all of the close-in other opportunities. And then specifically, I wanted to mention with regard to the below market rate, the 20% is really substantial, and it exceeds the, you know, even the city's 15% number. And I indicate here that the prices that these units are sold at is far, far below what they cost to construct. And in some ways, you can think of every below market unit loss counterbalances the gain on a that you might be able to receive on a market rate unit. So it, in some senses, would be equivalent to a 42-unit non-below market rate market rate unit. However, it requires the capital to build a 70-unit building, which means that the, you know, IRR, rate of return on that capital ends up being lower because the consequence of the profitability is more of a 42-unit. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

[03:12:36] Public Speaker: Next slide, please. I did mention that this has been through a pretty long and circuitous process. It was very interesting to hear your discussion about expanding the area of a precise plan. We found ourselves in a position where the San Antonio Precise Plan bordered us on two sides, and we were not included. And consequently, we pursued an entitlement at a 1.05 FAR that was approved, and at that meeting, several council members said, why is this such a diminutive structure when across the street, you've got The Dean that's being approved and going up at two and a half FAR? And they suggested that we request a rezoning, which we did. That meeting was six months hence. We were approved with one other project out of some 13 that were requesting to be rezoned. We were very happy about that. Staff was overwhelmed at the time. They asked for a six-month delay before any submittals. We came to that time, we were on the verge of submitting. They said, can you give us another six months, please? We accommodated. We waited until 2018. Unfortunately, we found ourselves in a very awkward situation where staff did not believe that the 2.5 FAR that was being done by the project across the street was permissible on our site. And we lost really the entire year of 2018 in that process. And in 2019, we had a meeting with staff, and they said, either you go to a study session back with council to review this, which is going to take several months, before we can schedule that, and they're contemplating a change to the BMR rules, which will increase, and you may not be grandfathered in. So you'll take that chance, or go forward with a 1.85 FAR. Don't try to pursue this State Density Bonus 2.5 FAR. We decided to go through with the study session. We were well received. And we ultimately got, were entitled for the 44-unit building in December of 2020. The unfortunate consequence of those delays was, as we went further forward in developing our construction documents and attempting to get a building permit, we landed in a horrible macroeconomic situation with higher interest rates and no willingness on the part of lenders to lend to build a project like this. We made inquiries to the city with regard to getting some kind of a development agreement or something that would allow us to press out our entitlement. We had gotten one extra year. That was all that was allowed. So a total of three years. And we were running into a deadline, which was, our entitlement would expire, or we would have to pony up the $4 million approximate dollars for a building permit that was non-refundable, whether or not we would build the project. Some of those things have changed as a result of California law, so we've kind of run into a few of these things. But the consequence was, we found no other alternative but to pursue a Builder's Remedy project as a way of really extending our entitlement. And then we took advantage of the fact that there were, you know, less requirements with regard to compliance, as a way of compensating for the 20% BMR units.

[03:16:07] Public Speaker: I mentioned on the previous page, you know, Builder's Remedy 2.0 is going to become applicable on January 1, 2025. We're in a kind of a combination situation where we can choose kind of which elements of that we would prefer to comply with. But as a way of reducing the maximum possible densities that some people have proposed, which is not in our case, we I think are fitting in with the buildings of the area. They've reduced the percentage of BMRs required in Builder's Remedy 2.0 to 13%, 10%, and 7%, depending on which level of affordability you pursue. And then finally, I say here, modern construction techniques will make this building virtually untouchable for a hundred-plus years. As you're finding with the project that you were describing that's going to be part of this Moffett corridor that was 50 years old, 50-year-old condo complex, there's no anticipation that that's going to be redeveloped soon. This building, this is as much density as you're going to get in this area for the next 100 years. And so I think like many of the commenters, the public commenters, encourage you to think broadly about what level of density do you not want, you know, in five years or 10 years or 20 years, but in 50 years, because the way things are going to be constructed, they'll last that long. Anyway, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your consideration and available for questions if you have them.

[03:17:46] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you. And looking back to staff, is there any further presentation or shall we go to questions from the commission? Questions from the commission. I'm sure there's going to be some. Commissioner Cranston.

[03:18:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess this is a question for the City Attorney. When I read through this, and I guess your comment moved ahead and risk litigation, what does that mean? Are we, is there some risk of litigation? I don't speak lawyer, so maybe some of the lawyers understood all these letters, but I don't. What is it, what are we...

[03:18:44] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I mean, the city has received two direct threats of litigation, written letters threatening to sue the city if we impose conditions that violate, you know, Builder's Remedy law. So I mean, I think there is a risk of litigation. But...

[03:19:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I read this, and I'm not sure what that, what those things are, I'm not, that's not clear to me. Is it just the park in-lieu fee and the transportation fee?

[03:19:15] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So what City Attorney Logue is saying is that there's two other letters that we've received over the period of time that we've been processing these applications, not the letter that you received tonight per se. And those other letters that we have received in, you know, the past six months I think is approximate, there's a variety of items that include some of those items that are in this letter, and also other things as well.

[03:19:53] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So fees is one of them. Park in-lieu fees is one of the points of contention where we've received threats of litigation. Imposition of BMR requirements was another. I think we've probably worked that out, um, you know, by not imposing some of those provisions like the proportionality, meaning we've worked them out, that's why we're recommending them approval as currently proposed. Um, I can't remember all of the things that were raised. Um, we have another letter that we received fairly recently within the past week, I would say. Um, that again talked about fees. So risk of litigation is there, what that lawsuit would look like, and what all of the issues would be that got swept into that, it's hard to say. I think fees would definitely be there. Um, but would there be other items that would be brought along in that lawsuit? Maybe. Maybe. Um, so it's, it's really hard to pinpoint.

[03:21:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Which I guess makes it hard to decide what the risk is.

[03:21:17] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, so I, I can't, I mean, there's a chance of a lawsuit, yes, but it's even harder for me to say what would happen in court. That's why when I gave my presentation, I said, you know, I'm relying on the plain language of the statute, this is what the statute says. And we have arguments, as do the developers. And only a judge will decide whose arguments prevail at the end of the day. Right? It's not, the legal issues can't be resolved tonight or before you have to make a decision. We, you know, you go into this knowing that they could be right or we could be right, and it's, you know, we're in a tough place. It's, it's a tough place right now. And so the question becomes, on each one of these items, is it worth the fight? Is what it kind of boils down to.

[03:22:19] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: And I think just to add to that, what we've given you tonight in terms of, you know, our recommendation is our best attempt to reconcile what we think could potentially happen in the future, and you know, that's why you see some things that we're not pursuing and some items that we are.

[03:22:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Sorry. Thanks.

[03:22:45] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Donahue.

[03:22:50] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so I had some questions which I think were addressed in the staff presentation, but I want to be sure. Um, the one of the things is that these units need to remain affordable for 30 years. Are these, I assume these would be deed restrictions so that they would actually be affordable in perpetuity? Yeah, yes, okay, good.

[03:23:23] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Not perpetuity, for 30 years only.

[03:23:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Oh, just for 30 years. So whoever owns it after 30 years can sell it at market rate?

[03:23:31] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The Housing Accountability Act, as I mentioned in my presentation, only requires it for 30 years.

[03:23:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Interesting. Okay. Yeah, I know that's the requirement, but I thought that maybe, you know, for feasibility reasons, they would, okay. Hmm. Interesting. And I think you addressed the sidewalk requirement that where the sidewalk is placed, you said something about ADA, and that the project wouldn't be feasible if the sidewalk, if there were the planting strip.

[03:24:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So what the current plans are proposed to have a six-foot attached sidewalk, attached. What the precise plan requires is a detached sidewalk, and that's what the comment was about. Now, if you have to change the site design to make it from an attached to a detached sidewalk, it will push the building a little bit further inside, so I mentioned building location, the pedestrian safety, ADA requirements. These are the things which will have to be worked out again, so that will require some amount of, you know, effort and money in order to redesign the project, reassess the project. And that's why it will, staff is recommending to approve it the way it has been proposed right now because under Housing Accountability Act we are limited on what we can do for not, we are prohibited from, you know, asking for compliance with these standards which is zoning.

[03:25:09] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, yeah, I'm just, I guess I didn't look at the details. It seems to me you just swap the two, but I guess it's more complicated than that and you have to actually move the whole building. Wow. Okay. Um, and yeah, I noticed a whole bunch of like minor discrepancies that the CEQA amendment had said that there was 103 parking spaces, but then in other places said 101. And then the bike spaces it said 75 and then now you said 83, but that the 83 I think includes the bike rack for the guests, so now that makes sense to me. But so the fact that the CEQA analysis has some minor discrepancies on open space, parking spaces, and all these kinds of things, I assume doesn't render that invalid.

[03:26:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: That is correct. So as I mentioned earlier, so the applicant resubmitted the project plans pretty close to agenda publishing. And when we were almost ready with the documents we have prepared. So staff went through the revised materials pretty quickly. It seems like the applicant has addressed some of the staff comments on one sheet, but probably the plans are internally not consistent completely. Um, when we prepared the CEQA document, it has to be prepared a little bit earlier than when we are actually publishing it, so we were not able to incorporate the brand new plans into the document, and that explains the discrepancy. But rest assured, I can confirm what is included in the materials that were provided to you and in the staff report resolutions, they are the correct facts of the project being proposed by the applicant based on the recent submittal. They do not, you know, cause any significant increase in any of the impacts that were identified, so no CEQA implications.

[03:27:11] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, that was kind of my assumption. Um, and the previous item we talked about SFPUC and their, um, you know, they have thoughts on things. This, they also had a letter for this. Um, what are your thoughts about the, the trees and whether the branches go over the property line? And then someday they want to dig up the pipeline and then there's a crane and this kind of stuff. Does that seem like a likely scenario that we need to worry about, or...

[03:27:50] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you for the question. We did look into the comment that was provided by SFPUC. And actually, if you look closely to the project plans that are being proposed, the applicant has actually proposed six very different—they are called Cercis occidentalis trees—in the area along the SFPUC land. This is, we are assuming these are specifically chosen because of the canopy coverage issue that was discussed in the SFPUC letter. We do not feel that there is an issue at this point of time, like what was actually mentioned in the report—in the comment by SFPUC. We did send a response letter to them and they seemed to be okay with that at this point of time.

[03:28:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, and then as far as the parkland in-lieu fees, um, I guess there's some disagreement about that. I think the Quimby Act specifically authorizes the city to have a parkland—to have an ordinance authorizing that. But this HAA presumably overrides the Quimby Act or... like why would, why would we not be able to if if we're already authorized by state law to do that, but this there's some contention that we're not?

[03:29:28] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Well, I think it's more than that. I think there's also a lot of reliance on Sheets, which is a recent—not super recent, but a decision that came out from the Supreme Court that clarified, you know, that the longstanding Nollan/Dolan test applies to both legislative and administrative. So I think that's where the argument lies right now, and, you know, I am obviously not prepared to resolve that legal issue tonight. Um, it is something that is being taken under advisement and we are, you know, looking into it and considering it seriously. But I cannot tonight recommend that the city walk away from tens of millions of dollars, right, and say, oh, you're legally required to let these park and in-lieu fees go. Right? But it is something that has been taken under advisement and something that we will consider and take very seriously.

[03:30:29] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Uh, good enough. Thanks.

[03:30:32] Chair Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[03:30:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Um, just... city attorney was reading a lot of the legalese. Um, I was curious what it means to be infeasible and how do we know?

[03:30:53] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, so that's where I read that definition of what feasible means, and unfortunately the definition of feasible is kind of broad and maybe opaque. It's very difficult to pinpoint. And right now, infeasible is, you know, they're correct—developers are correct and their attorneys are correct that we would have the burden of proof, right? And how we would ever prove that a project is still feasible in light of a condition that we've imposed, um, it may be difficult. It's gonna probably be data, financially data-driven. It might end up being a battle of experts. I, I, it's really hard to talk about or explain what infeasible means. Right now, I think infeasible means financially—it will financially impact—from the developer's perspective, it will financially impact the project in such a way that it makes it cost-prohibitive. Um, I don't know exactly how a court will analyze that, and I don't know exactly how we would prove in court that the project is still feasible. Like I said, I think it would be driven by financial data.

[03:32:26] Commissioner Joyce Yin: What data?

[03:32:28] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I, I don't know. I mean, that is, I can tell you it has been a topic of discussion. It's almost as if cities have been put in a position to prove something where we don't have any of the data. I mean, it we would just have to get experts and wrap our head around how we would, you know, make that showing.

[03:32:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Um, another question was, uh, the applicant had mentioned putting forward another project in the past that had slightly less units, but it had been entitled. That was the first one. And then you were looking to a second one and the study session went well and it was sort of going forward at that point?

[03:33:18] Public Speaker: Well, we, we had been, we had gotten rezoned and we submitted an application for a 44-unit project. As I sort of described, it went through a stall process, but eventually, yeah, it was, it was reviewed again in a study session with the council, and it was favorably reviewed. And then we, staff ended up no longer contesting its impermissibility to go to 2.5 FAR, which is what the 44-unit project was, and we eventually got it entitled.

[03:33:49] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, so that was feasible?

[03:33:52] Public Speaker: Uh, well, it was entitled. And we pursued a building permit, but it really, it was not feasible.

[03:34:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, so you got a project approved that you weren't sure was feasible?

[03:34:08] Public Speaker: We ultimately were not able to finance it due to the time constraints and the financial conditions.

[03:34:18] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Another question then. Um, you're in a location—fantastic location. I agree.

[03:34:23] Public Speaker: I love it.

[03:34:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah. Um, and it's one of those locations where I personally would understand where you have no parking. You can go without parking. We're often told from consultants and developers that we don't need parking, it's actually, you know, when you're located this close, you got denser, you got all this stuff, it's a great location, we don't need parking. Why are you opting to put in so much parking? It's one of the most expensive aspects of construction from what we're told.

[03:34:58] Public Speaker: I agree. It's market-driven by people who want to own at the current time. And that is, this is an evolving state, you know, as you get to, you know, Uber and driverless cars and other transit opportunities. But at this time, the consultants we've hired for market research have told us you have to have parking in this area.

[03:35:21] Commissioner Joyce Yin: For ownership?

[03:35:23] Public Speaker: For ownership, yeah.

[03:35:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So for people who own, they need cars, they want cars, even in an area like this. But if it were an apartment—I don't know if you know apartments—then no cars are necessary because they don't need cars?

[03:35:39] Public Speaker: Well, if you look at The Dean across the street, they have, you know, an enormous amount of parking as well. I don't know what their per-unit parking is, but they have tremendous parking.

[03:35:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No, that's really good to know. Um, so I guess I was just still curious, you know, that would be a way to just save cost. But you're saying that market feasibility in that situation, people would not buy the unit.

[03:36:08] Public Speaker: One of the ways that we did reduce cost in the redesign of the building was to effectively lift it one floor out of the ground. Because in the 44-unit project, we had two floors of underground parking, and that was, you know, when we were trying to finance it, that was a cost-prohibitive factor.

[03:36:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Well thank you for answering that. Unfortunately, I'll leave that for comments. Um, one more question I had. Sorry, hold on, just making sure I got all my questions in before we move on. Oh, yes, as far as the ownership. So what we should expect as the city is that these units will be sold to individual owners for each unit, not necessarily that someone will come, purchase the whole thing and then rent them out?

[03:37:06] Public Speaker: That's the expectation. I'll note that the city has taken a position with regard to rental projects that they will not have to pay park in-lieu fees, which are being imposed on a condo ownership project. And so that has actually been a point of deliberation as the owner, that the city has recently taken a position of not saying they will not impose the park in-lieu fees on a rental project, but they will impose them on an ownership project. But our current plan is to sell them individually as condo units. We do think that the parkland fees are not—that it's unlawful to apply them as a condition on this project.

[03:37:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I understand your position. Okay. Um, but you cannot guarantee you're selling them as individual and not to one company that will then rent. You can't guarantee that. It's just your intention.

[03:38:07] Public Speaker: No. That's correct.

[03:38:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you.

[03:38:13] Chair Hank Dempsey: Any further questions from the commissioners? If there's not, there is one question that I had, and it has to do with the public meeting that was suggested by staff that I understand from the staff report you chose not to do. I'm puzzled by that. Because 10 years of experience... Let me tell you why I'm puzzled by that. Because I assume you have been in this business a long time. That's a generally a pretty common courtesy. It's a best practice. We generally see it in the projects that come through here. You're building a place for a community, you're building it in a community. And normally I would think you would want the folks there around the building to understand what's happening and why. And so if you could just help me understand why you would choose not to engage with the neighbors where you're gonna be creating new neighbors? Help me understand that.

[03:39:17] Public Speaker: Well, I guess by virtue of having now entitled it, approaching the third time over the last 10 years, it has been exhaustively reviewed. We have done DRC meetings. It has gone through study sessions with council. It has seen many public hearings, and there has been plenty of opportunities for the public to view and comment on it, and there has been very little, actually.

[03:39:42] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay, thank you. So, having exhausted questions from the commission, it is time for public comment. If anybody's still awake. Uh, if anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, 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. Madam Clerk.

[03:40:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We do have one speaker, Eli Robles.

[03:40:29] Eli Robles: Uh, good evening, Planning Commission again and community members. My name is Eli Robles, representing NorCal Carpenters Union Local 405. I am here tonight to advocate for the use of a responsible general contractor for the Fayette Drive community project. One that includes area standard wages, safe working conditions and health benefits, and apprenticeship standards as afforded by our local unions. We expect the general contractor to uphold these standards, benefiting both local workers and our resolutions for this community. I would hope this commission would include these area standards before adopting this resolution in order to protect our local workforce. Thank you for your time.

[03:41:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No other speakers.

[03:41:17] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh, with public comment having concluded, it is time for EPC deliberation and action. Uh, do we have comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Nu�ez.

[03:41:29] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Yeah, um, I anticipate more comment and discussion, um, but, uh, I'll just let everyone know I'm prepared to make a motion as is, uh, accepting the council recommendation for this. Um, and I'll just state a few reasons why. Um, honestly, the first is I trust staff that they put the time and the effort and the however many espresso shots it took to come up with this recommendation, navigating a new and novel legal landscape. Um, so I'm not gonna try to supplant that and interject and step into that. I'm gonna trust. Um, secondly, you know, this is like the Chinese finger trap of local control. Do we really want to pull the fingers apart? Do we really want to make it harder on everyone? Uh, I think one thing that we and the developer would have in common, I'm not going to overstep, whatever, uh, and our city attorney, things are assessed, but like, I don't think anyone wants to go to trial. Um, I, I think there's a benefit to having a peaceful life of moving forward and just getting things done. Um, and, you know, I don't know what the applicant's pro forma says. I don't know if they will sue if we try to get that, uh, park in-lieu fee, uh, as stated here. Um, but what I do know is that, uh, discussions across the state, some of them in very close neighboring cities, that have killed development over and I'm not pro-developer, I am pro-development. And the stymieing of that development, uh, all over the state is what has gotten us here to this point. Um, so if we want to be the poster child or if we want to be the lab rat of taking this to court and trial, um, when we could just get 70 units, we can get in-lieu fees, live and let live, and move on with our lives, that seems like the far easier option for me. So, um, I anticipate more discussion. Um, if the end of that discussion is the staff recommendation, then I'm prepared to make a motion on that.

[03:43:57] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Commissioner Nu�ez. Further comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Clark.

[03:44:03] Commissioner Chris Clark: Um, thank you. So I'll be reluctantly supporting the staff recommendation. Um, you know, I've seen this project for, at least been a number of times and, uh, I understand, uh, I understand your perspective and everything that you've, um, you've been through including a market cycle or two. Um, look, at the end of the day, I think because there isn't a lot of case law out there that's been applied, um, there might be instances where it, you know, it would make sense to take a risk and, and, um, and, um, you know, try to apply, you know, some of our standards or other things in certain cases. I think in this particular case, you know, you have a previously approved project at at significant density surrounded by other significant density. Um, so I'm less worried in this case about, um, than I might be at another, um, builders round.

Segment 6

[03:45:00] Commissioner Chris Clark: site, about the intensity of the use here. I have a lot of reservations about sidewalks, trees, all those sorts of things, which I'm a little disappointed in amongst other things, but at a really high level, I think staff has put a lot of time into trying to find a good path forward here and so I think it makes sense in this particular case to approve the staff recommendation.

[03:45:33] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Clark. Any further comments from commissioners? Commissioner Yin.

[03:45:41] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. I'm not sure exactly what we want to take on. If we want to take on anything, we'll talk about that. Or we'll hear more from other commissioners. But I did want to say I'm disappointed. I really am. I understand why, and we won't go too far backwards into time. I understand why the state is passing the laws they are. Totally understand it, I get it. Actually feel like, you know, it was important to do so.

[03:46:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And last time we were here, I had mentioned that these state laws are like sledgehammers as tools. It does take a big whop to change inertia, to go from stagnant to moving forward. Housing is an issue. I do, however, feel like at some point, especially for cities like us who are genuinely wanting to do something about it, that in order to do something well, and that's really my biggest thing, is when we do densify, it requires much, much more coordination, comprehensive strategic planning of all the systems that will benefit the public.

[03:47:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And that's what our city planning staff is there for. When people say we won't have local control, I disagree. I think local control produces some of the greatest things. I'm not saying that every city is using it to their advantage, but whatever. Okay, we'll move on from that point.

[03:47:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Other than to say, I feel like our city is being neutered to a degree. They have no leverage, and leverage is what it takes for a city and an applicant to meet somewhere where they both win. And right now, when I see a lot of the projects, I feel like we're not able to use tools to gain what the city needs.

[03:47:56] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I have heard some people say, well, you know, let the market decide. A developer will do what the market wants, and therefore that's good for the city. But the developer, first and foremost, right, it's not their priority to benefit the city in terms of their top five priorities. Their profit is, and that's the name of the game, it's their business.

[03:48:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Does it often overlap with what the city needs? Yes. So that's good. But I would not say that even the user, if you wanted to let market decide, has the benefit of the community and the city as a whole as their top priority either.

[03:48:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: That, again, is the city staff's job, because they have to look at the whole, they have to balance all kinds of things. And only they can do it because they have the background, the history, and the know-how. So when people say the developer will go ahead and do what's best, I want to use this example and say, I don't think that works. I'm sorry.

[03:49:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I am disappointed in this project. I know you said you didn't take away the parking, you actually lifted it up out of the ground. That one move alone transforms the benefit for the city tremendously. It is not the same project as you proposed before. The ground floor now pretty much is a parking garage, other than that corner entry, there's no active use around this building.

[03:49:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: That's just one point. And then, of course, there's the street frontage. We have a precise plan where we have a detached sidewalk and a planting strip for a reason. And when you break the continuity of that, you just have this one little pocket in this one potentially nice corridor that's different and breaks the trend, and not for the better.

[03:50:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: We are giving up a whole bunch of heritage trees. I know some of them gotta go and I don't like, wanna hug every tree, but you know, that's something that comes with development, large parcel developments. And it's again, a loss for the city. So in total, what I'm saying is we are giving up so much as the city and the public and gaining so little.

[03:50:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm not taking away that these units are valuable, the additional units you're providing are valuable. I'm saying that relative to what we're losing, the gain is so small. The fees are there for a reason. It's because we need it as a city. We're already short. And I know staff is proposing let's just take the lowest amount and then add 20%. 20% is already a give. Why are we taking the lowest amount?

[03:51:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And then why are we afraid? Sorry, I'm not saying we're afraid. That's just a term. I'm not saying we're fearful. Just there is a general fear of wanting to go to litigation, which makes sense. No one wants to spend and waste money doing that. But if it's not clear and we're losing out so much, there's some gray area. We're not a city who's like, don't build anything. We are genuinely trying.

[03:51:36] Commissioner Joyce Yin: But I think we need to then at least stand up and say, we're losing our ability to do it well. These are the reasons why. And please, can we just talk about it as if we were working in partnership? And not, hey, we can get away with it, let's do it. We have no idea if it's feasible or not. We have to take your word for it. It's really tough on our end. And so, just, okay, maybe I'm ranting. I'm going on for a long time and it's late.

[03:52:02] Commissioner Joyce Yin: But those are my comments. And I don't know if anybody else up here is willing to just take a little bit of a chance. Gain just a smidge back. We need the parks. Can we have the park fee? I'd love to get more, but if we're just scrambling for crumbs, can we try? That's all.

[03:52:30] Chair Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Donahue.

[03:52:33] Commissioner Paul Donahue: That's hard to follow. I share a lot of concerns and sentiments that you expressed. I think that this project on the park fees, this project has some open space area on the second floor, it has some rooftop things, you've got balconies that are I don't know, 50, 75 square feet, something. And you know, if you live in R1, you've got your yard. If you live in something like this, you need parks, because people need space outside, recreational amenities, and the ability to interact with nature.

[03:53:42] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I used to be on the Parks and Recreation Commission, so I feel very strongly about that. I think that a lot of times when you build a new development, there's a lot of externalities and you're trying to shift costs. I mean, this is just how life works. There's nothing necessarily evil about developers or anything like that. But you're shifting some costs and the city can absorb some of those costs.

[03:54:16] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So there's an additional cost, you know, some incremental cost for additional police protection or fire and things like that. But parks really need space, and they need land, and land is expensive here. So there really is much more of a cost, and that's why the Quimby Act allows the city to collect these fees or land dedications to give people space to you know, engage in recreational activities and to not just be stuck in their four walls in their condo.

[03:55:06] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So I am, yeah, I'm in favor of... reluctantly in favor of some of the other things that staff has recommended, but I think that I'm in favor of the park fee that staff has recommended. Thanks.

[03:55:28] Chair Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Cranston.

[03:55:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So as Commissioner Yin said, you know, Mountain View is not a city that's been trying to block development. It's a lot of, we exceeded the quota in the last arena cycle by quite a bit. I think as I look at this, the staff has addressed the vast majority of the issues that were raised, and at the end of the day, there'll be 70 residences that will have people that would like to go to a park. And they'll be the people that'll be out there saying, why don't you have a damn park when they can't have one.

[03:56:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So you know, it's a, I think it's reasonable. I think as I went through the various things in the staff report, they've agreed to a lot of these changes, addressed a lot of the issues, and I think at some point you have to say, okay, you know, we are a housing, a housing-focused community and that's what we do. And part of that is making sure that when the people come in here, they have a, it's a good quality of life and part of that is that there's some place that they can send their kids to play in or go play pickleball or whatever it is, they wanna throw a frisbee or whatever they wanna do. And if there's never any park space, the quality of life for those people in those 70 homes are is gonna be reduced.

[03:57:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And so I think we've, I think staff has agreed to a lot of changes that are, I agree with my colleagues, beyond what I'm comfortable with. But I think we're kind of at the, the turnip has no more blood. So I'll be supporting the staff recommendation as it is. At some point somebody has to be the first one in front of the judge. And if you wanna pay the bill, we'll see you there.

[03:57:45] Chair Hank Dempsey: Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[03:57:48] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh boy. So, let's see. I'm not gonna go too personal. This is a bad breakup. That's what it is. You start it off one way as a developer and you end up like this. I don't think that's what he envisioned, or they envisioned. Much less the city envisioned. We can opine all we want in our minds about how we feel about a project, but I understood what you said, and I understand what was written, and that has nothing to do with this.

[03:58:21] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: This is all about just a straight up vote. You have to understand the limitations of circumstance. I'm an IP patent litigation paralegal by nature. I'm not afraid to litigate. I learn from the best and the brightest. Weil Gotshal & Manges, Kirkland & Ellis, top two law firms in the United States of America. I know how to fight the fight. I'm not an attorney. But I know my limitations. I trust the city will do well when they have this issue, I trust in their judgment, and I trust in your judgment.

[03:58:53] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: So having heard your presentation, I got it. I understood it. I don't like this project, but I have hope and faith that possibly things may change between now and when this is presented to city council. Having the team here listen to our concerns, knowing their frustration as well as ours, maybe there is a little bit more to do. But it wouldn't come from us, because we've done what we can, which is not much, but share and opine, though it was asked and told to us or it was explained to us that there's not much you can do.

[03:59:24] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: So the ball is on your side. You've heard what we think. We know what you went through. But still, I don't think it is a bad breakup. I think there's remedy there for possible reconciliation of some sort between now and then. Now if that doesn't happen, I don't want people to think that we didn't try, because we're trying what we can to do something still at this last moment to try and push forward something that's in the best interest of what I said before, the city. Which is the community. And that includes all of us. Developers and non-developers alike. So for what it's worth, we've shared our perspectives. Thank you.

[04:00:12] Chair Hank Dempsey: It's hard to go last. So many great, impassioned speakers on either side of me, I feel like I'm kind of a bowl of oatmeal at the end here.

[04:00:24] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: You're the attorney, man.

[04:00:25] Chair Hank Dempsey: Yeah, I guess that's why I'm so boring. Okay, I'm going to support the staff recommendation in toto tonight. In large part because we have an excellent city attorney, and I, it is not my role on this commission to second guess the legal decisions of the city. That's not what we're here for. What we are here for is to provide community perspective.

[04:00:48] Chair Hank Dempsey: Like what I hear from the, you know, the folks I live nearby, the folks I see when I go to the farmers market, all that kind of stuff. That's what my job is here today. And if I am bringing that perspective to this project and this process, I'm gonna echo what my friend and colleague Joyce said, which is that, wow, I am really disappointed.

[04:01:12] Chair Hank Dempsey: I am really disappointed. It almost breaks my heart to see some of the things that were lost in this proposal. Just seeing the way the BMR units play out. So instead of BMR housing that can go to families, to moms who have a couple of kids, it's studios. That's not families, that's not family housing, that's individual worker housing. And BMR housing for families is real scarce and real important. And like that, in and of itself, it just kind of hurts that that is, poof.

[04:01:55] Chair Hank Dempsey: Because that's something we care, I think all of us care a lot about, we care, there's a lot of things here that we care about. We do need parks, we need places for those kids to go and chase birds and throw frisbees and do all that stuff. And what, you know, communities aren't just buildings, communities are these organic things. And this is perhaps, you know, this is a cautionary tale for the HCD. Because this is not, this is not a great outcome from the Builder's Remedy.

[04:02:25] Chair Hank Dempsey: We're a pro-housing designated city. Commissioner Cranston said this, like we're a good city for this. We like building stuff. I think I've voted yes on almost every development project that's come in front of the EPC in the last four years. So for all of those reasons, this just, this one just kind of hurts. And it breaks my heart that it had to play out this way from a process standpoint, and that we ended up with potentially losing park fees, we're gonna have transportation problems 'cause there's no TDM, the BMR mix is wrong. It's just, it's just a bad outcome all the way around.

[04:03:02] Chair Hank Dempsey: So that's enough from me. I can read out the recommendation. I'm open to accepting a, do you want to read it, Alex? Here, do you want to read it? You got it? Okay.

[04:03:23] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: A little bit more shade would be nice. Chair, I submit a motion that the Environmental Planning Commission recommends the City Council one, adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a planned community permit and development review permit to redevelop the project site by removing six dwelling units and a 6,900 square foot commercial building to construct a seven-story 70-unit condominium development, 20% affordable, above a subterranean parking garage, a provisional use permit for a roof deck, and a heritage tree removal permit to remove nine heritage trees on a 0.67 acre project site located at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive.

[04:04:07] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: And adopting an addendum to the previously adopted initial study/mitigated negative declaration for the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive residential project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 1 to the staff report. And two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a vesting tentative tract map to create a single lot for 70 residential condominium units at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 2 to the staff report.

[04:04:44] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And if I may, when I made the presentation, we did say staff would like to amend the recommendation with two specific corrections to exhibit 1, if you want I can repeat that for the record.

[04:04:56] Chair Hank Dempsey: Yes, please.

[04:04:58] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The two specific corrections recommended by staff in addition to the recommendation posted in the staff report, the first one is to the condition number 42 in exhibit 1 to require 83 bike parking spaces instead of 89 spaces. And the second recommendation is to correct by removing bullet B related to electric requirements under condition number 108 related to reach code requirements.

[04:05:32] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Ms. Pancholi. So we have a valid motion. We have a second from Commissioner Clark. Madam Clerk, if you'd like to open the roll.

[04:05:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion passed with six yes, one no.

[04:06:00] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Madam Clerk. On to Item 7, Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests, and Committee Reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the commission at this time. Ms. Pancholi.

[04:06:14] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you. So, earlier I had shared with the EPC some of the upcoming community workshops that we're gonna see as part of our Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan project. So just a reminder on that, first one is a community workshop this Thursday, October 17th. It's a virtual meeting between 6 to 7 PM and in person at the community center at the same time. And the second one is related to a second stakeholder workshop scheduled for November 7th from 6 to 8 PM at the community center. And those were the announcements. Thank you.

[04:06:53] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Any announcements from the commissioners? Oh, yes, please. Go ahead, sir.

[04:07:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you. Good evening again, commissioners. Community Development Director, Christian Murdock. I did want to announce for your benefit and for the public's information that starting on October 28th, construction to remodel the public counter at the Community Development Department will begin, anticipated to last about 12 weeks. During that period, we will be providing the same services to the public just at the public works public counter located across the plaza lobby area within City Hall.

[04:07:34] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And so what we are doing is to expand capability to provide additional services to the public by creating a breakout meeting room next to the counter where we will among other services provide a one stop permitting service for certain projects beginning in early 2025. And as well as installing security doors between the public counter area and the staff only areas. That concludes my update, thank you.

[04:07:58] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you Director Murdock. I believe the next regularly scheduled EPC meeting will be held on November 6th, 2024. And looks like that's correct. And so we will therefore adjourn the meeting as of 11:07 PM. Thank you everybody for staying late.

Gap between 'Segment 3' and 'Segment 3'

[01:40:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So with regards to the framework, um, I'm I'm assuming it's these five uh vision themes. Um, I'm gonna be a little bit more um hopefully not annoyingly pedantic, but um that first one, um the unique identity and destination. Um, one thing I'm kind of looking for or looking at or feeling in that one is a little bit of redundancy, um with uh the second, third, and fifth.

[01:40:52] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I uh, there's like a thriving hub, which is, a hub is kind of a destination. Um, a uh a revitalized neighborhood. A neighborhood is a place, right, it's like a destination. Um, and then a placemaking center, center is like a place right, like a destination. Um, it seems to me more like that first one um is it might be better served by kind of just focusing on and or emphasizing like a unique identity.

[01:41:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, I think that supporting slide in in the um in the packet had some examples of like signage and uh things of that nature that would kind of imply or lean towards um you know concepts like branding, um you know unique like um street or landscaping type of stuff. So um yeah I I might lean towards um just kind of like striking destination and just saying a unique identity, um uh number one.

[01:41:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um with regard to the thriving hub of economic activity, um I uh kind of again I maybe I'm I know I'm not as well-informed as some of our um like professionals here, um but I do have some kind of um concern around the kind of um potential of competition with um the downtown. So I am hoping that maybe, you know, to the extent that other commissioners agree, um that there is a, and I know that it's already kind of related with the downtown um precise plan kind of visioning process as well that's running in parallel.

[01:42:27] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um but I would I would I would definitely like for um something in here to just like you know sentence a statement that says, hey, we're gonna look to like complement um the other side of Central um from an economic perspective and not just kind of like um try to replicate it unconsciously.

[01:42:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, with regards to a revitalized neighborhood, um you know, or sorry, the the multimodal corridor. Um, I'm not gonna take credit for this. I think uh Commissioner Yin, um I have been uh I have learned through you without talking to you that the way that you kind of um plot a transit center is you put a pin uh where the transit center is and then you like look at a 360-degree um radius of uh kind of like what goes out from that. Um, if if I heard wrong then there's a rumor out there about you being um good with multimodal planning.

[01:43:26] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, but um right now it's just like 180 degrees. It's just kind of like looking towards El Camino versus you know up towards like Middlefield if that makes sense. Um, so I think and and this is gonna go to the revitalized neighborhood piece, I think there's an opportunity to link the two.

[01:43:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, personally, um and and I'll I'll be able to kind of connect a few more dots when we get into like the property components. Um, but I will say right now uh that I have a strong uh pull uh towards expanding or or or recommending to Council um to look at that added uh boundary of the precise plan.

[01:44:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um and and I know there's like resourcing and capacity and staff concerns, you know I I I care about you guys, I promise, I'm not just saying that you know out of pocket here. Um but I I do think that uh there is aside from public sentiment and intuition around um this being an opportunity to create a whole neighborhood and not just kind of um look at a corridor of opportunity.

[01:44:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, I am very much strongly feeling that that's what like I mean it says right there, a revitalized neighborhood, not a revitalized corridor. Um and so I think that matters to me um to really um have a strong um like uh deference to what the public and in particular people who live there and have said they've lived there for a very long time are asking us for.

[01:45:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and then the placemaking center, yeah I saw the entertainment zoning piece um come through, some commenting around that. I'm not gonna um go that far, but um I do like the concept of a placemaking center.

[01:45:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So in conclusion, um a unique identity, just cut out destination is my number first recommendation. Um, thriving hub of economic activity that complements downtown. Um, and um somehow again the revitalized neighborhood um having that versus 'cause right now it's it's a revitalized corridor, not a revitalized neighborhood, um at least as I see it.

[01:45:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And then the last um the multimodal corridor piece, um kind of looking at how you can create linkages that are like you know real um to that transit center. So those are my uh comments.

• ← Previous
• Next →