Nov. 20, 2024 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:03:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of November 20th, 2024. I will call the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 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. Request 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.

[00:03:52] 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 you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak, and the item number on which you wish to speak. 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're speaking on. Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

[00:04:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Furthermore, 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. This commission welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments. Regarding matters over which the commission has jurisdiction, comments deemed otherwise pursuant to the City Council Code of Conduct and the Government Code may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's comment period.

[00:05:00] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: With that dispensed with, I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with the roll call. And I think we've all done that electronically, so are we good to go? Yes? Okay. Attendance having been completed, item three, minutes approval, there is none. Item four, oral communications.

[00:05:27] City Staff: So I think there's some issue in the system. I think Commissioner Clark is not present here.

[00:05:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: He is not? Oh, so we got to do oral because...

[00:05:38] City Staff: That's correct.

[00:05:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Clark is not present. Okay. My mistake. Let's go back to item two for roll call and the clerk will actually call the roll.

[00:05:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Nuñez?

[00:05:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:05:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:05:51] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:05:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin?

[00:05:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here, here.

[00:05:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:05:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:05:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Clark?

[00:06:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Absent. Vice Chair Gutierrez?

[00:06:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: Here.

[00:06:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Dempsey?

[00:06:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:06:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All commissioners are here with the exception of Chris Clark.

[00:06:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and my apologies for the confusion there.

[00:06:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So if we see Commissioner Clark on Zoom, checking with Council, is there any reason why we can't have him sort of attend virtually?

[00:06:48] City Attorney: I think it's fine for him to attend remotely and count as a present vote.

[00:06:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, on advice of counsel we will do so, but we need to hear from Commissioner Clark that he is present and participating as a fully voting member and all that good stuff. So Commissioner Clark, are you there?

[00:07:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, I am.

[00:07:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And for purposes of, oh can we call Commissioner Clark for the roll one more time?

[00:07:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes. Commissioner Clark?

[00:07:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:07:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Alright, then the roll call is, all commissioners are present.

[00:07:23] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. With that completed, we will move 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. 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.

[00:07:51] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone that wishes to speak on item four? Oh, Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[00:08:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Hey, point of clarification. I have a quick question. Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I thought we were under Brown Act regulations. So that means, as long as it was posted that Chris Clark or Commissioner was going to be attending remotely and it's been posted on the agenda through the website, giving notice to folks that that's going to be the situation. My understanding is that he can't participate. So if we can confirm that that happened, that'd be great. And then I'm done.

[00:08:39] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Commissioner Gutierrez. I'm going to turn back to Council. Council's opinion is going to be binding I think for our purposes here. If Council says we're compliant, then we are. She might need a few minutes to decide that. So here's what I'm going to do. Let me ask the clerk, while that's being investigated, Mr. Clerk, is there anyone else that would like to engage in public comment on item four here?

[00:09:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: None online and none in person.

[00:09:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, so let's just sit tight for a minute or two here while we get a more complete answer.

[00:09:37] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Could you give me just a moment?

[00:09:41] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Absolutely. Given the importance of being compliant with the Brown Act, as the Vice Chair has pointed out, this is an important question. For this reason, I am not going to address anything else on this agenda. What I'm going to do, in fact, I'm going to look over at Miss Pancholi. Is there any reason why we can't take a five-minute recess to get this taken care of? Because Council needs the time that Council needs, and I don't want us to touch anything else until we get a definitive answer.

[00:10:09] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, we can do that.

[00:10:10] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, on that understanding we're going to call a five-minute recess and we'll be back to you very shortly once we get a concrete answer. Thank you.

[00:11:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright, I'd like to thank the audience and anybody watching at home for their forbearance as we get that ironed out. We are going to be joined by Commissioner Clark. And Commissioner Clark, we're going to begin with an announce- well first of all, we're going to gavel back in. Commissioner Clark has an announcement. Commissioner Clark?

[00:11:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, thank you. So pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(f) and participating in this meeting remotely through both audio and visual technology under the just cause provision due to travel on official business, no other persons over 18 years of age are present at this remote location with me.

[00:11:59] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner, and we're glad to have you. Without further interjection from staff, it looks like we can carry on. Alright, through chairs for doing things the right way. Item five, public hearing. 5.1, 334 San Antonio Road Affordable Housing Project. We will first have a brief staff presentation and then an applicant presentation, followed by questions from the EPC, and then followed by public comment. At closure of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action. Do any commissioners wish to make disclosures such as contacts with the applicant or site visits?

[00:12:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I visited the site.

[00:12:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[00:12:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I visited the site and I did have a Zoom meeting with the applicant.

[00:12:51] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Gutierrez.

[00:12:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: I drive by the site every day and then I also had a presentation.

[00:13:01] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Anyone else? I too have been by that site.

[00:13:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: And Chair, I visited the site and met with the applicant.

[00:13:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Okay, with that done, let's have a staff presentation by Project Planner Jeffrey Tsumura and Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. I did neglect to disclose that I too met with the applicant. So getting that out nice and early.

[00:13:21] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Tsumura, Senior Planner, and I am joined by Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. The item in front of you tonight is an affordable housing project at 334 San Antonio Road. The project is on a little over a half an acre project site and is located on the west side of San Antonio Road, between California Street and Miller Avenue. The site is currently developed with an automobile service station. The general plan designation is Mixed-Use Corridor and zoning is within the P-40 San Antonio Precise Plan.

[00:14:05] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The surrounding uses include commercial uses to the north and east, bank building and residential to the south, and a restaurant and residential uses to the west. The project is requesting a planned community permit and development review permit to construct an eight-story, 100-unit, 100% affordable residential apartment development, which includes 99 affordable units and one manager unit. The project is approximately 118,000 square feet in size and includes a one-level at-grade parking garage with 16 stalls. Additionally, the project is utilizing State Density Bonus Law for an 80% density bonus above base units.

[00:14:47] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: As the project is a 100% affordable housing project, the project is eligible for an 80% state density bonus up to 45 bonus units from the 56 base units. The applicant is proposing 44 bonus units for a total of 100 units. The project is also eligible for up to five concessions and unlimited waivers of development standards. The applicant is requesting five concessions that the applicant has indicated would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.

[00:15:21] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: And includes the removal of TDM requirements, relief from minimum standards for ground floor height, open area and landscaping, common usable open space, and the request to underground existing overhead utilities. The applicant is requesting seven waivers or reduction in development standards that would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the project at the density permitted. This includes relief from maximum floor area, building height, number of stories, required frontage setbacks, height at frontage setbacks, personal storage, and window recessing. Staff has determined that the project could not be constructed without these concessions and development standard waivers as full code compliance would generally require a reduction in density bonus area.

[00:16:07] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project includes fully affordable units at 80% of the area median income. This exceeds the city's 15% BMR requirement and provides for a wider variety of lower income units. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, a condition of approval has been added to deed restrict the affordability of these units for a minimum of 55 years. The project also complies with other requirements that otherwise applicable under the BMR ordinance, including unit mix and distribution throughout the development by nature of all the units being designated as affordable units.

[00:16:42] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The proposed site plan features a C-shaped building oriented around an at-grade, secured outdoor courtyard that fronts California Street. The primary building entry lobby is located at the intersection of San Antonio Road and California Street with another pedestrian entry located further south along San Antonio Road. The project includes a ground-level parking garage with vehicular entry to the project site located at the end of the California Street frontage. The development also includes a secured indoor bicycle room and short-term guest bicycle parking along the San Antonio frontage to meet bicycle requirements.

[00:17:21] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The building has a contemporary design and employs a combination of accent colors, lower level recessed windows, and vertical and horizontal articulation to reduce the visual mass and create a balanced pedestrian friendly scale. The building incorporates large ground-to-floor window systems on the ground floor along San Antonio Road to reinforce the active frontage along San Antonio Road. Painted metal canopies at entry points are employed at the ground level and contribute to the pedestrian focus design of the frontage. And new landscaping is proposed along the frontage and interior setback areas to further soften the visual impact of the building mass and improve the pedestrian experience.

[00:18:03] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Varying parapet height and changes in plane are intended to provide visual interest and help break up the verticality of the building mass. The project utilizes a combination of stucco finishes in neutral tones, varying shades of off-white, gray, and a warm redwood as the building's primary accent color. The site has three existing non-heritage street trees consisting of two along California Street and one along San Antonio Road. The existing site is almost entirely paved or occupied by building areas utilized by the existing service station, and there are no other trees located on the project site.

[00:18:43] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project will require the removal of the three existing street trees. All three street trees are within the footprint of the new detached sidewalk proposed to meet San Antonio Precise Plan sidewalk requirements. Due to conflicts between the trees and the required sidewalk improvements, it is infeasible to protect these trees and removals are necessary. Additionally, transplanting the existing trees on site were found to be unsuitable due to their large size and poor health. The applicant proposes a total of 15 new replacement trees, ranging between 24-inch to 48-inch box size, proposed at a five-to-one replacement ratio, which exceeds the city's standard practice for a one-to-one replacement ratio for non-heritage trees. The new replacement trees are anticipated to create a net gain of on-site canopy coverage with a 10.3% canopy at full maturity.

[00:19:39] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project includes approximately 10,200 square feet of open area and landscaping, which includes the landscaping along the new detached sidewalk, perimeter landscaping, and landscaping within the central courtyard. The project includes a palette of drought-tolerant California native and adaptive plant species, with approximately 75% California native species. The central courtyard offers outdoor space for residents, including a children's play area, gathering spaces with casual seating, and barbecue amenities.

[00:20:13] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project is within one half mile of a major transit stop and is not required to provide any parking per Assembly Bill AB 2097. However, the project is voluntarily proposing 16 vehicular parking stalls and will include required EV equipment installed parking spaces and spaces accessible to persons with disabilities, located within the ground-level parking garage. The project is proposing 100 long-term bicycle parking spaces within a secured bicycle room and 14 short-term bicycle parking spaces outside near the corner entry lobby and stairwell.

[00:20:49] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Per the San Antonio Precise Plan, projects above 1.35 FAR are required to provide a transportation demand management or TDM program with measures such as joining the Transportation Management Association, providing transit subsidies for all residents for 10 years, and TDM monitoring. Under State Density Bonus Law, the applicant has requested a concession to remove the TDM requirement. However, the applicant has proposed an annual 50-dollar transit subsidy for each new resident for the first three years upon completion of the project. The proposed measure aligns with the San Antonio Precise Plan's goals of reducing vehicular trips and promoting alternative modes of transportation.

[00:21:30] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: In compliance with the San Antonio Precise Plan streetscape design standards, the project is proposing an eight-foot wide detached sidewalk with a six-foot planter strip along San Antonio Road and a six-foot wide detached sidewalk with a four-foot wide planter strip along California Street. The project is found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15194, affordable housing exemption of the CEQA guidelines, as it meets all required conditions for affordable housing exemptions. Including providing a fully affordable housing project up to 100 units or less, deed restricting for a minimum of 30 years, and meeting other criteria including site area limits, location within an urbanized area, and location immediately adjacent to qualified urban uses.

[00:22:23] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Standard conditions of approval have also been incorporated into the project resolution to mitigate any potential vapor intrusion risks from the site's historical use as a gas station. The project is determined to be consistent with the city's VMT policy and has a less than significant VMT impact. During the review process, the project was reviewed at a design review consultation or DRC meeting on June 5th, 2024. DRC recommendations focused on enhancing the streetscape, landscaping, and improving the visual articulation of the building to alleviate building mass. Subsequently, the applicant implemented changes in paint color and stucco textures, incorporated additional landscaping, including replacing metal grates above the bioretention areas with natural lower water plantings, and made architectural adjustments to refine the building mass.

[00:23:18] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 21st, 2024. Five people attended the meeting. Participants raised several questions regarding the project's affordability, parking, and amenities, showing particular interest in bike storage and parking solutions. The general feedback was supportive with no major opposition raised from attendees. After the agenda was published, staff identified necessary modifications to Exhibit A and Exhibit 1 project conditions to remove and/or modify some conditions that were added in error and to provide clarity in the condition language.

[00:23:55] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: This includes removal of conditions 28, 36, 52, 53, 54, and 93, and minor revisions to conditions 127, 133, 134, 135, and 150. A list of these conditions have been provided to the EPC as a desk item. In conclusion, the project is found to be consistent with applicable development standards, achieves General Plan and Housing Element goals by increasing affordable housing opportunities in the city, and helps meet the 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 and Development Review Permit, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the project, with the modifications to the conditions of approval as described earlier. Staff received four public comments on this item, which have been provided to the EPC prior to this meeting via email and is also available on Legistar. And this concludes staff's presentation. Staff, including Community Development Director Murdock and Assistant Community Development Director Blazinsky are present here tonight and available to answer any questions that you may have. Additionally, the project owner and the applicant is here tonight and they have a presentation as well. Thank you.

[00:25:19] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you very much. I'll now turn to commission questions. Do any commissioners have questions for staff or the applicant?

[00:25:40] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Better? Thank you. So for the record, I'm Shelen Rodriguez. I'm representing the owner and developer, CRP Affordable. And we are very much thankful to be here, but also thankful for staff. I know it's been a long haul and it's a very thorough presentation and thorough staff report. So we're gonna try to be quick, and we're gonna try to hit on the high points and not repeat too much. Next slide. Next page. Maybe it's better. CRP Affordable is an affordable housing developer. We own, operate and maintain ownership of affordable housing units on the coasts. Particularly here in California we have over 2500 units. We're a full service vertically integrated firm, and you can see a little bit more about us there. Next page, please.

[00:27:38] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: We have projects both under construction, but these are two that you may know of or kind of in the area in Santa Clara and San Diego, long-term deed-restricted affordable rental projects. Next slide. Eucalyptus Grove in Burlingame, Dry Creek Crossing in San Jose, again under construction, on the boards, and are our long-term affordable housing projects. So I know you all generally know this, but I think it's nice to sometimes just level set a little bit. These are some the point of this slide is to look at that red box that you see in the bar chart on the right, and that is the existing need in Santa Clara County of extremely low and very low income households, renters that need affordable housing.

[00:28:26] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Next slide. It's on a high level and we'll go down to Mountain View. The important part of this slide, and Jeffrey touched on it both in the staff report and in the presentation, but the City's RHNA requirements are that the need is over 4,370 units in this community that are serving households at or below 80% of the area median income of the county. So 100% of our units are doing that and meeting your RHNA goals. Additionally there's some other statistics there, but it's important to know that over 30% of your community is at or below 80% AMI, with over 40% of renters being rent burdened. Meaning, as the feds say, 30% or more of their income is going to housing, other things might not be able to be taken care of. Medical bills, transportation, etc.

[00:29:19] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Next page, please. Thank you. This is just a high-level graph. I included this for two reasons, to just reiterate, and it was done very well already, 55 years affordability, over 60% of the units are geared for families, at two and three bedroom units, with 36% being one bedroom. The rent range at the lowest end, and again it depends on unit size and family size, runs between just over $1,000 up to just over $3,800, with an average in the middle at 60% AMI. Housing Accountability Act and the State Density Bonus Law both apply.

[00:30:04] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Next page, and I will turn it over to Alexa, our Alexa Dax, our representative from Dahlin Group, our architect. Thank you.

[00:30:12] Architect Alexa Dax: Thank you Shelen. Great to be here with you all today. So setting the context a little, many of you, it sounds like are very familiar with this site. So we do have an existing gas station, a couple of trees, as Jeffrey mentioned. And so one of the great assets of this project is that we are going to come in and put in those San Antonio Precise Plan streetscape and street sections as a part of this project. So we'll be upgrading that as we get to our project. And then just a look at the context, we do have several other projects right around us that are five, six, and seven stories, so we are in a similar height to our immediate neighbors. On the next slide.

[00:30:48] Architect Alexa Dax: This site is a really great site in terms of proximity to a number of amenities, one of which being transit, which was briefly discussed. Because we are within that half mile of our Caltrain station, and have major bus routes along San Antonio, the project is not required to provide any parking. But that being said, we really worked to provide as much as we possibly could at this development. And so that is going to be 16 vehicular spaces and two motorcycle spaces in the garage. And we also recognize that because it is in a great walking distance, biking distance, electric scooters, there's a variety of modes of transit that we want to support here. So we do have those 100 long-term bikes and 14 short-term in the community as well.

[00:31:31] Architect Alexa Dax: On the next slide we'll be very brief, but just again, there's great grocery stores, there's great parks, there's great amenities right across the street from this site. So a very great place for families to come in and be able to live a full life. On the next slide we'll start to touch on some of the amenities the project will provide. We'll have a multi-purpose community room that can be used for a number of things. Residents can rent it out for private events or functions in the community. Social services can also come in and put on programs for the residents, which could be things like financial literacy, resume building. And then because we are anticipating families here, we are going to have a really nice at-grade courtyard with play structures for kids, as well as a computer lab in the community.

[00:32:14] Architect Alexa Dax: As we look at our ground floor here, this is really where the central amenities are concentrated for this project. Again, speaking to the San Antonio Precise Plan goals for connectivity, we really wanted to keep the activity out on San Antonio Road. We find spaces like offices, bike rooms, mail rooms, those get activated at all points during the day. And then we do have a community room in a spot that we worked with staff and DRC to refine, but that has a really great spillout opportunity to take advantage of our indoor-outdoor climate that we get in California. On the following image here, we're looking at the corner across the street from San Antonio and California. You can see the large amount of glazing going down San Antonio. Again, really making sure that we've got visual connectivity for the activity inside the building with the community at large.

[00:33:02] Architect Alexa Dax: On the next one we look to California Street, where we have our interior courtyard tucked in the center. Again, that was a space that we want to have security for residents, but we wanted them to be visually connected to the community. So it is out on that California Street frontage. And then finally, it's been touched on but we did really appreciate all of staff's efforts on this, as well as DRC and our neighborhood meeting. We did make changes to the project following each of those, and really took all of the input into consideration to do as much as we could. We're really excited for the opportunity to bring this wide range of affordable housing, and particularly to families with a lot of the two and three bedroom units. So thank you so much for your time, we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

[00:33:49] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you very much. I'll now turn to commission questions. Do any commissioners have questions for staff or the applicant?

[00:34:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thank you. Yeah, I have a number of questions here, actually. In no particular order. You're stating that we can do the waivers because without that the structure would be physically precluded, meaning you can't build all those units within the allowable space. But that's not true. You've chosen to do an eight-story building and have essentially a C-shape with all of that air inside. You could have built a block building inside of the proper footprint and had an internal courtyard inside with no external windows. And then you wouldn't have any of the issues about stepping it down. So I don't see why it is technically necessary to have these waivers because you could have built something else that had exactly the same internal square footage that fit the guidelines.

[00:35:36] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Thank you for the question. When staff looks at what would constitute physically precluding a project at this density, we take it as how it's designed and proposed. And as such, how it is proposed, these are the waivers necessary. If we were to redesign the site, perhaps building in the area where the at-grade podium courtyard is in lieu of a lower ceiling height or shorter building height, any of these items would generally either require essentially completely designing or changing the architecture of this building, or any application of the general plan, any of our standards, if we were to apply them, we would see some change in the overall size of the building, which is the density. They wouldn't be allowed to construct all of the 100 units essentially. So they were asking us to wave the standards to put it in the box that they would prefer to put it in. So with State Density Bonus Law, we typically will ask for any changes early on in the process in DRC and generally any modifications that applicant agrees to and continues to modify we're appreciative of. But their state density requests are their state density requests.

[00:37:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Well then, I have another question related to design as long as we're there. The staircases appear to come from the top level all the way to essentially ground level but they do not empty into any corridor. Essentially they empty right out onto the street. And it looks like the gate goes outward into the sidewalk area over property line. The one on the left certainly doesn't empty onto anything but empty air. So typically stairways will empty into either a lobby or an internal corridor before they're allowed out onto a street. Could you explain the rationale for that architecture?

[00:38:21] Architect Alexa Dax: Yeah, happy to jump in on this one. So typically in a residential building of this scale and this type, you have to have two means of egress for safety reasons. And you can't have both means of egress discharge into your building, one of them has to go directly outside. And it is preferred frankly for your exiting of the building to get directly outside. So from the primary level you want to go right out to the public right-of-way out to safety. And so typically our stair doors, like on California, are going to be slightly recessed, if they look like they might open over the property line. We make sure that our building is set back enough to accommodate a completely clear path of travel right on that property line. And same thing on San Antonio, they're slightly tucked in so that you have safe space outside of the public right-of-way.

[00:39:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Because typically they'll discharge right out onto whatever street level it is.

[00:39:18] Architect Alexa Dax: Yes. They'll discharge safely to an area to be dispersed directly out away from the building.

[00:39:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And is there any restriction on re-entry? Can you get off at a particular floor?

[00:39:27] Architect Alexa Dax: Yes, you can move between floors and access to that stairway would only be allowed by a key fob for residents. We don't want anyone from the public entering those stairways.

[00:39:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And the bottom door?

[00:39:39] Architect Alexa Dax: Yeah, absolutely locked on the outside unless you have a fob to come in.

[00:39:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Could you explain the 50-dollar transit subsidy? I know that VTA right now charges $2.50 per ride. And I suspect that Caltrain is more. $50 essentially gives somebody one trip back and forth a month, essentially for ten months out of the year. I fail to see how that's considered an incentive when a bicycle parking essentially is a fixed cost and you get essentially unlimited transportation. And there doesn't seem to be anything in this plan that encourages any of these residents to have anything beyond simple bicycle parking to replace it.

[00:40:48] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Thank you for the question. We try to provide the most robust program that we can within reason, to still pencil an affordable housing project. So the transit subsidy that's offered typically is offered per unit. That is not something that would make or break transit habits, I completely agree with you on that. But we really feel the asset to this site is the walkability. It is right across the street from a grocery store. The transit stops on San Antonio are essentially right outside our front door. What we typically do, just to give a little more color to this, at stabilization, when all the units are full, not everybody takes us up on the subsidy. Usually what we do is aggregate that total dollar amount for the whole building and issue more significant transit passes to folks who actually use them. So it's not just 50 bucks a year per person in reality. We aggregate the fund and people who want them, you know, raise their hand to the property manager, and we give out actual meaningful, usable transit passes.

[00:41:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, but the $50 limit seems to me rather extraordinarily stingy. Is this a common feature that you do in your developments?

[00:42:41] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: It is, usually, the baseline in most areas that we work for transit. You know, what triggers this really is the TDM plan. The TDM plan can be exceptionally costly, and so that was a concession request of ours for a strict cost-cutting measure, but we still want to put forth a good faith effort. So yeah, usually it ranges between $50 and $100 depending on the jurisdiction.

[00:43:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. We had a requirement originally for window recessing and setting them back. And it was stated that, in the original proposal that there was essentially no window recessing whatsoever. In order to break up that solid block facade look. How far recessed are those windows?

[00:43:30] Architect Alexa Dax: So the primary material in those sections is essentially a stucco face and then we're stepping it back to a secondary material. So those are set back a couple of inches. It varies depending on the specific location, but we tried to use material change and subtle articulation where we couldn't get the full depth required by the standard.

[00:44:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I wasn't seeing essentially any window recessing along certainly the bulk of California or San Antonio to speak of. How much are those recessed from the nominal flat base of the building right now?

[00:44:15] Architect Alexa Dax: The primary windows are flush.

[00:44:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Ah. Okay. So that adds additional visual bulk and scale by just basically putting flush windows on a flat face of the building. And that is simply to preserve a few extra inches of internal space inside the building?

[00:44:35] Architect Alexa Dax: It is directly tied to the construction type and the cost of the project.

[00:44:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Ah. Well, again, there's always going to be the push and pull. We want a more articulate building. It costs more money to do that, so we reduce it and try to build essentially a featureless block in order to do that and rely solely on color to accomplish that task. Is there any way that you could recess the windows maybe half of what we require to try to provide some visual interest?

[00:44:56] Architect Alexa Dax: We did look at some window recessing options, and we are utilizing them in a few key locations where we can make it work structurally and financially. But generally speaking, across the entire facade, the flush windows were the path that made this project viable.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: opportunity or

[00:45:02] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: It could, there's no restrictions that would would um, you know, require um the affordability levels to stay at at the um percentages that they are.

[00:45:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Or or to sustain them as a rental property or I guess I'm trying to understand what happens after the 55 years.

Segment 1

[00:45:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Alright, I'll let others ask some questions. Thank you.

Segment 2

[00:45:20] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: It would remain as a rental property. Um, but there's no um affordability restrictions um after the 55 years.

[00:45:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it. Great. Um and then I do have um other questions. So if I'm recalling correctly I believe that this this site a a project uh for this site came to us around like 2022 if I'm recalling correctly. Um I think at the time there was some I think the crux of the discussion if I'm recalling correctly was around a request to shift um some of the um BMR units from more family accommodating two-bedroom uh to a a greater concentration of like one-bedroom um BMR units. Um and I think there was like some like other elements around that around like where they were located that um we may have discussed. Um and so if I'm understanding correctly, Dalan is that how I pronounce it correctly, Dalan? Um you guys are um like a consulting firm representing the owner of the site and the property or are you the property owners?

[00:46:29] Architect Alexa Dax: Yeah, Dalan is the architecture firm, so I'm the senior architect on the project and then Shelen...

[00:46:35] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Yes. I'm a representative of CRP. So I'm a consultant for CRP.

[00:46:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, great.

[00:46:41] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Who is the owner and there are um folks from CRP in the audience if you have any questions.

[00:46:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Perfect. Yep. So I guess what I'm trying to understand if if um and this could be either for yourself or for staff whoever um is equipped or or feels equipped to to kind of um I'm just trying to understand what kind of happened from 2022 where there was a lot of um where the the project was of a different character I believe like mixed use, um a lot of contention around kind of scraping away at some of the like um affordability requirements and now this project which is great, I mean I'm happy with it. I just want to make sense of it in terms of the project is now coming to uh the commission as a 100% affordable um project so um if I yeah yeah if you may.

[00:47:24] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: If I may, sure. Um it was an entirely different team so we're not familiar at all with that with that project as the as the designer and developer. Different owner, different developer. Whole different different applicant.

[00:47:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Is there any clarity in terms of like kind of how or why the project kind of shifted to this 100% affordable?

[00:47:44] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, so you're correct. Thank you for the question. The previous entitlement from 2022 it actually expired and after that we received this brand new application from a different developer team altogether. So I don't think there is a good way for us to compare both of them.

[00:48:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, that's fine. That's that's great, right? Um just want to know from a a clarity perspective. Um and then other questions. Um so there are concerns I think you you might have heard um or or been privy to some of the public comment around like parking. Um and some of the kind of like con uh conflict there in terms of like vulnerable people or you know lower income people not having access to um as much kind mobility resources. Um I guess in your experience um I just just for the public's benefit uh as well for people who are concerned about that, um what are reasons that um people with those concerns um should either be less concerned about that or um you know ameliorating conditions around that or other actions that you might take given that you know even though it is close to transit um you know it's it's a sad position where LA has better public transit than you know Silicon Valley. So um to the extent that you know you can kind of help uh assuage any of that, that'd be very helpful.

[00:49:08] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Sure. Thank you for the question. And just so that I'm very clear, um is the concern that you're hearing primarily around the idea that perhaps um in an affordable development we're offering less opportunities for parking versus a market rate development? Is that I just want to make sure I'm answering it.

[00:49:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, and I wouldn't say that's unique necessarily to this project just you know in in general I think there's a slew of um you know projects that I'm hearing about as well where the parking um especially affordable housing developments or for affordable components is significantly, you know lowered or reduced. And so um you know to the extent that you're able to you know kind of share around what is the case for this project that um might be able to kind of um ease that lack for for these communities that'd be really helpful to hear.

[00:50:01] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Sure. I mean it's it's not a single answer and it's not an easy answer. If it was an easy answer we wouldn't have the question, right? Um but at the end of the day, the number one thing that households spend their income on is housing and the second thing that's right right behind that, um notwithstanding a major medical issue, is transportation. So when you provide affordable housing near transportation options you are enabling a family to not have to spend their money on transportation so that they can spend their money on other things that the rest of that 70% of their income is going to. So um in our experience, both CRP's and I've worked in affordable housing in California for over 25... um 20 years now. Uh generally speaking, not all the time, generally speaking affordable housing units have less cars because folks tend to want to a safe and stable place to live over having multiple cars that are costing them a substantial amount of their income. So it's not a perfect scenario but at the end of the day I think we as a state and we as in this community have chosen to sort of house folks and house people instead of spending you know 60,000 and up on a parking space. 60,000 dollars to build a parking space. So I I don't know if that totally answers the question but it's my stab.

[00:51:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I appreciate it. Yeah. I mean it was your answer and I really appreciate it. Yeah. Totally works. Yep.

[00:51:22] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Oh sure thing. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

[00:51:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[00:51:26] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um my question was actually going to be about the 55-year deed restriction as well and how do you come up with that number and in your experience has it turned over to market rate or do you offer it as ownership or do you rent with the first right of refusal for them uh the current tenants, I just wanted to understand that transition and how you chose the 55 year.

[00:51:55] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: It's again a very good question. Thank you Commissioner Yin. Um the 55 years is ultimately based on the state tax credit allocation committee's requirements. So this project similar to your typical NOFA projects will be utilizing um both federal 4% credits and state credits as well as the tax exempt bonds that the state issues. So those all have very substantial um affordability requirements and the 55-year mark is what California has has determined is their priority. So ultimately the the financing drives it. After the first 15 years your tax credit investor is out of the project and often times you see these projects going in for additional tax credit equity in order to rehab or um provide renovation to kind of update properties. I'd say about year 20, 25 is when you generally see that. At year 55 you could in theory sell the project um to a market rate developer at that point in time. You have a 55 year old apartment building so its market rate is arguably naturally occurring affordable housing. Um it's not set up to be a condominium. You know there's never ever really a way for this to become a a condominium or a home ownership. So it's kind of a layered answer but at the end of the day financing drives it and there's really no way out of it with that deed restriction and the state financing. Does that answer your question Commissioner?

[00:53:26] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, no, that's very helpful. Could you continue an un affordable housing...

[00:53:32] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Absolutely. Yeah. So in that scenario where it gets re it gets refinanced with additional credits another 55 years would get put on top of that.

[00:53:45] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you.

[00:53:46] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Sure thing.

[00:53:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Donahue.

[00:53:51] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, I'm going to show my I'm the rookie here so I'm going to show my ignorance but what's the difference between a concession and a waiver?

[00:53:59] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Yeah. No, thank you for the question. So at a high level a concession is uh is a request for some type of exception um that results in quantifiable cost reductions for the project so it's it's a cost-saving um request. A waiver is um is a request for development standard deviations or waivers um that um would physically uh preclude the project from being able to be constructed at the density proposed.

[00:54:30] Commissioner Paul Donahue: They seem kind of related. Um...

[00:54:33] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: They could be. Sometimes they overlap. So concessions can sometimes fall under uh waivers. Um but um you know in this case the the five concessions that the applicant had indicated or requested um uh you know they had determined or um from their studies that it would um be a cost burden on the project so that's why they are proposing it as concessions.

[00:54:58] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Um and and I I'll trust that you've categorized them correctly so. Um my other question is so on in the streetscape section of the staff report it says that to accommodate the new sidewalk design uh the curb will be moved inward by approximately 5 feet which which seems like it would constrict the sidewalk design and kind of um you know restrict pedestrian flow and kind of change I don't know it would it would also increase the size of the street and um how does that how is that accommodating the sidewalk to to reduce the amount of space available for the sidewalk?

[00:55:45] City Staff: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Renee Gon, I'm a Senior Civil Engineer in the Public Works department. Um so thank you for your question. So the existing streets the lane widths out on San Antonio there's a left turn there's a straight there's a right turn there's a bike lane. Those all remain but currently those are all sub-standard on width. Um so what is being built out as part of this project meets the precise plan. Those lanes stay but they all get slightly wider. Most importantly the bike lane gets to a standard 6 foot wide. And that work all pushes the curb into the project. But then behind the curb there's still the landscape strip and the sidewalk. And because all of that's pushed into the project we're no longer within our right of way. The applicant um is proposing a public access easement over the sidewalk. So it's still a public sidewalk.

[00:56:51] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. So so this actually will improve the bike lane, improve uh that that kind of thing and will um provide standard width sidewalk or as as it described in the staff report. So pedestrian bicycle flow will be improved. Uh okay.

[00:57:11] City Staff: Correct.

[00:57:13] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. That that makes sense. Thanks. Thanks.

[00:57:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Guti<!---->érrez.

[00:57:21] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Chair. So I have a couple questions um for for you all. Um I'm going to first start out with the low hanging fruit here which is the modified transportation demand management plan. $50 transit subsidy per resident per year for the first three years. So I understand the gist of the project and the intention um you can't get a 100% what you want type of project for affordable housing overall. We've learned that either through general submissions or builder's remedies and they all have a different facet to them in terms of what they're trying to achieve. For this one though, um I'm thinking if I look at the family that's going to move into a two or a three bedroom they may or may not have a car. That car may not be probably uh what we used to seeing with Teslas or a BMW or a Mercedes. Maybe even a late model Camry, it's probably going to be beat up or not so new. I'm ha I'm finding it hard to believe that one of my dears is going to all of a sudden get an electric scooter and she's going to be like 65 years of age going down to Caltrain. I think she'll probably take the bus. The 50 bucks will cover the yearly pass. But if she has to take that to then get to Caltrain she won't have enough to be able to go where she to whatever she needs to get to. So is that flexible? Are you able to increase that amount to possibly also cover what would be the cost not just for local transportation with VTA with the bus pass the year around one but also the next step which would be in case they would have to also take Caltrain. Are you open to modifying that somewhat? That's the first question.

[00:59:08] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Great. Thank you Commissioner Gutiérrez for the question. Um I just I do want to take this moment just to be clear that the development and the developer are not against transportation demand management. The difficulty which I think you alluded to in our situation was simply that the way that we understood the TDM in the San Antonio precise plan was uncertain as to how much operating expense it was going to um drive up. How much it was going to drive up the annual operating expenses of the building. So in that sense certainty is what we need because our rents are capped, right? If something increases we have to charge affordable rents we can't just you know charge somebody for extra parking or charge somebody for just increase the rent. We we can't do that. So our what we we crunched the numbers and again we don't exactly know what bus passes are going to be or what train passes are going to be. But the $50 we intend to work with staff we have an annual monitoring program to kind of revisit it every year how that how that looks for our residents. And it can be used for a TMA membership, it could be used for buses or for trains as far as we're concerned. At the end of the day we want to do something that's on the right track but we couldn't really afford what we thought would be about a $40,000 hit to the annual operating expense for the 100 units. Does that answer your question?

[01:00:36] Chair José Gutiérrez: Well it partly answers my question. Not the way I like it but I understand the limitations and I have to throw the question out there because sooner or later you're going to face that one way or another. Whether we're here or somebody else is here taking our spots and depending on who the families are that end up being living there that may or may not be an issue for you to think about. At least it was brought up ahead of time for you to ponder what the next step would be for the betterment of the community, right? Uh the second question uh is we're all into tenant protections here right one way or another and one form or another we agree to disagree but we work together as a team that's fine. City council is the same way that's fine. But in the last few years we've all seen this. There's certain members of the commercial small business community that are near and dear to the heart of members of the Mountain View community. Uh the milk pail was one right we didn't want to see that go. It was right across the street from where you all are going to develop. And then you have the rose market and Frankie Johnnie & Luigi's. They all have a following. In this case so did the mechanic at the gas station. So my questions for that because he'd been around for a long, long time. Uh and I think you know what I'm talking about. Uh and I won't be the first to know well I'll be the last to talk about this to be honest with you. I know that much. Um for us who don't know what happens in this process when a a business is affected like this how much time were they given, how much notice were they given about the change of their status from being an active viable business contributing to the life of that community to then not being part of that. And because tenant protections is one thing but I think it's time to also speak about business protections especially for those members who are affected like this and I bring that up not because we're policymakers but I bring that up as a heads up for the for the folks above us so they can possibly look at that issue from their vantage point. So my question is pretty much simply how long was he or they given notice? How did how did that work? And then I'll have a follow up based on how you respond.

[01:02:43] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Sure. Um again Commissioner it's a good question and I will do my best. I also have members of CRP Affordable here in case my best isn't quite good enough. But um CRP owns the property now, we just closed on it in the last few months. Um up until then the mechanic and the gas station were not our tenants. We we it was not our charge to protect them or validate their lease or give them note you know we I don't know I we can't speak to what was said or not said or what notice was given. We were under contract for quite some time um and I have to presume although it is just just a presumption that the previous uh development that Commissioner Nuñez mentioned earlier this evening was also under contract to some extent. So with that said I I don't know how much time was given um the the business owner. What I do know is it came became apparent to us in our um in our neighborhood meeting in June that this was a really beloved business in the community. Not so much the gas station perhaps but definitely the the auto center and the two different owners. So what CRP was able to do was connect them to our commercial broker connect him to sort of what you know what do you need we're not in the business of auto mechanics we're not even really in the commercial business but we were just trying to be a good neighbor to say now we're taking over the site. Our lender won't let us maintain this our lender does affordable housing our lender does multi-family housing they don't want the risk of having a commercial uh tenant there so we were unable to really keep him there if you will. Um but we did we were able to connect him with our broker and I've heard that good things have happened but I actually don't know for certain.

[01:04:25] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay great and this is why you we ask the questions right because by you sharing what you do know that gives a lot of information out to those who are watching or who will watch as to what happened and what your role is in all of this because I think sometimes we assume too many things of of oh they can do this or they can do that when in reality there's limitations to everything. Which is why you can't get a 100% what you want type of deal no matter how you look at it. You give the best of what you can for the betterment of where you're at. So I appreciate your honesty and your candor and those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

[01:04:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Vice Chair. Uh Commissioner Cranston.

[01:05:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So you've got properties all over California so you probably have some data that says how many people who live in your developments actually have cars. Um I I realized that we are under state law not allowed to put a requirement. Um we've seen projects that and I am completely um I understand and agree with your assessment that it's not unusual for people who have lower income not to be able to afford a vehicle. Um but 16 spaces with 200 bedrooms seems below the level of reasonable to me and it's definitely below what I've seen in every other project we've seen in the city and I guess what do you see across your projects um as the typical number of vehicles that a a development that has 100 units and 200 bedrooms would normally have at that property.

[01:05:57] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Commissioner Cranston, it's a great question. I'm not going to have an answer that you want to hear. Um the the truth of the matter is that CRP owns projects that are within a half mile of transit and projects that are not. Projects that are not within a half mile of transit have different parking ratios than those that are. Um CRP Affordable in particular does try to target places that create a very walkable and um a walkable lifestyle so that they don't have to spend their money and their capital on parking. Um they don't they're not they don't always do it. So the short of it is there's projects with zero parking that are a- about the same size give or take as as what we're looking at here on San Antonio. And then there's projects that have maybe a 50% parking ratio that are a lot farther from transit and less urban infill areas. Um I've I work on projects um with other developers when in my own development that have one to one parking ratios because they're up in the Tahoe Truckee region and they're simply it's a it's a whole different beast up there. So to say that we have one average ratio is is we don't have an accurate look at that right now.

[01:07:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Do we have any of that locally out here in Mountain View?

[01:07:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I mean we seeing we've got the project on on El Camino the project in Terabella there's the project on what's it lot 12 that's being proposed. What are we typically seeing maybe our housing guy in the back knows the answer to this. Um but it it seems uh lean lean low and I was actually shocked that you showed bus stations bus stops on San Antonio. I drive through all the time I have I cannot think of ever seeing a bus stop on San Antonio. The buses go to the corner at where the Walmart is. They don't stop there. So I'm I I don't know what those bus stops are that you're referring to. So I'm just I'm again I'm all in favor of lower ratio but it seems almost unreasonably low and I'm what's typical of Mountain View is what I'm trying to understand.

[01:08:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Good evening Wayne Chen, Housing Director. Um the projects that we've been seeing recently have had a variety of ratios and um some of the lower parking ratios typically have a parking study to justify the lower ratios but we typically see a range between uh .41 or so up to 0.75 that's been sort of the range that that we've been looking at.

[01:08:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So more typically 40 to 70 for something this size is what we see.

[01:08:38] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Right.

[01:08:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Thank you.

[01:08:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Um Commissioner Yin did you have a further question? Just want to give you a shot.

[01:08:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh it was a small one it was for staff and it was just to find out how if we don't do underground utilities how does that work is there just like a couple of pulls on the site and then the utilities go back down it comes up back down.

[01:09:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I can try to answer but we have public works staff present here who will help us with this question.

[01:09:14] City Staff: Thank you. Again Renee Gon, Senior Civil Engineer. So yes this project will leave the overhead electric along the frontage. Um what we are seeing is most projects for that service line that comes from the pull to the project goes underground um per PG&E regulations. Um but the pulls are not going to be removed as part of this project and the overhead electric will stay along San Antonio.

[01:09:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Only along the frontage of this property? Or are they strung along because I don't remember all of San Antonio.

[01:09:52] City Staff: They're along a good portion of San Antonio. There are places along San Antonio that have redeveloped that did have a map associated with them that we were able to require those lines to be put underground. So when a project has a map we can require it to go underground.

[01:10:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Is it easy in the future to put it down?

[01:10:18] City Staff: It is expensive in the future to put it underground. We do have long term CIPs in the city to do undergrounding.

[01:10:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thanks.

[01:10:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And I'm going to check really quickly with Commissioner Clark uh just to see if you have any questions. Commissioner.

[01:10:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: No questions.

[01:10:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Thank you. Um for myself almost all my questions were answered. I think I will ask of the applicant one small question and this is just based on something I saw from public comment. I think someone who had written in expressed concern that the the uh the garage door was too low and it would prevent moving vans and delivery vans from actually coming into the garage which would then force them to like park out in front of the building and block uh they would block traffic flow and I think bikes uh the bike lane was a big concern. So help us understand height of the garage and sort of how folks are expected to move in move out uh without disrupting California.

[01:11:28] Architect Alexa Dax: Yes. Great question. Thank you for that. Um so the height of our garage is about 11 feet is what's proposed in the staff report here from that is going to be at our southwest corner the site does have some grade on it so the garage actually is going to slope and follow that site so we will have some additional height by the time we're out on California Street that will be more like 12 and a half at that point. Um in in that concern that was brought to our attention part of that was also the street section and the concern for bikes so as it was touched upon earlier we are providing the San Antonio precise plan street section in this area so it will give them the widened bike lane and then the turn lane beyond that. So there is space on our site for a vehicle to pull in right now it's a curb cut from the adjacent property because their sidewalk is out further and that would keep them out of the bike lane for safety of those bicyclists.

[01:12:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So a standard size not a huge moving van but a standard size van...

[01:12:32] Architect Alexa Dax: Like a Sprinter van could pull into the garage.

[01:12:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, and I'm assuming that'll be made like abundantly clear to anyone uh what you can fit inside that garage and what's not gonna fit.

[01:12:42] Architect Alexa Dax: Yes. We will have a very clear height designation on what size of vehicles can go in and out.

[01:12:49] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Alright, thank you. No more questions from me then. Uh Commissioner Nuñez. Go ahead.

[01:12:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah actually I do have um checking about this. Um so this is a former gas station site. Um does that mean it qualifies as like a quote-unquote like brown field site or you know like what would be like is there any special designation um or like care um that we need to take with regard to infill redevelopment at a form of gas station site?

[01:13:21] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh it doesn't have any special designation. Uh some you know we looked at the phase one phase two studies for the environmental clearance some benzene well levels were detected above the a above the um the screening levels but we have standard conditions of approval which were were actually also prescribed in the environmental assessment for uh including vapor barriers as they construct and the limited amount of benzene which which was found you know above the screening levels that will be reduced as the project will go into the into the excavation and the grading activities as well.

[01:13:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. And then um for the applicant um what is the extent of your guys's experience in um infill redevelopment over like former gas stations or similar vapor risk benzene scary words chemical sounding kind of sites? Not to be blunt about it but.

[01:14:18] Architect Alexa Dax: Okay. I'll I'll do my best on this one. We are experiencing it along almost every urban infill project. There is some something that we need to mitigate on it. So they will have a study done and typically a vapor intrusion mitigation system gets designed, the study helps tell us whether or not it actually needs to run constantly or it's just set up with the infrastructure. Um but other other experts in that will do the studies and that will inform and that will become part of the design if the project is needed.

[01:14:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So then you do have experience redeveloping over former gas station sites or...

[01:14:54] Architect Alexa Dax: We've done several sites that have had yes a variety of different concerns of things that have needed to be mitigated. Again almost every urban infill we are seeing this they call it a VIMS system for short needing to come in in some capacity whether it is the infrastructure or it's actually operating full time.

[01:15:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And so then in terms of like this benzene stuff um just to so it was kind of technical sounding-ish um you know very smart planning people and it goes over my head sometimes is can can you just in like plain plain as plain simple I'm like a fifth grader here kind of um can you just tell us like what the process is going to be to you know that everyone and the city and all of us in a good faith effort are just taking care so that you know 15 20 years from now we're not seeing like you know higher incidents of cancer rates or something in in this area. What like what are those steps that we're going to take?

[01:15:54] Architect Alexa Dax: So the the short form of these systems is essentially there is a barrier that that gets placed underneath the building and is connected to a ventilation system if needed so that anything that would potentially be trapped underneath the building without it has the opportunity to get ventilated out through the building up the roof it's protected from any of the residences it's not something that has gained any access through the building in that sense. But that's essentially what it does. It's taking any vapors that would otherwise be tra- uh trapped excuse me and ventilating them out.

[01:16:30] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Awesome, thank you.

[01:16:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Seeing no further questions we will move to 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 comment on this item please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Um to the EPC clerk do we have any requests for public comment?

[01:16:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: None in person and one virtually.

[01:17:06] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Well let's have our commenter come up.

[01:17:11] Matt Raschke: Hi, um this Matt Raschke. Um and I believe I was the commenter that the chair mentioned about the the garage height. But that was in relation to uh moving vans. But my my comment also concerns is concerned with the uh deliveries for for the project you know with 100 units everybody gets Amazon UPS FedEx. These trucks are are going to they're not going to be able to get into this garage. The garage has a gate that I could just see on the on the plans. So that they're going to basically stop at the uh probably near the entry lobby which is right at the corner Cal Ave which means they're going to block the right right turn lane and then cars are going to basically have to go through the through lane and to make a uh uh a turn onto San Antonio and right hook bikes that are expecting to go through. Uh so that's a a significant danger. So I I understand from the meeting tonight that they're widening uh San Antonio but uh you know I think perhaps the uh the striping plan should be reevaluated to provide a an an actual loading and unloading zone if if it's going through like this I mean and and actually plan for these deliveries which are going to happen rather than just say oh it's not a concern and and you know it's just going to be you know we're we're creating a danger let's mitigate it. I'm a civil engineer I worked for the City of Palo Alto for 24 years I have over 30 years experience was a senior engineer I managed multi-million dollar projects for Palo Alto. Uh you know these are the kind of things that that need to be thought about and and this is reality of of today's uh environment everything gets delivered. It's and you know without cars these people are absolutely going to have big things delivered from you know furniture pieces you know how is this going to happen with no loading zone and they can't get into the garage. So you know I think this needs to be figured figured out before this goes through and and gets constructed. Thank you.

[01:19:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Any further public comment?

[01:19:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: None virtually.

[01:19:36] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright, thank you Mr. Clerk. Public comment being uh completed it's time for EPC deliberation. So comments from the commission. Commissioner uh Vice Chair Gutiérrez.

[01:19:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Chair. Look uh I'm going to follow up on the on the caller's uh concern because I saw that email as well. So if there's any chance to have the project leads address that issue I would appreciate that. If not, so be it. Um but at least they would be able to say whether or not FedEx trucks and Amazon trucks would have enough space for that designated area if not then it is what it is. But having said that, I like the project. I know that there's limitations with the project. I don't like the fact that there's not enough parking. I don't think any of us do. And that's those are mandates that come from the state, the same ones who gave us uh builder's remedy projects that we don't really understand or have a say as to what happens when those things are presented to us. Uh so it's an imperfect situation. But on the bright, bright side, like Alex and many of you, I remember when this first was brought up a couple years ago. And oh boy that was a different plan altogether. Right? With a with a different approach from the developer himself. Uh and we all know what happened when it went to the big boys upstairs with city council and how that played out. So I'm very appreciative that you all had to step in with a different perspective and approach on how you look at affordable housing in general. I take that for what it's worth. It's not easy to do, it's very difficult to achieve sometimes especially with financing the way it is nowadays and it's been like that for a few years. So to be able to facilitate that um uh and to get to this stage I'm really appreciative of all that. Um my suggestions for the EPC and for the staff is the more that the lines of uh what's allowable with the law comes into play every year with housing and what can and can't be done uh the better prepared we are to answer those questions when working with the developers uh whether they're promoting something like this or other projects. It would be great and it would behoove us to be able to understand what those laws are and how they would come into play with these projects so that instead of waiting and I'm not saying that this happened on this project but I know sometimes interpretation of the law can take time. Right? So the sooner we're familiar with those laws and we're able to answer questions that come up along the way I think that helps us with our efficiency process that we're trying to aim for. We're trying to not necessarily do things quickly as possible so that we don't make mistakes but that we do quickly things quickly as possible because we're familiar with what's at stake here and we're familiar with what the law says we can and can't do. So if a question does come up from the developer of what does this mean or what does that mean we can respond to that question sooner rather than later. Because I've noticed that with a lot of our projects sometimes those questions hang us up for a while and it takes time and then that costs money. Um which then leads to other situations which we don't agree with. Um I wish we could do something more about parking. I wish we could do something more about the height. Um I wish that we would look at things differently from the perspective of who's going to live there. Um because when you look at the targeted community it's asking too much I think. It's a double standard. I got nothing to lose here man. It's a double standard. You go to R1s, cars are not an issue there. No one's questioning how many they have. You go to these projects, you're going to have to walk a mile to catch the bus. If you look at that spot right there, they'll be close to the 7-Eleven, they'll be right next to Bank of America and then they're going to have to haul it over to Walmart. If they want to catch the bus, they're going to have to go over by Safeway towards the corner on the other side. If you're going to have low income families and many of them are going to have older folks and they may not have a car, that's going to be an issue. What can we do about that? I'm not sure. Should we voice those concerns? We better. So that in the future all of us together can try and figure out what's the best approach and be flexible for fixing that approach or adjusting that approach as we move on in the life cycle of the project. Because it's not going to be guaranteed that this will always be affordable housing. When there a certain year comes into play they have the right to be able to sell it may go market rate and then that changes everything. Right? So we we've got to look at it for what it is and it's an imperfect system but compared to the previous project it's really good. So thank you.

[01:24:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Vice Chair Gutiérrez. Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:24:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah I mostly feel like it would be helpful to hear public comment first um before us asking questions just because you know I am curious I mean if I'm allowed to ask a question um based on that comment um if if the applicant sees any validity in that comment around the delivery infrastructure or did you guys like can you remember hey we actually did talk about it that one time... I'm wondering if you guys see any validity in that as a thing to check out...

[01:24:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: We generally don't do too many questions, but let's let's get this question answered if possible.

[01:24:53] Applicant Shelen Rodriguez: Okay, certainly. I think the commenter had a really great question. And I apologize for not answering it better when it was asked. So I guess I would answer it very clearly or I'll try to be clear in two parts. The San Antonio precise plan doesn't have requirements for loading. We are meeting the streetscapes of the San Antonio plan. I guess it'll be three parts. Um the third part of that is that uh we condition I would direct draw your attention to condition 21 which is a loading and delivery plan and I'll commend your staff because I pushed pushed back a little bit on that saying why do we have to do this before certificate of or before building permit and not certificate of occupancy because it's just one more thing to get done. And staff explained and I think they're very right that this is something that needs to be addressed and we intend to address it before we get our building permit so that if something does need to be revised we would be in a position to revise it. I don't foresee that happening but I did want to call your attention to condition of approval 21.

[01:25:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Great. Yeah, I mean yeah, 'cause that's, I'm glad we have engineers watching. Um that's something that would have been far beyond right and no one would have brought it up so I'm I'm just aside from staff and and maybe you know this nice person here checking it out. Um so I appreciate the response. Um I guess in terms of my position on this um I don't know, like it's expensive to be poor. Um and that is just kind of like you know I'm not saying I'm resigned to that I think you know people here who may or may not know me to whatever extent um you know yeah I I definitely not someone who just resigns to that. Um and it's it's not fair um and it's also not I would say like um sound thinking to try and like punish any one project um because of uh you know broader economic or um development or land availability or constraint um context in which a project is trying to you know become a reality through. Through you know a lot of those things are not in the developer's control. Um um a lot of things are, but you know in this case I think that a 100% affordable rental housing unit um deed restricted with travel subsidies that's reasonably generally close to a grocery store, a bank um a nice little area in San Antonio with amenities um a 7-Eleven. Uh you know like that that seems reasonable to me. Um the things that I I I did care about um and even though I didn't ask about it in my initial round of questions was like the the gas um vapor stuff that sounds you know that is a very satisfactory response I'm you know glad there's people thinking about these these things. Um it sucks again with the parking I understand it um you know it is true that we live in California we have freeways um but at the same time you know I'm not going to sit here and pound my shoe on the table um you know trying to make this project solve all the you know economic um constraints that exist um in in our region. So um I'm happy to support the the project.

[01:28:23] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Nuñez. And I believe the Vice Chair actually did have a question of the applicant. Did you still...

[01:28:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: For sure. Thank you so much Commissioner Dempsey. Uh Chair Dempsey. But uh Alex followed through with the actual question which was related to the FedEx and the Amazon trucks so that was already answered. I'm good, thank you.

[01:28:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright. Commissioner Clark. I believe you had your hand up.

[01:28:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um yeah I just wanted to chime in. So overall I'm supportive of the project. I've seen um I've seen the iterations of this. I think at the end of the day having um a an affordable housing project in place of a a gas station is a is a good trade. Um especially you know some folks have had concerns about the height um from the public but at the end of the day I think this is going to fit in um with uh the surrounding uses in terms of height and I think it's an okay trade off for affordable housing um especially with some of the environmental cleanup that's going to happen there. I did express uh in my uh meeting with the applicant um some concerns about the the setbacks but then I learned um not just from them but from the the staff report and some other additional information that um the setbacks weren't going to preclude us from building out the precise plan streetscape there so um it it isn't going to encroach on the planned streetscape it's actually going to help us um uh even though the setback is somewhat reduced it'll still allow us to to fully build out the streetscape there. Um I I'm while I'm not personally thrilled about the the parking...

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: and maybe some of the aspects of the architecture um those are things that I will um if you know we can address with our state legislators but they're really not within our purview um to to control here so well we can express our um our disagreements with those that's just how it goes um and also uh you know in terms of location this is not just at a major shopping center with a grocery store um a Caltrain station that is very easy walking distance but also VTA stops and a Marguerite stop um for those who um um you know including um lower income folks who work at Stanford and other places along the Marguerite line um this is an ideal location um for for for folks so um overall I'm I'm I'm supportive of the project uh the one concern that was raised and I've experienced this personally as a resident along El Camino you know the the delivery trucks Amazon FedEx UPS those will come and go um that's sort of expected um throughout the Bay area and the peninsula the big thing that um I've experienced and I think others have experienced is really the loading zones for um move-ins and move-outs because those trucks don't just stay there for two three minutes they stay there for a more extended period of time and tend to block bike lanes so you know if there is an opportunity um I've seen projects where you have a little bit of an expanded loading zone near where the trash takeouts are um so if there's there's an opportunity to to get those extended um period moving vehicles or other vehicles off of the street um and near those areas then I would obviously very much support that because those I think are much more impactful than the vehicles that are there for three to five minutes at a time um and they tend to be larger trucks um but um like I said earlier overall I'm supportive of the project and um I think this is a a great use of that that parcel overall so

[01:32:09] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:32:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So a lot of the things that I was concerned about in the prior developer's project have actually been addressed in this and you know I like the fact that it's 100% affordable housing I'm as I've said before I'm I get the idea of putting uh housing near transit um the um I'm I'm a little worried about the the parking um being as low as it is I would not expect it to be 70% I was to me a third would feel better um but it's it is what it is um my own experience driving down San Antonio is the delivery trucks are already parking on San Antonio. Right now you have the mail and parking mail and parcel right at the corner of the building and the offices by an entrance that's further up the street. I would suggest that staff and the applicant look at switching the the location. The elevators are closer to where the offices are so let the Amazon truck park further further down San Antonio rather than try to park right at the corner where they're trying to turn I don't think right because you the mail parcel is literally right at the corner and that's the last place you want 'em to be parked okay so just think about swapping the location of those. Um is just a suggestion. Um overall you know I think the things that um I mean the things that I'd love to tweak on it but it's um compared to what we had before and um it's an area that has good schools it has a lot access to a lot of services it does have access to transit um it's the fact that it's such a high percentage of two and three bedroom units is um that was that was a big part of our debate when we looked at the last one so I'm I'm this is a I'm very happy with that and so uh I'll be supporting it overall I just think about swapping the office and the mail room so

[01:34:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Donahue.

[01:34:08] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um like some of the other commissioners I have uh some concerns about the parking uh obviously the but as as has been said there's nothing we can really do about that under under state law. Um this is better than the thing we heard last month with the um the Builder's Remedy project which had parking but the it had zero spaces allocated for the the affordable units uh it was kind of buried in there but but if you looked carefully they weren't uh they weren't providing that amenity or any amenities probably for for the affordable units. Um the uh yeah the 55-year deed restriction came up up earlier and uh I think after 55 years things are naturally affordable as you said um you know like something now that was built in 1969 is pretty much by definition what what we would consider naturally affordable in in Mountain View so um I think that this essentially would be affordable in perpetuity so um overall I think uh it's it's not perfect but I think it's uh I think it's a really good uh step forward so I'll I'll support it.

[01:35:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[01:35:36] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um a lot of what the other commissioners have said I agree with so I'm not gonna get too much into that. Um I'm generally supportive as well. It is not the ideal no project I've seen is. So um but on balance on balance you're giving us 100% affordable family units these are all things that we are in dire need of and for me it just outweighs some of the things that we can't control anyways. So if we're going to put affordable housing in a place that's got not enough parking I'd rather it be in a place where they have a lot of amenities that they can get to and some public transportation versus you know even 40% way out in the boonies with no chance of any other way of getting around. So given those choices this is a good spot. Um so in general supportive. Thank you.

[01:36:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Vice Chair Gutiérrez.

[01:36:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah, one quick thing. You know what, I was just thinking about this. I'm like, wait a minute, something's going on here. There's we're not the policy makers, I get that, but maybe it's there might be a possibility to bring up the idea or suggestion to work with uh the developer and and City Council will probably bring this up perhaps. I'm thinking there's the friends there that are still there uh willing to help out from time to time. And you know, across the way where the movie theater used to be, there's a huge parking garage that's probably not being used. So I'm just thinking out loud if perhaps there might be a partnership that could be struck for use of some of those in relationship to some of this type of construction. That's just a thought. Thanks.

[01:37:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right. So uh the privilege of going last is that everybody said all the good comments. Um I don't I don't have anything particularly novel to add you know I I think when I had my meeting with the applicant I I think I probably started by apologizing for being churlish because I had 20 minutes worth of complaints that I wanted to share and the truth is on the whole this is a fantastic project. It's 100% affordable, we need that. The the mix of of two and three bedroom units is fantastic, we desperately need that. This is in an area that's exactly the place we should be doing infill. Um you know getting a a a big tower of 100% affordable is a is a big improvement in utilization over a gas station, even a beloved neighborhood institution gas station. Um you know I I do I think the parking is a problem. Although I don't know that we can lay that at your door. The um I think there's a larger systemic problem here where we're we're just making a trade-off as a state that we're going to shove a shove parking to the side so we can get more density. But speaking on behalf of folks that have school-aged children I can tell you I cannot parent on the bus. It takes way way too much time. Especially if you have two or three kids, the bus just doesn't work. You you if at all possible you need a car. You just do. Uh if if you can afford one. And so it I am concerned to see this sort of this creeping uh reduction in providing parking for folks that that ostensibly we're trying to help and need more help than some others might. And so it just kind of it hurts but uh I can't lay this at your door this is a societal problem and a public policy problem. Um last thing I would say it wa I wasn't thrilled to see sort of the reduction in the the transit subsidy. I also understand the financial reasons for it, I totally get it. I would just suggest that it um because I'm looking for anything anything we can get that would be an improvement over over what we've got now, instead of three years of I think I mentioned this to you when I when I spoke to you, instead of three years of of potential reimbursement I wish you could just make a pot of money that's like say you got 100% reimbursement for three years figure out what that total value is and then just let that sit in a pot until it's used up. And so even if it's you know if half the building doesn't use it that let that value sit there longer so maybe half the building could get that transit subsidy for six years. It's the same to the developer, you don't get that clawback, I recognize that. But if you're if you're willing to take the risk of spending that much money over three years if everybody uses it, we'd just ask you to just throw that all in a pot and maybe somebody can get value out of it for six. Um especially the people that have proven that they need it. So um I would love to see that just as a small uh concession back but otherwise um for all my complaining this is a wonderful project of exactly the type that we need, we would be a better city if we had more of them. Um and for that reason I'll be supporting it tonight. That's it for me. I am willing to entertain a motion unless there are further comments.

[01:40:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Uh I have uh Commissioner Nuñez has moved, uh Vice Chair Gutiérrez has seconded. Uh Commissioner Nuñez would you like to read it out? Read the magic words.

[01:40:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I'll make 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 an existing service station to construct an eight-story 99-unit 100% affordable rental housing uh development and a manager unit utilizing a state density bonus on a 0.62 acre project site located at 334 San Antonio Road. And a recommendation that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to 15194 affordable housing exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, Exhibit 1 to the staff report.

[01:41:27] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: And if I may suggest, as said during the uh staff presentation, uh staff is proposing modification to Exhibit A uh in Exhibit 1 Project Conditions to remove condition number 28, 36, 52, 53, 54, and 93, and minor revisions to the conditions number 127, 133, 134, 135, and 150 to clarify the condition language itself.

[01:41:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So moved with uh amendments recommended by staff.

[01:42:01] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Unless- No? No? Okay. So if the motion um as amended is in order, it's properly seconded, without objection. Uh um Mr. Clerk if you would call the roll.

[01:42:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh Commissioner Nuñez?

[01:42:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[01:42:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh Commissioner Donahue?

[01:42:22] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[01:42:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin?

[01:42:25] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[01:42:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh Commissioner Cranston?

[01:42:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[01:42:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Clark?

[01:42:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Aye.

[01:42:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh Vice Chair Gutiérrez?

[01:42:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sí, slash yes.

[01:42:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Dempsey.

[01:42:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[01:42:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes um with all commissioners um yeah yes.

[01:42:53] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right, that's a 7-0. Uh thank you. So we are on to item 5.2. I'm providing a time check. It is 8:40, so we're gonna wanna uh pick it up a little bit. Item 5.2, 675 to 685 East Middlefield Road Mixed Use Development Project. Uh we will first have a brief staff presentation, then an applicant presentation, followed by questions from the EPC, followed by public comment. At the close of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action. Do any commissioners wish to make disclosures such as contacts with the applicant or site visits? Commissioners, you can just call it out if you want, I won't make you... I received an email from the applicant, I don't know if that's... That's an email. Others? Mr. Cranston.

[01:43:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I visited the site.

[01:43:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Commissioner Yin.

[01:43:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I visited the site and received an email.

[01:43:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Let's see. Commissioner Clark, if you have any uh disclosures let us know.

[01:43:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, I I visited the site and had a brief call with the uh with the applicant.

[01:44:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. All right. And I'll disclose that I had a brief call with the applicant as well. That being completed, we will have a staff presentation by Project Planner Jeffrey Tsumura and Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. Please take it away.

[01:44:21] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: My apologies, um the staff for this project is uh Phillip Brennan and uh is supported with the manager Rebecca Shapiro.

[01:44:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I looked up and I didn't see the right people. You're right. Uh please repeat your names, let let them know who's talking and then take it away.

[01:44:38] Project Planner Phillip Brennan: Uh project planner Phillip Brennan.

[01:44:42] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: And the presenting administrator Rebecca Shapiro.

[01:44:46] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Take it away.

[01:54:31] Applicant Don Peterson: Okay. Good evening Planning Commissioners. I'm Don Peterson, and I'm very pleased to be with you here this evening. I represent Prometheus and will be leading the uh project team. As you may know, Prometheus is an active real estate owner and developer. We're a family-owned private company. We've been around for over 50 years. Uh and we're long-term holders of our properties. We keep what we build for the long term. Meaning we continue to manage and remain vested stakeholders uh within the community. We're locally based with headquarters uh nearby in San Mateo. We have a long relationship uh with the City of Mountain View. We've been active here locally for many years uh with housing developments sprinkled throughout the city. Uh recent developments include Hadley, Hero, Tillery, Madera, 100 Moffett, among others. Uh joining me here from Prometheus this evening is Mike Dacody, who's been involved in all the projects I just mentioned. Mike will serve as uh development director and day-to-day manager of the project. Also with me is Tim Nash who heads up design uh for Prometheus. We're here leading a larger team. Uh Harvest Properties is our development partner re- uh responsible for the project's commercial office development. And they're represented here this evening by Kevin Choi. We have a a robust design team here as well. You will hear from them shortly. For the residential design we have SGPA Architects led by Kurt Schultz. The office architect is Studios represented by Jong Choi. And for landscape we have Melinda McMillan uh who is here from Place. The team will be walking you through the project. Uh staff did a good job in its staff report and Philip in his presentation. Uh in fact I'll take the opportunity to thank staff for their efforts uh to get us here this evening. It's been a long road over a couple of years with multiple design review hearings. We certainly appreciate their hard work uh and efforts and we sa- and we thank them for their support of the project. Uh our presentation here this evening will focus on the design vision behind the project. Uh the design intent uh behind the metrics. And this design intent and vision is really well capsulized on page 12 of the staff report where it states the underlying urban design approach of this project is to create an urban garden district of higher intensity of office, residential, and neighborhood commercial development. The project integrates with public frontages while also providing a more fine-grained network of public pedestrian connections throughout the site where special building and open space design is intended to provide a sense of place, wayfinding, and architectural interest. Uh lastly I would just uh offer that in planning the project we carefully considered the objectives and the goals of the East Whisman Precise Plan. Which calls for the transformation of East Whisman into a sustainable transit-oriented residential neighborhood and employment center with an emphasis on housing. And we're integrating an abundance of new housing including affordable housing which will specifically feature larger family units. We're pleased to be providing this housing which will contribute to the city's RHNA and housing element goals and requirements. As mentioned, our property is targeted for greater land intensity within the precise plan. And what I hope becomes apparent this evening is that we've sought to balance the higher intensity objectives of the precise plan with carefully considered planning and design. And on this last point it's worth noting we have not sought to maximize density and scale as afforded us under the precise plan. The project falls within the precise plan guidelines and parameters but in doing so we believe it was based on a balanced, thoughtful approach to the design holistically. And with that I'll turn the presentation over to the design team and Melinda specifically who will speak to the project's landscape vision.

Segment 4

[02:17:50] Architect Zhang: Thanks, Kurt. Um, so, uh, in the next several slides, we're going to share the design vision we have developed for the office building and parking structure. Uh, the two buildings are located on the western edge of the site, along the VTA track, uh, as shown in this bird's eye view. The design of the two buildings has also been developed around the site's overarching concept of the garden district. Next, please. So both buildings have been designed to respond to the main landscape feature that Melinda mentioned in the landscape presentation earlier. Uh, the park along the middle field and the linear park that, uh, runs through the residential buildings. And we worked closely with the members of DRC and, uh, city staff to develop a design that not only complies with the East Whisman Precise Plan, but also serves as an exemplary model of commercial office design. The blue dotted line shows the two main locations where the landscape features influence the design of the office building and the parking structure. Next, please. So this rendering shows the office building at the key corner, uh, which is considered the entry point to the site. Uh, we engaged in many conversations with the city to develop a design that is sympathetic to this context. The building's massing is pulled back at the key corner to create a pedestrian friendly fragrance garden along the sidewalk and also provide a pleasant outdoor terrace space on the upper levels overlooking the park across the private road. Also, the materials proposed for this, uh, office building, both office building and parking structure, align with the site's biophilic character. Mass timber columns along the sidewalk and the rustic earthy brick cladding throughout the building exterior help the design stand out from the typical glass boxes often seen elsewhere. And one thing to note, uh, on this, uh, previous rendering on this one is that the trees are hidden from this view to, uh, to showcase the architectural design, otherwise the building would be obscured by the trees in the park. Uh, next one. Uh, this is a rendering view of the north side elevation of office. As mentioned in the previous view, the upper terraces provide relief at the key corner and the biophilic material used for the building blends seamlessly with its surroundings. And additionally, the sidewalk has been, has been designed to include a landscape-rich fragrance garden space along the middle field. Next, please. Uh, this rendering illustrates how the space between office and the parking has been designed as an extension of the linear park running through the, uh, residential buildings. The landscape features of the linear park seamlessly continue into this area creating inviting outdoor gathering space between two buildings. So these close-up views showcase the key corner and private drive at the pedestrian level and highlighting the space allocated for the outdoor use and the carefully selected material for the building. Um, in these renderings, you can see how the design of the office building is influenced by its landscape features. This landscape-inspired design not only enhances the building exterior, but also benefits the user inside by integrating those features into the interior environment as well. So, uh, the last not least, but the material used for the parking structure as, uh, Phil mentioned earlier, are carefully selected to complement its landscape-rich surroundings. And multiple planter boxes have been incorporated to extend the landscape design language onto the building itself. And additionally, the cladding material that we use, uh, which mimics the natural environment, contribute to the cohesive and harmonious design as well. So that covers all the design component. I'm going to turn it over to, back to Don.

[02:22:20] Applicant Don Peterson: I'll be up 1 minute. Next slide. Um, I'll just be a minute. Um, just before ending, I did want to spend a few minutes just to clarify our requested revision to conditions of approval 110 and 111. Uh, the revisions both relate to the timing of the BMR building, uh, and overall sequencing of the larger project. Um, and the requested revisions are up on the screen. Um, if we could start with, um, condition 111, uh, at the bottom, the language as drafted states that the BMR building must be delivered, uh, prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the first market rate, uh, residential building. We're seeking to, uh, amend that language, um, such that the requirement stipulates that the BMR building would be fully financed, uh, and under construction, as opposed to fully delivered, uh, prior to COO for that first market rate building. Um, why are we asking for that? Simply stated, the scheduled timeline for the BMR building just runs longer than the schedule for the phase one market rate building. For the BMR schedule, uh, we need to layer in the timeline for securing the financing and the various tranches of capital sources. Um, and on the front end, we're going to be factoring time for identifying and selecting an affordable partner. So as a result of these factors, the phase one market rate building will be running ahead of the BMR building from a scheduled sequencing standpoint. Um, regarding the language from the city standpoint, the city would still maintain leverage in that the city would still, uh, be able to hold up our market rate COO until the BMR building is under construction. Um, and then furthermore in 111, further down, it goes on to say that if we ultimately, for whatever reason, are unable to deliver the BMR building, there is an overriding default to, uh, an overall 15% inclusionary requirement, um, which provides ultimate backstop protection for the city. Um, the principal benefit for the revision is we wouldn't unnecessarily hold up delivery of the first market rate building. We can deliver housing at the earliest possible opportunity. Um, and then for condition 110, it relates to, uh, similar rationale around timing. There's a supplemental payment that's called for, um, that would be made relating to the affordable requirement. Um, and we're requesting that similar to our request in condition 111, uh, we would request that that payment be made at the time the BMR building is permitted and ready for construction, but not later than issuance of the COO of the first market rate building. Again, city maintains leverage and can hold up COO of the first market rate building. And again, if the BMR building somehow is not delivered, there is the larger default to an overall inclusionary requirement. Um, I should say we have our affordable consultant here who's, um, uh, able to, uh, address any questions, uh, relating to the affordable, uh, building. Uh, that concludes applicant's presentation. Thank you.

[02:25:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you very much for that. I believe it's time for questions from the commission. Commissioners, who has questions? Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[02:25:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Chair. I have a question for you, sir. I have lived here, and for the team. I have lived here for about, I don't know, over 20 years, right? 24, 25 years, whatever. Been part of public life. And I have to say, you guys are either revered, or like you're disliked very strongly, right? It's either or. It's kind of like me, right? Either or. There's no in between, even though you try, right? Whatever. But here's my question. I'm trying to understand your perspective on the affordable housing component and it being separate from the others that are market rate. So could you please help me understand what's the concept behind that? What's the rationale for having that type of housing be separate for now at least compared to the others? That's my first question.

[02:26:40] Mike Dakota: Good evening. Mike Dakota with Prometheus. I think, um, first of all, I think it's, it's an option within the precise plan that you can provide the standalone affordable. And in our mind, we, you know, it's 5% more than what you would receive under the, um, inclusionary, uh, scenario. So we think with that said, we think it helps us provide a larger number of market rate units toward the housing element RHNA goals, but also provide more affordable housing that's sorely needed as well within the city.

[02:27:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Thank you. So I ask that question because I was approached about this issue by members of the community, right? And so when you look at it from afar, and this is why I ask because if you don't ask, you won't know, right? So when you share the information to the members here at the committee and then consequently when it's being viewed by those folks that are interested in city governance and all that or later on, they'll have the answer that we were looking for because the feedback I was receiving was, hey man, I thought separate but equal was outlawed. And I'm like, it is. But there's a reason behind why it's being approached this way. And it's the affordable housing component, right? And it's the increase in the percentage that could be possibly be there. But at the same time, as was explained to them and you've just mentioned here publicly, the fallback is yes, there still is inclusionary housing at 15% if that doesn't happen, right? Which I think is key to understand what the approach is. Um, and then having you explain that to us here, I really appreciate that. My other question though is, and this goes back, I don't really ask this type of question, and it'll be quick, don't worry, um, uh, I like the architectural style approach to this. Right? I always look at your projects as being first and foremost an example of what can be. And so what was the thinking behind the architectural layout and the design of it? Because I think for me at least, it's very different from what's out there already. And I like that, especially with the POPA, with the park. And one of the questions I had for the park was I like that it's open and inviting and I like the surroundings, it's got style, right? It's got substance. And it's accommodating to different aspects of the eye of what you look at to be beauty, okay, which is fine. So the questions that I have relating to that is what inspired you to present it that way? And then the follow up question is for the POPA area, are there areas also that will be, I don't know if your community is going to be dog-friendly, pet-friendly, but are there any designated areas for furry friends, right? Are there any limitations to the use of the big space in terms of playing catch, throwing the ball, or frisbee, or what have you? Uh, those are the questions that I have right now. I'd appreciate your help with that.

[02:29:36] Mike Dakota: Sure. I'll go ahead and address the POPA issue. I might, um, defer to our architect as far as far as the site planning goes. But on on the POPA as far as dog-friendly, I think there is a synthetic or natural turf that's being included, a large area that would be envisioned for, um, you know, our our residents are pet-friendly as well as the public. So there would be ample area for for dogs to run and play fetch. Um, so that's definitely something that we consider when we program the POPA.

[02:30:08] Applicant Don Peterson: Can I, can I offer something? Yeah. I, if you were referring to sort of the overall vision initially of sort of site, we spent considerable time with staff in terms of the, um, the site plan, the layout, a lot of those pieces were moving around. Eventually we settled on sort of the office at the corner, kitty corner from public transit at that point along sort of the the light rail tracks. That that park had moved around along Ferguson and then on Middlefield, but we felt that that could actually accentuate the key corner concept that's uh important for the precise plan. And so we felt that that, and it was a, it was a great entry feature for the project. And so that was located there. And then we have all the housing. The affordable building, your comment from before, we felt like it needed to be integrated within the rest of the building. I mean, as opposed to, you know, on a, on the perimeters. And so there was a lot of rationale, a lot of discussion with staff on, as to how that, uh, site plan was laid out.

[02:31:10] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, sir. And then finally, the design, the architectural specs and the way you layout it out. Was that just the vision of what you have now with what things could look like within Mountain View or was that just what was that? What inspired that?

[02:31:26] Architect Kurt Schultz: Are you referring to, sorry, are you referring to the architectural vibe or the, um, or the park itself?

[02:31:32] Chair José Gutiérrez: No, the architectural vibe, because it blends in well with obviously the landscaping. So that's something that I haven't seen here to be honest with you for a while, and this is the first one that catches my eye.

[02:31:41] Architect Kurt Schultz: Yeah, this was, this was a really unique design where I would say the open space design and the landscape design was the priority, that came first, and then the buildings all came in as a supporting element to support that network of open spaces. Usually you'll find architects will plop down buildings and then you'll have spaces in between that don't have much relation to each other. And I think, um, having, having the landscape be primary was really the key that unlocked the whole site for us.

[02:32:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you. I appreciate it.

[02:32:19] Applicant Don Peterson: Can I offer one other comment? Um, you know, because I, one of the, one of the questions that we got at the neighborhood meeting, we got questions about the size of the park. The park is called for in the Precise Plan, a minimum of 0.3 acres, it's a mini park essentially. So we worked very closely with, with city staff, park staff. We settled on sort of the 0.5 acre, uh, park up at front at the key corner that we talked about at that point. And I just think, um, what we'd, what we'd have the community and you all consider is that when you lay out the entire plan and then look to a precise plan that calls for higher intensity use, with 800 plus, you know, residential units, both market and affordable, and the commercial office, and we're offering a linear, that linear park with no vehicular traffic, which is the east-west connector, which is almost a half acre in and of itself, um, we think we've achieved, you know, the proper overall balance.

[02:33:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: Which is greatly appreciated because I think just wrapping up my comments here because I know we're running short on time. I think that's something that a lot more developers can pay attention to. That type of detail is important, I think, when you try to make that outreach and make that a reality, and then you do, it goes a long way because green space is precious. But the way you've laid it out, it fits into a nice environment where overall, you can see the residential and you can see the business and you can see coexistence of that at a higher level, which is not something that we're really used to seeing at least in my opinion here in Mountain View. And so that's appreciated. Thank you.

[02:33:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Vice Chair. And just for the awareness of the commission, we're two and a half hours in. So, um, let's see if we can move with celerity. Uh, Commissioner Yin.

[02:34:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, I, I may not, uh, get through this quickly. I have several questions if you guys don't mind. Um, thank you for the presentation. Um, it was very comprehensive and informative. Uh, one was the, the parking. I noticed for the below market rate housing, the affordable units, that they have less parking, which I understand, um, is the case and potentially why, I'll let you answer that. But I was wondering if you ever considered sharing the office parking that is right across the street and allowing them to use that.

[02:34:47] Applicant Don Peterson: Yeah. I'll address that. Um, yeah, uh, some of the same things that were talked about at the, on the agenda right before us. Um, we feel there's less cars needed. Um, uh, we also, the cost of parking and an affordable building and it's so competitive right now on a financing end that we try to, but to your question about shared parking, we have a garage right next door that's servicing the office. Um, there is certainly a potential to share par- that that garage will empty out in the evening, so there is certainly potential to share parking during the evening hours with that garage. There's a 600-space garage right next door. So there is that potential that we can, that we will explore.

[02:35:34] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. Um, another question was, given the commercial, the little retail, um, on the south side of the POPA park, um, what type of retail do you envision for that size space? Or do you already have people in mind that might come in, kind of retail?

[02:36:00] Mike Dakota: Um, first, we don't have a tenant in it. It would be too early, uh, for that. But I think the, you know, the retail space, we would envision, uh, neighborhood serving, um, uh, tenant or vendor. Um, something that the, you know, the local neighborhood, our residents, the office tenants could utilize. Um, you know, there's a lot, it could be a grab and go for food, it could be, you know, coffee, uh, an ice cream shop. It, it, you know, there's a lot of options there. Um, but it definitely needs to be something that ties in with the overall, uh, POPA, the neighborhood and, and something probably, you know, food driven, um, that that would be an amenity, a further amenity for, for the neighborhood and for the, um, for our residents as well.

[02:36:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, I didn't know if given that size, if a little grocery store would fit?

[02:36:33] Applicant Don Peterson: Yeah, it's too small. And parking. And for for that. Um, but I think neighborhood serving retail. We there was again a lot of discussion on that that location. Um, we think takes advantage of the synergy with the park and it's also across from the entryway to the commercial building. And then there's a shared park, uh, parking component directly under that with a pop-up elevator that's right there as well. I, I just have to say, I mean, we're sensitive. We talked a little bit about with staff with retail along Middlefield, and we just, we've got other developments where we have a lot of dark space. And so we just want this, we want the space to be successful. And we think that in its, in its location at its square footage, it won't be a grocery store because it's too small, but it'll be coffee, it'll be some sort of neighborhood serving retail.

[02:36:45] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you for that. Um, I'm not gonna get in the comment so I'm just gonna stick with the questions here for now. Um, oh, if you end up going with inclusionary units, which I know, you know, some people might prefer, some people might opt for this proposal instead. What changes in the unit counts? Anything like the bedroom counts? Proportions of bedroom counts? Will that change much or are you gonna try to keep it the same?

[02:37:15] Mike Dakota: Well, I think, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but if your inclusionary, it's a, it's proportional, proportional to the unit mix that you have in the market rate. So it would have to be 15% of the various, yeah.

[02:37:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Total. Okay. Thank you. And let's see, one more. Why are you going with the city's BMR instead of the state density proposal? It's just out of curiosity.

[02:37:41] Mike Dakota: Um, it's kind of a, a first in my, uh, career, but the state density bonus would allow less units than the precise plan.

[02:37:52] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Um, one last question, and this is regarding the design, the overall design. Um, I appreciate the overall theme very much so, that it's garden units. And I can see that there's a lot of thought put into the landscaping and that that has driven a lot of the design. Um, I noticed when I went to the site, that there's already sort of this very casual linear park going already on Ferguson. And it was surprising to me because there's a sidewalk right there that people aren't using. In fact, people have decided to just come in a little bit to be amongst those 100 foot tall trees, and there's a winding groove that's dug like 3 inches deep into the grass of people just using that trail that they've made themselves through the grove of trees. And so when you were deciding how to place things and where the public sort of parks would be, looking at just your site, I understand why you put things where they were. But when you start to fold in information like that, that there's an existing sort of linear park with these beautiful mature 100 foot tall trees, why you wouldn't kind of utilize that and incorporate it and maybe pull back building, what is it, um, B, of the multi, uh, of the, what's it called, I forgot what the designations are, but it's the market rate South B. Just pull it back about 30 feet, and then you could have that park and it would integrate better with the linear park, it would like open up and allow you to get in there. 'Cause as it is, your POPAs are connecting to a wall, shared with your neighbor Ravella, you have to go through a breezeway, which in every image that I see, you can't even see where the access is from the park into the linear park because it's tiny and in the corner. Um, and then you've got, you know, building over it. It's sort of like a, I don't want to call it a tunnel, it sounds so bad, but it's nicer than that, but it is. And then the linear park is wonderful for your residents. I have a hard time seeing how anyone from Ferguson entering across the street is just 237, how anyone's going to travel through that in the public to get to a private service street where there's an office parking garage at the other end. So, in terms of connection of these public parks, they're not connecting to anything. And really I'm seeing that it's really just going to be used by the users and the residents. And we're removing an actual linear park that's used by others right now.

[02:41:05] Architect Alexa Dax: Yeah. I, we are, are very sensitive to kind of the urban context of, of how, um, our layout connects, heals, or, you know, blocks the grid, the existing grid. And we, if could we go back to the slide of the POPA and then the north-south connection. Um, we actually aligned that so that we could, um, connect to our neighbors in the future. And so, for the neighbors to the south, instead of going all the way around, they could actually cut through, grab coffee on the way, go through the POPA park and go to the train station. And so we see this connection as, as healing the grid, as, as offering our neighbors our amenities. And so not only are we, are we, you know, shaping a lot of our public space around the train station and internal, um, circulation, we're, we're trying to be good neighbors at the same time. Um, and to speak to, um, kind of the trees that are already there, you know, we are keeping some big ones in the southwest corner. Um, but it's just the layouts and the grades and, um, just the analysis of how these site, these units fit on the site, we kept what we could.

[02:42:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, I understand there are a lot of, like the eucalyptus that little grove over there, I understand because the parking garage is going there and smack in the middle that you can't do a parking garage around, you know, those eucalyptus. Those are huge. And that's going to be a sad loss. But the ones that are right kind of by the sidewalk, that, there are so many of them and they're like over 100 feet tall with the trail. If that building just came in and stepped back from the street a bit, you'd be able to save them all.

[02:43:01] Mike Dakota: Um, I I believe, um, well I just want to supplement what Melinda was talking about. One thing on the the site planning, all the service streets are multimodal, so they're they're sharrows, right, for bikes, for um, vehicles as well. But then there's also sidewalks that line all the service streets for pedestrians to come down, cut through the property now on a sidewalk, right, that can go through. As well as easements throughout the property that provide the public with access to the linear parks. And, and we'll also have wayfinding, which will clearly define where the breezeway is and how to get around the property because it's, it's a big, it's a big site, right. So we're going to have the wayfinding for that. As far as the trees go, I think staff did a great job. We worked extensively with with staff to identify where we could save trees and where we couldn't. And I know it's easy to say, you know, cut back the building. Um, but we're trying to, you know, as Don referenced, provide a balanced project that provides the housing that you guys, uh, would like to see, but also provide the open space, um, and, and I think one thing that was mentioned is that the planting is almost four to one that we're coming back with. So in 20 years, you're going to, you're going to double your canopy. So we really do think that the, a lot of the trees on site have reached their useful life expectancy. And at this point, you know, really does make sense to replant with newer trees that eventually are going to grow up and double the canopy.

[02:44:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. The question for staff then is, is Ravella willing and ready to open a pathway through? Cause I know they have some parking there.

[02:44:41] City Staff: Sorry, are you speaking to a pedestrian connection between the Ravella site and this project site? Um, I don't believe that that, that that type of connection was a requirement of the Ravella development. Um, and if it was not, then that would be something that we'd, we'd have to, you know, maybe coordinate or help coordinate a discussion between the respective property owners to see if uh there would be openness to, to try and to establish that type of connection.

[02:45:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, so there's there's nothing, no ongoing conversation with them about that now.

[02:45:12] City Staff: Not at this point in time.

[02:45:18] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. That's it for me for now. Thank you.

[02:45:19] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:45:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, so just to clarify. You're saying that linear park is targeted to meet the Ravella between phase one and phase two? That passageway between the two buildings? Is that why that's placed there?

[02:45:36] Mike Dakota: Not not the linear park. It it's, if you're talking about the the connection between Ravella and our property, it would be on the... it'd be at the bottom of the screen. Ravella's on the right.

[02:45:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Right. That aligns with the gap between Ravella 1 and Ravella 2?

[02:45:53] Mike Dakota: Correct.

[02:45:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, but you've had no discussions with Greystar.

[02:45:56] Mike Dakota: No.

[02:45:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um... So, um, have you actually done BMR development yourself before?

[02:46:10] Mike Dakota: Excuse me?

[02:46:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Have you guys done a BMR project on your own before?

[02:46:18] Mike Dakota: Yes. Not on our own, but we would have to partner with an affordable developer.

[02:46:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And what does that mean?

[02:46:24] Mike Dakota: Well, you would just like the city, if we dedicate the land to the city, they would go out with an RFP to the affordable developers to partner with to develop the site as affordable. And that's what we, in lieu of dedicating the land to the city, we will retain and we will work with, we'll go out to an RFP with affordable developers, we'll select one and then we'll work with the affordable developer who's an expert in affordable housing to help us develop that standalone building.

[02:46:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And have you shown them this site? Anybody at all this site?

[02:46:34] Mike Dakota: Um, uh, we we have, with the with a couple different affordable developers, just to get their feedback and and to, you know, make sure we're designing it appropriately. But we also have our affordable consultant Gabe Spier here as well, who's been, you know, very instrumental in in how we design it and meet the criteria so we can properly uh finance it.

[02:46:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm less concerned about design than I am financing. This site is not one that would meet generally the criteria that would be viewed as encouraging by the state or the federal government because it's not near any other services. It's definitely near transit, but there's no grocery store nearby, there's no drugstore nearby, there's the other amenities that you would normally associate with them expecting to see and evaluate in the financing of a affordable development, there's nothing else like that near this location. Um, what makes you believe that this could be financed?

[02:47:35] Gabriel Spier: Sure, sure, great question. Thank you Commissioner. Hi, uh, Gabriel Spier, consultant with Lesar Development Consultants. Um, so part of our scope for the client was to run a financial pro forma that produced a predictive scoring model and uses the TCAC and CDLAC regulations, as well as the regulations for the California HCD program for affordable housing and sustainable communities. So we ran the scoring for all of these various funding sources, and what we're seeing for this site is that it actually scores very well. Um, with your question, particularly regarding site amenities. So, you're right that there that, so the way it's set up is that there's 94 possible points and you have to get 10. So, we we did the map analysis, we looked at what's nearby. We found that there are enough, um, site amenities nearby to score the full 10 out of 10. In addition, that 10 out of 10 is one of many categories that CDLAC looks at, ultimately arriving at a score of 120 out of 120. I think the really important thing to keep in mind with developing affordable housing at this location is that the site is in a high resource area. So, large family projects or projects that meet a large family housing type, primarily, uh, attributes of which include 25% two bedrooms, 25% three bedrooms, as well as other amenities, if you build a large family housing type project in a high resource area, CDLAC gives you 120 out of 120. That's only available to that unique combination. All other projects going for tax exempt bonds can only score 119 out of 120. Furthermore, we ran the CDLAC tiebreaker and we found that it would beat all the tiebreakers in the previous round. When it comes to getting gap financing from the, uh, State of California, uh, HCD, uh, for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, we found that the project could achieve a score of 98 out of 100. I think that's important too because that's a program that, uh, ties this project with transit related improvements and pulls state funding to the city to help pay for things like, um, uh, better, uh, stations, more, uh, VTA trains and so forth. So our analysis shows that this site is highly feasible from a scoring point of view and I think that's especially important given how tight funding is for affordable housing across California.

[02:50:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And you've worked with, you worked with other affordable housing developers and so you...

[02:50:19] Gabriel Spier: Yes, yes.

[02:50:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Tell me about yourself. What are your...

[02:50:22] Gabriel Spier: Sure, yeah, by way of background, uh, let's see, I've been working in affordable housing for 19 years. I spent 10 years at Bank of America financing affordable housing, both making loans and buying tax credits. I spent 5 years as a project manager at the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation in San Francisco. This is my fourth year at Lesar. Um, and primarily we do feasibility analysis.

[02:50:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: You don't, take it all the way through the process, you do the analysis and then turn it over to...

[02:50:50] Gabriel Spier: Right, we're we're not actually the developers ourselves, the common next step after running the feasibility analysis and advising our clients and designing a project that's highly feasible, is to take them to the next phase of the solicitation, so the RFQ or RFP. You know, we also do it, by the way, for city clients, but not for this project, for conflict of interest, of course. But uh, we we uh, often assist our clients in like I said, an RFQ or RFP for either a joint venture or the development rights for a parcel or other opportunity. We also work on NOFAs and that kind of thing.

[02:51:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And your track record on the success of them actually being developed?

[02:51:37] Gabriel Spier: Oh, well, um, I mean, that's a great question. Thank you for asking it. Um, I'd say that I don't want to look at the track, I'd say it's very hard to get affordable housing funded nowadays. I'd say that it's a, sometimes it's a matter of when. So for example, um, in working with the State of California on the excess sites program, we, uh, I and my team, uh, prioritized 1100 parcels, 10 of them went forward, some of them quicker than others because some are, you know, better suited for affordable housing financing than others. In my experience, this site with this large family housing type, meeting those requirements is highly suited for a high degree of financial feasibility.

[02:52:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Thank you. Explain to me the relationship between Prometheus and the office, the guys that are going to own the office. How's that going to work? You said something that the, that maybe the there's parking spaces in the parking garage that could be used for the BMR housing. But who's gonna decide that? Who owns the building? Who decides that kind of thing? Um, it's 33 units, or 33 parking spaces for 150 units, so it's about the same ratio as we saw before. But you're not within walking distance of Walmart and Safeway and 7-Eleven and those kind of things. So, who would decide who would get to be able to use that parking garage?

[02:53:00] Applicant Don Peterson: Um, yeah, no, so Harvest Properties is the, uh, will be the developer. They're represented here tonight for the office building. When we would work out an agreement, we're we would be in a joint venture with them. And then we would work out, um, we would work out a shared agreement, um, regarding opening up some of those spaces in the evening for, um, the affordable building.

[02:53:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is that something that could be an added as a condition of approval?

[02:53:33] City Staff: Um, that is a very good question, um, that I may ask for some, uh, guidance from our our city attorney representative, but um, there, you know, based on the site location and limitations on the city requiring parking, there may be related limitations on the um, the city's, um, ability to to mandate shared parking with a particular uh between those two particular buildings. Um, we'd have to we'd have to analyze that in more detail.

[02:54:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: One of the clear objectives in the precise plan was looking for opportunities for shared parking, so that we get, you know, we need less parking. This is...

[02:54:09] Applicant Don Peterson: I I just would add because I just talked to our counsel, we could agree to a condition where it says something to the effect of you're asking or seeking a, or encouraging us to seek a shared parking arrangement. So.

[02:54:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thank you. I know you explained why the retail is there, but what are you going to do with it? But, why? It just, I look at the location and I think, I wouldn't go to, unless I lived in there or worked in there, I would never use that retail space. So I'm just like, is there something else better you could do with it? Is, are we required to have... are they required to have retail in that space? It just I looked at it and it's like, you have retail space in the bottom of the Dean. You have retail space in your property on El Camino. You have retail space, you've got other properties, I'm familiar with other properties and this is another big...

[02:54:55] Applicant Don Peterson: No, no, I you heard me before, right? I mean, we we were strongly encouraged, um, to have retail. In fact, at one point we had a retail pavilion out at the front part of the park along Middlefield, and then, um, we were asked to move it back. We felt like in its current location, at that square footage, the synergies with the public park and the office, at that square footage, which is relatively smaller size, we feel it can be successful. But again, we we wouldn't go greater than that.

[02:55:33] City Staff: Yeah, uh to to answer your question in part, uh, the East Whisman Precise Plan highly encourages neighborhood serving, uh, commercial spaces. Uh, it's not mandated though. Uh, at least in the, um, mixed-use character area.

[02:55:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Save my comment for later then. Um, just a question for staff. POPA, 100% of... I mean I know there was a discussion that went to Council and deciding how POPA would be counted towards park space. What was the final, I never, what was the final decision? Is it 100% of POPA is counted towards their open space or 75%? I thought it was 75%.

[02:56:14] City Staff: Good evening again, my name is Renee Godin, I'm a senior civil engineer in land development. The POPA space gives them 75% credit the cost of the land towards their park land fees.

[02:56:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, so in our in the report it's counting only 75% towards... Correct. Okay, it wasn't... that didn't come out through out this. Um... and... thank you. I think those are my, the rest will be comments and discussion. Thanks.

[02:57:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Nuñez.

[02:57:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Hi Mr. Dakota. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? It's good to see you. Yeah. Do you want to step up to the podium? I'm just going to get those lunges in today. Um, so, yeah, um, I'd love the renderings, um, I know I'm, that's a comment, not a question, but um, it's going to turn into a question. I recall you heard, or at least I heard, um, our staff say you know, it's a cohesive feeling kind of look and feel across the project, across the buildings, the market rate, the BMR, um, there's some like, um, coherency with the POPA and the, what was it, I think like a garden, um, urban garden or something like that, right, yeah. So it really seems to me like Prometheus went for like a unified community feel, is that, would you agree with that, or how would you describe it? Just kind of the feel you were going for?

[02:58:09] Mike Dakota: Sure. Well, I think we wanted a, you know, we came up with a concept that, that would, you know, accommodate the neighborhood, right, and provide open space for, for the community. Sure.

[02:58:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Nice. Um, and so if my math is right, just correct me if I'm off here, it's 836 units, 686 would be the market rate and then 150 with the BMR. Correct. Um, and so then as I'm looking at it, and I think Commissioner Yin might have brought up the parking, um, not counting I think it was 124 shared spaces for like residential visitors and um, more like open use spaces, there's 323 parking spaces that are dedicated for the market rate, the 686 market rate units.

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: and that would be 33 parking spots for the 150 BMR units, which um it's it's still not empty, right? Like if you round up um half a parking spot for uh market rate unit, right? I mean like who can park in half a spot? Um and but if you kind of look at that from um the BMR unit, you know if you round it um it's about 0.2. Um and again, I think, you know, if you were here for the previous discussion, I think you know I'm not going to like die on the hill of um you know parking ratio here. Um but I guess what I am trying to understand um and I think um my uh colleague Commissioner Gutiérrez kind of started to touch on this. You know, he asked you um or he asked the team, hey, um I'm trying to understand uh what is the reason for uh the recommended um alternative mitigation, right? Um and when he asked that question, um it was a question I was going to ask too, but when he asked that question, um I was like, oh I think I I anticipate I have a sense of how um he might answer um which is in terms of what Prometheus views as what they're giving to us, right? Um I believe your answer was, hey, it's 5% more affordable um or or you know 3% whatever the you know it's more affordable than you would have been getting. Um and so it's a it's a net win for the city, right? Um I'm going to ask that same question, but I'm trying to understand it um from the what is Prometheus getting out of it? Um and so it my question is whether it's operating cost, um whether it's some um kind of like I don't know brand branding, um you know, um ability to fill the unit whatever it is, um what is Prometheus looking to get out of the alternative mitigation where all the BMR units are on one building, not what we're getting, but what is Prometheus going to get from that arrangement?

[03:02:05] Applicant Don Peterson: Well, I I think one, it helps make the overall project viable, right? Um it it provides more market rate units which helps the project out financially. Um and it and I will go back to it, it provides 20% affordability, which we feel good about. We feel good about offering the additional 5% affordability.

[03:02:25] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Um under the 15% uh let's say that was something that happened, um in what ways would that impact or change or shift the the nature of the site's operation or the uh you know long-term operating costs for the project?

[03:02:40] Applicant Don Peterson: Well I think that the the main impact is that those units cost the same to build regardless if they're market rate or affordable. So I mean that would be one of the biggest impacts, right? Operationally, you know, yes, it it there would be a, you know, uh a higher a burden as far as the operations go to to to manage those 15%, right? But we would work with the city on that we we do that on other projects that we have. But I really do think it's the, you know, if you look at the the pure cost to build these days is is astronomical. And so we have to look at all ways you know a- various ways to make projects feasible and and provide the housing that all the cities need, right? Um and and that's really the you know what drove us in this direction.

[03:03:15] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah. And and and I really appreciate that and you know I can really um get in the direction of agreeing with that especially you know when I think about the lack of affordable housing. Just raw straight up units that we need that are affordable for people at lower income ranges, I I put a huge premium on that, right? Um that said when I look at the current sheet here, you know in terms of like the requirement for offsite, it says that it's 20%. I'm not I'm not going to like you know ask you to commit to anything or or like to get to 20 or whatever. I'm just saying what I'm observing right here is that it says um it's a 20% requirement and that this project is not compliant. Um and that the offsite BMR units in terms of the timing of delivery, you know in terms of what staff reported um is reporting here, it's it's also not meeting the requirements. Um and so in terms of like us getting that added value, you know and and Prometheus as being a partner, I I you know I know you, I know you have strong connections in the community. Um I you know really enjoy and I mean like walking through your projects um and and I see them as beautiful. Um and so, you know, when I think about um why the city um decided, hey, we're going to set up this inclusionary requirement, you know I can tell you what I think about why the city did that, but in terms of like I'm curious to hear from you like what do you think is the underlying value or the reason for why the city is um has this 15% inclusionary requirement? What is the value that the city is trying to promote through that policy being in place?

[03:04:00] Applicant Don Peterson: You know I can't really speak on behalf of the city. Um I'd only be guessing.

[03:04:05] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Well yeah, I would I would take I would welcome a guess.

[03:04:10] Applicant Don Peterson: Yeah, I I think inclusionary housing was obviously, you know, predated standalone affordable options, right? Um I think for various reasons that I've talked to different uh commissioners about, I think, you know, they they see a value in it being inclusionary, right? Um and being mixed in with the market rate. And I understand that, but I also stand understand that you know the there's a reason for the alternative mitigation as well.

[03:04:30] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Totally. And and I can definitely almost get there. Except and and tell me if I tell me if staff is wrong on this, okay? This is my question to you. Like I want I want to know if if our staff is wrong. Um on page 24 in the third paragraph of the uh staff report it says BMR building residents will not be provided access to the market rate buildings courtyards, pools, and other premium common amenities of the market rate development. Um is staff wrong, did they get that wrong?

[03:04:55] Applicant Don Peterson: No, staff's not wrong.

[03:05:00] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Okay. So then um I'm going to ask you a question. Um you know, when you're a BMR resident, you're really aware that you're a BMR resident because you had to go through this like strenuous process to be able to you know so you're fully aware um on a on a constant basis when you wake up, when you walk through the door, what your, you know, requirement to get through that door was. And so I'm going to ask you, you know, if you were living in this beautiful cohesive uh garden community and you wanted to go into the pool or the courtyard as a BMR resident and you couldn't within this project that you knew was delivered as a project together. Um how would you how would you feel about that? How would that make you feel to know you couldn't access this these spaces.

[03:05:35] Applicant Don Peterson: Well I don't know if I'll you know if I can understand how that might feel. But what I will say is that the affordable building has over 7800 square feet of amenity space, um including a rooftop terrace, um a a large courtyard with a play structure, and gathering areas. There's also amenity spaces built um programmed into the building that will be and I will also say that on affordable buildings there's very specific requirement for programming that needs to be done that that serves servicing the affordable residents more than say a swimming pool or uh an amenity in a market rate building. So I I think that's where I leave the comment.

[03:06:10] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Mhm. Yeah. I I I appreciate uh I appreciate that. Um I have a couple questions just for staff. Yeah.

[03:06:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Hold on, we're not accepting public comment if a question comes from the commission we we'd love to have you come up and ask.

[03:06:25] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yep. I I think I'm good there. Um just quick question for staff. For the um that 12 million, it says right there in the proposal, 12 million supplemental payment earmark for project. Can you just um uh for my benefit help me understand what that 12 million is and what it's for or like what what does that mean because I'm kind of at a loss here with that.

[03:06:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh thank you for the question. uh Wayne Chen, Housing Director. So um step back here, the overall 20% equivalency provided by or proposed by the applicant is the 150 um offsite units, which is an equivalent of 18%. And then the 12 million is intended to um fill the remaining I believe 18 units to achieve the the um the total of 20%. Um the applicant would like to have that um supplemental funding that they are proposing to be um set aside for the project. Um when staff is looking at this if we were to just take that supplemental funding payment and just apply it to the uh requirements, our thinking is that it would just be an 18% uh requirement because we we didn't get that 20 uh that 12 million dollars for us to, you know, fund our pipeline um in the manner that we think might be needed. Um so the um applicant would be looking at or would like to have the 12 million be part of their their funding stack in order to make the project uh feasible. So that's the applicant's request and proposal. That um in December when Council discussed modifications to the BMR ordinance, they clarify that the intention is for um the developers to have that financial component to facilitating delivery of the units. And so we will be making those those changes. That's not in the BMR ordinance yet because we haven't updated it yet, so what we are um seeing in the analysis is that it wouldn't be earmarked, but they could apply for it. And if the funding is available then it can be evaluated, but that's staff's analysis um relative to the applicant's proposal based on what would be a compliant project with the BMR ordinance now.

[03:08:05] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Thank you. So if I'm hearing that right, that means that this is a $12 million payment that would go to the like pool of funds to be able and and that's not a city-owned fund? Or is it a city-owned pool of funds or city managed sorry?

[03:08:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The intention is that the city would receive payment that would go into our resources to be able to fund affordable housing projects.

[03:08:30] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Okay. So then that 12 million dollars would go into some city coffer which then would be kind of um at some future point retransferred or um ear potentially earmarked for this specific um BMR uh alternative mitigation for funding um construction co like what would that earmarked fund be then used for?

[03:08:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So that's the applicant's request, the um staff have determined that that would not be compliant if that were uh approved, but I believe the intention is that the funding would be used to facilitate um the construction and long-term operations of the project so typically the the city's funds uh do help with construction uh maybe there's some pre-development activities um they eventually get converted into construction loans. And then once construction is done, it gets converted into long-term permanent financing that that runs with the life of the project.

[03:09:20] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Excellent. Thank you. So is um last question. Is the city um is staff, the city through staff um taking a just to make it really simple for me to understand and appreciate it um taking a positive negative or like neutral um like disposition towards the um $12 million proposal.

[03:09:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh the 12 million dollars would be necessary to meet the 20% equivalency. The earmarking would cause it to be 18% from staff's analysis.

[03:09:50] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Um given the hour some of my questions seem to be less important now. But uh Commissioner Nuñez actually read my mind on one of the questions um but and I want to uh dig a little deeper into this uh thing about that the uh the BMR residents won't be get access to the the pools and things like that. Um so the the staff report two paragraphs above that says that the BMR units must be deemed suitable by the city based on a number of things including comparability to market rate units. So does that that doesn't seem comparable. That the market rate units have access to the pools and the the BMR units don't have access to the pools. So how is that how is that compliant?

[03:10:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I I will maybe make some initial remarks and turn it over to Director Chen to to highlight further as housing department staff were were vital in evaluating um the project on that criteria. Um I think the the basis of that analysis was considering the BMR building on its own um and its provision of resources um to support the resident population that would eventually live in in the building. Um and I perhaps uh Director Chen could could add more color to that.

[03:11:05] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, thank you for the question. And I feel like this is a rich conversation because the programs and the required availability of alternative mitigations is really a question of trade-offs. Um the BMR uh program the basic objective standard is integrated units for the purposes of inclusivity, equity, etc. Um cities are required to um offer alternative mitigations. And so that's why they're in there. Um the way that we have approached alternative mitigations is to attempt to try to achieve some type of comparability even though the way that the units are uh delivered are going to be different. Um we've been using the term BMR units in terms of the standalone project just as a way to not confuse people. Um in practical terms though, once that becomes a a standalone project, it would be like a project that we would see with any other 100% affordable project by a nonprofit developer somewhere else. Which is to say that project is self-sufficient on its own. Um what that also means is that typically those projects don't have access to amenities of some other project. Um and so what the the applicant is proposing is going to be something like that. Um there then is a rationale to say there wouldn't be access to the amenities of the market rate units because that's just a different project um by that point. And so that's part of the trade-off. Um there could be more units, the units are at a deeper affordability levels, they would have to go through a process to select a developer, um get the funding. The BMR units are integrated, they're at higher AMI levels. And so it's just a series of trade-offs. Um as proposed if the funding is is not earmarked that the the 12 million, we believe it achieves a 20% equivalency it has its associated benefits as well as some of the the trade-offs that you've all um touched on today.

[03:13:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so it it it's comparable to some theoretical market rate development. It it it's not doesn't need to be comparable to this because this is a this is offsite uh so it's it's a standalone thing and it's it's not uh sub sta it if it this could be um the way this development is as a standalone BMR building uh it you could envision that being a market rate building basically is kind of or I mean it would meet market rate um guidelines.

[03:13:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I I I believe so and perhaps the applicant could provide some more uh color. I believe the standalone units would have average square footages across the unit mix that are slightly below the um square footages that would be in the market rate units. Um that is one way more units can be offered and there could be um a uh achievement of at least 50% or 50% of the units the twos and three bedrooms which we know is a is a priority. So um slightly smaller um standalone affordable units will help achieve that. Um if the units were incorporated uh integrated on site with the market rate units, then the comparability really starts coming to play which it would essentially be the same type and sizes of um units that the market rate units would be those BMR units would have the proportional mix at the same um at the same uh square footages. Um but to to your point the the proposed um sizes of the the standalone units are are well within reason. It certainly within reason of um typical uh funding programs like the tax credit programs and um it's it's probably within comparability of um market rate units maybe a touch smaller.

[03:14:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Thanks.

[03:14:45] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[03:14:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: A quick question. Um staff did not comment on the applicant's requested changes to the COA. It appears to me that they would be that they're accepting the the the that the 12 million is not but their main difference is when the certificate of occupancy is delivered. So you said well that was supplied that was it's on the it's on our desk here. Do you have an opinion?

[03:15:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um again, to the to the extent that the conditions uh themselves are generated by our housing department I would um defer uh analysis of the request there to um Director Chen. I I will note that you have um read there uh there being the applicant Prometheus, their submittal correctly and that um though the alternative mitigation strategy um uh called for uh earmarking of the funds in in their request there, they um have not asked for that uh change to the condition of approval.

[03:15:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh with regards to the delivery of the the standalone units um that wouldn't be in compliance with the BMR requirement, so staff's analysis is really what's the requirement doesn't comply yes or no. Um the applicant's thought process in terms of well if it's not delivered um it would fall back to the 15% requirement, does provide some measure of um protecting the city, perhaps not fully. Of course having the units delivered would would be the ultimate um uh protection. Uh and then with regards to the funding timing uh that also doesn't comply with the the requirements. I think that may have a possibly a larger impact given that we have a a pipeline with a known funding gap that we uh could use funding for. The difference between providing the city the payment um by the time of the first building permit issuance to issuance of the certificate of occupancy um could be the applicant could provide a better sense of that time frame it could be two years or whatever it might be. So in that ensuing two years the city would not have access uh to those funds and we have a a now a a nine project pipeline with a known funding gap.

[03:16:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, just a recommendation. What's your timeline?

[03:16:55] Applicant Don Peterson: So just generally speaking, from the time a market rate project is entitled, it's roughly two years to get a building permit. And then say for the market the market rate phase one in our middle field development, that's going to take another 30 months to construct to get the COO. Now an affordable project's going to take the same time to get permitted correct, same time to build roughly, but you have to layer in another 18 months on top of that to get the to go the RFP or RFQ to an affordable developer and then get your capital stack in place. And um so that you can move forward with the construction of the project. And that's the principal reason why we're asking for the changes to the conditions of approval.

[03:17:40] Chair José Gutiérrez: That was really helpful. Um time check, we're 3 hours and 20 some odd minutes in. Uh so I'm only going to ask two questions. Um the first far more important um of the applicant, will the popa accommodate a regulation soccer field?

[03:17:55] Applicant Don Peterson: Uh 115 yards by 74 yards. Will it fit?

[03:18:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: If not, why not?

[03:18:03] Applicant Don Peterson: Um it won't, but it has a regulation bocce ball course.

[03:18:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh come on, more people play soccer. Uh so let me at least sigh it's not comment time but let me just suggest there's a lot of uh soccer fields very heavily utilized here um primarily for under 18 which means that the fields are smaller. Um anything you could do to consider the possibility of using that space for um you know an AYSO under 18 soccer field I think would be great because the like I said they're very heavily utilized now we don't have quite enough of that if there's a lot of parents that might come in and buy coffee at the retail place that we're worried about. Um that was one thing. The other is if I can read my own handwriting. If we if we ended up back in a world where we the project was inclusionary right there wasn't a standalone BMR what would happen to that footprint? Would that just become more mixed up inclusionary market rate housing?

[03:18:50] Applicant Don Peterson: Yeah, it would stay the same as far as the site plan and the footprint um but then the 15% would be distributed throughout proportionally.

[03:19:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. So the building's outside. How do you fill the insides? you change a little.

[03:19:05] Applicant Don Peterson: Correct.

[03:19:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Those are the only questions that I had. Uh next is going to be unless anybody else any other questions from the commission. Oh did Chris have his hand up? Commissioner Clark.

[03:19:20] Commissioner Chris Clark: We're good.

[03:19:22] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Thank you sir. Public comment. Commissioner Yin.

[03:19:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just following up really quickly on Chair Dempsey's question. If we go to inclusionary then they have the amenities they can access the pool in the courtyards on the podium and the parking.

[03:19:40] Applicant Don Peterson: So I I think it would it it would depend on the building that those units are in, correct? So even the market rate residents aren't sharing across amenities right from one building to the other they're self-sufficient. But what I'm I'm just giving an example that those not even the market rate residents are sharing from market rate one to market rate two. But depending so if if there's 15% in market rate one, they're going to have access to the amenities in that building. And then same for market rate two. Now market rate or the the third building if that becomes market rate, they'll have access to those amenities as pro as they get programmed in.

[03:20:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Got it. Thank you.

[03:20:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Wait, just so that I understand, that would mean that the market rate units in what we call the BMR building, they wouldn't have a pool, even if they paid market rate because they're key cards are going to be different from across the

[03:20:30] Applicant Don Peterson: Well yes.

[03:20:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yes, they will not have access to...

[03:20:35] Applicant Don Peterson: Correct.

[03:20:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: It's a long way from Eagle Park pool. I'm just saying. Okay. Um I think it's time that we can finally do public comment. So 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 comments on this item, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. I will look to the EPC clerk and see if we have any public comment on this item.

[03:21:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh we do not have any in person speakers, but we have oh sorry. Cards getting filled out.

[03:21:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: We invite you to fill those out early.

[03:21:25] Frank Calsik: Let's see if I get this right. Good evening, Chair Dempsey and Commissioners. My name is Frank Calsik and I'm here this evening on behalf of Revella Apartments. We're a 400 unit apartment community located next to the proposed project. While the site plan and project layout reflect a thought out effort in community and place building, it does leave us with a concern regarding the ingress and egress location of the Service Street at Ferguson Drive. The proposed Service Street is expected to handle approximately half of the traffic for the 836 unit project in addition to a portion of the uh traffic generated from the office component. Our concern stems from the close proximity of the proposed service road to the existing driveway at Revella. The existing Ferguson driveway at Revella has been the primary point of vehicular access for our residents. Placing high-use exits in parallel and close proximity represents a safety issue for future drivers. As it will likely result in unnecessary vehicular conflicts. We ask the commission to have staff review with the applicant the proximity of the service road so that with much greater separation and the resulting increased driver reaction time, a safer vehicular access can be ensured for both Revella and the Prometheus project. Thank you.

[03:22:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you very much.

[03:22:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is uh sorry. Um Bill Lambert.

[03:22:25] Bill Lambert: Thank you very much. My name is Bill Lambert. I'm a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood um in Mountain View. Um thank you for the discussion um uh concerning the exclusionary non-exclusionary housing. Um I've it's my opinion it's very very important that we have non-exclusionary housing. This is how we are going to make healthy communities this is how we're going to help address poverty which is an underlying um issue in our in our community. Um I've seen too many exclusionary housing developments. I think we should be focusing going forward on doing and working doing the best we can with the developers. Another comment I would like to make is uh as you know I'm a big supporter of parks. Uh calling something a linear park to me is somewhat offensive. I think these are landscaped areas, these are walkways, these are not truly parks. The kind of parks we need as mentioned by Mr. Dempsey or Commissioner Dempsey, we need large open spaces that have multiple uses that are not overly landscaped not having over amenities. I would hope that um the design of the area could be made to uh accommodate uh those kind of things. I've spoken with Prometheus before uh at meetings in Park developments and uh you know before in other situations they have agreed that large open spaces really helps their residents out just as well as it helps the neighborhood out. So thank you very much.

[03:23:40] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you sir. If there are not further public comments in person, I would ask the clerk do we have anybody online that wishes to speak.

[03:23:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, we have three speakers online. Um the first speaker will be Bruce England.

[03:23:55] Bruce England: Thank you. Um I'm Bruce England. I live on Wisman Station Drive and I'm a member of Green Spaces Mountain View and Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning uh but not speaking officially for either of those organizations tonight. There's a lot of detail here and I am not going to take too much of your time and I am going to listen back to this because there was just I did not wasn't able to absorb everything that you all have talked about and you still haven't gone into deliberations yet. Um I do a few comments for you. I want to echo pretty much what Bill Lambert was talking about with how park space is handled. Certainly want to see no use of artificial turf in any of those places and not have them overly programmed. They should be areas where a variety of activities can take place and honoring biodiversity and wildlife and all of those kinds of things are really important to people in Mountain View. So some of these things you might have already talked about and I might have missed. But I assume much of the reason for removing Heritage trees is due to where they are in the parking areas. So I urge you to do all you can to keep as many existing trees as possible. Um Mountain View is currently working on their new biodiversity strategy and urban forest plan. One key aspect of the plan the community has advocated for is protection of trees and an increase in our overall tree canopy. Second, got four comments. I urge you to establish lighting policies in the project that honor best practices related to dark skies. Mountain View will soon be developing new ordinances on this but they aren't there in place yet. You can find information about best practices through organizations such as the International Dark Sky Association to help you get an early start on this. Note that many locations in Mountain View have already taken steps to reduce lighting levels from where they had been. Uh already mentioned artificial turf and lastly, I hope that you will be using solar and heat pump technology for energy purposes across the project facilities and as close to 100% as possible if you do. Thanks for your time.

[03:25:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is Judy.

[03:25:50] Public Speaker Judy: Hi. Thanks for your time. I am a resident of Revella and I do not speak for Revella in any way but I've lived here a couple of years and I really appreciate this community and I appreciate your um contribution to it. Um thanks for pointing out that each resident of each um building can't access the other buildings amenities because that helped clear out some of the confusion that was mentioned earlier. And as a resident of Revella I again I'm not speaking for the management and we had that gentleman speak earlier. There I was confused by the assumption that the um linear park does in fact line up to the um breezeway between phase 1 and phase 2 of Revella. Um as it stands now on the other side of that wall there are parking spaces which are fully utilized by Revella residents and Revella's own landscaping that has been established over the years or the couple of years that Revella has been in existence. And then I also wanted to um follow up on the councilwoman's comments about that pathway along Ferguson Drive with the Heritage trees. And I am one of those people who uses that pathway often um preferring to stay underneath the trees and I've seen a lot of people use that versus the sidewalk as well, whether they're walking dogs or cats, yes someone walks their cat on that path, or um or just walking themselves. So I just wanted to make sure that if those trees are removed and I know you've mentioned a lot of um substitute trees, um that the sidewalk is maintained, that it's maintained safely, that it's lit, and that there is covering um shade covering on that sidewalk as well. And as the representative from Revella mentioned earlier um that there's safe crossing of pass um of pedestrians on that very busy way if there are two entry and exit points in parallel um from the two communities because there are is a lot of foot traffic along that way as well. Thank you so much.

[03:27:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And the last speaker will be Tracy Ferea.

[03:27:40] Tracy Ferea: Hello. I'm uh Dr. Tracy Ferea, I've got a PhD in biology and I'm a 24-year Mountain View resident. I want to say I really like the garden design, but um as a biologist in order for it to really be sustainable it needs to be 70% native plants and trees. Um so I'd appreciate the city working towards that as a goal to sustain all of us in the long term. Um the heritage trees, I really app appreciate having tall heritage trees. They're important to our community. And I'd like us to be thinking when we're having a building site of building around them and incorporating them rather than taking them down. I do like that they're going to put more trees in, but you know I might not even be alive by the time they're uh removing as much CO2 as um the trees that are there now and um providing as much shade. So I'd just like to be thinking about those things more and more as the city as we're building so quickly, and I understand the housing needs and stuff, but as we're building so quickly, please uh I ask you to really be deliberating about these and staff to be taking that into consideration building around the trees and providing an environment that's sustainable for us all. Um thank you for all your time.

[03:28:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: There are no more public commenters.

[03:28:45] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right. Thank you to the clerk. Um Commission deliberation. Comments from the commission. Commissioner Nuñez.

[03:28:55] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah, um I'll be uh expeditious. Um I uh I am very pro-housing. I would I always go for as much as we can get. Um I think people would agree with that. Um my colleagues would agree with that. I you know and yet um as I'm looking at this uh you know we have policies in place as a city, we have development standards, we have requirements, um and and for me um you know when I look at you know what staff is saying here, hey, if you're going to do an offsite um alternative mitigation the requirement is 20%. Um and this is not 20%. This is 18% in a standalone building with some like 12 million situation uh dollar going on there. Um personally I think that um you know if it's not going to be compliant, if it's not meeting 20%, if we have to you know squint and try to you know find ways to um add conditions of approval to to make it work out then I don't know that um there's there's clarity in the values that led to the policies we have in place right? Um unless our city council that comes in in January changes it right now you know one of our uh city goals is still to build an inclusive community for all. Um so for me you know as as as as you know much as looking at that added 3% you know could be a a nice thing to to strive for, um personally I would say let's just go for the inclusionary 15% to be quite honest. Um equal access to pools, equal denial to pools. Um I'm I'm absolutely comfortable with that. Um you know failing that um I do think that the conditions of approval that staff um have come up with um with regard to the delivery of the units um is um is is something I would go for. But um again given that it's not 20% which is the requirement for an offsite, um my um my inclination is um I I'm I'd like to see the 15% inclusionary as as part of the ultimate approval of this project.

Segment 6

[03:45:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Vice Chair.

[03:50:32] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you, Chair Dempsey. Um, I just wanted to make a clarification and if I was not as clear as I could have been um earlier, uh apologies. Um, the developer right now is to understand it is not asking for their 12 million dollar contribution to be earmarked. And in that case, it is achieving a 20% equivalency. That's number one, that's the clarification. And then number two, that would allow us to be able to potentially advance projects in our pipeline to unlock other projects. So I just wanted to make that clarification um, uh, for, for, for the purposes of the discussion. Thanks.

[03:51:06] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you very much. Commissioner Donahue.

[03:51:10] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, yeah, I'm generally like, like the project. Um, I do I'm sad to see a lot of mature trees cut down, but I think that uh, in the interest of of moving forward with this project, providing the housing, you know, office, retail, whatever, um, uh, and I mean the thing that really uh seals it for me is that there's, you know, that it'll basically double the the the canopy uh eventually. So I think that's uh, that's going to be great. There's there'll be a a period of of of uh of kind of mourning but then it'll be reborn. Um, the um, on the inclusionary off-site uh housing thing. So it sounds to me like either way, there's, there's kind of the 15% and the 20% and this will provide 18 or I guess equivalent 20%. Um, my understanding is that uh, while the 12 million dollars is not earmarked for this project, they could apply and the 12 million dollars could actually be applied back to this project, which then means that the 12 million dollars kind of went nowhere, it it kind of it it enabled the 18%. Um, okay, I guess if you wanna, I don't know if he can...

[03:52:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think what we're trying to do is try to balance what is in the BMR program now. And right now there isn't um language that says city funding shall not be provided, but that is direction from council from last December, it's just that our ordinance has not been updated yet. Um, so but the intention is that there wouldn't that there wouldn't be city funding. Um, however as we mentioned that there's there's trade-offs um to that. So the, the approach and analysis is that it wouldn't meet the 20% um technically if it were strictly earmarked, but because there's no language right now in the ordinance that says it cannot be requested, that's that's the way that we're um kind of offering a potential way, uh because it's reflecting the intention of council from December but it's not in the ordinance yet. So to to your point, while it's technically true that ultimately if there were city funding through a NOFA process there would be city contribution, um it would meet the overall intention uh of the proposal and and of the BMR uh requirements. Okay. So, so, but it is possible for for that money to go back to that. That, that's kind of the... It's not guaranteed, it's not the intention, but it, but it's still, but it is possible under the current program. Um, it, it is um one possible outcome, right, as you're saying it's not guaranteed and we don't know how next exactly necessarily how much and we would go through our normal due diligence. Yeah.

[03:53:50] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So it is possible for that money to go back to that. That's kind of the...

[03:53:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: It is one possible outcome, right as you're saying it's not guaranteed and we don't know how next exactly necessarily how much and we would go through our normal due diligence. Yeah.

[03:54:02] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Thanks. So they're going to provide 18% and then they're going to provide cash for 2%. And if the cash comes back to them, then they're they're coming up with the the funding for 16% and I'm thinking why don't we just go with the 15% and get the inclusionary, um, uh which is kind of the the the goal of the program anyway. Um, either way, we're gonna get 836 units. If uh in in one scenario 150 are uh BMR and in the other way 126 are BMR, that's the 15 15%. So there's um there would be 24 fewer BMR units but uh but those units would be built faster uh because because of the the funding challenges um with the with the standalone project. So it seems to me that the way to get the housing faster, the way to get the uh BMR units faster, um, I I know it's not guaranteed that that the money would go back to them so that my my 16% is is is just some you know there's some probability of that happening so it's not guaranteed but um, but that's kind of my fear. So, um, so I basically I'm kind of uh, uh, agreeing with Commissioner Nunez on on on the uh that point. But overall I I love the project, the the POPA is great, I like how it's on that that corner, that's a key corner and I know that the entrance to the building was supposed to be on the corner and that kind of thing, but I love that that that there's a park there and so that the the entrances um, you know, is moved which is uh kind of a um, whatever, a waiver from what the what the precise plan called for. But um, but yeah, overall it's great, and I love the landscaping, uh, linear park, landscaping, whatever. I I think I think overall uh things look good. So I I'm uh uh supportive of the uh the project overall but I I do have this concern about the inclusionary versus exclusionary uh housing. Thanks.

[03:55:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Cranston.

[03:55:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, so one of the things that I asked and Director Chen mentioned was that the size of the units in the BMR building are different than the size in the market rate unit building. If I'm Prometheus and I'm not asking them to say this, but if I end up doing 15%, I'm changing all of those units to the market rate size units. So I'm not building 836 units. I'm building some smaller number, maybe 800. And now I'm doing 15% of that. So we've lost units because there's a smaller number of units in the entire space and I've lost BMR units because I now got a smaller base. So I'm I'm losing total units and I'm losing BMR units. Because it makes no sense if they're going to have market rate units in that building to build them smaller than market rate units on the it it doesn't make any sense. I mean I just, it it's it's a math that they would have they would have to do themselves, but I wouldn't, it's not how I, I would immediately go back and do that math, and they probably have done it, okay? So I am, and and really relation to the 12 million dollars, if a decision is made to get it back, it's because our city council made the decision to give it back. The way it was originally stipulated was it was their decision to give it back. If the 12 million dollars comes in, yes it could come back, but it would be the decision of a future city council to make that decision that this is the project that I want to put that money on. Okay? Not theirs, ours. So I am okay with that, because it's separating the decision from their decision and and we can choose, we there's lots of other things between now and then. So I'm not, I don't have a problem with the 12 million dollars. I have a problem with it not being paid for potentially five years. And so along with Commissioner Clark, I would like to see that changed to be something that it's it's that there's some escalation that says you know if it turns out to be 12 months or 24 months for entitlement and 36 months for construction, that when I pay this thing, no more no no later than the the certificate of of occupancy of the building, that I've got interest on five years worth of on that money. Either I get it now or I get it five years from now with interest, okay? So I'm not I'm not comfortable with the time value of that money deteriorating for the five years, okay? Um, I'm, because the ultimately we get more units and I recognize that there's more associated with getting the BMR processed and I'm going to, he he started to convince me that he knows what he's talking about, which is good, and and and Mr. Chen didn't didn't cringe when he was talking so he sounds like he probably knows what he's talking about, that that there's that my worry is about whether this could get funded are are maybe are less than what I originally thought. So, you know, it's just, it's more time. So I'm okay with the idea of the 20% with the money but the money needs to come at the time value of today, not the time value of five years from now potentially. Um, and I'd rather keep the higher units. The retail, given the damn space back. Okay? I don't know why it's there, okay? I know we went I was part of the precise plan but I would never in an ap if they'd said put it deep inside of the development, I'd been like no no no no, that's not what we're looking for, we want it out where people can get to it. So if that helps them in some way, let them take that space back and do something else with it. Let it uh be a an extra pool for the BMR people, I don't care, whatever you want to do with it. But I just look at that and it's like I don't like vacant spaces. I drive by the Dean every day and you know it took four years for a pizza place to move there, and it's expensive downtown. Okay? And there's still other vacant spaces. So I don't I don't like, to me it it takes the energy out of a place if it's vacant. So I would have the I'd have the retail option, if they want it out, take it out, give it to something else, okay? Um, I am worried about them doing timely on the application process and selection of their partner, so I'm I'm I'd like to see something in here that says you know you've got to have made your, you know you've got to selected a partner by a certain point in time, a certain reasonable amount of time and you've got some kind of timeline on on on making, starting that process. I understand that the government's going to take more time but if they haven't even filed for an application for funding in three years, that's a problem to me. And it's so I I'd like to see something here added in that says you've got a certain timeline to get there. Um, I'd like if they're open to a condition that says the office guys and the residential guys are going to talk to each other about share sharing space, let's do it, okay? It's why leave an entire structure of parking space building vacant overnight when some people could be able to park some of their cars there overnight. We've done other shared part things like that. Um, the what is it 1000 Shoreline is that way where it's residential and office and they're sharing the space. So I'd love to see something like that. So I'm I'm in favor of keeping the the 18 plus two uh but putting in things that make sure we get the value associated with it and and that we keep these things moving forward uh going as we move ahead. So that's my view.

[03:56:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[03:56:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Okay, I'll try to keep this fast and short. Um, I agree if we go the mitigation route and we're doing late funding that it has a timeline and interest is paid on it. If we do inclusionary, it's even better personally I think inclusionary would be ideal. But either way it's up for city council to pick. Um, if it's not earmarked they can choose to put it wherever they want. Um, as far as the retail, I'm going to defer for me a little bit. I'm I'm happy that there's some neighborhood serving retail there unless if the retail goes that entire chunk of building goes so that the park is bigger and opens into the linear park so that there's nothing blocking. People in the park can actually see the linear park and be able to use it. That's my take. Um, if when I had asked about the shared parking with the office and the BMR and you were very much thankfully um okay with moving in that direction and investigating that, if that's possible because even though they're different parcels and but you're in a situation where you're in a position to be able to do that, I feel like as Commissioner Clark said, it's really a matter of ease to get the BMR units to have access. I know that's not what you're aiming for with separate access for, you know, building chunk has this pool and courtyard, building chunk over here has this group. I understand that. But it just seems like a key card would solve that problem and you could just, you know, have a different key card for the courtyard versus getting up into the building. Um, and that's if you have a separate BMR building. If it's an inclusionary, then we don't even have to worry about that. While we're talking uh about uh the amenities, everything looks beautiful. Like the renderings are very nice. I can I can see that a lot of thought and design has gone into it. So thank you for that. Um, I really appreciate the garden idea. Um, I do have a problem with this is my big beef is that when POPAs that primarily look like primarily look like they're going to be private and the public won't use them, they're getting 75% credit. As beautiful as they are, it's going to be great for residents that are living there, but for the public, they're not gaining that much. Um, I would like to to see you guys since you've already designed it to connect, you're like running the marathon and then you stop short of the finish line. There's a representative from Ravella right there and maybe you guys could talk about potentially literally having a connection so that the POPA is used for more than just your residents. Um, I know a caller called in and said you know we need that parking, you're only going to lose a few spaces and maybe you can make it up on the other side. Just, you've done beautiful designs as it is, I'm sure you could design that access wonderfully and still allow for parking and the landscaping. Um, I think I've covered it all. Thank you very much. So generally supportive, uh, but those are my two cents and I don't know how to word everything to get those in, if possible, but there they are.

[03:58:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[03:58:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: I'll be quick. So where I live on El Camino, West El Camino, Avalon Towers. And the parking situation's somewhat similar where you have business and residential. The parking garage is shared by all of us and the color coding's pretty simple. If you see a white space there, that's available for anyone, a guest. If it's red, okay, this is for residents only. If it's purple, it's for the business. I'm sure they can come up with some sort of designation like that to figure out who can park where in that type of facility if there's a partnership that's struck between you all. I'm hoping that by now these suggestions that we have, humble though they are, are something that you'll take into consideration and that you'll be able to act on them so that we can have a better situation overall with what we look at in terms of affordable housing, inclusionary or not. And uh, hopefully when this does get brought up to city council, when is this going to be brought up to city council?

[04:00:13] Unknown: Uh, tentatively scheduled for December 17th.

[04:00:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Um, we'll have better clarification there and then of what may or may not happen. Appreciate your time.

[04:00:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. So before I provide my comments I actually have a question for staff and I imagine I'd like to direct this actually to the City Attorney's representative. A quick question about housing element. So to the extent that the city is looking at there's the inclusionary option and then there's this stand alone option, right? And they involve delivery of different numbers of both BMR and market rate, right? If the, does the, I assume, does ultimately does the city have discretion about which option is chosen or does the applicant have discretion over which option is chosen? Or anybody from staff who wants to answer that one.

[04:01:11] City Attorney Celena Chen: So, could I maybe restate the question to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly? Are you you asking if the city council ultimately has discretion on whether to approve or not approve the alternative mitigation plan?

[04:01:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes, and the reason I ask that question is I got in the corner of my mind housing element compliance and if we I know that you know elsewhere you get in trouble for downzoning or whatnot. I guess the question is if we have two options one of which provides more housing and the other provides less, is there any housing element compliance danger in choosing the option that has less aggregate units?

[04:01:47] City Attorney Celena Chen: So the project would have the same number of overall total units whether the alternative mitigation plan is pursued or the um, or it is not, is not approved by city council and inclusionary units are provided. What would be different are the number of affordable or BMR units that the project includes. Either option and in the case of the alternative mitigation plan, um, the alternative mitigation plan plus staff recommended conditions would be compliant. So, um, uh the the short answer is that the city council has the discretion to approve or not approve an alternative mitigation plan. Um what would be different are the number of BMR units generated by the project, um and the major sort of downside there is when we're reporting on um housing unit production in the city, we would be reporting fewer numbers of BMR units um out of this project than we would if the alternative mitigation plan was approved.

[04:02:45] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Right. Any additional comment on that from other staff? Director?

[04:02:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you. So just to note, under the current BMR program, it is um, I believe that the language is that this is a discretionary action that council can take. What we discussed with council back in December, which will be part of the green back for BMR updates which has not occurred yet, is that the alternative mitigations really needs to be a by-right option. Um, so long as the project is complying with the alternative mitigation requests. Um, but under the current BMR ordinance it is a discretionary action that council would take.

[04:03:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, I think I know what that means. So correct me if I'm wrong, that means that it's kind of up to staff to help come up with a a relatively equal alternative mitigation and then the applicant kind of gets to pick which one.

[04:03:47] City Attorney Celena Chen: If I'm understanding your question correctly, I think the best way to frame it is that the BMR program and the administrative guidelines provide an opportunity for an applicant to submit an alternative mitigation plan and includes um some requirements or criteria that need to be satisfied by an alternative mitigation plan. Um and so what staff is doing when such a plan is proposed is reviewing that applicant proposal against the criteria uh in the administrative guidelines, which is what the analysis in the staff report is attempting to provide to EPC. Um and then ultimately city council has the discretion to approve the plan.

[04:04:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. I missed that distinction the first time. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, I apologize I would be a little more coherent if it were two hours ago. Um, so let me let me just offer a couple of comments and let's see if we can wrap this up. So, first off, I, I want to convey to all the architects here, this is a beautiful um, place that you are trying to build. It really is. Um, I, you know, the more that, you actually had pictures here that I hadn't seen before, um, and it, it's, it's gorgeous. I mean, I'd love to live there. Uh, and I I can see that a lot of really good thought has gone into making this an attractive um, life-filled place. So, it you know, you know I'm going to complain about parking in a minute, but I just wanted to put it out here to you now, um, the place that you've built is genuinely beautiful. Um, and, and attractive, and the kind of thing that I think would you know make anybody in Mountain View proud. Um, of course I am concerned, you know, the pools and parking for whatever reason those are sort of the issues du jour tonight. Um, in part, uh, I think Bill Lambert put this up like, the the equity part here is really important and Prometheus you've been in Mountain View for a long time. Like, you've watched more more of these EPC hearings than I'm sure anyone would care to count, right? You know this is something that we worry about. Um, council worries about it, the community worries about it. Um, we don't want to just support, you know, quantity, so far over quality that we're turning in substandard stuff for folks and the spirit of trying to help them, we're giving them something that that clearly isn't the same. At least I worry about that. Let me, let me own this. I worry about that. Like the the image that I have in my mind is, you know, some kids that live in those BMR buildings and they're just up against the fence in the middle of a hot summer wishing they could go into that pool. And Eagle Park's pretty far away. And I actually checked, there aren't public pools anywhere nearby there. I think Eagle Park is the closest. Um, and we don't have a lot of parking spots for your mom to have a car to drive you there, right? Like, that's rough. And I understand that, I totally understand the economics. This is not an economics argument. It's not a architectural argument, it's really a very basic civilian argument, which is I I would never want the kids that grow up in that building to feel lesser. That's why we have inclusionary housing, right? Um, so anyway, uh, I don't know that there's anything we can do about it, I just wanted to convey that that actually really is important. I mean, the truth is, hearing the the two different ways we could do it, I'm kind of, I kind of think the inclusionary is a better way to go. In part because then there's just less distinction for the people that actually live there. Slightly less quantity, or maybe even significantly less quantity, I guess I'd want to see someone do the math. But the quality is different, and I think I worry about us going too far down the road of chasing quantity and sacrificing too much quality and leaving people in places where they can't have a car and they can't, their kids can't play, like that's not the point. I don't want to end up there. So anyway, um, nobody wants to hear that from me. So what else did I want to tell ya? So here's what I heard tonight from us. It sounds like there's pretty broad support from the, my commission members that we do like the project. I think the most of the conversation that I've heard is about the, um, the mitigation. I think, um, I've heard support for the inclusionary version, I've heard support for, let's, let's go for numbers. So I don't know that we're exactly in the middle there. What I have heard is it sounds like most of us feel like we kind of wish there was a slightly better deal in here somewhere. I don't know exactly what it looks like. In fact, I think one of the questions I might, I might put to staff is, do you have a good enough sense from us, the commissioners, varied though our opinions were, of what you might be able to go back and try to, you know, expand the pie a little bit and see if we could find a slightly better way to approach this, whether it's when the money's delivered or how the parking's delivered. By the way, I think the conversation about having um, the folks with the office parking, I think, Bill, you were talking about this. You could have stickers on the car, whatever, painted, painted parking spots. That's actually a great idea. And I really do hope you pursue that. Um, because I think there's, I just think that's a really smart thing to do and that actually takes away many of the concerns that I had. Um, but to to Mr. Murdock, do you feel like you have heard from us enough options that you would know how to go forward if we ended up supporting this just we support the staff recommendation? I'm open to hearing from other folks if they want to try to modify it but I think I don't know what we would modify it to and it's getting late. So the question is if we just supported the staff recommendation generally with the understanding that it sounds like and I'm open to being corrected here it sounds like we are generally in support of this but we there's some edges we'd like to see sanded down. Do you feel like you have enough guidance from this conversation that you would know how to move forward in a way that was useful?

[04:05:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening commissioners. My voice is a little off this evening so I've held back a little more uh than I normally would to to weigh in. Christian Murdock Community Development Director. I think we need clearer guidance from the commission as to the recommendation that it's putting forward to council. I think um if I were to try to frame this, we have the opportunity to exceed the 15% with 18% of units and get another 2% and 12 million dollars to put towards the coffer uh affordable housing funding for the city and that could potentially unlock a whole other project or projects in a way that brings online yet even more affordable housing units and I don't know if that's been weighed enough in this conversation tonight. That you get 18% versus 15% at this site and you get 12 million dollars that could unlock more than the 18 unit equivalent in some other project and actually bring it online. And so to me that's a very valuable component in this trade off that's being considered. I think the other aspect that might be worth the commission exploring is I mean if you were to boil it down I feel like it's a question of applicant would you rather build the project with the stand alone BMR building. Um, or let me rephrase, would you rather build a 15% uh integrated building or the stand alone building and let the people go to the swimming pool? And so it might be a question worth exploring in those direct, frank terms with the applicant. It seems like they've expressed an ability to construct both projects. They have a preference for reasons I think I understand for why they want to build the stand alone BMR building. But as you're looking at this alternative mitigation and whether these units are you know roughly equivalent, you know, as that term of art is used in the program, um I think that needs to be explored a little bit more and maybe that would be enough to get the applicant over the edge if there's a way to do that to provide that more equivalent access to amenities and get them the project that's closest to what they actually want, want to build.

[04:06:56] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Um... looks like we've got some questions from the commissioners. Uh... Joyce? Commissioner Yin.

[04:07:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh sorry, that was an old one. I should have removed my name. Sorry.

[04:07:06] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Cranston. Did you have a... proposal for a motion?

[04:07:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Well, it's more of a proposal for a motion.

[04:07:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I'm intrigued. Do we, well let me ask this, do we need to, should we straw poll a couple of things and then and then move forward? I think we need to wrap this up and get people home. But...

[04:07:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess from what I heard I thought maybe I could frame something that might capture what people are...

[04:07:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Go for it.

[04:07:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Dempsey, forgive me, Commissioner Clark has raised his hand.

[04:07:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Oh I apologize I did not see that. Commissioner Clark, please go ahead.

[04:07:41] Commissioner Chris Clark: Um it was it was really just to chime in and say um I agree with the director. I think um for me I I think the stand alone option makes the most sense. I Prometheus has been in our community long enough and chair you mentioned this too, like they know our values. Um I I'm hoping that they can find some way um to ensure that um you know their access to to basic amenities um I I think we probably have different values in terms of you know as commissioners in terms of whether it's whether it's pools or fitness facilities or whatever and and I'm not talking about upper level stuffer, it's really just the the ground floor amenities which I think will go a long way in terms of integrating everything in our community. And the other thing that I mentioned earlier was just uh time value of money. I'm not looking to hold anything over um Prometheus in terms of time that the city spends reviewing uh you know permit applications or other things, it's it's really just that scenario where this sits for multiple years um and it's it's at the applicant's discretion as opposed to you know time that the city has taken to review things. Um but um hopefully hopefully staff has based on the what we received from the applicant in the last 24 hours or so hopefully we can craft some sort of uh recommendation to council to to move everything forward.

[04:08:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Cranston, you had a suggestion.

[04:09:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So what I was going to propose is that we adopt the staff report but with specific instructions to staff to discuss the timing of the alternative mitigation as proposed by the applicant in their items 110 and 111, to work with the applicant on an additional condition of approval for the shared use of the parking spaces, and to investigate some option for dealing with shared amenities across the properties.

[04:09:43] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. May I hold that in abeyance for a moment? I just want to see what Commissioner Nunez had to say. I want to make sure I get all the conversation done before we we actually start motion crafting. But thank you.

[04:09:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Chair Dempsey. Um, for me, it would be simple. Um, to some extent I heard a a majority um kind of inclination towards support of going with the straight 15%. I understand that there's funding and, you know, other kind of considerations here. Um, when you finish that last comment Chair Dempsey by saying, oh no one wants to hear me say, uh that at the end um and yeah I I thought it was you put it beautifully when you said um it it's not an economics um you know um situation... um I would say personally I would make it really clear and simple on ourselves by recommending that we just go with the 15% and failing that um this draft condition number 111 around the fully constructed and delivered that feels like a good fallback option to me but um I would say proposing simplifying it and um seeing if there's majority support for proceeding with just the 15% inclusionary.

[04:11:17] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Well I held Bill in abeyance so Commissioner Cranston if you want to put your motion forward or if there's any changes you want to make to it we can we can try that.

[04:11:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The comments don't change my view. So obviously it'd have to be seconded.

[04:11:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So is that a motion?

[04:11:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah I would move that we move with the staff report with specific guidance to staff to work on a modification to the COA for items 110 111 specifically dealing with the time value of the 12 million and to include a condition on shared parking structures and potential shared use of amenities.

[04:12:12] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. And I'm looking to staff, is that sufficiently clear guidance to you? We haven't voted on it yet I just want to make sure that you understand it.

[04:12:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Could we also repeat it? I wasn't able to catch up on a lot of it.

[04:12:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The motion would be to approve the staff report with specific guidance for staff to work on a update modification to the COA for items 110 111 specifying specifically dealing with the time value of the transfer of funds and to include a condition on shared use of the parking structures and potential shared use of amenities.

[04:12:54] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. And I'm looking to staff, is that sufficiently clear guidance to you?

[04:13:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, I think um I understand the intent, I think some aspects of the motion we'll need to research further as to their feasibility but we can carry that forward to the maximum extent our research allows in the council recommendation.

[04:13:23] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I think that's fair and my understanding of what Commissioner Cranston was saying is that these are things that we are recommending you pursue, I don't think we're saying it shall be this way or the other, right? These are just...

[04:13:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm not providing specific language on these...

[04:13:39] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Right, it's a little vague by design. So, if that's sufficient can we just confirm the seconder of the motion please?

[04:13:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That was uh, the second to that was Vice Chair Gutierrez.

[04:13:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Motion made by Mr. Cranston, seconded by Vice Chair Gutierrez. Any further comments on this before we take a vote? Mr. Donahue.

[04:14:02] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, so never let it be said that we're not a deliberative body. Um, some of uh some of the comments uh made sense to me um and changed my my thinking on on some things so I am uh I'm gonna support the motion.

[04:14:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And does that sustain draft condition number 111, Chair Cranston, or were you recommending modifications to that or what was the approach there?

[04:14:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Specific for staff to to update review the proposal by the applicant and look at the incorporation of that understanding that the time value of the money associated with it needs to be taken to into account and when the 12 million dollars is paid and its value when it's paid.

[04:14:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. And then does that sustain in your motion the constructed, the condition unconstructed...

[04:15:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: To me they're intertwined. They can't be separated the way I read it anyway.

[04:15:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay.

[04:15:10] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Again I think this is a bit a bit vague by design in order to give staff the latitude to go forth and and try to put something together without having us try to dictate it to you word for word at 11:30 at night. Commissioner Yin.

[04:15:27] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was gonna say that earlier I did say my personal feeling was that we do the inclusionary however given that they have the right to put forth either one and I do not know what's going on in the larger sense of what the city is looking for in terms of money for funding and what's coming that I'm gonna leave it to council. But my personal opinion is 15% inclusionary. So I don't know how that gets worded but if you want to just add that in, but I would support Commissioner Cranston's motion.

Segment 7

[04:30:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And that if that last 2% gets us something really great that I just I didn't know about and isn't in the staff report, but if it's important and the people that know more than me say that's really really valuable, that means a lot to me.

[04:30:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And so for that reason and primarily for that reason I'm actually going to be supporting um supporting the motion that Mr. Cranston made. So um any other commentary before we take this vote and go home? Anybody else? Going once, going twice. Um, Mr. Clerk would you please call the roll.

[04:30:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes. Um, Commissioner Nuñez?

[04:30:57] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Aye.

[04:31:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue.

[04:31:41] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[04:31:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin.

[04:31:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[04:31:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston.

[04:31:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[04:31:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Clark.

[04:31:50] Commissioner Chris Clark: Aye.

[04:31:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Gutiérrez.

[04:31:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yes.

[04:31:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Dempsey.

[04:31:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[04:32:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion uh passes with a unanimous yea vote.

[04:32:03] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Finally, item six, Commission staff announcements, updates, requests and committee reports. No action will be taken uh on any questions raised by the commission at this time. Anything from staff?

[04:32:15] City Staff: Nothing.

[04:32:17] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Nothing from staff. Um I will take just as a point of personal privilege, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague Commissioner Clark on his election to uh City Council. We're gonna miss him here, but well I guess we'll see a lot of him. So congratulations sir.

[04:32:32] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And then last but not least, item seven, adjournment. This meeting is hereby adjourned at 11:30 sharp. What? Oh wait, doesn't tell me. Oh I, I will tell you. The next regularly scheduled meeting uh will be held December 4th, 2024. Thank you everyone for your patience and good night.

Gap between 'Segment 3' and 'Segment 3'

[01:45:19] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The approximately 10.6-acre project site is located in the East Whisman Precise Plans mixed-use area, or mixed character area and high-intensity sub-area and carries a general plan land use designation of East Whisman Mixed-Use. The Middlefield rail station is located directly to the north with office and R&D to the northwest and northeast. To the east and southeast is Ferguson Drive and State Route 237, while the Revella multi-family apartments are on the southwest. The existing development includes two two-story office R&D buildings which total approximately 164,000 square feet, while the rest of the site is comprised of surface parking and associated landscape and hardscape improvements.

[01:46:07] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The project proposes five new structures, including three residential buildings comprised of 836 units, including 150 affordable units. A 275,000 square foot office building and a standalone office parking garage. It also proposes more than half an acre of privately owned, publicly accessible park space, also known as POPA, which aligns with the local precise plan's goal of establishing public open spaces. The development requires several permits including a planned community permit, development review permit, heritage tree removal permit, and a vesting tentative map to subdivide the land into five lots.

[01:46:47] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The site plan positions the office building, POPA, and part of the market rate north building's lobby along East Middlefield Road, with the eastern edges of the market rate south and market rate north building facing Ferguson Drive. The office parking garage and BMR building are located along an L-shaped service street in the site's interior. This is a publicly accessible multi-modal street, intended to improve bike and pedestrian connectivity in the plan area, which is in support of the precise plan's goal of establishing multi-modal circulation network.

[01:47:19] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The project supports the general plan's vision of for mixed-uses in the East Whisman area including office, neighborhood serving commercial, and multi-family residential. It also aligns with the precise plan's land use policies and programs such as job housing linkage and bonus FAR programs. The project complies with applicable precise plan development standards with specific design exceptions summarized in detail in the staff report. An applicant proposed alternative mitigation plan for BMR compliance will also be discussed later in this presentation.

[01:47:53] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The precise plan sets base FAR maximums, maximums for residential and non-residential development specific to each character area and sub-area. Projects seeking to achieve maximum height and intensities must meet certain bonus FAR program requirements summarized in the table and analyzed in the staff report. The project complies with applicable bonus FAR program requirements by providing more than 6 million dollars in combined community benefit contributions and complying with the noted higher green building sustainability standards. Um, it also exceeds the number of residential units required to balance proposed office and R&D space based on the jobs housing linkage program's prescribed ratio. And it also proposes an alternative mitigation plan to comply with the city's BMR requirements.

[01:48:46] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The city's BMR housing program requires that qualifying rental projects provide at least 15% of units on site, integrated into the market rate development and affordable to low and moderate income households. However, developers can request to meet the city's BMR requirements through an alternative mitigation process, subject to city council approval. The applicant is proposing an alternative mitigation plan to deliver the affordable units off-site in a stand-alone BMR building rather than on-site and integrated with the market rate units. While the proposal meets the location and suitability standards outlined for off-site delivery projects, it does not comply with the required number of units or the timing of delivery requirements specified in the city's BMR administrative guidelines. Staff has evaluated the applicant's alternative mitigation proposal, as detailed in the staff report, and determined it to be non-compliant as currently proposed.

[01:49:45] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: For the standards found to be non-compliant, staff is recommending the following draft conditions for staff to support the applicant's alternative mitigation plan. Regarding the number of affordable units, the draft condition specifies that 150 BMR units shall be delivered in a stand-alone BMR building as proposed, and that the 12 million dollars in supplemental payment will not be earmarked for the project to achieve the 20% off-site delivery equivalency. To address the timing of delivery requirement, off-site delivery of the affordable building will be fully financed, constructed, and delivered prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the first market rate building, or meet the city's 15% inclusionary requirement by integrating the BMR units within the market rate buildings if the off-site units cannot be delivered.

[01:50:42] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: Moving on to project design, the architectural design of the residential buildings are contemporary, featuring rectilinear forms, large windows, and varied building massing with vertical breaks, projecting bays, and upper floor step backs to soften the scale in relation to the surrounding environment. The color and material palette includes varied earth tones and textures. Primary materials are stucco, wood-like siding, brick, complemented by glass and metal balcony railings and canopies. While the same overall palette is used throughout, variations in material application, colors, and accents distinguish each building while maintaining a cohesive design.

[01:51:24] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The proposed six-story office building is also contemporary in design and showcases its mass timber structure, using natural materials to complement the residential buildings. The facade includes brick veneer columns, wood accents, and shaped aluminum fascia at the key corner. Terraces on the third and fifth floor visually connect with the POPA park and partially shelter the seating area near the fragrance garden key feature. Additional terraces are located in the rear above the VTA tracks and private open space between the office and parking garage.

[01:51:57] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The office parking garage is a combination of ornamental vines on a steel cable system and chainmail mesh panels draped over concrete walls. This facade treatment aims to create a dynamic living screen that ties into the garden district concept envisioned by the applicant's design team. The garage stairwell is placed prominently as a passive wayfinding element and additional design accent. Landscape around the garage will help screen views specifically at the pedestrian level along the service street.

[01:52:26] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The project includes a comprehensive landscape program with over 17,000 new understory plants, more than half of which are California native species. Plantings are planned in in-ground planters and around each building to soften the transition to each structure and along the service street and between surface parking spaces. Raised planters are integrated into steps leading to the office and residential courtyards as well as along the linear park with understory plants and trees. Approximately 86% of the landscaping will consist of drought tolerant low water use species. The overall landscape plan complements the public and private outdoor amenity spaces throughout the project site.

[01:53:08] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The project site contains 241 trees, including 47 heritage trees, and are comprised primarily of parking lot trees. In total, 234 trees are proposed for removal, including 40 heritage trees. The proposed heritage tree removals meet the city's standard requirement, or required findings for removal and proposes an overall replacement ratio of nearly four to one, which exceeds the typical two to one heritage tree replacement ratio.

[01:53:34] Senior Planner Phillip Brennan: The applicant collaborated with planning, public works, and urban forestry division staff to assess tree health and explore preservation options, including transplantation. Due to the extent of redevelopment, few areas allowed for tree retention without conflicting with proposed building footprints or planned service street and hardscape improvements. As such, focus was placed on 18 trees along the public street frontages where off-site improvements are planned. After extensive analysis...

Segment 3

[01:58:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: and Assistant Community Development Director Blazinsky are present here tonight and available to answer any questions you may have. In addition, the applicant is present tonight and has prepared a presentation.

[01:59:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Our thanks to staff. If the applicant would like to come on up and provide your presentation, we'd love to hear it. Thank you.

[01:59:35] Don Peterson: Good evening, Planning Commissioners. I'm Don Peterson, and I'm very pleased to be with you here this evening. I represent Prometheus and will be leading the project team. As you may know, Prometheus is an active real estate owner and developer. We're a family-owned, private company. We've been around for over 50 years.

[01:59:56] Don Peterson: and we're long-term holders of our properties. We keep what we build for the long term, meaning we continue to manage and remain invested stakeholders within the community. We're locally based, with headquarters nearby in San Mateo.

[02:00:11] Don Peterson: We have a long relationship with the City of Mountain View. We've been active here locally for many years, with housing developments sprinkled throughout the city. Recent developments include Hadley, Hero, Tillery, Madera, 100 Moffett, among others.

[02:00:30] Don Peterson: Joining me here from Prometheus this evening is Mike DeCotiis, who's been involved in all the projects I just mentioned. Mike will serve as development director and day-to-day manager of the project. Also with me is Tim Nash, who heads up design for Prometheus.

[02:00:46] Don Peterson: We're here leading a larger team. Harvest Properties is our development partner, responsible for the project's commercial office development, and they're represented here this evening by Kevin Choi. We have a robust design team here as well. You will hear from them shortly.

[02:01:05] Don Peterson: For the residential design, we have Sarah Architects, led by Kurt Schultz. The office architect is Studios, represented by Jong Choi, and for landscape, we have Melinda McMillan, who is here from Place. The team will be walking you through the project.

[02:01:22] Don Peterson: Staff did a good job in the staff report and Philip in his presentation. In fact, I'll take the opportunity to thank staff for their efforts to get us here this evening. It's been a long road over a couple of years with multiple design review hearings. We certainly appreciate their hard work and efforts, and we thank them for their support of the project.

[02:01:43] Don Peterson: Our presentation here this evening will focus on the design vision behind the project, the design intent behind the metrics. And this design intent and vision is really well capsulized on page 12 of the staff report, where it states, 'The underlying urban design approach of this project is to create an urban garden district of higher intensity of office, residential, and neighborhood commercial development.'

[02:02:10] Don Peterson: 'The project integrates with public frontages while also providing a more fine-grained network of public pedestrian connections throughout the site, where special building and open space design is intended to provide a sense of place, wayfinding, and architectural interest.'

[02:02:28] Don Peterson: Lastly, I would just offer that in planning the project, we carefully considered the objectives and goals of the East Whisman Precise Plan, which calls for the transformation of East Whisman into a sustainable, transit-oriented residential neighborhood and employment center with an emphasis on housing.

[02:02:44] Don Peterson: And we're integrating an abundance of new housing, including affordable housing, which will specifically feature larger family units. We're pleased to provide this housing, which will contribute to the city's RHNA and housing element goals and requirements.

[02:03:01] Don Peterson: As mentioned, our property is targeted for greater land intensity within the precise plan. And what I hope becomes apparent this evening is that we've sought to balance the higher intensity objectives of the precise plan with carefully considered planning and design.

[02:03:18] Don Peterson: And on this last point, it's worth noting, we have not sought to maximize density and scale as afforded us under the precise plan. The project falls within the precise plan guidelines and parameters, but in doing so, we believe it was based on a balanced, thoughtful approach to the design holistically. And with that, I'll turn the presentation over to the design team and Melinda specifically, who will speak to the project's landscape vision.

[02:03:48] Melinda McMillan: All right. You can jump to the landscape vision slide. So this is the overview of the entire site, and I'll speak more specifically to the landscape vision.

[02:04:03] Melinda McMillan: So on the next slide, we'll go back to the illustrated plan. And it's this garden concept, the garden district concept that has led our design, not just as landscape architects, but as architects and developers.

[02:04:19] Melinda McMillan: We have included native, climate-adaptive plants, multimodal connectivity, vibrant outdoor spaces, and true to the East Whisman plan, we've shaped a richly vegetated urban design with a thoughtful pedestrian network.

[02:04:35] Melinda McMillan: The next slide will show you the POPA park along Middlefield. And we have worked very closely with staff not only in identifying how big this should be,

[02:04:48] Melinda McMillan: what amenities would not only benefit the project, but amend the parks within the region so that we are very complementary in what we offer in programming this space. We've connected it by a breezeway to a north-south pedestrian corridor and the linear park that runs through the center.

[02:05:12] Melinda McMillan: The next slide shows you a graphic of what this POPA will become, and the form hearkens back to the agricultural heritage of the region, and each one of these blocks frames this natural turf central space with different program spaces.

Gap between 'Segment 3' and 'Segment 4'

[02:05:34] Melinda: that you can relax, you can play bocce. Um, we've come together and agreed that we will um provide different amenities to qualify as Mountain View's first POPA. Part of this is a demonstration garden and art installation along Middlefield. The next slide.

[02:05:55] Melinda: So whether you are a visitor or resident, you see this space as public space as you come visit the site. It doesn't look like a private amenity, it looks like a public park. Visitors and residents can meander through the demonstration garden, enjoy the open lawn, climb on some playful structures, um, and the next slide.

[02:06:21] Melinda: We're really excited that this feels like a beautiful and welcoming gateway to the project. Um, and thank you staff for helping us fine tune this.

[02:06:34] Melinda: So the next slide, um, let's jump to the linear park. And we call this the linear park because it is 650 feet long. Um, while it varies in width, this is this pedestrian corridor that ties together every single one of the buildings in the project.

[02:06:54] Melinda: Um, we have on the next slide, we wanted this to feel more like a garden than hardscape. We are very careful about what we planted here. There's rich beds with native plantings, storm water planters, and places for different opportunities to gather, sit, or even perform.

[02:07:17] Melinda: On the next slide. The residential open space meets the, let's see, the podium on either side at this center crossing. So what is fun about this space is that it's entirely public and there are gardens that are terraced down from the north building and from the south building.

[02:07:42] Melinda: And so you have stadium seating on one side with blooming trees, a center stage area, and then a meandering stair going up through evergreens that are actually cascading down the building.

[02:07:58] Melinda: The next slide. At the office, at the office we have this great open space that welcomes visitors from the VTA station. Whether you're a cyclist, whether you are a pedestrian, there's this beautiful, this beautiful um fragrance garden that wraps that key corner and brings you right to that entrance.

[02:08:20] Melinda: Not only that, but they offer the the office is bridged with additional open space and it has terraced terraced greenway, vines, and beautiful specimen trees at this gathering spot that will be a beautiful bookend to the linear park. Um and we're calling that the rise because it rises to the west.

[02:08:45] Melinda: The next slide. So one of our our biggest priorities for this project was to make sure that um we have a a wide variety of tree types. Not only do we have uh California natives, this canopy will cover the site with shade in 5 to 10 years, um cover 25%.

[02:09:12] Melinda: At full maturity it will cover 50%. And all trees are installed at larger sizes. And we've actually um put in some specimen trees that are California natives at um even larger sizes than standard. So we're really excited about this and this has been a guiding um driver in the landscape design.

[02:09:34] Melinda: The next slide. So not only are we thinking about California natives being drought responsive, um climate responsive, we want this to be engaging and interesting at the time of installation. But we have this this vision of kind of generational responsibility um introducing all of these these California natives.

[02:10:03] Melinda: And the last slide shows you kind of the the icing on the cake, which is not just in the demonstration gardens, but across the entire site, 50% of all our plantings are California natives. And it will be a delight and um education to all visitors. And we are very excited to serve the community with this space. And with that, I will turn it over to Kurt with residential architecture.

[02:10:34] Kurt: Thank you Melinda, um, and thank you commissioners. So if you could go onto the next slide, um, I'd like to talk about the architectural vision for the residential buildings tonight.

[02:10:46] Kurt: So the, the Garden District is really the primary design element for this entire project, and the role of the residential buildings is to shape, define, and really activate the gardens and public open spaces of the Garden District itself.

[02:11:03] Kurt: This diagram illustrates that the Garden District has a variety of open spaces from uh a formal large POPA park to more informal gardens and courtyards.

[02:11:16] Kurt: The residential buildings all differ in their materials and forms to support each unique landscape feature to create richness and variety throughout this entire district. Um, I also want to point out that we worked very extensively uh with staff to make many of the refinements to the architecture and we appreciate their feedback very much. Uh, next slide please.

[02:11:39] Kurt: This is an aerial view looking south from Middlefield Road towards the five residential uh buildings on the left side of the screen. The residential architecture really varies from very urban at the park to softer forms in the linear park and the internal courtyards.

[02:12:00] Kurt: We're also creating what we're calling a three-dimensional landscape so the gardens don't just exist on the ground plane, but also exist on upper levels of the buildings, including a large roof terrace um overlooking the park with an amenity pavilion that you can see kind of in the center of the screen.

[02:12:19] Kurt: Next slide please. So starting with uh a view of the the park from Middlefield, the park is really located at the key corner along Middlefield Road and is primarily the gateway to the project.

[02:12:36] Kurt: So the residential architecture at the park is urban in form and defines the park edges and uh and as a large public uh gathering space.

[02:12:47] Kurt: The heights of the building also vary to create different overlooks and setbacks on the building that um overlooks the park and supports this idea of a three-dimensional landscape because we have plantings on upper levels and and outdoor spaces on upper levels of the buildings.

[02:13:07] Kurt: Next slide please. So these are some focal views of the residential buildings at the park itself. The image on the left highlights uh the main entry to the residential buildings.

[02:13:20] Kurt: The main entrance faces the park as well as Middlefield uh Road to activate this important key corner. The south end of the park on the right uh image is activated by ground floor retail commercial spaces that project from the main uh uh mass of the residential buildings to be a focal point at the southern edge of the uh of the park.

[02:13:44] Kurt: A trellis feature adjacent to the retail space also uh uh compliments that southern edge of the uh POPA park. Next slide please.

[02:13:58] Kurt: Moving on to the linear park, um the residential architecture character changes significantly at the linear park to reflect its unique features.

[02:14:09] Kurt: Uh, on the left, the residential buildings are creating an urban room that we call the crossing, which is where the linear park and the residential upper podium gardens intersect with each other.

[02:14:23] Kurt: This is the most public area of the linear park and um also in the distance on that view you see the the rise landscape feature at the office building.

[02:14:36] Kurt: Conversely, the linear park becomes much softer and more residential in character at its eastern end uh heading toward Ferguson Drive. The architecture also becomes more residential in scale where the uh base of the building is designed with two-story townhouses lining the linear park with wood look siding, bay windows, and raised stoops.

5.2 203986 675-685 E. Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Development Project

[03:30:57] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, sir. If there are not further public comments in person, I would ask the clerk do we have anybody online that wishes to speak?

[03:31:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, we have three speakers online. Um, the first speaker will be Bruce England.

[03:31:13] Bruce England: Thank you. Um, I'm Bruce England. I live on Whisman Station Drive, and I'm a member of Green Spaces Mountain View and Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, uh, but not speaking officially for either of those organizations tonight. There's a lot of detail here, and I'm not going to take too much of your time. And I'm going to listen back to this because there was just I did not I wasn't able to absorb everything that you all have talked about, and you still haven't gotten into deliberations yet.

[03:31:41] Bruce England: Um, I'll do a few comments for you. I want to echo pretty much what Bill Lambert was talking about with how park space is handled. Certainly want to see no use of artificial turf in any of those places and not have them overly programmed. They should be areas where a variety of activities can take place, and honoring biodiversity and wildlife and all of those kinds of things are really important to people in Mountain View.

[03:32:06] Bruce England: So, some of these things you might have already talked about and I maybe missed, but I assume much of the reason for removing heritage trees is due to where they are in the parking areas. So I urge you to do all that you can to keep as many existing trees as possible. Um, Mountain View is currently working on their new biodiversity strategy and urban forest plan. One key aspect of the plan the community has advocated for is protection of trees and an increase in our overall tree canopy.

[03:32:30] Bruce England: Second, I've got four comments. I urge you to establish lighting policies on the project that honor best practices related to dark skies. Mountain View will soon be developing new ordinances on this, but they aren't there in place yet. You can find information about best practices through organizations such as the International Dark Sky Association to help you get an early start on this. Note that many locations in Mountain View have already taken steps to reduce lighting levels from where they had been.

[03:32:56] Bruce England: Uh, already mentioned artificial turf, and lastly, I hope that you will be using solar and heat pump technology for energy purposes across the project facilities, and as close to 100% as possible if you do. Thanks for your time.

[03:33:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker is uh Judy.

[03:33:25] Judy: Hi, thanks for your time. I am a resident of Revella, and I do not speak for Revella in any way, but I've lived here a couple of years, and uh, really appreciate this community and appreciate your um, contribution to it.

[03:33:41] Judy: Um, thanks for pointing out that each resident of each uh building can't access the other buildings' amenities, because that helped clear out some of the confusion that was mentioned earlier. And as a resident of Revella, I again I'm not speaking for the management, and we had that gentleman speak earlier, I was confused by the assumption that the um linear park does in fact line up to the um breezeway between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Revella.

[03:34:20] Judy: Um, as it stands now, on the other side of that wall there are parking spaces which are fully utilized by Revella residents and Revella's own landscaping that has been established over the years, or the couple of years that Revella has been in existence.

[03:34:38] Judy: And then I also wanted to um follow up on the Councilwoman's comments about that pathway along Ferguson Drive with the heritage trees. And I am one of those people who uses that pathway often, um preferring to stay underneath the trees, and I've seen a lot of people use that versus the sidewalk as well, whether they're walking dogs or cats (yes, someone walks their cat on that path), or um or just walking themselves.

[03:35:10] Judy: So I just wanted to make sure that if those trees are removed, and I know you've mentioned a lot of um substitute trees, um that the sidewalk is maintained, that it's maintained safely, that it's lit, and that there is covering, um shade covering on that sidewalk as well.

[03:35:32] Judy: And as the representative from Revella mentioned earlier, um that there's safe crossing of pass... um of pedestrians on that very busy way, if there are two entry and exit points in parallel um from the two communities, because there is a lot of foot traffic along that way as well. Thank you so much.

[03:36:11] Tracy Ferea: Hello. I'm uh Dr. Tracy Ferreira, I've got a PhD in biology, and I'm a 24-year Mountain View resident. I want to say I really like the garden design, but um as a biologist, in order for it to really be sustainable, it needs to be 70% native plants and trees. Um so I'd appreciate the city working towards that as a goal to sustain all of us in the long term.

[03:36:42] Tracy Ferea: Um, the heritage trees, I really appreciate having tall heritage trees, they're important to our community, and I'd like us to be thinking when we're having a building site, of building around them and incorporating them rather than taking them down. I do like that they're going to put more trees in, but you know, I might not even be alive by the time they're uh removing as much CO2 as uh the trees that are there now, and um providing as much shade.

[03:37:18] Tracy Ferea: So I just like to be thinking about those things more and more as a city, we, as we're building so quickly. And I understand the housing needs and stuff, but as we're building so quickly, please, I ask you to really be deliberating about these and staff to be taking that into consideration: building around the trees and providing environment that's sustainable for us all. Um, thank you for all your time.

[03:37:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, um, I'll be uh expeditious. Um, I uh I am very pro-housing. I would, I always go for as much as we can get, um I think people would agree with that. Um, my colleagues would agree with that. And yet, um, as I'm looking at this, uh, you know, we have uh policies in place as a city. We have development standards, we have requirements.

[03:38:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and and for me, um, you know, when I look at, you know, what staff is saying here, hey, if you're going to do an offsite um alternative mitigation, the requirement is 20%. Um, and this is not 20%. This is 18% in a standalone building with some, like, 12 million situation uh dollar going on there. Um, personally, I think that um, you know, if it's not going to be compliant, if it's not meeting 20%, if we have to, you know, squint and try to, you know, find ways to um add conditions of approval to to make it work out, then, I don't know, that um there's there's clarity in the values that led to the policies we have in place, right?

[03:39:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, unless our City Council that comes in in January changes it, right now, you know, one of our uh city goals is still to build an inclusive community for all. Um, so for me, you know, as as much as, looking at that added 3% you know, could be a a nice thing to to strive for, um personally I would say let's just go for the inclusionary 15% to be quite honest. Um, equal access to pools, equal denial to pools. Um, I'm I'm absolutely comfortable with that.

[03:39:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, you know, failing that, um I do think that the conditions of approval that staff um has come up with um with regard to the delivery of the units um is um is is something I would go for. But um again given that it's not 20%, which is the requirement for an offsite, um my um my inclination is um I I'm I'd like to see the 15% inclusionary as as part of the ultimate approval of this project.

[03:40:23] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Nuñez. I see Commissioner Clark has his hand up.

[03:40:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so overall I think, um, since having visited this site, I I think this is a uh, at a very high level, a much uh, uh, a much improved uh utilization of this site. I I think you know we're talking about, while there's an office component to this, we're talking about um office and housing uh plus affordable housing, and um just better utilizing the not just better utilizing the site, but also um, you know there is a, while there are some mature trees there, there's a dearth of canopy right now, and I I think longer term having uh a much better canopy there and a much better utilization of the site um in a more environmentally sustainable manner is is valuable.

[03:41:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think um, you know, I I'm not sure how to craft the right recommendation to Council here, so I'll just share my my general thoughts. Like I I'm overall uh supportive of the staff recommendation and finding a a way to move forward, because I know um the current environment is a little bit more challenging than it was a few years ago. Um, but I do think there need to be appropriate incentive structures in place.

[03:41:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, you know, I think we need to recognize especially coming out of an inflationary environment that, you know, several million dollars delivered um several years from now is a very different amount than it would be delivered um you know a year or two from now. And so, to the extent that we can put incentive structures in place to where, um, you know, if those funds aren't delivered by, you know, maybe maybe we we move forward with the applicant's request um to deliver them at a later time, but there is an escalation factor associated with that, like I think we've used with other um fees that we've had in the in the past in the city, so that there is some sort of equivalency in you know the amount that we're getting uh you know on paper or looking at today uh is is much more equivalent to what that those funds might be worth four years from now if that ends up being when they're when they're delivered.

[03:42:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think we just need to um, I think we need to factor that in. I think the other thing is, um, and I I realize there are logistical uh perhaps logistical difficulties with this, but at the end of the day, I I think it's very awkward even though it is a standalone structure, um and technically an offsite um BMR uh uh building, it's very awkward uh to have residents there who can't access certain amenities uh when they're on basically the same set of parcels uh as um as others.

[03:43:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: It really creates just an awkward environment and I I think it's fundamentally a little bit unfair. And I'm not talking about access to you know multiple stories of other buildings or roof decks or other things like that, but I think it's it's really a a very easy access control integration to allow folks to access ground floor amenities, whether it's a fitness center (we want our community to be healthy), um I you know I feel less strongly about things like pools and other things, but I think very basic amenities that aren't available uh really closely nearby like fitness facilities are are pretty easy to to integrate into a single site.

[03:43:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: So um, I have that's that's uh those are a handful of thoughts. Also the um, as a few folks have raised, um the proximity of the ingress and egress uh between the various projects on Ferguson, um just making sure that that we that staff takes a look at that and figuring out how we can um to the best of best ways possible um protect uh pedestrians uh you know who are who are going down pathways or sidewalks there I think is really important.

[03:44:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I think the the bottom line here is that I'm overall supportive of the project. I think this will at the end of the day be a much better use of of this site um and we're moving toward our housing our our goals especially with respect to affordable housing and market rate housing, and it'll be a um and our canopy and other goals.

[03:44:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, I think we just need to work out the nuances here and ensure that the right incentive structures are in place to uh uh to make sure that the the city is is getting what we um if not um exactly what's uh what's in the current ordinance um something very, very close to it um so that we we enable this to happen, um uh but we also um are are doing our best to uh

Gap between 'Segment 6' and 'Segment 6'

[03:45:11] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, excuse me, sorry. Thank you, Chair. I like coffee. My grandfather when he was, when I was little, he's from Mexico, from Monterrey, a self-taught man, he introduced me to coffee at a young age, too young. And so then he added some milk, and I thought this is, this is awesome. This is great. I'm feeling different here.

[03:45:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: And then I realized as I got older, I went to this place called Starbucks and I was like, okay, and I'm a US resident so I know what these things are, right? But I went from a basic coffee with milk to standing in front of someone in front of me, I was behind them and they were in front of me, they were ordering a coffee, decaf, 2% milk, no sugar, no cream, but yes on the cinnamon, and I don't know what else.

[03:46:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: I don't know how you do it. I don't know how you do it. And I'm getting an idea of how we're trying to get it done.

[03:46:11] Chair José Gutiérrez: Everyone is asking of everyone, I need this, I need that, I expect this, I expect that. For me, this just goes to show us that even though this discussion has been long and I know some of us don't want to be here at this hour, I get it. But this is why the system's kind of broken and why it's kind of cool at the same time.

[03:46:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Because this is the arena where it happens. You're all expecting these questions, you're prepared. You know what it is that we're looking for, at least some of us here. By now you know what Alex is going to say or think, or me, or Chair Dempsey, and others. You know what the City Council is going to think, too. You can count the votes. They can count the votes.

[03:46:48] Chair José Gutiérrez: We have a guesstimate as to what may happen, but sometimes we're off. I like this because at least we're honest with each other, right? My understanding of the trend for construction is, one, it's expensive. Affordable housing is much more expensive. My humble experience with doing teacher housing back then, a few years back, the market was so different.

[03:47:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: We got a bang for our buck for 50 to 80 million to build 120-something units, a separate stand-alone building in conjunction with another developer to try and look at that. And the difference here is that those amenities were open to them, are open to them. Here, the trend's been wherever you're at, that's what you get in terms of amenities.

[03:47:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: That's the way the trend's been going in the Bay Area and in other parts of California. So it's all, it goes all to the price point of where you're, it's all about location, location, location. Wherever you're at in within that community, that's going to be big, it's going to offer different types of amenities because that's what's going to go towards the price point.

[03:47:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: The more you have, the more it may be. And there's restrictions, because you're not all going to share. It's not like back in the days like at the Oakwoods, where you had multiple pools and amenities that were shared by everyone. Now, the market is a little bit more strict and it's tougher. Therefore, expensive, and therefore, tougher to finance, especially when you look at the affordable housing component.

[03:48:04] Chair José Gutiérrez: So what I'm trying to say is that we're all doing the best we can to try and get the most out of what we need. My urgency here is I don't have that much time here. I've got a couple of years left, so I'm trying to make the best that I can of the time that I have working with my colleagues. So in summation, I urge you, the staff, let's learn from all this.

[03:48:24] Chair José Gutiérrez: You've heard what our perspectives are when you look at this project. In terms of retail space, in terms of encouragement of dialogue with the developer as to what's expected, what would be liked. What can we get more bang for our buck to help our folks out that are going to be in the below-market-rate units? What's close to them that's going to be advantageous for them to want to apply there and live there, right?

[03:48:48] Chair José Gutiérrez: What's feasible, what's not feasible with park space? What does that look like in terms of open space? And you all, at the same time, you're setting the pace and the trend, but you're getting hit from everyone. What is it that you can do better? Because you're always going to elevate your game, or else you're not in the market, you're not in the business. You're not going to make the money, you're not going to get the publicity.

[03:49:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: So we have to work together better to try and meet those expectations. Not just for the folks that we're trying to meet and help for these affordable market rate units, but also to understand what's feasible within the constructs of the city. What's expected as a mandate and what's not. And then to figure out from our perspective, can you please mute that? Thank you.

[03:49:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: And from our end, to try and figure out what it is that we contribute that can add to the discourse of this, so it'll be a lot quicker, a lot efficient, and less time-consuming. Because in the end, time is money. We had a builder's remedy project that came in here because, oh my god, after five or seven years of going back and forth with the city, nothing was done.

[03:49:49] Chair José Gutiérrez: I'm not going to blame the person for coming back now and saying, this is what I'm going to do. I just don't want more of that to happen. So we've got to make the most of the time that we have with the presentations that we get, with the projects that we have, to try the best we can to do added value. And I think that's what we're doing here now.

[03:50:06] Chair José Gutiérrez: I'll support the project. Um, and, and, and with that, I appreciate your time and yours as well, and yours. But we're all in this together, and it's sometimes ugly, but in the end, hopefully, we get to a better spot, because that's just the way the system is right now. Thanks.

Gap between 'Segment 6' and 'Segment 7'

[04:16:07] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: But to Mr. Murdock, do you feel like you have heard from us enough options that you would know how to go forward if we ended up supporting this, just we'd support the staff recommendation? I'm open to hearing from other folks if they want to try to modify it, but I think I don't know what we would modify it to, and it's getting late. So the question is, if we just supported the staff recommendation generally with the understanding that it sounds like, and I am open to being corrected here, it sounds like we are generally in support of this, but there are some edges we'd like to see sanded down. Do you feel like you have enough guidance from this conversation that you would know how to move forward in a way that was useful?

[04:16:52] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Commissioners. My voice is a little off this evening, so I've held back a little more than I normally would to weigh in. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. I think we need clearer guidance from the commission as to the recommendation that it's putting forward to council. I think if I were to try to frame this, we have the opportunity to exceed the 15% with 18% of units and get another 2% and $12 million to put towards the coffer of affordable housing funding for the city. And that could potentially unlock a whole other project or projects in a way that brings online yet even more affordable housing units. And I don't know if that's been weighed enough in this conversation tonight, that you get 18% versus 15% at this site, and you get $12 million that could unlock more than the 18 unit equivalent in some other project and actually bring it online. And so to me, that's a very valuable component in this tradeoff that's being considered. I think the other aspect that might be worth the commission exploring is, I mean, if you were to boil it down, I feel like it's a question of, applicant, would you rather build the project with the standalone BMR building? Or let me rephrase. Would you rather build a 15% integrated building, or the standalone building and let the people go to the swimming pool? And so it might be a question worth exploring in those direct, frank terms with the applicant. It seems like they've expressed an ability to construct both projects. They have a preference for reasons I think I understand for why they want to build the standalone BMR building. But as you're looking at this alternative mitigation and whether these units are roughly equivalent, you know, as that term of art is used in the program, I think that needs to be explored a little bit more, and maybe that would be enough to get the applicant over the edge if there's a way to do that to provide that more equivalent access to amenities and get them the project that's closest to what they actually want to build.

[04:19:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Looks like we've got some questions from the commissioners. Joyce. Commissioner Yin.

[04:19:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, this was an old one. I should have removed my name. Sorry.

[04:19:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Take that off. Commissioner Cranston, did you have a fresh comment?

[04:19:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Well, more of a proposal for a motion.

[04:19:23] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I'm intrigued. Do we well, let me ask this, do we need to should we straw poll a couple of things and then and then move forward? I think we need to wrap this up and get people home, but.

[04:19:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess from what I heard, I thought maybe I could frame something that might capture what people are...

[04:19:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Go for it.

[04:19:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Dempsey, forgive me, Commissioner Clark has raised his hand.

[04:19:45] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Oh, I apologize, I did not see that. Commissioner Clark, please, go ahead.

[04:19:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, it was, it was really just to chime in and say, um, I agree with the, I agree with the uh with the director. I think, for me, I think the standalone option makes the most sense. Prometheus has been in our community long enough, and Chair you mentioned this too, like they know our values. Um, I'm hoping that they can find some way um to ensure that, um, you know, their access to basic amenities. Um, I think we probably have different values in terms of, you know, as commissioners, in terms of whether it's pools or fitness facilities or whatever. And I'm not talking about upper level stuff, it's really just the ground floor amenities which I think will go a long way in terms of integrating everything into our community. And the other thing that I mentioned earlier was just uh time value of money. I'm not looking to hold anything over um Prometheus in terms of time that the city spends reviewing uh, you know, permit applications or other things. It's, it's really just that scenario where this sits for multiple years um, and it's at the applicant's discretion as opposed to, you know, time that the city is taken to review things. Um, but, um, hopefully, hopefully staff has, based on the, what we received from the applicant in the last 24 hours or so, hopefully we can craft some sort of um recommendation to council to uh, to uh, to move everything forward.

[04:21:16] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Cranston, you had a suggestion.

[04:21:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So what I was going to propose is that we adopt the staff report, but with specific instructions to staff to discuss the timing of the alternative mitigation as proposed by the applicant in their items 110 and 111, to work with the applicant on an additional condition of approval for the shared use of the parking spaces, and to investigate some option for dealing with shared amenities across the spaces.

[04:22:01] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Um, may I hold that in abeyance for a moment? I just want to see what Commissioner Nuñez had to say. I want to make sure we get all the conversation done before we actually start motion crafting. But Commissioner Nuñez, go ahead.

[04:22:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Chair Dempsey. Um, for me it'd be simple, um, to some extent. Um, I heard a majority um, kind of inclination toward support of going with the straight 15%. I understand that there's funding and other kind of considerations here. Um, when you finished that last comment Chair Dempsey by saying, oh no one wants to hear me say that at the end, and yet I thought you put it beautifully when you said it's not an economics um situation. Um, I you used a much more artful word than situation. But, um, that really resonated with me. Um, I would say personally, I would um make it really clear and simple on ourselves by recommending that we just go with the 15%. Um, and failing that, um, this draft condition number 111 around the um fully constructed and delivered, that feels like a good fallback option to me, but um, I would say um proposing simplifying it and um seeing if there's majority support for proceeding with just the 15% inclusionary.

[04:23:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, the comments don't change my view.

[04:23:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Should we uh so is that a motion?

[04:23:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah. I mean I would move that we move with the staff report, with specific guidance to staff to work on a modification to the COA for items 110, 111, um specifically dealing with the time value of the 12 million, and to uh include a condition on shared use of the parking structures and potential shared use of amenities.

[04:24:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the motion would be to approve the staff report with specific guidance for staff to work with the applicant on incorporation of, addressing their proposed changes to item 110 and 111, understanding that the time value of the transfer of funds would need to be taken into account. Then an additional condition of approval be added that they would work with the developer for the office space for shared parking, and that they also work with the applicant on crafting some language on potential shared use of amenities across the properties.

[04:25:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So... it seems to me like in sequential format, that would be approving or an affirmative vote for the 18%.

[04:25:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: That would remain an option. Yes.

[04:25:37] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes. It doesn't remove it as an option.

[04:25:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay cool. Um, I guess I'm not comfortable with the motion, not that I'm, you know, one of seven here, but um, it would be nice to get a sense of like straw polling this, um, you know, to the extent that we do want to, and again sentiments can shift so I'm open to that, um, to the extent I think I heard majority support for a simpler 15% approach, I would want to know if that sentiment did shift. Um, or yeah, so if we move forward with the motion then that would be...

[04:26:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: The motion was properly made and seconded, so that's the thing that we do next. I think your question will get answered based on the vote on this. I think it will become abundantly clear quickly.

[04:26:37] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, before I go to a vote, I really do want to confirm with staff that this was clear enough direction for them that they know what to do with it.

[04:26:46] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. I think um I understand the intent. I think some aspects of the motion will will need to be researched further as to their feasibility, but we can carry that forward to the maximum extent our research allows in the council recommendation.

[04:27:17] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Right, it's it's a little vague by design. So, if that's uh, if that's sufficient for staff, Mr. Murdock, if you you nod your head and give me a green light, then we can we'll take a vote on it.

[04:27:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's sufficient. Can we just confirm the seconder of the motion please?

[04:27:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: That uh, the second to that was uh, Vice Chair Gutierrez. Motion made by Mr. Cranston.

[04:27:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Any further comments on this before we take a vote? Mr. Donahue.

[04:27:42] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, so uh, never let it be said that we're not a deliberative body. Um, so some of the some of the comments, uh, I just want to explain the vote I'm about to make. Uh, some of the comments that have been made since I made my comments, Commissioner Cranston in particular, uh, the director, um, I'm going to support the motion.

[04:28:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Specifically for staff to update, to review the proposal by the applicant and look at the incorporation of that to the extent and make sure ensuring that any time value of money associated with it is taken into account when the 12 million is paid, and its value when its paid.

[04:28:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So yes it would be part of that same discussion for staff to work out the details.

[04:29:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was going to say that earlier I did say my personal feeling was that we do the inclusionary, however given that they have the right to put forth either one and I do not know what's going on in the larger sense of what the city is looking for in terms of money for funding and what's coming, that I'm going to leave it to council. But my personal opinion is 15% um inclusionary, so I don't know how that gets worded, but if you want to just add that in, but the vote, I would support um Commissioner Cranston's motion.

• ← Previous
• Next →