City of Mountain View, CA Environmental Planning Commission Meetings, 2 Nov 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 Meeting of City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission

Description

Live Teleconference of the Meeting of City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission of November 2, 2022

A

Video conference with no physical meeting location members of public wishing to observe the meeting May do so live at Mountain view.lightingstar.com on YouTube, at mountainview.gov YouTube and on Comcast channel 26..

A

As noted in the meeting agenda, members of public May provide oral public comments during the public comment period of an item by joining the zoom webinar with a webinar ID of.

A

853-0070-5240 emails and voicemail messages received by the by the staff by 5 PM word forwarded to the EPC. All votes will be taken by a roll call vote on ask the EPC clerk to call the role Mr Joe.

B

All right, commissioner Clark here, commissioner Dempsey here, commissioner Gutierrez here, commissioner haymar here, commissioner Nunez here Vice chair in here, chair Creston,.

C

B

All Commissioners are here.

A

First on the next admin agenda, is the minutes uh we'll be reviewing the minutes from August 17th and October 19th 2022 meetings?

A

um Do any Commissioners have any comments or questions I'd like to discuss on the minutes as they were distributed.

A

uh We'll open up to public comment would any member on the line like to comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand, button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. You clerk will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. If you have anyone wishing to speak on the minutes,.

B

um I, don't see anyone raised hand, no, no one.

A

All right and we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and emotion.

A

Any of the above professional emotion.

A

Understand your mind.

D

Sure um can we do them together.

A

D

Wanted to make sure it's been a little while um I moved to adopt the August 17th and October 19th 2022 meeting minutes as submitted by staff in the staff report.

A

And vegetarian I.

E

Will second that motion.

A

Umizo, can you take the world.

B

Commissioner Clark hi, commissioner Dempsey.

F

B

Commissioner Gutierrez aye commissioner haymeier hi, commissioner Nunes aye Vice chair in aye and share question.

A

B

Motion carries unanimously.

A

All right so we'll move on to item s, World Communications, this portion of meaning of reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on a matter that is not on the agenda. This evening, speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on any non-agenda item when memory any member of the public. On the line like to provide comment on a non-agenda item. If so, please click the raise pen button in Zoom or press star.

A

Nine in your phone phone users commute and unmute themselves by pressing star six EPC clerk will start the timer to let you know when your time is up hey. Do we have anyone wishing to speak in open communication.

B

um I, don't see anyone from the public race hand.

B

You know what no one here.

A

And we'll bring it back to the commission item number five point: one is a public hearing on affordable housing development at 1265, Montecito Avenue. First, do any Commissioners wish to make any disclosures regarding the applicant or site visits, Kristen Gutierrez.

G

Thank you, sir I met with Diablo Canton I also did a drive-by. Thank you.

A

D

Met with the applicant and also visited the site and I should say, I attended in 2021, um just as an observer. The original hearing, unless or I'm, not hearing about public comments session.

E

um I did meet with the uh proposing oh geez, the person who is proposing and I didn't visit the site, but I have been there in the past and I Google walked it.

A

uh Commissioner, Dempsey.

F

I met with the applicant online and I checked out the site online I've also been there a million times.

A

H

I had a chance to meet with the applicant.

A

Crystal Clark.

I

um I've been to the site a few times, I believe I I didn't meet with the applicant um this time around, but I believe I've met with them before um when they were originally proposing. This a few years ago,.

A

Tiffany and I met briefly with the applicant and I drive by the site at least once a week, so I've seen it quite a bit. So um so we will start with a presentation from Edgar maravia senior planner and Rebecca Shapiro Deputy zoning administrator.

J

Yes, thank you. Let me go ahead and bring up the presentation.

J

Okay, that should be up good evening, chair planning, Commissioners and members of the public. My name is Edgar Maravilla senior planner for the city of Mountain View and today I'm here to present a 100, affordable housing project at 1265, Montecito Avenue.

J

The project parcel is located on the south corner of Montecito Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard. It is an exterior parcel of approximately 1.04 acres and has an existing 12 300 square foot vacant two-story office building, which is proposed to be redeveloped into an 85 unit, 100, affordable housing project, the parcel surrounded by multiple uses, including a shopping center, anchored by a Safeway grocery store to the north, a three-story multi-family residential project to the South, a self-car wash to the East and a two-story multi-family residential project to the West.

J

This is a noful project that was allocated City funds and therefore has gone through two additional meetings, as shown in the slide. The project was presented at the neighbor was presented at a neighborhood meeting on January 14 2021, presented to the nofa Review Committee on June 7 2021, presented to city council for funding reservations on June 22 2021, presented at two development review committee meetings held on November 2021 and July 2022. Today's environmental Planning Commission meeting and city council is tentatively scheduled for December 6 2022.

J

project is a 100, affordable housing project proposing 85 units. The site has an existing General plan, designation of neighborhood commercial in a zoning designation of CN neighborhood commercial, not allowing for residential uses to allow residential uses. The applicant is requesting a general plan map amendment to high density residential and a Zony map amendment to R4 high density residential. The project has also been processed by way of a developer view. Permit a Heritage tree removal permit to remove six Heritage trees located within the proposed building footprint in the bio retention areas.

J

Further the project was also reviewed by way of an initial study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

J

Here's the side plan parking for the site is provided in an at grade, Podium garage level tucked behind the building area, with a race entry Plaza along the Montecito Avenue Frontage vehicle access to the garage is provided via single driveway entrance to and from Montecito Avenue along the Westerly property line. The project includes a bicycle room facing North Shoreline Boulevard, allowing for easy access shown in blue.

J

There are also several open space amenities, including a small gathering space with a barbecue area in the southwest corners shown in Orange, a children's play array and other smaller amenity space shown in yellow these spaces are connected via exterior stairs to a larger landscape, Podium Courtyard. On the second level, the project also includes off-site sidewalk upgrades, specifically, the sidewalk width will be extended from 5 feet to 10 feet to accommodate landscape and 10 new Street trees shown in purple.

J

The project was reviewed by the development Review Committee and recommended for approval with two conditions that is to fill in the void left by the removal of the balconies to meet fire clearance and to work with staff to provide a high quality smooth.

J

Stucco finish, overall, the design is a simple modern design, with a mix of six primary materials which include stucco, horizontal fiber, cement, siding vertical cement, siding cedar, siding decorative metal panels and accent Steel in limited locations such as the project Frontage, the color palette is primarily white gray and a warmer orange color, with a brighter red accent, color employed at key locations.

J

Overall, the project is compliant with the applicable R4 zonium regulations pursuant to prohibitions of the state density bonus law, the R4 standards allow up to 80 units per acre and 84 units per the parcel size. The project is proposing 85 units, one more than the allowed City density. For that reason, the applicant is requesting a 1.2 percent State density bonus. Additionally per state density, bonus law, the project qualifies for four incentives, flash concessions and unlimited waivers. The project is only requesting one concession: to provide: no additional personal storage.

J

The proposed unit will include bedroom closet and some units have additional common area closets, but no additional personal storage would be provided.

J

The project site is located within half a mile of a major Transit stop, and that is the downtown Transit Center, thereby qualifies for a state density bonus parking requirement which are half a space per unit. This project is only required to provide 44 parking spaces and they are providing 45. again. Overall, the project is compliant with the applicable R4, selenium regulations pursuant to prohibitions of the state density, bonus law.

J

With that said, here's the formal recommendation, as shown on the staff report staff recommends the environmental Planning Commission recommends to city council that they approve the proposed project, as condition.

J

Thank you, and that concludes staff presentation. More than glad to take questions as a reminder at the project. Applicant team is here and can also assist with answering questions. I also believe they have a presentation.

A

It would be a speaking for the applicant.

K

I I will be I'm marveling I'm, with Charities housing. Also with me, is Kathy Robinson and Edgar I think you're in the controls right. uh If you could also Elevate Joe ahead as a palace I don't see him on here.

K

Should I just go ahead into the presentation. Yeah.

K

All right: can everyone see that yep? Okay, thank you well good evening. Commissioners, first and foremost, I want to thank Edgar, Rebecca and entire planning staff on all their hard work on the project. It's been a journey but I think it's safe to say we're all very happy and with the resulting projects so again, I'm Marvel, Ang, I'm, a senior project manager at charities. Housing here with me, is Kathy Robinson and Joe head from Charities housing and also Kevin bussett from Studio ER architect.

K

Oh it's so here we go. First I'll go over a little bit about Charities housing, so we're Charities housing. Our mission is to develop, preserve own and manage affordable homes.

K

We have we primarily work in the South Bay Area. One thing I would highlight: is we own and manage all of our affordable communities? That's something we take great pride in. You know we build in the community and really become part of the community as we stay with the development. After it's built, um we primarily serve extremely and uh very low income households. Most of our units are restricted, income restricted between zero and fifty percent uh area, median income or Ami.

K

We originally were affiliated with Catholic Charities, but Incorporated in 1993, and so we've been around for a while. uh Our portfolio Carly includes over 1400 homes across 28 properties, and we have 200 construction currently looking to add 100 six more homes, and you know over the next some odd years we are looking to add a thousand plus more homes throughout the South Bay. Apparently.

K

So this is a map of all of our affordable communities. As you can see, we're all over the South Bay Area, primarily in Santa Clara County, uh you can see we have projects in San, Jose, Santa, Clara, Campbell, Los Gatos. You know Sunnyvale new Mountain View, uh you know really all over the South Bay uh next I'll present a few project examples.

K

So Studio e, as I mentioned, is the architect on the project. We have been working with Studio e for 15 years now it's been a very successful Pro partnership.

K

We've built nine 100, affordable housing projects uh over the Bay Area, and here are some pictures of a few of those projects, and I will highlight two uh next that we've worked with Studio e, the first being The Veranda. This one is in Cupertino. He completed this in 2019, it's three stories: 18 Studio units, there's six housing units or psh. The affordability range is between 38 Ami. This is actually the first project to be funded and completed. The measure rate bond funding the next Studio e project. The second one I mentioned is the Metropolitan.

K

This one is in San Jose. It is a large family project completed in 2018 in two phases. It's four stories with 102 homes and as a large family project. You know, 50 of the units are two and three bedrooms and there's an affordability range between 30 to 60 percent am I, and the last Charities project example I'll present to you tonight is San Antonio place. This one is right here in Mountain View. We completed this in 2006, it's three stories: 120 Studio units, 40 PSA units uh between 15 to 45, Ami and cougar restrictions.

K

uh So I'll briefly go over a few project highlights you know: Edgar did a great job going over it, but, as you know, it's a 100, affordable project, 85 units. uh One thing I highlight is it's a large family project, something we're very happy to be able to present to you. So that means we have 21 two bedrooms and 21 three bedrooms. uh We're very excited about that. As we know it's in need, there is 84, affordable homes and we're looking at income. Restrictions between 30 to 60 percent am I.

K

The target population is going to be families of children's children, extremely in very low income households, and we are anticipating having 42 rapid rehousing units in the project through the County's measure, a funding uh just a few amenities to highlight here. You know we have a good amount of common and private open space with residents to enjoy large community grow. You know ground floor on-site, laundry, indoor, secured bike, parking on-site, Property, Management Services office and the last bullet. Here you know it's, it's a really great location.

K

It's right across the street from Safeway it's a half mile from a lot of amenities, putting public transit auctions, bus routes, uh VTA, Light, Rail, Orange, Line, Caltrain, Parks Pharmacy. You know an elementary school oops uh right by the farmers market and Castro Street and a lot of Community Resources such as a community service agency. It's it's a you know, it's really just a wonderful site in terms of sustainable strategies. These are our typical strategies. uh You know we recently committed to building all 100 electric buildings.

K

In my honesty to uh is included, we look to provide rooftop solar panels, drought tolerated plants, stable finishes, BB charging stations, secured bike, parking, alternate Transportation methods and ultimately, we pursue an equivalent to weed gold and and Green Point gold rating work pattern and at all of our developments, are our residents uh receive services from Catholic Charities on the right here you can see a very Abridged list of services they provide. We also strive to have food delivery at our sites and for our special needs residents.

K

We have Supportive Services through our supporters service provider or through the county, depending on the structure of the projects, and with that I'll hand it off to Kevin our architect, who will go over the project designer.

L

Thank you very much Marvel and the good evening. Commissioners uh Edgar did a pretty good job explaining the site, so I'll try and go over some of the details. uh This is again 1265 Montecito. It's bordered on the west by a two-story apartment, building to the South by a three-story apartment, building and Safeway across the street, uh and the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard.

L

The masking strategy for this project was to identify the maximum zoning envelope, which is a 60-foot height limit, with 15-foot setbacks on all four sides and then to arrange a L-shaped bar of double loaded units along the north and west property lines. And then the key move to reduce the bulk and scale of the building was to split that into two which allowed us to increase the density and also created an opportunity to run landscaping and open space through the center of the site.

L

The two halves of the building are connected by an aerial bridge that spans the level 2 landscape, Podium, there's an entry Plaza and a rear open space.

L

At the back and over the last two years, we've worked with City staff to further refine the design and articulate the facade with recessed private balconies parapits that step in and out and up and down bay windows facing the street Frontage lowered building volumes at the corners to better relate to the lower scale existing buildings on Montecito, including four-story volumes at the driveway and at the North Shoreline intersection, and further. We added uh decorative screens uh awning overhangs and accent, siding materials.

L

This is a view of the finished project showing all those elements together. uh You can see again decorative screens, Eve overhangs uh parapet, stepping in and out and up and down the accent volumes that are clad in a vertical staggered: uh fiber cement, Batten siding painted with an accent red oxide color.

L

There is cedar colored lap, siding at the back side of all the private awnings or private balconies. Excuse me, the balcony railings have a custom pattern of decorative sheet metal and you can see new Street trees and uh Parkway along the Montecito Avenue Frontage.

L

On the driveway side, you can see that we've employed the same strategies to reduce the bulk and scale and add Rhythm, where the building faces the two-story apartments and uh lower density residential to the West. And you can see that the main uh strategy for storm water retention and treatment is a stormwater Garden along the Montecito sidewalk, which will have planting and low planting to create a buffer between the common spaces. On the sidewalk.

L

This is a typical upper level floor plan, showing the unit disposition with a combination of Studios one two and three bedroom units. You can see the bridge in the center and this is the level two Podium plan showing the uh planted podium.

L

And then, at the ground floor we have tucked the parking into the middle of the site and screened it with a combination of uh cast in Place Ford, formed concrete decorative screens and put a bar of common spaces, including the common room offices, Property Management, Lobby and mail along the front, the front of the site to activate the Montecito Avenue Frontage. There's an entry Plaza off Montecito.

L

You can see the bike storage to the left or the right of the entry Plaza and behind that is the at grade managers unit with a private patio and its own entry porch at the very rear of the site. You see the rear play area with the on-site laundry room immediately, adjacent for supervising children and all the utilities are pushed to the very back of the site at the end of the driveway, including trash uh electric rooms and fire pumps. Mechanical.

L

These are eye level perspectives along Montecito likely from the Safeway parking lot again. You can see the architectural strategy to bring the eye down through the use of projecting awnings over the balconies. Para pits that step in and out to modulate the roof line, um attention plate paid to transparency along the ground floor, especially at the community room where there's large, uh double glazed french doors um and also the idea of creating a welcoming entry, patio or entry Plaza. Excuse me.

L

This is a close-up view of the entry Plaza showing an accessible uh ramp up to the entry door, which also accesses the bike, storage, and you can see a sight stair with an entry trellis welcoming residents and guests in from the street, and both of these elements span over our storm water garden, which is landscaped and provides a landscape Frontage along Montecito.

L

This is a view from Montecito going eastbound towards Shoreline, also showing the stormwater Garden in front of the community room, which has glazed french doors to allow that space to activate the sidewalk.

L

And here's a closer up view of the rear play area with two natural plate features consisting of Boulders and logs on a rubberized surface, and you can see that we've also treated the rear stair with the same care as some of the other volumes on the front facade by cladding it in the staggered vertical Batten siding.

L

And the final image today is a view of the rear of the project from Shoreline, where you can see the same Strategies employed on the back staggered parapets accidents, accent, materials at the receding, portions of the facade, staggered Windows, mixed with stacked windows and stepped down volumes at the corners. Thank you.

A

Yeah, all right so I bring it to the commission for questions or any Commissioners have questions for either staff for the applicant there's been good tears.

G

Hi, thank you for the presentation, so I have a quick question. um What made you go for this type of place structure as opposed to a traditional one,.

L

Well, I think we felt that it was. You know it was nice to make it a little more natural. The idea is that there's also adult play equipment in this area, so this is meant to serve all residents, so we didn't want it to feel like it was specifically for one portion of the resident population.

M

And I would just add chiming chiming in that I believe this was actually a topic of discussion when the project came through for funding authorization with city council and the naturalistic play structure uh idea was something that um got a lot of positive feedback through that process as well.

G

Cool I just want to double check that so that for those of us who want part of the process would know this had been covered and then I finally reminder that maybe about a block away, there's two schools with a lot of actual plate structures and traditional ones as well so I think I think you did a good job on that front. Thank you.

A

Commissioner, Dempsey.

F

Yeah, just two really quick questions.

F

um First question for the applicant I just wanted to ask about closets um if I understand it correctly, that there's not going to be closet space set aside for the units, um I thought that was an interesting choice and I can understand why you would do it because it means you can get more units in there, which means we have some more people. Do any of your other units that you've already built follow the same model where you don't have closets and how has that worked out?

F

um I'm, just sort of curious to know in your experience. What is that meant for uh tenants who live without closets.

K

I can speak a bit to Charities experience. You know the project we do have closets in the bedroom and I think we have uh can we have like coat closets and things to that effect. So there is Storage in the units. uh The concession really is that you know we did not want to um provide the 80 square feet requirement. As you know, in our experience we, you know the amount of storage that we're providing is similar to uh the projects that we have in general, and you know, as I mentioned Studio Ian.

K

We have worked together a lot so this this. This is a design that has worked in our previous projects. It's been adequate uh storage and has a proven track record and, as you alluded to you know, between that and the choice of adding more units reducing overall costs. You know it was pretty clear that this was a concession that made sense.

F

Thank you for clearing that up, I apologize that I had it wrong. um It sounds like you just have kind of smaller than regulation closets, but um so that's fine. Thank you and the last question I had was for staff. There was a.

N

F

Think an email we had gotten from the public. Somebody was worried about jaywalking um I'm curious to know if staff has put any thought into whether there would need to be a mid-block crosswalk. What's the short answer to that.

J

Great question I I did reach out to the public works uh department and get it there Insight on this. uh In this particular case, they did not take into consideration a mid block Crossing, as those are typically placed a minimum of 400 feet from lighted intersections and as there is a light intersection there at the corner of monsito Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard. So that's uh the reason behind that.

A

uh By Stringham.

E

Yes, thank you for the presentation. I just had a couple of questions. um Commissioner Dempsey had brought up the storage and I. Had one question about the storage and I was going to ask the architect um I know you had said that there you felt that there was enough storage, um but in my experience at least especially for families, it's really hard to just use the coat closets, because there's just you know larger items.

E

um I was wondering when you said common storage, where that was because it doesn't have to necessarily be 80 square feet per unit but or per person per unit. I believe it was, but I was wondering if there were some nooks and crannies, where we could find a bit of storage that maybe people who need it could then have a locker or something and padlock it um is that something that is possible.

L

um Yes, I mean I, think we we quickly realized well, I guess I would add. We are providing bike storage for one bike for every for every unit, so a total of 85 racks. So in a sense that is storage, um our storage is also proportional to the size of the unit. So the studios get a closet. The one bedrooms get a closet plus a smaller hall closet and then the two and three bedrooms actually have fairly sizable closets in the hallway.

L

So I did a quick calculation before the meeting and a three bedroom unit has 320 cubic feet of closet space.

L

um The requirement for the zoning was to provide 160 cubic feet or 80 square feet um so, just to put in perspective we're we are providing a fair amount of of closet space in a thousand square foot three bedroom unit um between that and the the bike storage. You know we understand that there's bulky items that are hard to find a place for, but again we're forced to make trade-offs every day with a lot of competing interests, uh one of which being Financial feasibility and and providing as many affordable units as we can.

E

Sir I just want to in make sure that we're not sacrificing practicality in in terms of being able to live comfortably and easily.

L

Right and just to add, we've tried to make whatever closets we've provided. We've tried to make them full depth and you know wide enough to be practical, so we.

E

Understand yeah, it's it's good that you have like slightly more per unit than um in terms of closet space that you normally have, and that might help sort of alleviate the issue there.

E

um One other question was the barbecue area: that's tucked into the very back corner.

E

Typically, the barbecue areas are kind of near the space where people can kind of hang out and sit down and eat be together and since it's so far back kind of near the trash cans, it's very very far from the the open space I was wondering if that's even necessary, uh perhaps there's a way to move the trash over to that zone and then therefore free up some space near the laundry room for some just a little bit of storage.

E

For anybody who happens to have some bulky items where they could just you know, place it under padlock.

L

I think the idea with the barbecue um speaking on behalf of our landscape architect, was to just provide a variety of spaces where people could do different things right. So the idea with the barbecue pit is that it's relatively nearby the play area and the laundry um and you know as for trash the trash is inside a room. So it's not as if they're right next to an open enclosure, but um that's a good idea and we'll take it under consideration.

M

Some of its location is defined by um the the points in the building where on each floor, uh residents can access the the traffic.

E

M

Shoots so um there are, you know some constraints on on where the trash um the trash room can be. If that uh that service amenity is provided at each floor,.

E

Okay, no I understand that. Thank you. It just seems sort of like a a little bit of an odd area for the barbecue.

E

um So if there's a better use for it, I'm all for it too um I don't I'm, not sure what the residents might prefer, but since they're not living there, yet it's kind of hard for them to provide any input.

E

um Okay, um also in the drawings, I noticed that on the floors, there's something called a wh is that the the trash chute area, or so.

L

um In order to provide an all-electric building, one of the major energy demands is water heating, water, heater. Okay. So, instead of uh instead of a central boiler, we actually have um trios of electric heat pump water heaters every four units. So that's what those are. Okay,.

E

A

Good Heroes, with other questions.

G

Thank you. Yes, a quick follow-up question in terms of the bike storage, so uh we've got a lot of two and three bedroom units, which means hopefully we'll have a lot of families. That'll be part of the community and you know: there's a school close by I went happy with over two of them, which is nice. So here's my question right. If you're, if I understood you correctly, I think you mentioned one bike per unit, um but many cases when there's more than one child there's more than one bike.

G

So how would you tackle that situation and I'm wondering? If is it's one of those where, if other units like let's say the studios, don't have a need for a bike that then there'll be an allocation for the family that needs two bike storage places to then be given one.

G

um So that's my question: how would you deal with that situation.

L

Okay, so I'll let Marvel handle that one yeah.

K

Thanks for the question so I, you know you you kind of hit it on the head. We don't expect every unit necessarily to have a bike or use it, so we do try to be flexible. Of course we try to let everyone that needs bike space to use it, but you know we do expect to have extras, so some of them would be able to use the uh the Extra Spaces and, and that that is, you know, part of that solution.

G

So the possible solution is that those who don't use it will then.

K

G

Those additional spaces.

K

Would be available to you know to families, so the studio unit doesn't use it then, and and in our experience, that that kind of works that works out pretty well. Okay,.

G

Thanks for clarifying that, thank you.

A

uh Commissioner Dempsey another question.

F

A

I can't believe I.

F

Have more storage questions? um Do your lease agreements allow tenants to store personal property on those little tiny, balconies I think some of the units have small balconies. Do they don't do I understand that correctly they do. Does your lease agreement allow people to store personal property on those balconies.

K

No they're not yeah, so then the lease agreement they're not allowed to store. uh You know: yeah they're not allowed to store property on personal properties. You put it on the balconies, of course, like furniture and whatnot patio furniture, things like that is okay,.

F

That's fantastic because I was kind of worried. If you didn't have enough storage, you might start seeing a lot of boxes creeping up on the balcony and that's not something that other folks are going to want to look at I. Think the uh my other. It's really more of a comment than a than a question. um Have you have you spent any time thinking about given the storage um constraints, putting lockers I?

F

Think uh Vice, chair Yen had mentioned something about lockers I, think lockers up in the um parking spaces right at the very edge of the parking space, I've seen actually other apartment buildings that have those is that something that you've looked at to give people a little bit extra storage space that you could padlock?

F

um Is that something that you've looked at.

K

L

K

Defer that to you, we.

L

Have looked at it in great detail since um we had requested the concession, but um under these parking garages, unlike a a smaller density project, you know there's a lot of mechanical and electrical equipment, so um they would have to be dropped down. So, in short, no, we haven't looked into it in great detail.

F

You might you might want to consider it. That's it.

A

um Do you have another question.

E

Apologies my uh hand was still raised.

A

um And this maybe Rebecca can answer this because she's on the head of the DRC right, um they I, didn't understand in the description of the property. I didn't hear stucco anywhere in the description of what's there, but the DRC said something about Brenda work in Stucco, I, don't get it.

M

um No there's a but there's a cementitious, uh sorry long day, I was at DRC earlier today uh there are stucco components of the building, um and the discussion at DRC was just trying to make sure that it didn't have too rough a texture and um was comparable to what we tend to see in in other developments in in Mountain View. um So there are stucco um stucco wall surfaces, I, believe the white wall areas that you see on the elevation are are one of the key areas where stucco is used.

A

And then the balcony issue with for the fire department, is that all the balconies on that side of the building, or is it just.

M

A

M

The west elevation where the entry Drive is located, um the fire requirements are for 26 26 foot wide Lane with um I, think it's 14 and a half feet of vertical clearance, um Edgar, probably stamping his eyeballs, um but so, unfortunately, the the second floor balcony is on the west. uh The west elevation specifically had to be removed in order to provide for a compliant fire access, while retaining the landscape buffer along the western Westerly property line, where there are existing cypress trees. That I believe the project will be retaining.

A

But just that second floor that would lose the balcony.

A

True strickler.

I

It's just a quick question for the applicant um with the um with the reservation of funding. I should have just gone back to the um to the prior meetings um to look, but um with the reservation of funding you know, assuming all goes well, um do you need to go out for other funding tax credits, those sorts of things, or will you be pretty much ready to go um I'm just trying to get a sense of timeline and how far you are, how far we are from realizing this project after it's all approved.

K

Sure, absolutely uh after we're approved, you know we have the city funding. We are anticipating County funding as I mentioned, and we're also hoping to allocate uh project-based vouchers and with all of that combined and entitlement approvals, we are hoping to apply for tax credits uh actually the first round of next year. So you know we can. That would mean we would start construction at the end of 2023 and we potentially done by the end of 2025..

K

So that's that's kind of the timeline that we're working on right now makes.

I

Sense, thank you.

A

Any other commissioner questions.

A

Now we open up for public comment. uh Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand, button and zoom or press star 9 in your phone phone users can mute and unmute themselves to star six. Epc clerk will start the timer and let you know when your time is up um you know: do we have any people looking to speak.

B

uh Yes, I have one speaker here: oh.

B

All right, David Wilson, um you may speak yeah.

O

Yep hi uh I'm, David, Watson I, actually uh I'm a member of Mountain View yummy, and we uh we endorse this project, we're in favor of it uh not only that I actually live on the street. uh You know I, guess two blocks away, although they're pretty long blocks and I I really like this project, I'm happy to see it uh I walk by where this is uh anytime. I want to walk to downtown and it'll be nice for there to be a new building there.

O

Instead of an old, uh an old one, that'll be a that'll, be terrific I'll be happy to see sidewalk improvements in the normal stuff. That happens when there's a new construction. So that's all terrific uh I, I I'm, not sure I, have much more to say, I. Think I'm impressed by the work that the architect did to uh fit a couple more units uh by uh by splitting up that L shape. That's really cool uh with the bridge.

O

um I know you're you're working within the the tough constraints of the Dual staircase mandate uh and uh you've done a done a great job of uh finding finding a way to to fit just a couple, more units which is really really great to see so uh Mountain View needs more uh more housing and more affordable housing, and, and this is it and I like to see it. Thank you very much.

A

Thank you next speaker.

A

You're on mute.

B

All right, the next person I see job paymer. uh You can speak now.

P

Hi um I'm Celia Palmer um I'm speaking on behalf of green spaces, Mountain View um love that there's more housing, we're always looking to make Mountain View a more inclusive place, but um we were wondering if there was a possibility of um opening up the Hatchy right-of-way south of the Montecito property. This would both be a community benefit and one for a new residents as well, so um something to consider as well. Thank you.

A

A

Anyone else wishing to speak.

B

That's all the speakers.

A

Okay and we'll bring it back to the commission for deliberation and action.

A

uh Commissioner Clark.

I

Yeah I'll go first um and just to address the um the the last uh public speaker, um I totally agree with you. That would be wonderful. I can personally attest to having gone to battle with um the puc over that strip of of land uh for the adjacent project um a number of years ago and I can tell you that Unfortunately they are, um they are um they're not amenable to to uh opening that up.

I

I wish they were, um but not only would they um that let us do that, but they also um almost tanked the adjacent um subsidized housing project uh over it because of the the parking um which we uh which was required for that project, so in any case a wonderful idea but I'm afraid um unless staff knows uh something otherwise, I think, um unfortunately, that Avenue is closed. The the sfpuc is not amenable to doing that on edge. As far as I know.

I

um Overall I think this is a great project. It's been great to watch it grow and evolve. I think it's a really great use of um the layout is a great use of that particular parcel. I think it will add a lot uh and it's always great to have the additional, um affordable housing.

I

um I I am sad to lose um some of the trees and the Redwood Grove, but at the end of the day, what I really look at um from in those perspectives is where the canopy is going to be in.

I

um You know in 10 to 15 years, and it's going to be a better canopy than we have today with trees that don't use as much that don't require as much water like redwoods, do, which aren't native to that particular area and um and re, and um are increasingly due to droughts in poor and poorer health and are difficult to remove at that point. So I think. Overall, um the trade-off makes sense here. I understand the storage concerns, but um I think that's a that's.

I

A a fine trade-off in terms of a concession I can attest personally that, especially during the pandemic, that any storage that isn't in a unit that's secured is a prime theft Target. So anything in a garage um the complex where I live in you know people don't uh sneak into the garage to go break in the cars they sneak into the garage to break open. All the storage cages cut the locks um and and go out and just take everything out so as much as I love storage.

I

Anything that isn't provided in a unit is, um unfortunately, a creates, a prime that Target and a security concern so overall I'm supportive of the project um I'm happy to when folks have have a stood, their piece I'm happy to move the staff recommendation, but I won't do that right now with everyone else, chime in first.

A

uh By Australian.

E

uh Yes, I agree that generally, this is a very nice project. I think it's pretty clever how they did the split to make use of the lot shape and it provides a break in a wall That's much taller than what is there now.

E

So it makes them more comfortable as you're walking down the sidewalk, which I also appreciate we've added the greenery um and I do like the storm water and Landscape planter idea to take care of some of the drainage um yeah aside from Storage, which you know I just wanted to make sure it was going to be practical and usable and whether or not there were ways we can just Cloud a little storage for those who might need it.

E

That would be up to the architect if they can find a little bit, but I'm glad to hear that some of the storage in unit is larger than the standard, so that will help somewhat um I. I did have a question I'm sorry and this may be for staff.

E

It just came to me: um I know that there's a right-of-way on the corner and when you're on the site, you can see a well-worn path that people take as a shortcut around I was wondering if the city had any plans to sort of formalize that and make that area a little bit.

E

um I don't know, make it look a little bit more, a part of the site with Greenery and whatnot.

M

um I'll, let Edgar chime in if I'm uh remembering incorrectly but I I know that plot of land did come up in discussions with the applicant. There were questions about whether it could be incorporated into this site or.

C

M

Know improved with Landscaping one of the things we learned from our Public, Works, stuff, or rather reminded of by our Public Works stuff, is they're working on. You know the broader Shoreline Boulevard um Corridor improvements and the Montecito Shoreline Sterling intersection is at some point in the future slated to get some improvements, and so our Public Works that felt it important to to you know Reserve that space, knowing that that that intersection was going to to see changes in the future. Okay.

E

Great, thank you um in general, yes, I'll, be supporting the project.

A

Christian minions.

H

Yeah uh I will be happy to support this project.

A

F

And I would just add You know, despite all my connection, about about storage, I, actually think this is a wonderful. uh This is a wonderful project that we.

Q

F

Get to see 100 affordables come through here. You know every two weeks, so this is it's kind of a special thing and the fact that it's got an emphasis on larger families with the larger two and three uh bedroom units, that's fantastic. We need that and those families need that.

F

um So you know forget: I complained about all the storage. What you're doing really is wonderful and it's going to be really good for Mountain, View and I'm really excited about it's a good. It's a good location. You're gonna end up with about four to one on uh planting more trees. That's wonderful! And it's going to be great in 15 years, and particularly I'm really glad to see that the city is contributing money to this project. I love it that we are gonna.

F

You know we're gonna, walk the talk and we're gonna help make this happen. So I'm going to be proud to support this uh this project tonight, foreign.

D

Just to Echo, my fellow Commissioners really excited to support this project and it's a fairly narrow project, parcel and I. Think the design is innovative and just so excited that it'll be close to a lot of services and to hear that Public Works has this intersection um on the list for future improvements. So great project I'm excited to have it built and I think the timeline was expedited from when I had last um checked in on this, so Enzo 2025 isn't that far away.

A

Thank you, uh Krishna Gutierrez thank.

G

You, sir, yes, so my only question is for the applicant: hey: do you have any more yeah? Can you pitch in with more any additional sites in the Mountain View? If you, you have future potential here and I. Think you'll have a city government, along with an EPC, that's open to these ideas.

G

um So I want to thank you for your ability to bring something online. That's realistic, that's doable and that it has also involved Partnerships throughout the city and the county. That always is the key for me. I, like the Partnerships I, think we've done a lot with that at the school district level and now at the city level, you're, seeing more and more of these types of uh items and projects come to life. So thank you for your efforts on this front appreciate it.

A

uh Mr Commissioners just said what I said, but.

C

A

Particular the larger unit is something that really appealed to me. So uh unless there are other comments, I will have my endorsements by asking commissioner Clark. If he'd like to now actually make a motion.

I

Okay, um I will uh move the staff recommendation as printed in the staff report.

A

D

You know a second.

A

There's no further discussion now. Can you please call the world.

B

Commissioner Clark hi, commissioner Dempsey hi, commissioner Gutierrez.

G

B

Commissioner, Haymarket aye, commissioner newness all right, Vice chair in hi, chair question.

A

B

Motion carries unanimously.

A

Thank you, everyone that we will move on to item 5.2, The, temporary downtime, precise plan office cap. We have a presentation from Krishna penalar and advanced planning manager, Eric Anderson,.

R

All right, thank you. Thank you good evening Commissioners. My name is krisha panoyar associate planner and I'm joined by Eric, Anderson Advanced planning manager. The item in front of you is a proposed downtown, precise fan amendment to create a temporary office cap.

R

City staff is proposing a temporary precise plan amendment to limit office development to 0.35 far or far has previously range from 1.3 to 4.0. The image to your right highlights areas where office uses are allowed. These items are noted in blue and would thus be impacted by these amendments.

R

This temporary office limit applies to new construction and additions associated with office development. Only the limit does not apply to residential or other commercial uses such as retail restaurants. Staff would like to clarify that this would also not make existing offices non-conforming, so they would not be impacted by these proposed amendments. Additionally, certain projects would be Exempted from this .35 far limit, such as small additions for building upgrades government-owned property projects, with a development agreement and currently entitled projects.

R

This limitation is only temporary and is proposed to Sunset December 31st 2024, to allow staff to implement policies to manage parking and create incentives to improve the jobs housing imbalance in downtown the city is already going through a downtown precise plan Amendment, which are limited in scope and only limited certain areas in downtown. This proposed amendment to cap office development is separate as it covers all of downtown and focuses specifically on impacts of office development.

R

So the intent of the amendments are to help improve the jobs. Housing balance manage parking impacts from employment, generating uses such as large Office Buildings, while finding the appropriate balance of daytime population from Office uses to support retail and restaurants in downtown to provide some context to this amendment. Here's a brief overview of the ongoing Trends in downtown. Over the years. The city has seen a growing trend of new large-scale office developments in downtown, such as the recently approved 590 Castro Street project.

R

As a result of these increased jobs related to office growth, there are increased concerns regarding parking impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods, increase competition for public parking spaces and further impacts on the existing jobs, housing imbalance.

R

The city currently has existing programs in place to manage Downtown parking. A majority of the parking in Downtown is City, owned and managed. The city also requires new developments and change in uses with higher parking demands to pay a parking in Luffy or build its own parking.

R

The Inland fees are intended to help the city pay for a new parking structure. If additional parking is needed in 2020, the city adopted the Downtown parking strategy to create a framework to continue managing Downtown parking algor with the passage of new state legislation. Ab2097 such state-led bills prohibits the city's ability to have minimum parking requirements or charge an in-move fee payment for sites near major Transit stops such as the mountain view, downtown Transit Center.

R

So if a large amount of office uses get built without parking, this may strain the public parking Supply, however, as stated before, an appropriate mix of uses is needed to continue supporting local retail and restaurants in downtown and staff needs additional time to study what that mix would look like.

R

So, in conclusion, staff recommends for EPC to recommend city council to adopt the resolution amending the downtown precise plan to include a temporary limit on office development. Thank you for your time, and staff is available for any additional questions.

A

The Commissioners commissioner.

D

Thank you, I just have a handful of questions and maybe starting with the the largest one first I'm, trying to understand the urgency for this I know that there's some staff planning that needs to happen, and but maybe you can help me understand why why this two-year period is so critical and and what would happen to the projects that are in the pipeline right now and we got a couple of public comment, letters from um proposals that are in the works, so I'd love to hear from staff on those two items and then my final question would be around the timing of the transit center.

D

If there are any updates, you can share.

S

Sure well, I'll start with the simplest um I. Don't have any updates on the transit center. Okay, our master plan. Unfortunately, um I, can look into that and maybe report back the future meeting. um The urgency is really about the um you know. The this new state law was just adopted and goes into effect in January, so I think that's a major factor.

S

uh I think the the uh tenor of concern from the community and from Council also um kind of uh prompted uh quick action uh and so I think uh all of that coming together. um You know it. It really is the um this is an opportunity uh that you know the the uh EPC and city council can consider for um kind of how to uh study these issues over the next couple of years.

S

uh We do expect um a lot of interest in office development downtown um and unfortunately you know if, if a lot of office a lot of underutilized sites, um kind of move forward with with office development, we may lose opportunities for residential development or other mix of uses that may be of interest so really just acting proactively um regarding the projects under review. So, um as of the date that this project, this amendment was noticed, we didn't have any projects under review. That would be negatively impacted by this um Amendment.

S

However, um as you received a uh a letter from uh one uh group that was interested in building office um and has been has submitted and then subsequently withdrawn applications with the city, they have now submitted an application as of a couple of days ago for a new office development, so um they would be affected uh with by this uh application or by this amendment, if, if it were not changed,.

D

So that's the 705 Dana.

S

D

Then there was also 194 to 198 Castro. We received public comment. That's.

S

Right yeah, we we have had some informal conversation with them. um You know, as of um 2021, um you know uh the last time I believe we we shared any information with them or discussed anything with them was in very early 2022. uh They have not submitted an application. uh So really is uh you know we weren't aware that they were moving forward with the project. uh It may uh you know negatively affect them if they are interested in submitting an application in the near future, but they hadn't submitted an application.

D

Okay and then, if I can indulge my commissioner, so one more question, Eric I'd love to follow up, so are you? Does the city or the downtown committee? Is there someone that has like an inventory of the potential sites that you could imagine a mix of uses, um because I thought that we would have to do this broader downtown, precise Plan update to really even consider residential along Castro in some of these areas?

D

So is that on someone's monitoring that and- and you think, that's feasible to to be able to study that in the next couple years,.

S

I I do I mean I think it would have to be something that the council would have to prioritize, and so that is going to be a question for Council when we bring it before them.

S

um But uh you know there are still options for how we can use this time. uh uh You know to further develop our parking strategies.

S

um You know our Downtown parking strategy are we're working on a TDM ordinance and all of that kind of intersects. With these issues that that we're seeing downtown in terms of um um especially parking but also Transportation impacts so um I. It is something that we can study, but it also wouldn't be wasted time.

D

And his paid parking part of that.

S

Yes, yeah I mean further study of paid parking is certainly in the Downtown parking strategy. Okay,.

D

A

uh Commissioner, Clark.

I

Yeah I still have a few questions, some of which sort of tale with what commissioner Haymarket so I I'm, trying to I'm trying to figure out how we got here because in in my head, the overall strategy of reviewing and making changes in the downtown precise plan was, you know, phase one. You know really focused on the 100 and 200 blocks, the um you know the more historic sections of Caster Street. You know doing that. First then phase two.

I

Looking at the broader precise plan, um I realized a state law was passed, but we presumably have been tracking that for a number of months and maybe had some reasonable expectation that that might pass so I'm just trying I'm, not it's unclear to me how this got initiated.

I

Did a majority of council say we want to study capping office, did staff sort of proactively say you know we heard things from the community um based on the sobrato project and in the state law and everything we're going to sort of proactively bring this forward it just it. It feels like it came out of nowhere, but maybe it didn't. Maybe this has been going on since before my time and something that's under consideration, so I'm just trying to figure out how we, how we got here to start with.

S

Yeah, it's really the latter. um You know, staff seeing an opportunity uh to you know, kill multiple birds with one stone kind of thing, and, and certainly um you know they um like I, said the the enter of the con. The discussion with the 590 Castro project really was um a kind of a prompt for for staff to uh to work on this and to um try to propose a solution that seemed to address a lot of concerns that were coming out from the community and Council.

I

Okay, that's fair. Did we consider alternatives? Like you know, I, don't know how we picked. 0.35 I, don't know if we considered like instead of just saying you can't build anything above 0.35, maybe anything above 0.35. Isn't you know conditional discretionary review um I realize it's just easier to say you can't build above 0.35, but it just feels like um I. Don't I, don't know how we arrived at that number and whether we consider it Alternatives. We.

S

Did we considered a lot of Alternatives, including um uh you know, a square footage maximums, including um you know, more um kind of aggressive caps? That would be like no net new things like that. uh The 0.35 really um supported enough kind of ability for small additions uh in potential locations where a site might be really underutilized, but also wouldn't create a lot of value uh for that um and would provide for um uh kind of that that time and space for the city to uh study those those different incentives, um yeah and I.

S

Think you know allowing a um you know continuing to allow a a small amount is is also just kind of a good idea in terms of uh protecting from unforeseen circumstances of maybe um uh takings concerns, and things like that.

I

And then um there's in the staff report, it talked about concerns that you know there might be substantial office development that would limit the ability for housing to develop, but then it also called out there. There aren't a lot of like undeveloped sites remaining and so I'm trying to figure out my head.

I

If it has taken underutilized parcel, um uh you know I assume the 0.35 doesn't preclude you know if I wanted to do ground floor, retail or or you know, a dentist office or something on the ground floor and 0.35 of office above we could do. Someone could do that right. The the far doesn't preclude like a you know some sort of Medical Services on the ground floor and would allow 0.35 of office above or.

S

Yeah, so the the office definition that we're using doesn't doesn't include medical, um so yeah it could be theoretically um but 0.35, especially um on the relatively small sites in downtown. Is um you know a uh it could be possible, but we don't expect that to be a um a valuable approach in on you know, as opposed to pursuing residential, where you can still do. You know up to 50 units per acre in a lot of locations downtown or.

C

S

Even waiting out, you know the the two years to see where, where Council ends up.

I

So, basically 0.35 if I were just if I wanted to build a pure office on a 0.35 office project on a like small parcel downtown. We're really only talking about a few stories, which would almost certainly not pencil, given the cost of land yeah.

S

And it would, it would certainly only be you know, it'd be a couple of thousand square feet on a lot of parcels, because I see they're, really tiny boxes got.

I

It and then last question in terms of impacted projects. I know everything with the da is excluded, but um I'm trying to remember I. You know, obviously the hotel project um that had a D.A I think Mara would had a D.A.

I

um What about the um there was the I think the bicycle shop I closed, but there's there's a pending development, I think like Castro and El Camino, but I think that's housing. um Are there I? Guess there? There are no other like office projects that we're aware of right now that are in the queue that this would impact. Aside from the ones you were notified, no.

S

Yeah, just the the ones from the letters. um Those are the only ones that we're aware of.

I

Okay, that's all my questions for now. Thank you.

F

So I've uh right now, I think I've got three questions um and I believe um Eric. You can help me with these help me understand the potentiality for exceptions, so there was I think it was 705 Dana that there was a letter where they said you know, they've been they've, been trying real hard to to do everything right. If this comes it sort of upsets the apple cart for them and I believe David said they'd be willing to you know voluntarily Pony after the parking um I guess.

F

My question is this: if we pass this measure that you put before us tonight, would an applicant that would you know, on the face of it, be barred uh from doing what they wanted to do? um Buy this this shift by this cap? Would they be able? Would they have the power to come in front of EPC and ask for an exception for it, or are they just completely blocked out.

S

No, they they would have to go through a gatekeeper process um yeah when, whenever Council opens up the gatekeeper process, they would have to do that.

F

There's no exemption exemption procedures for this.

S

So we we included the D.A provision and that's because back when we adopted the um Downtown parking strategy, Council indicated that they would be willing to work with other developers to help fund a new parking structure downtown through a DA process, and so we wanted to keep that door open.

S

um So that's really. The other Avenue is the The Da path.

F

We are, we are um doing more DA's. Are we offering that up as an option, or is that door closed right now.

S

uh Well right now, we need to do a little bit more analysis uh through the the public works department has started working on the design for the new garage, and we have to do a little bit more analysis about how much money is needed. How much space in the garage is available, but we do intend uh once that analysis is available to um uh to open up an opportunity for uh uh or Partnerships.

F

um And I have a question about the downtown, precise planner. Forgive me if this already got mentioned, but when are we slated to do that? To do the revise of that.

S

It's not Curt, it's not scheduled right now. We that's one of the things that we're going to be asking Council um when they take up this um uh this this item and as well, it's going to be probably discussed during um early next year's goal, setting.

F

Okay, so perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but um if we are going to act on an urgency measure like this, the all of the the kind of the other work like doing the precise plan and everything else I would think that that would take on a slightly more urgency in order for us to be consistent. So uh it sounds like you're. You've already got that in process. My hope would be that we're gonna treat the whole thing as an urgency. If we're.

F

If we're going to move this fast um last question I had and I probably could have figured this out if I was a drug, is a good planner.

F

um How far down Castro Street, where, where is that half mile sort of end of the blast zone, uh that for purposes of um the a b that we've been talking about? Where? Where does that where's? That half mile line cut.

S

uh Let's see I've I'm I've got my Google Maps open. Fortunately, I always keep it open for just such occasions. um It looks like it's at about um um at about Church Street.

F

I'm not sure it's true, okay, so the the band that we are excuse me. The cap that we're talking about today goes farther than the the half mile Zone. That would cause the sort of uh you know the the parking concerns that parkopolitics that would come. uh You know, because of the zoo, Senate Bill, the cap, we're talking about goes beyond that. Is that correct.

S

Yeah there are a few blocks past that uh between church and cast and El Camino yeah.

F

um That's important.

K

A

F

You those are my questions.

H

Yep thanks uh so sorry, I missed this, but um I just want to make sure I asked. uh Is there a like a certain cut-off date, or you know kind of like a retroactive um point in time where, if someone is rushing to get their application in because they see this coming down, the pipe um has there been? Is it possible for us to if there isn't one already to set like a retroactive date uh or to suggest or recommend one um I guess how that gets.

H

uh Decided is a whole other matter, um yeah just to make sure that there's no, like huge rush of you, know like huge office applications coming in.

S

Right, so um if you wanted to uh recommend a pipeline provision date, so a date that um wherein somebody who has submitted an application would be allowed to proceed, um we usually recommend putting that date. You know somewhat in the past so that you're, not um creating this opportunity for somebody to uh you know, submit a one-page piece of paper that has a you know: chicken scratch on it and call that an application um and thereby be vested that way.

S

um So uh you know, as I said, um the Smith Development did submit an application a couple of days ago um on on December or October 31st, uh so you, theoretically, if you wanted to exempt them, you could set an exemption date of say November, 1st.

H

Cool and so my um I guess my question was: is there like a a retroactive like denial date, not exemption.

S

A retroactive denial I'm, not sure I, know what you mean kind.

H

Of like so, if you recall with like uh rent control uh when it kind of like started uh and it got put on the ballot, there was like a October 15th 25th I forget exactly 2014 whatever it was date. That said, you know, any rents increased after this date 12 months ago, will revert back to Market or to the original rent. Is there like a date?

H

We I'm sorry if I missed it, but is there a date we have in place that kind of says um any new office applications submitted post November 1st 2022 shall be deemed not acceptable or something like that.

S

Why I see that our City attorney has raised her hand I'll, let her jump in if she has what to make.

T

I was just going to say that um that the way that the exceptions are already structured um would um basically prevent applications that are pending from um right. They would still be subject to the cap if they're pending, but but what Mr Anderson said is that we only have we have only one pending application for office development. Is that correct.

S

Oh, that's right. Yeah.

T

Right because current the current draft of the exceptions or exemptions um is that an entitled projects would be exempt, but if they're pending applications, they don't have their entitlements. They're not exempt. So in order to exempt them you'd have to add another kind of um pipeline provision, but I know that's not wasn't your interest totally.

H

All right awesome, thank you. So much.

A

This is uh Professor Clark. Another questions.

I

I have one more story, so I'm trying to I'm trying to play this all out of my head. So it sounds like the primary yeah there's the jobs, housing piece, but there's also sounds like the primer. A primary concern is is parking and state legislation. It just went into effect, and so, if we're, if we're putting this in place for two years, uh let's assume State legislation doesn't change in two years. Let's, let's assume that there's you know we still can't charge in Luffy's. We still can't impose parking requirements, but we can pursue.

I

You know the the um the TDM paid parking. Whatever else comes out of the strategy. Presumably those will be ordinances that any new development would be subject to anyway, and it's going to take them two years to build anything anyway.

I

So um I guess I'm trying to figure out what we're getting out of this like. If, if really, if the state is saying that we can't charge in move fees or require minimum part or have minimum parking requirements, and so our strategy to ensure that you know we, we aren't inundating the the neighborhoods with with parking or that we have a solid um yeah strategy around this, whether it's paid parking or or a modified neighborhood parking program permit program.

I

um Whoever builds something is going to be subject to those, presumably anyway like they're, not because they'll all be ordinances, but maybe I'm getting that wrong. um So I'm just trying to figure out what what we're getting here by by capping development for two years.

S

Yeah, that's a great question: I I. Think one thing is really just about um transparency and really making sure that developers know what they're getting into when they are applying for projects. I.

S

Think one of the challenges with parking and the reason why we have parking regulations is because it's what they call a tragedy of the commons where early users tend to fill up the um the available resource and later users are crowded out, and um you know, I think the um you know the the paid parking and everything like that is certainly meant in part to address that. But we also want to make sure that when developers are going through this process, they know what the future is going to hold.

S

And likewise we know when we are reviewing the project, what the future is going to hold.

S

um There are a lot of complicated interplays for all of these things, and it's really best for us to be able to tell a coherent story both to applicants, as well as to the community about how um concerns and impacts are going to be addressed.

O

A

That's Tran.

E

uh Just a couple questions one was: when does council foresee that they're opening the gatekeeper process.

S

Oh yeah, we have a website where we're saying I think fall. 2023 so I mean that's obviously subject to change. But um that's that's what we're saying now: okay,.

E

Just curious- um and the second part is um commissioner clerk had uh asked if the main sort of Genesis for this was the parking and uh the new state laws, um I I guess I was looking at the jobs, housing balance. I know that is a part of it, but how? How big is that in terms of what staff is trying to do here.

S

It was certainly a lot of discussion at the 590 Castro project was was a lot of that I think as a part of the housing element to the the community is really interested in seeing housing and higher opportunity. Areas like like downtown places, with a lot of resources and and uh um uh Transportation opportunities, and things like that. So I think all of this is kind of coming together uh in the in the community and and uh in the conversations um I it's hard to compare. But you know if they're, certainly both big issues.

E

Okay, and would this help us any with the arena? The housing element I know anywhere submitting.

S

E

Second round um and I know, this is not going to be finished before that, but just practically speaking in reality. Would this help us gain a larger buffer uh for even future yeah.

S

I mean I I think any housing that gets built is good for the arena right because you're you're protecting yourself against no net loss in the future. um So there's no question about that. Whether um you know a the housing element should um you know effectively, uh you know write in blood that we're going to do the downtown, precise Plan update and it's going to have these particular outcomes.

S

um I'll leave to a different meeting, um but we'll um you know the uh any housing like I said is good for arena. It's.

E

Gonna be good right. Okay, thank you.

A

um A couple questions, so my recollection was that the downtown precise plan was posed as to two-phase project in the gold plan for the current Council, and they said based on staffs the city manager's guidance. It was only bandwidth to do the first phase during this last two-year cycle. Is that correct and then, but they did, they phase two was still left on the table as something that could be or would be likely to be brought back in the future. That time correct.

S

uh Yeah, although it was not actually adopted as part of the council work plan for this cycle, so phase two was not so it it was kind of. It was discussed as something that we could consider picking up in the future, but only phase one was actually adopted in the workload.

A

And I I thought that was because the managers, the staff, didn't, have the resources to work on phase two. Until after phase one was complete, correct.

S

um Yeah, that's part of it. I I know that there were probably um other considerations. uh You know I know that um council members wanted to uh make sure to take part in um uh some of this and I know that there was some. You know, um location, conflict of interest uh concerns, but, um and so I think that may have been one reason why they focused on areas Ag and H in Phase, One, um but uh but yeah that certainly staff, resources and and other priorities is, is also always a consideration.

A

And phase one is better to be done.

S

uh We're gonna uh EPC has already recommended it we're going to bring it to council um in uh in one month, early December.

A

So at that point the new new Council will start their goal planning for the next two years and phase two could come back then.

C

A

Thanks any other questions before we go to public comment, all right, um Joe um would any mayor of the public on the Limelight to come like to provide comment on this item. If so, please re click, the raise hand, button and zoom or press start on in your phone phone users commute and unmute themselves with star six. You can see clerk will start the timer and let you know when your time is up Joe is. uh Can you uh call our first speaker? Please.

B

Okay, um the first speaker is John Frawley.

A

B

Joel, you can speak now.

A

Let me go to the next speaker. We can come back to him.

G

A

You hear me: okay, yeah, yeah, you're, still showing us on mute.

Q

Okay, wait now. Can you hear me now.

A

Q

Okay, good, thank you. um That's funny. I was listening on the phone and I was not aware that I was um raised my hand. Maybe it happened accidentally, but in any event, um I feel comfortable, talking, I'm I'm, an architect, that's representing uh an owner on Castro, and we have been in the planning stages for a an addition to his building, which would be affected by this. uh This ordinance or this. uh This um motion to change this and put a cap on buildings, Office Buildings um and my our main comment.

Q

He was the one that wrote the letter to the Planning Commission about uh that it will affect our project because we were in the stages of early development and we were planning to submit it very soon actually, this month. Our problem is this kind of broadsided us, you know without knowing that it was coming up. It was just kind of um just as it was thrown at you, unknowingly in the last week, or so um without any awareness, and we wouldn't have gone as far as we've gone.

Q

If we knew that we were not going to be able to um if there's going to be some type of time limit or pipeline limit on this, we're at the point which we can submit within a couple of weeks, we've got enough data to submit it, but we're going to be extremely penalized now for and all the work that we've done up until this point uh to make improvements on this building. It's a historic building where we're going to be doing some Rehabilitation of the building as well as addition to it.

Q

uh So we feel as though, until this is actually approved by city council, that we should have the opportunity to get our application in, and so the the discussion, in particular about having a pipeline restriction, really greatly affects our ability to move forward, because if you set the date of uh November 2nd we're pretty much dead in the water. At this point, and so I understand the concern that people would be handing in things on a napkin. But that's not the case and I think this.

Q

The planning department will know if that's the case, so um I want you to take that into consideration and to really you know, it will really um greatly affect my clients, um investment in our time, in designing the building that he is care so much about and is doing a very sensitive job and trying to enhance the downtown area with um a little bit more office space and some retail space below, and this will add foot traffic of course, and help restaurants and those kinds of things so anyway.

Q

Those are my comments and I'd like you to consider that pipeline question. Thank you. Thank.

A

You Mr Speaker.

B

Next speaker is Connor Morales.

N

Hi this is Conor Morales I'm talking on behalf of myself and nine other Morales family members.

N

We do oppose this move for a cap on office, space and Downtown Mountain View, not only because the loss of Vibrance in Downtown Mountain View during the day.

N

We really need to get people back into offices and just get the traffic in downtown Mountain, View recirculating and just bring more people into downtown another reason being my family and I have owned multiple Parcels of land in Downtown, Mountain View for decades from the beginning, early 1900s and migrate, my great grandmother moved here from Spain and works, so works so tired, tirelessly hard to accumulate property in Downtown Mountain View for the sake of her whole entire family, and she left these Parcels of land with her daughter.

N

My grandmother, who has now is now 96 or 92 years old and really wants to see a project that we've been working on for actually the last 15 years and it didn't it was dropped in the past, because there was a point where we weren't Trust of trusting of developers. We didn't have that professional background.

N

I am a college graduate student and I'm 26 years old, I'm, not I'm, now helping my family through a development process with a very trusted developer in Downtown Mountain View for multiple Parcels um right off of Castro, Street and Bryant in California, and we really want to see this project go up and I really want my grandmother and all of her kids to see this happen.

N

We've been working tirelessly hard on this for the past year, thousands of dollars in attorney fees to actually get to where we are and we're so very close and working through our environmental steps for phase one, and we want to see this beautiful building go up that will bring traffic back to Mountain View. My recommendation is that, instead of an far limit of 0.35, we do a square foot limit of 50 000 square feet, so anything above 50 000 would not be permitted.

N

Anything below 50 000 would be, and that is all I have to say, and that is my comment. Thank you for letting me speak.

A

B

um Next person is Smith from Smith Development.

U

Can you hear me.

U

The principal of Smith Development we've been working on applications to develop a property located at 705, West Dana, you guys have referenced the knights and it's with the mixed-use office project in area H, the downtown precise plan. Our current application is based on a lot of feedback. We've gotten from the community and City staff, and also members of the city council, um actually talked about it tonight. Earlier this week we submitted a formal application of a formal comment letter about the proposed temporary downtown precise plan cap how it relates to our project.

U

We understand that the main considerations from opposing the office job is to address the Downtown parking, particularly in light of the new parking legislation. Ab2097 that's been discussed tonight that will come online in January, which may impact the city's ability to require their projects. In close proximity to Transit provide sufficient parking regardless of ab2097. We are committed to fully parking our project, both on site and within Luke feeds, as we've shown our application just tonight.

U

If you proceed, please consider a fifth exception of the office cap for projects with pending applications that voluntarily fully parked through project and or pay the income fees despite 80 2097.

U

Our project has been in the pipeline actually since the beginning of 2019 informally, and then we submitted a formal application in late 2019, so it's been more than three years we've been in the process, but without the pandemic we would likely be through the discretionary process. The city would not have to worry about the impact of ab2097 or overflow. Parking has released for a project, however, because we proposed a voluntarily flowing part for the multi-use in our project. We will avoid the parking impact that's been discussed tonight.

U

Unfortunately, if we are limited to 0.35 far, our project will not be economically feasible and we'll have no choice but to leave the building abandoned and fenced off for the foreseeable future. In conclusion, we are hopefully you'll consider our suggested exception to the office cap, we're likely voluntarily and fully Park our project. We would not be subject to the office cap thanks for your time and attention. uh We welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you might have as well uh the first time for that yep.

A

Just be here, please.

B

Next speaker is Christian Hansen.

B

Christian, you can talk now.

V

Hi Commissioners, can everyone hear me? Okay, great, um my name is Christian Hansen I am a local property manager.

V

um We manage several uh commercial and Retail properties in Downtown, Mountain, View down to Palo Alto downtown Menlo Park, and um you know one thing that I've noticed during this conversation is, um you know most of the data that's being referenced seems to be. You know backward looking rather than forward-looking.

V

I have the opportunity to look into our office buildings um daily and see how these office users are using their spaces, and I will tell you that if there's a parking problem in downtown, it's not from Office users and I also don't see a problem with parking downtown um now or over the past two years. Since the pandemic started. Most of these office spaces are at most 50 percent.

V

Utilized most of these office tenants have gone to a hybrid model where they're no longer in the office full time, and this has really been a struggle for some of our retail tenants because they rely on our office tenants to patronize their uh their restaurants and other retail stores during the day at night time.

V

I'm sure you know, if you go to Downtown Mountain View, it is it's hopping, it's hard to find a parking spot, but during the day um you know these restaurants uh really need help and the way they get help is through these office tenants. So we have a very delicate ecosystem that relies heavily on office and I I, don't know if that has necessarily been taken into consideration for this office cap. Like many of you have mentioned, this um felt like it came kind of out of the blue and um and is backward looking forward.

V

Looking I I, we are not going to see the same density in office that we've seen. I. Think that um you could even say that you know the amount of people that are ubering and as self-driving cars, um progress, we're going to need less parking, I I, think Mountain View is a forward-looking city and we should um stay forward-looking and not pull the rug out from those that you know.

V

Even those there are some people that are ready to submit an application like the Smiths that there's no reason why they, they shouldn't um be part of an exception, but there's many others like I, think Morales family just talked about they've been working on um their project for uh several months and years, and um so anyway, I would propose that if this, it does go through that, you also extend the amount of time to get um get your application in. Thank you.

A

Thank you next speaker.

B

Next speaker is rcox2.

B

You can speak now.

W

That would be me um Now for Something Completely, Different, I'm Robert Cox. Speaking on behalf of the steering committee of livable Mountain View. We strongly support the staff recommendation for the temporary cap on office development in the area of the downtown precise plant on the 590 Caster Street project proposal. Sobrato insisted that, since their proposal was precise plan, the council must accept it and they did.

W

This sets a new bad precedent for future Council decisions about what downtown office projects I plan all of the development parameters over which the council will have discretion to avoid a future similar situation. The temporary office cap would provide breathing room for that and we urge the EPC to support it.

W

We furthermore recommend that, when the downtown precise plan does come back to the EPC that the EPC consider to incorporate a jobs, housing policy linkage similar to that which is adopted by the East wisman precise plan, Mountain View needs to get its jobs, housing imbalance under control. There have been serious consequences to that from San Francisco's Arena demands on our city and the epcn council must take direct and immediate action on the jobs, housing and balance to make the situation better.

W

um Since I have a minute and a half left I'm going to comment on what some of the earlier speakers have said. I understand they have a strong desire to develop their properties, it's time to think differently and think residential rather than office, and help solve the problem rather than make it worse and the other thing.

W

uh Several years ago, livable Mountain View did a study uh of you know the usage of these office complexes uh in terms of their employees going out and using the restaurants, and we found out that more often than not the office, people were bringing food in for their employees and they were not patronizing the businesses. So all I don't personally believe that that is a strong motivation to uh vote against the staff recommendation and I strongly personally support it and our organization does too. Thank you very much.

W

A

A

Sorry, you're unmute.

X

Foreign, yes, hello, can you hear me.

A

Yeah we can hear you now.

X

Yes, good afternoon, Commissioners and City staff, my name is Hala. Al-Shawani um I would like to support staff recommendation that a moratorium would be placed on uh the office building permitting until the precise plan for downtown is updated. I have lived in Mountain View since 1984.

X

I raised my kids here, I've lived in Cuesta, Park and I I now live actually in downtown. I use the downtown everyday and downtown belongs to everyone, not just the folks that want to work or have jobs here. It should belong to everyone and having Office Buildings along a downtown that should really be enjoyed by all the Mountain View residents is really very disruptive. Very uninviting.

X

There will be a lot of debt space and 590 Castro Street was a a good example for that many many public comments came in to oppose the the height the massive building, the massive underground parking, which is going to cause us to lose the beautiful Heritage trees by Pioneer Park. It's going to block our view for the wonderful Park that we've enjoyed for so long.

X

It was really it was very upsetting to see that project approved and if we don't do anything about the precise plan as it currently is, we're going to have more and more of these projects, which will affect us all, and it's it's really. It's not fair I invite all the property owners that give input tonight that would like to contribute to the community and build their properties, as other people have said before me to please consider a residential building. We are in great need for that.

X

Affordable residential building, especially I, applaud the project that was discussed before that it was wonderful to see all the things that they're trying to do with the 100, affordable housing. Why don't we do that? Instead, it's profitable for the owners and it's it's wonderful for the residents of Mountain View and it's going to be a lot more balanced with all the needs for res for housing that we that we have right now and it will serve everyone.

X

We should really think about all the people that live in Mountain View, not just the folks that own companies and you know, are able to build these office building to serve uh themselves. Thank you. City staff, I support your recommendations and I hope. City council will approve it as well. Thank you very much.

B

That's all the speakers uh raised in yeah.

A

We'll bring it back to the commission for deliberation.

H

Great thanks uh chair so yeah I'm I'm, actually really um glad that we're starting to make progress on this discussion along my hand.

H

Fortunate, in terms of uh you know, are the way our society and market economy produces winners and losers, and you know not to describe that title to anyone uh in the community or present on this call. What have you, but that's that's just fundamentally the you know part of the dynamic of our economy here um and in terms of how the public, you know, governance structure.

H

um You know my view is that it's really intended to look out for what is benefiting the community. um Should we do more of that? What's harming the community? How do we resolve that? How do we address that? How do we uh minimize the pain that you know people are experiencing on their? You know day-to-day attempts at at living and and living well right um and so I I do I I'm very clear uh on office development being a huge contributor to the affordable housing crisis that we've had for so many years.

H

um The amount of office, development and growth that uh you know, cities around the Bay Area have experienced over the last two decades is significant. It's it's beyond significant.

H

It is hugely and grossly outpaced the amount of residential development, because the profits also are far greater, um and so it you know, there's no right to make a maximal amount of return on an asset that that we are guaranteed in in life right um and so I think it's unfortunate um for you know like individually, for the people who were on this call and- and you know, have these projects that you know they would like to bring to term.

H

You know I I can't say I I understand what that's like, but I can imagine the disappointment and and the upsetness um that that you might be feeling um but I think our role is to look at what is actually not just the community asking for, but what's the underlying need and the reason why they're asking for that, um and so me personally I'm extremely glad to support uh this uh staff recommendation.

H

um I I have lots of ways that I think we could do something even more like I guess, forceful in terms of tackling this issue um and our jobs, housing imbalance uh and you know, I I, don't think that's in the scope of this discussion. I'm gonna um very strongly and- and you know, gladly support this temporary approach to to addressing this problem.

H

um I hope that uh you know the my colleagues on the commission uh can also uh support this and, and just kind of you know, try and try and imagine for how long you know we've skewed so much in One Direction when it comes to Land Development uh in our city and what the impacts of that have been the downstream impacts. The negative externalities of you know increased.

H

You know, homelessness, um I, I, hope that that's something that we factor in um what are the broader negative costs that our city is incurring by not doing this opposed to you know, maybe the individual costs that you know Land Development might incur by not being able to develop within a certain time frame, um so I'm I'm happy to consider uh to support this and yeah I appreciate staff's work on this. So thank you.

A

I

So I have a a different perspective and and I wish I didn't I wish I I wish I genuinely believed that you know sort of changing direction here would lead to.

I

um You know a complete shift in you know from from you know what I think is not an unreasonable density of office to high density housing, but the reason that I don't first I I I'm a little hesitant here, is a lot of the folks who are calling for a um you know a cap so that we can redo the plan in order to focus more on housing or and who say that they wish. For example, the Serato project would have been housing.

I

I I see a lot of the uh in in terms of the letters that are coming. I see a lot of the same folks who have opposed high density housing, downtown a number of projects and I. Would it would not surprise me if I brought over a seven story, um Apartment project or condo project, to have the exact same complaints that we have with sobrato? You know the underground parking taking out the trees, the building being too tall and too dense, and um yes, there's ground floor retail.

I

That invites people in but um I just I'm, not buying that and in my mind, jobs housing is a it is.

I

That is a that's a city-wide thing, that's a region-wide thing and we should absolutely do our part, but different parts of our city um have diff, have certain micro economies within them, whether it's San Antonio, whether it's downtown downtown, is supported um during the day by folks who come in um yes, some folks come in to have lunch at the restaurants and to um to to visit whatever service providers are there, but by and large the daytime population is composed of um folks who are there to be at the office, and now it's more like three days a week.

I

Instead of five and and there's more vacancies, and yes, those folks um uh at least pre-pandemic create a lot of parking issues and some of the larger tenants may bring in their own food. But the uh I think we tend to focus on the really large tenants who have the capability to do that and not the 30 000 square foot startup that doesn't have the budget to cater food. um When we had 25 000 square feet of of office near downtown, you know we brought in food from the restaurants.

I

You know, apparently we didn't send our people out for an hour every day to restaurants. We catered it all in from local restaurants and I. Think um I, just I feel like a lot of these concerns are I feel like we're. We're um um we're doing something we typically don't do in Mountain View. um We when we, when state laws, have changed when we've said. We really want to change course, for example in North, Bay, Shore um and add housing. We didn't freeze everything.

I

um We didn't say that you know. There's a uh you know we didn't cap everything you know. uh uh Suddenly um we said we didn't change the rules on people. We said you know, follow the existing rules until we have the new rules in place and I think the only time I've seen that seen us do.

I

Something like that um was was Cannabis, which was more like we're going to put a moratorium on on on dispensaries um while and which was basically status quo until we can craft our own regulations right, I, I can't recall a period or a recent example of us sort of changing the rules to deal with State legislation or to deal with.

I

um You know, concerns that came out of a specific development project that was, um you know, met all all um whether we like it or not, met all of the um the requirements of the downtown precise plan, so I guess what I'm getting at here is I'm very torn um because I don't believe this is the right way or sorry.

I

This is not the traditional way that we handle these sorts of problems in Mountain View we've tended to be uh not change the rules of the game on folks, while we sort things out, we've been very you know, forthcoming and and head up public process to to make these sorts of changes and um I'm trying to weigh like the benefits that we get of this, which I understand like I yeah.

I

The reason I'm torn is because staff is recommending this and I for those of you who know me well, like I'm, usually very differential with staff, but I'm really struggling here with the way that the time mean of this the way it's been crafted um and and searching for some other way to do this and I don't know if it's to say that any application that comes in that is fully parked or meets all the current requirements up until January 1 is allowed to proceed, and maybe these requirements kick in um on January 1 with the new state law.

I

I, don't know if that also means that those applicants can then go back and revise their application to go to.

I

You know remove those requirements or if they have, if they'd have to submit a new one, then obviously that um then what I propose might work, but I I just feel like I'm I, also can't come up with proposals like that on the spot, but I guess what I'm getting at here is I I, don't think I think this is too blunt of an approach um and if, if there were truly a job, a major jobs, housing implication year, which um you know I, don't think we're I, don't think the city frankly is ready for um I would be shocked if folks are very comfortable with a seven and ten story.

I

You know residential projects in downtown in place of some of these office Parcels. That would actually have a meaningful impact on job on the job, calculating imbalance in whatever, in the district that we're talking about um versus what I think will ultimately end up happening, which is um basically we're we're sort of trying to freeze things in time um and and minimize the developable potential of a lot of areas of downtown, which I think um would be unfortunate.

I

um So anyway, I I've said my piece I'm very torn here. I. Don't think this is the right approach. I'm open, but I also understand, perhaps concerns here and trying to make sure that we have a path forward to put some of the ordinances and and a new framework in place that everyone can abide by, and everyone knows, um is there so when they as they're signing up for you know submitting a development application so I, don't know how I get myself out of this. But those are those are my thoughts right now.

I

A

You, commissioner,.

D

Thank you and um I I really Chris your commissioner Clark. You took a lot of my thoughts um and said them before I could, like you, I I, appreciate the the attempt, on behalf of staff, to really be responsive to what they've heard um in regards to a recent project and I I tend to generally defer to the staff recommendation. I, don't think this is the right instrument um and I think it feels a little. It feels a little rush and it feels like a piecemeal approach.

D

It doesn't feel like the kind of comprehensive planning that we've done um and I think, particularly in the downtown I I, think some of what we're seeing as one of the the public comment centers mentioned. Some of it is just the nature of hybrid work. Right I, don't know that our office vacancies can be attributed to um an abundance of office in in downtown and so I think. The last time we took this up, I was alone voice and saying you know: I I would much rather have office downtown than empty retail and I.

D

Think we need office to sustain the retail um and I. I would really like to see them I'd like to take the precise plan up and I. Think, commissioner Dempsey you alluded to this earlier about. If this is the urgency, then we should really do this comprehensively um and I I.

D

Don't know what the coming economic cycle over the next two years will bring, but it feels wrong to me to penalize projects that might be in the Pipeline and two that sound like they're, very close and one that's already been submitted, so I I'm torn I'd rather I.

D

Don't know that the parking issue is is really what I see is the most pressing and and compliance with state law is depressing urge for that and I'm not totally sure that restricting future office growth is going to help Save retail, so um I'd love to hear what others say, but um I think I'll be in the same campus commissioner, Clark and and reluctant to support this, and even though I think what we are trying to work toward is a greater balance and as jobs and housing I.

D

Just it's close Downtown is close to Transit, it's close to a lot of services I. If you're gonna put your office somewhere, you want it to be in an area, that's rich and vibrant, and and can build off of the existing infrastructure. That's already there and I'm not sure I see high density residential coming I'd love to. If that is the reality, but that just hasn't been what I've been tracking so really curious to hear more from others. But that's that's where I'm I am at this moment.

F

It's really hard to follow, Commissioners, haymire and Clark, because I think they just said um very eloquently what um kind of what I was thinking um and I'm really I'm really torn on this one, this one's hard. This is probably one of the hardest ones I've seen all year for me personally um and I. Think for me that I I feel a couple of different ways: um I think on process I'm a little concerned.

F

I do feel that this is a little bit of a rush job and it sort of fell out of the sky, um because a development cap like this, that's a pretty big change of state. That's not a small remedy. It's a big deal um and I and I feel like we I'm kind of getting I'm getting rushed into something. It's a really big deal, um not only because it's an important it's a pretty big remedy for the folks. That'll have impact, but you.

C

F

A uh the beginning of a much larger conversation I think that we're going to end up having in Mountain View about about how are we going to solve the jobs, housing imbalance? That's a huge question. It's huge!

F

um It has some really interesting, significant implications for the rest of the city and and I I feel like we're we're kind of just jamming through it and and that doesn't sit well with me. That's a big part of what I'm struggling I mean this didn't even come to us as a formal request of the council. I, don't think this didn't even have a study, a session attached to it.

F

I think if, if this had, even if we just had a study session, I would have felt a little bit more prepared and, frankly, I think for something that's important. The community needs perhaps deserves a little bit more due process and more chance to to talk about it, um and that's you know so that that part hurts now I will say. Conversely, you know the concerns about how this newly passed assembly Bill might impact our ability to you know to to have Parking Solutions downtown. That's.

C

Not a small issue.

F

That I take that very seriously when livable Mountain View raises this is an issue I. Listen to that, like you, don't want a parking apocalypse downtown um and so I I get why there is urgency and concern I, totally I totally totally get it but and downtown is special. Its Health right now is fragile. We have a lot of empty businesses. Downtown and I. Think we need downtown needs more care than it's gotten.

F

um I would like us to approach the downtown precise plan and revising it dealing with a parking plan for down there with a little bit more urgency, because I worry about dinner time and I want it to get the attention that it deserves, because, right now it's struggling um my gosh. What else would I even want to say um I?

F

Guess let me uh I'm gonna sit here and listen to everybody else before I decide how I'm going to vote, but I will say this going forward, regardless of what our recommendation is or, however, I vote My Hope Is that to the council, we would ask first of all: do we put a higher priority on going back and doing all the planning that we need to do for downtown and put a little bit more urgency behind that?

F

And second, if, uh if we do go forward with this plan, my hope is is that we would consider our Council would consider some type of grace period for the potential applicants that are very, very close to being able to apply, because what I don't what I don't want is for property owners. Who've been trying to do the right thing to fill whipsawed by kind of instant changes in state. That's not fair and property owners, and people too, we got to treat everybody fairly. That's a really core part of what cities need to do.

F

um So those are the two things I'd ask for thanks for listening.

A

Yep um Vice champion.

E

Oh, thank you um yeah. This one is interesting um and I can understand sort of what makes it very, very tough, uh some of the same same questions that others have brought up.

E

I've been thinking about as well, and if we just go back a little when it comes to the jobs, housing balance Alone, um you know I wish we could put a sort of little temporary breather on the whole city just so we can sort of catch up and figure out what we could do to get that all in check, but that that's not what we're talking about now and I understand why downtown might be a little different. Why they've focused on this? Why?

E

Maybe because the precise plan is coming, I'm hoping it is I really feel like it's much more effective if we are looking at the price- a precise plan sooner rather than later, so that it's sort of in tandem with this we're making the best use of the time um and also just to take a breath and look at everything else that Steph has mentioned.

E

um If I, if I don't look at like individual owners, Property Owners, I sort of have the question about um our our downtown right now, if we're just looking at jobs, housing is already skewed so much towards office, and so much of the office is vacant in general. I'm, not sure why we're developing more office than in that case um it just doesn't. You know compute a little bit for me if we're just looking at the broader scope of what we've got.

E

If we have such vacancy, then maybe what we should also be doing for the downtown, since we're looking at how to bring businesses back in such and such and so forth is to figure out how to fill those vacant office spaces first, before we develop more of it, which would throw our jobs, housing balance specifically in downtown off way, even more and I feel like for the last years.

E

Maybe it's just because it's habitual at this point we're always playing catch up to all the changes and everything that's going on with the that's coming out of the state, we're like scrounging for funding everywhere, just to get some affordable housing.

E

Even when we do market rate ones we're getting such a small percentage and then now with state laws, you know you know we can't double dip, obviously as we're learning, and so it just feels like it's become the new Norm, where we're we're like discussing the little tidbits of how to get tiny bits of affordable housing and spending tons of millions of dollars from the city to do the the one or two affordable housing, 100, affordable housing units, and it's not I, don't I don't want to take away what property owners can do, but this is temporary I mean, as we've seen so many projects take years, anyways it's just to allow a little bit of time for the city and the staff to just assess where we are try to standardize it so that we're back to a point where we can say hey.

E

These are the rules, and this is what we're looking for as a community and as a city, we took a little time we're concentrating on this. Here they are so developers come. Please, and you know, send in your proposals and well it can be done a little bit, maybe more expeditely if the rules are laid out to begin with. Developer knows what they are and they just follow it.

E

um It just is more efficient. So, given that the the precise plan for downtown is so old, it's like early 80s I believe if we can get the downtown precise plan done soon. I can see that this is good timing and I I would be all for it.

E

I just think that a breather would be great, it's not to say, let's not do anything, it's temporary and we're not taking away what people can do now we're not even taking away the ability to do some office we're just saying: okay, let's just do a tiny little pause now, I totally understand why some people, who are almost finished they're ready to submit and they haven't. You know they didn't know. This was coming.

E

um Maybe staff and Council together could figure out what that deadline is I, don't know what that is. I, don't know what you know.

E

Staff has already talked to with other applicants and whether or not you're going to get you know chicken scratch pencil behind off the napkin kind of sketches in and say here we're proposing this so I, don't know where that deadline would fall, but I'd leave it up to staff and Council to figure that out, but I'm generally for this idea in Broad terms, I think it's a good idea to just truly assess take stock of where we are put rules in place that it goes back to you know holistically looking at things and right now, we've just been scrambling.

E

This would be a chance to at least take a breath and look holistically at least this little tiny part of our city. Thanks.

G

Thank you, chair, I, agree with a majority of the concept been shed already I'm, not going to repeat that, but I will emphasize the difference right and at this point there was no formal request by the city council to have this, be something that we looked at um from their vantage point. But uh my experience says that when staff recommend something, we should look into that and having her at Vice chair's perspective on a temporary pause and why I completely agree with that perspective, right um and I. Think when you look at it holistically.

G

This is the role that we play right now as EPC members, but we also see the value that city council uh takes into consideration when they deliberate about these types of issues, also at that level and in that formal process. So it's important to at least look at this as an opportunity to just take a breather. It's for a set period of time, so that possible through city council and whoever comes in or if the group stays the same. Can then I'm thinking.

G

This is more like an Ask of time for them to be able to explore this step by step, hoping that also the council in general will look at everything in general. That needs to be re-examined um as a packet right, but that's not my job right, I am not city council, I am EPC, and you know, in this case I understand both sides of the issue, but I'm going to give the benefits about to the staff, because I don't think that will lead us in the direction that would be negative as a whole.

G

I think it's more of a hey. We need a timeout here so that we can try and figure out these things at the next level, which is your city, council, colleagues um and and possibly how that's going to be dealt with in the future, and then we can come back, lift up this temporary uh cap and then move forward um so I'm trusting in the process right now. For that, that's what I'm, listening to and and um I'll be in support of of uh staff recommendation thanks.

A

um Commissioner, news.

H

um Absolutely and I I just want to you know, say uh before making my own comments, how much I I I do appreciate. Commissioner Yin and gutierrez's um viewpoints on this as well, especially with regards to um that temporary nature of of this um proposal uh again as a as a means to give us some space to understand.

H

um You know how we can approach things a little bit more holistically in the city, um and so one of the you know, just in terms of speaking to um people's open-mindedness about this, as as I kind of heard. uh Some of my colleagues mentioned um I, I I'll say this: um let's consider that you know there. There is such a thing as in an appeal to tradition um that uh you know, while because things have been done a certain way before um you know, and that can be a variety of things.

H

um Personal Traditions, you know, are enjoyable and and warm, and you know we enjoy them, um but when it comes to governance and to you know, like large macro level, um you know kind of Trends and how that percolates down into the everyday lives of people in our communities that that really ought not to be left up to tradition or in general. How things have been done before?

H

um How things have been done before has led us to this point where we're at right now, where yeah as as commissioner, you noted um there's almost this sensation of you know trying to scrap for morsels of affordable housing, um and that does need to change how we go about making that change needs to be Innovative. It needs to be new.

H

We need to figure things out, because how we've approached it in the past has continued to produce inadequate results for the community at large, um so I I would ask I would suggest, consider ask whatever um you know that we consider not necessarily basing our decisions in that kind of traditional methodology.

H

um The second point I wanted to make here- is, you know, I I'm personally, not in favor of finding ways to make exemptions um or to minimize them um with regards to you know any kind of like new applicants or applications, not already uh you know, basically, whatever staff has recommended uh anything outside of that I'm I'm personally, not very supportive of that um again, it's it's unfortunate, but making that kind of exemption now is just choosing to add more load onto the problem.

H

That I think an initiative like this gives us the breathing space to try and resolve. So um those are my comments um and I would iterate support again for the staff recommendation.

A

um I'm gonna raise my hand.

A

Sorry this was.

A

And I just said it in a collective, a simple answer here to me: um a couple initial thoughts right: this uh house bill doesn't go away if we pass this and Council passes us that the perking restriction is there no matter when it is um I, don't I have I'm skeptical uh one small, precise plan being the solution to our jobs, housing balance when I saw this what I and what I heard during the discussion around 590 was.

A

What do we want our downtown to be, and that to me is the precise plan. Precise plan is old. It was written at a time when answers had a lot of discretion and the state has done a lot to remove depression from City councils over time same time, I'm also a very big believer in you know. If somebody follows the rules, then damn it, they should be able to do that and I'm.

A

This idea of changing something here at the last minute without a path to completion, really bothers me um when we did the medical commute, a precise plan. I was not on the commission at the time. I was an observer. One of the things that I found very frustrating was all of The Gatekeepers that occurred during the development of the precise plan. In fact, what ended up happening in my view was that The Gatekeepers became the way the precise plan was developed instead of the precise plan being the way it was developed.

A

If this was being proposed as a as a item that was in conjunction with a decision by a council to take the next step and do that the plant, the phase two of the of the downtown precise plan, then this would make a lot of sense to me because it would be some kind of uh of you know we're going to put things on hold, but now there's a very definitive plan in place for coming up with what we went downtown to be. What is this supposed to be going forward?

A

The fact that the the phase two of the precise plan is not a goal at this point is not a something that is replaced by staff priority to me says this is premature, um this I. If this was something- and it was something it was proposed in conjunction with the the phase two of the downtown precise plan- then I would be- then this would make sense to me, but right now, this feels it feels too early. It feels unfair to the for the landowners that have been playing by the rules and, quite frankly, the vet.

A

There is a lot of bacon office space downtown. Are we going to get some additional office space? Do they still? Maybe but I'm not. You know.

A

I I work in San Francisco on vacancy rates in San, Francisco we're still astronomical than that population in the Bay Area is in fact negative people are leaving, it doesn't mean, there's still not a job, a housing problem, but I, don't I'm not expecting that all of a sudden, because AP whatever is 2089, goes into effect that there's going to be this rash of office space being built downtown, but this doesn't feel fair to me to the people who are that have been playing by the rules so far.

A

So if uh I mean commissioner Clark your your timeline to me is you know this would go into effect when Council votes to approve a work plan item for phase two of the downtown precise plan. There's some variant of this.

A

That says during the development of the precise plan we're not going to allow you know, Gatekeepers and other radical changes, but doing this independently of the of a downtown, precise plan feels disconnected to me, and it feels unfair to the to the landowners that are that are there today um and it's also unfair, because I agree question with Clark I, don't I, don't think people would have been excited with a seven-story apartment, complex or housing development in in that corner either.

A

So uh I think the question that came out of that discussion was what did we went downtown to be and I don't know that we know that at this point- and this feels premature so I'm I'm reluctant to support this at this time, but I I they're. Taking this to council and saying you know something like this: in conjunction with a decision to move forward with phase two of the downtime precise plan would make sense would be something that I would be would make sense to me to communicate to council. That's my thing: Mr Clark.

I

Yeah I agree with you. There is an aspect to it that I I do want to respect to and that I actually agree with the you know: livable Mountain, View and others, which is you know the the the legislation taking effect in January. One I I totally get like not wanting a rush of applications that don't have um sort of any respect for our existing um regulatory framework in terms of in movies or parking minimums or other things.

I

So so I do think if, if something's done here, it probably does need to um coincide uh with that, um and just briefly to address um uh commissioner Nunez earlier uh Thomas like it's, it's not about tradition for me, I'm, actually, someone who doesn't really care for tradition that much it's more about good governance and I. It would be one thing if these were like large corporate landlords, um but um but from my from my experience downtown, you know a lot of these. Are um you know these? Are?

I

um These are folks who are either part of the community or been part of the community for Generations, or these Parcels have been passed down for Generations?

I

They aren't you, you know they're individual families, as we heard from some speakers earlier, and you know they they feel part of the community and I feel like they're in most of them are good, have been good partners to us in the past and they've worked with us um through through boom times and recessions, and um not all of them are purely self-interested and so um I I do think that we owe a duty of care um to. You know not just change the rules.

I

um You know, rent control was one thing that was a debate that was raging for a very long time. There were a number of proposals put for us over years. People were thinking about it, this sort of just reared his head.

I

After you know an office application um and and granted it had been festering for a while and and there was State legislation that sort of became as part of it too, but it's just very rare for us to change the rules on on folks on short notice, and sometimes there may be good reasons for that.

I

But, um but that to me is is not about tradition, it's about being a good governing body and and respecting our our, not just our our residents but our, but our partners in the community who help make our community Thrive so um I, guess the I I have a question for staff, and just tell me if this is isn't feasible, but I mean. Is there some way that we could allow folks to who who want to submit um you uh compliant or applications that are compliant with the current downtown precise plan?

I

You know, for example, through the end of the year um and have those have those processed you know would, could we do that or would they then have the? uh But or could they just simply revise those applications based on the new state law after January 1, and be able to do that by assumption would be they would have to withdraw and resubmit?

I

um In which case you know, then our new rules here would apply and they wouldn't be able to take advantage of that state law, but I guess what I'm trying to figure out is. If there's some way to allow someone who's. You know fully complying with our our existing rules in terms of parking, new fees or um or fully parking their project um to to proceed up until the point where the state law kicks in um which I think is, is I.

I

I share that concern with with a lot of the members of the community and staff and Council. Here too,.

S

Yeah, that's a great question and I'll I'll try to answer it, but then I think uh City attorney might might need her confirmation on this or not. But my my understanding is that we would not be able to enforce any provision of parking after January 1st. So that means, if somebody came in- and you know their submittal on December 5th had you know uh two levels of underground parking, uh then we and we approved it. You know in you know the next year or something like that.

S

Then, if they came in with a building permit, we we would not be able to enforce that on. The building. Permit um is that correct, Sandy or um I just want to confirm.

T

I think alternatively I mean so this is a new law, so we're still kind of grappling with how it's going to work in practice, but um to the extent that they they may have to come in for a development. um The amendment to the development permit, but the city would not be in a position to deny that Amendment, because the city can't enforce or impose. You know parking minimums on Parcels that are within a half mile of a major Transit stop I.

I

Understood and so I guess I have a second part to that, which is you know, is there some way for us to I'm thinking in my head, like I I? Don't care that much about additions, or you know if you have a historic um building and you're adding on to it. um You know. Maybe it's maybe it's somewhat more than 0.35 far, but we, but maybe we don't necessarily want another. You know empty parking lot to develop into a a large office um during this period.

I

I uh I'd, probably just over complicating things but I'm, just wondering if there's some way to sort of carve out basically say like look. What we really don't want here is like an empty parcel or or a a cleared parcel to become a primary. Primarily.

I

You know an office building, maybe with some ground floor retail but primarily office above 3.35, but we don't really care that much if you're redeveloping an existing parcel and you're not scraping it um and you're, preserving most of what's there and you're just adding some additional office, um but maybe that's too difficult to carve out in the short period that we have in the next six days. But that was my other thought.

S

Yeah I mean I would just say that if that's the consensus from the EPC, you know, however, you want to put those ideas together. uh We you know we can Endeavor to put turn that into you know a concrete standard to present the chemical.

S

That's the ebc's recommendation.

I

Got it okay, well, I think just for others benefit like the the place where I've sort of landed is I I'm comfortable with something going into effect, um to sort of give us time to figure out what we're going to do about how this relates to the parking and other things, but but I I would hope that and I think we should recommend that the council take the step to prioritize um phase. Two of the downtown precise plan is part of this.

I

um They can you know it's one thing to prioritize: it's another schedule whether they decide to you know make themselves a note to ensure that this is you know top of the list when they consider their goal, setting uh for what whoever is on the new Council and um in the spring like that, would be sufficient for me, but I I wouldn't want to like do this and then like Kick, the Can down the road in terms of them uh in terms of everyone determining sort of to to prioritize this, and then the other piece would be trying to find some way to allow those who um those who might want to.

I

um You know whether it's setting a November one um cut off or setting the cut off to whenever the council hearing is I. Don't know what the right answer there is, but um um I just want to I want to take into account the the folks who um have generally been working pretty hard on applications and might be impacted at this by the last minute.

A

G

Yeah uh Chris actually mentioned a lot of other points that I had planned to speak about. um So thank you, commissioner. Clark on that. But I think the important thing to remember here, though too, is if we can carve in some sort of exception, for those who are not sobrato, because I think that's what I I think. That's what what happened with from a Landon's perspective, big company comes in sobrato, comes in I love him right, I mean alumni from Santa. Clara are very attentive.

G

Community have given back to those in need throughout Santa Clara County and the Bay Area as a whole. I get it, but this one project was really a bad taste in everyone's mouths right and because of that, all the little people who are not massive owners of production or owners of a big company like Serato, are paying the price for it, and that's not fair right.

G

So, if is that, if there's any way that we can use counselves bring in language if it's, if it's feasible enough um to be specific to those current owners of um uh Parcels in Mountain View, that then I think that's very different from just I think that goes to the point of comparing them to a vacant lot, where anything, maybe can go right. So I leave that into Sandy's perspective in terms of finding the language to be specific enough to be impactful with what we're trying to achieve understanding.

G

The reason why this is even brought to us in the first place and I think when, when Eric mentioned to me that they're trying to be proactive for me, that was a part of good governance and governing isn't easy. It's messy, and sometimes you come into these issues where you hear both sides of the issue and you understand both perspectives, but when staff all also comes into play and says hey, this is why we think we can do this and why we should then do this.

G

It goes to that issue of being in good governance mode because we have been behind the eight ball for the last five eight years with, for whatever reason, many issues when the state says something, then we have to catch up and if the team's trying to say hey, here's an opportunity, though it's smaller nature, it's still going to have an impact on everyone involved. Let's take the time to do the time out now, because we think it's worth it so I.

G

Having heard what commissioner Clark had mentioned in combining these perspectives as a whole from the EPC I can see us agreeing to something like this and and then moving forward with recommendation with these caveats. Thanks.

B

F

You know, like many of my colleagues, I think everybody. You know you know I'm feeling a bit split.

C

About it and I.

F

Think that this is an important conversation, I think some of the concerns about what could happen downtown are well-founded. um However, you know, process is important and fairness is important.

F

um I'll just tell you what I wish would happen. What I wish would happen is I wish staff could just take in the conversation that we had tonight go back to the drawing board and then in two weeks come back with. You know a staff member. That's got that's a little bit evolved. That has a couple of options in it. That lets us decide. Well, should it be 0.354, should it be 50 000 square feet?

F

Maybe it's a third thing, um and you know, maybe you know bacon some very reasonable exception for folks that are just about there um and then then we could vote on it and it would have been out in the public. It wouldn't feel like a like. It fell out of the sky.

F

It's been getting some due process, there's time for people to send us letters and tell us where it's a great idea, we're full of it or whatever, but in my ideal world, that's actually what I'd like to see happen, because what I you know, I I, don't know that we need to rush to get something into the council's hands tomorrow morning.

F

um I, don't think we have to do that I think. Maybe we couldn't take a little bit more time to like really bake this and and think this through, because I'd rather give them a fully baked pie rather than a you know: a bag full of ingredients, foreign.

A

What do you, what are you proposing I am I mean I will say that anything that doesn't allow some kind of grace period for current donors. I know I would not support um I, don't know, but I'm, not exactly sure what you are kind of proposing as something else and I I to a certain extent. Agree with commissioner Dempsey that I I'd like to see something different, but I. Don't know that we're I, don't know that we're the right place to come up with the answer that at this point so I get you.

A

You talked around a framework but I'm not sure what it. What would I be voting on is because I'm not clear on.

I

Yeah, well that that's fair, um that was my my brain, trying to figure out something on the Fly, um but I do think and and Eric tell me if you disagree like you know, if, if staff, you know, if staff worked really hard on this and their recommendation is what they presented to us like I, you know I, think that should be one of the options for Council to consider.

I

um You know I, you know they've they've made good arguments in in the staff report, so so I think, if, if it were me like presenting it to council I think what I'd say was you know, here's the staff recommendation, um the the EPC had some concerns about it. We still recommend it, but here is here, is um here's some of the um here's, some of the concerns that EPC had and here's how we might be able to address them?

I

One being um you know, providing uh a grace period for folks to to apply- um and here are some options for those dates um you can set it to um the original public notice date. Like is currently being proposed. Now you can set it to maybe Today this meeting date that we had on November, 2nd where you could set it to be. You know the council meeting date or or a date at the end of the year.

I

I, don't know what the right answer is and I think there are probably some um some uh things that um the city attorney's office should probably look at as part of that, but I think so one concern would be you know, providing some sort of grace period.

I

um I think the other would be um that at least my concern was I I'm much more concerned about um you know. After January 1 someone's submitting you a significant, um you know a high, far proposal for a vacant site or a site. That's going to be scraped than I. Am you know someone making some modifications to an existing structure?

I

um You know doing some additions, those sorts of things I, don't know. I I, don't um I, don't know how to better state that, but I think I think what we, what we don't want in the next um during this period, where we're developing phase two of the precise plan uh is, um you know a another like you know, High far off purely August project right, maybe with ground floor retail, but but still like that's sort of that, but that doesn't have any parking, Provisions or anything like I. Think, that's, that's really.

I

What we're we're trying to to get at here and I, don't know how to better word attack but I think those are. Those are the two like primary um uh primary concerns that I have is: is some sort of some sort of grace period? I, don't know what the right date is. I think they're, probably legal implications for choosing that right date and then the other would be.

I

um um If the council wants to provide a little bit of leniency around. You know uh you know additions or add-ons um and instead wants to sort of really Target. um You know vacant or or sites that could be. um You know scraped, but then you also have to craft that language which I I feel bad about. You know stat having to figure out. Those are the two big things. I think the you know this sort of came out of it. You know this was pretty short notice.

I

um Those sorts of things like that's water under the bridge. At this point, um so I, I, don't um and and I do genuinely feel like we we do need to do something.

I

um I generally want um uh just given the the state law there and be Network develop our ordinances. So that's where I'm at I'm, not sure if that helps Eric, but um maybe it does maybe it doesn't, but.

A

um Vegetarian right did you hear Eric? Did you want to respond to that.

S

No I I think that's a uh you know that that direction is is something that we can work with. I think as as other Commissioners speak, maybe we might have to kind of further refine uh that direction. But um you know I don't have any thoughts or questions or comments.

A

E

uh Thank you, yeah I was gonna jump in there um to try to help craft something too, um and it's very similar to what commissioner clerk was saying. I I I do think um it would be a good idea to note to counsel that prioritizing phase two would be important to us if everyone else agrees.

E

I I also think that um you know, as I said earlier, that the exceptions and I was going to leave to council and sorry and staff and to sort of tweak that a little bit and just give a little bit more detail, and maybe Sandy um you'll, have something to say to this because I don't understand the legal aspects and repercussions at all, um maybe by the date Council sees this and I don't know.

E

If staff can do this see how many applications come in and what they are and just present them as they are so by today's date, as staff has made the recommendation. These are the projects that would be affected if more end up coming in I. Don't know how much time staff takes to do it, but just draw a map of where they are. What the proposal is.

E

Generally, like how large it is and what either the jobs housing balance would be off by this much or you know just the sort of key data points very quickly and compare this date, the date of council meeting, and maybe some other one that you feel is key and let Council then see what the repercussions are and they can choose out of like three dates. uh What they feel is best.

E

That's, that's all I've got sorry I, don't know if that helps, but maybe just presenting it. That way might help.

A

G

Great idea, that's true yeah! Those are that's great I like that, because at least the council then has the option: well, not the option, but the accounts can then look at the immediate impact of how this would affect those that are in waiting and who have just applied or will apply, and so that gives them a better holistic perspective of the impact to such a short-term cap. The other thing, though, is Eric. I I, don't know if you know this or not, but I've got to ask and Sandy as well in terms of capacity.

G

If you were to have these types of suggestions added on to what we're discussing now and we were to incorporate this uh as into the resolution, uh the staff recommendation uh I'm wondering if that's the ideal point or if there's enough time, as it was suggested before by commissioner Clark and others to go back and then bring this back.

G

I'm, not sure that there's enough time, because we only have I believe one me in November right and then I think there's only another meeting in December for us, uh but then Council schedules jammed packed as far as I know. So the so, if we're working on a type timeline so that they can have something in full so that we can accommodate what they're doing to review things before the end of the year, then we may not have enough time to have you beef.

G

This up, bring it back with option one staff recommendation two and three, but rather just do the markup. Now, as we discuss this and then move that forward and is.

G

Is that scenario what I'm describing right now? Which of those two do you think would be best for us to approach.

S

So let me let me respond to both what what you said in the recommendation from the vice chair um regarding what you said. I think, ultimately, what we would have to do is take the recommendation to council now the EPC can, as part of the recommendation say.

S

We think this is premature, and so we don't think you should adopt this right now. But you know in the um you know, in the next few months, after doing more Outreach or doing more analysis or doing more whatever we can. We can come back and ask this question again, so that can be part of the epc's recommendation. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems like kind of the direction that you were going regarding Vice cherian's uh option, I I'm, not sure that that's possible.

S

um What's your, what you're saying is that you know somebody could actually submit an application in the morning of the council meeting and then the staff would have to present that application.

S

That night at the council meeting and I that that's kind of an extreme example, but really the the the um uh the analysis and Report preparation time. Is it it's not immediate right, I mean that's one of the reasons why we have a month between EPC and Council meetings and it's very difficult to include a significant amount of additional analysis, especially if the closer and closer you get to the the council meetings.

S

And so we would expect that anybody who would be wanting to submit an application would want to take as much time as possible to do so, um and so it would be. It would be a very, very difficult for us to present um a set of applications to counsel and have them make a determination on a cut off. Based on that.

E

I understand, thank you.

G

Okay, so I have a quick follow-up, then Eric. So if that option isn't available for city council to review applications up to set deadline time, including the date of when this is going to be discussed at that moment with City Council um I I, don't know what you've heard from my suggestion on I'm, not sure we understood each other that clearly, my point was more.

G

If we're going to mark up the recommendation now, because we didn't have enough time for you to go back and make this prettier I just want to know that and I think I heard. Your answer was saying that we don't have enough time right.

S

G

Right, okay, so I think based on that, based on the items that were brought up by the Commissioners as a whole, I think Sandy has a good amount of understanding of what type of language we're looking for for the restrictions or the exceptions that we'd like to look at and add on to the recommendation as points of interest for Council to review. Does that make sense.

T

G

T

A lot of things but I, don't know what a majority of the EPC is going to support. So I need to hear a motion with kind of the bullet points of what you would like. I mean it could be. You move the staff recommendation. You know with an additional exemption for a pipeline provision to exempt projects that have submitted an application by such and such a date and any of the dates actually that you've floated um could potentially work. I mean I, don't think, there's a legal problem with any of them.

T

No one will be vested anyway for for an office project um so and then, and then, if there's other bullet points, you want to add to the the motion, then we'll see and then and then we may be able to work with with that craft language. Well,.

G

That's wonderful because now at least we all have a framework from what you need from us to be able to figure that out right. So that's that's! That's key to be able to figure out okay. What does Sandy need to move this forward? So I would agree with uh commissioner Clark's perspective early on with the two points that he made now I. Don't know what the other Commissioners think so, maybe now's a good time to find out. Do you all like that perspective or in favor of that?

G

Or would you want to change that in general,.

A

But quick question Sandy. Would this require a second reading.

T

Does does it require? A second reading is.

A

U

A

T

Chair, oh no, it doesn't because it's an amendment of The, precise plan which is done by resolution, so it doesn't require a second rating.

A

This would go into effect the day that they would vote in favor.

F

A

Which right now is tentatively set for December 6th.

S

Now, uh generally, these resolutions go into effect. 30 days later, we we have an effective date for the resolution.

T

Oh, you put an effective date in there: okay, because resolutions can be effective upon adoption. I, don't know, if is that, for a precise plans, specifically.

S

um Yeah, let me um I'll double check that just a second.

A

I guess but I'm getting at is picking on what commissioner Clark.

C

A

About which is picking a date, okay and the idea of giving them multiple choice, let's not I'm, not a big fan of that, but I would either either it's the date that it's that they you know the the grace period goes up until December 6th or if it's goes into effect. 30 days later, any project submitted up until January 6th but I'm not comfortable with now or yesterday, kind of a thing.

A

So if commissioner Clark is open to something like that, that would be I would be more inclined to something that was linked linked to the date that Council votes on it and when the thing goes into effect, so that there's some period of time, if the fix that would give roughly 30 days from now if it was 30 days after that or December 30 December 31st, that's fine, but I think there needs to be some kind of a time frame.

A

And if the thinking about what professional Clark said, if it's something in the um in your in the staff report, it says Small Change associated with building upgrades of governmental property, blah blah. If there was um Improvement in this one before is improving and placed buildings, but not to add office space greater than a 3.5 far, that could be set some some specific square footage limit.

A

That might maybe that would address the Clark's concern and my concern at the same time or something so if it's, it upgrades the property, something with the same property and remove the the parking lot demolition. You know the building on a parking lot approach: I, don't know how clear I was there, but something that I'm something along that line.

A

That says, you know if they're approving a space of the upgrading existing space, expanding something that's already there within a you know within some number, uh within the precise plan, I think, like I said, the precise plan allows up to 0.4 um is what you said earlier Eric, so if it was within that guideline and on on upgrading an existing building or something like that better, that would make some sense that then that would make more sense to me, uh commissioner. Clerk.

I

Yeah, so it sounds like it would be. The staff recommendation with um with three additional points. One would be that the the EPC recommend that the council prioritize phase two of the downtown precise plan um review and update alongside um the adoption of this resolution uh or or berries in there after um uh you know, at minimum with a note to prioritize it if they're goal setting but um anyway that I think the first position would be. You know in court.

I

uh You know in concert with adopting the resolution that they also um prioritize um phase two of the downtown precise Plan update process as soon as possible, uh two that the um two that they, the council, that the EPC recommends that there be a pipeline um provision, um uh I think um you can basically present to council the applications that you've received up up through the point where you're comfortable you know, including them in the staff report that that goes out.

I

You know, as of the time, you would change that report, and maybe um you know my personal view is that the the um the earliest date, the Airways cutoff date, would be the date that you noticed the council meeting, um which would be approximately. You know four weeks from now, but if the council wants to you know the council sees the list and they decide that they want to provide. You know additional time, then that's perfectly fine too, but I think there I think at minimum.

I

There should be a pipeline provision in my personal preference, I.

I

Don't know how my colleagues feel is that the the latest uh or the the airway state that that should be should be the um the um the nursing of the of the council um I'm hearing on this, and then the third would be um that um that the council, you know, consider um you know a separate uh cap for, um for you, know, additions or or modifications to a structure, I'm, not sure how to best word this, because I don't want people to sort of be able to weasel around it, but um but basically you're you're 0.35, for you know a vacant site or a site, that's being scraped or that that's you know, a separate structure is, is fine I, just think if someone, uh if you want to do like a if you think a square footage cap makes more sense.

I

For you know. In addition, if someone's adding a couple of floors of something to an existing building or adding on to a historic structure that they're preserving the historic portion of it and adding on to it, and if that's that, if it's easier to do that as a square footage cap as opposed to an apar cap, then I'd be open to that too.

I

But the I think the fundamental, the fundal fundamental recommendation there is to maybe consider having a a um a more lenient cap for that um that type of project versus you know just a scrape site or a vacant site, that's starting from scratch.

I

This is the three-pronged approach um in addition to the staff recommendation.

A

Criterias yep.

G

All right, um no I agree with the perspective that Chris brought up now. It's just a matter of the rest of us trying to figure out if we'd like to go, you know with a script footage amount or or the the far I'm I'm open to to either or um but I. Think if we go with the square footage, we'd have to uh we'd have to really look into the size uh more seriously and not just throw a number out there.

A

D

Yeah, you would also just have concerns about picking a square footage amount without greater information and I, don't know anything about the Morales project or where that would be and would want to make sure it's Equitable across any other projects that would be in the pipeline and I also would like to command commissioner Clark for coming up with a three-pong approach um on the cusp. So thank you for for that framework.

A

Let's try again.

E

I, concur with the other Commissioners that I I don't feel like I have enough information to determine Square, footages, um so I sort of in that realm sort of leave it up to staff to figure out where that cutoff needs to be. For me, I would be amenable to looking at a date, though I can't say what that date might be.

E

um For me, it would be the two things which is um prioritizing phase two and a sort of a pipeline exemption date. I would be comfortable with just going with staff recommendation as well on that too. So I'm not ruling that out, but I I do totally understand the the parody issue. So I I'd be open to looking at a date.

H

uh Let me lower my hand, yeah I am also don't want to get into the technical weeds of a you know, square footage, number um and yeah I mean setting a date. I think would be a good compromise here. uh So I can definitely support that, not sure that I want to be the one to come up with a date or that you know really kind of think about it too hard. If we don't have to, if staff feels there's a good uh framework they can deploy, uh then that would also be good.

H

But commissioner, Clark's compromising is uh pretty reasonable.

A

Sorry sorry, quick question for Eric Do. You have a thought on. How do we deal with these? You know existing sites approach is, it sounds like majority of Commissioners are uncomfortable deciding on a square footage number. Is there a different way of addressing the far a number that would excellent.

S

That's a that's a good uh question. You know there are a lot of different ways to look at it. um You know, if you focus on square footage, then you're letting smaller sites go through and probably not letting larger sites go through. If you focus on far it's probably a little more vice versa.

S

um If you um are really interested in the addition question, you may want to have something in there. That's about like what percentage increase is happening on the building right, so that they're not just saving a wall.

S

um You know those are all different uh ways of thinking about the the question and there are probably more um you know it sounds to me. Like um you know what the focus of the conversation has been has been really around.

S

You know that there is already a significant structure on the building: that's not being reduced in any way and that the um you know what's being added on is, is you know? Maybe it's and I I can't say right now, not knowing it very much about the you know, the the 198 Castro project, I, really, don't know how much they're proposing to add I. Don't know.

S

um You know what the footprint is of that part of the building or how any of that would would be affected by any of this, but these are the. The point is right that we don't have enough information to know. What's what those metrics are right now, but I think we can take some thoughts from EPC about. Do you care about the size of the site? Do you care about the addition? How much of the addition it is? Do you care about?

S

um You know the um uh how much of the building is being preserved. Things like that and then we may be able to craft a standard uh record. You.

V

Know move that forward.

A

Forward Mr Clark.

I

Yeah so I think it sounds like we have consensus around or like reasonable consensus around the first point, which is that the EPC recommends that the council prioritize the second phase of the precise Point update process alongside the adoption resolution.

I

um The second part being I, don't know if it's uh unanimous but the um you know there being a pipeline provision and you can present to council their their options, but maybe State as long as my colleagues agree that the that the epc's recommendation was that the um uh or or that one of the dates that the EPC recommended looking at was the the date of the the notice of for the uh city council meeting went out, um but obviously, if they want to go farther back um uh to like November one or even beyond that they can and if they want to be more lenient.

I

They can do that too, but but always capturing that the I think. Maybe there was a consensus amongst the EPC that the there should be a pipeline provision and it should be um it should be after today, uh but um I'm not sure. We all feel that way, but it sounded like a majority might have and then the third thing um I think from a staff perspective, it's probably most important to get those first, two things um plus the actual resolution in place um at that at that um December 6 uh council meeting.

I

Assuming that's what council wants to do, I think you could also you know, you're, probably not going to be able uh unless you're superhuman, which sometimes stuff is um in the next five weeks to you, know craft. What a reasonable uh carve out or or more lenient development standard would be for uh an existing structure, but I get. But you could ask the question of council and you could say that EPC was interested in you're, perhaps having a more lenient standard for existing structures that aren't um for for additions and things like that.

I

It is it the sense of counsel that they'd like to look at that, because you can always add that later um you can always be more lenient later, um if you, if, uh if Council wishes it's hard to it's hard to um go the other direction so um that that in my head is sort of emotion. So it's the it's! The it would be the um uh the staff recommendation with one that the the EPC recommends.

I

Is the council prioritized these two of the precise plan development, alongside the the adoption of the resolution um to that the council adopt a pipeline provision. That um um is a date uh that provides you know. uh You know additional time for applicants to uh to submit applications um uh with uh with a preference for the the cut-off date being no um no sooner than the the notice of the the council hearing.

I

um But you can also promise that option. The other options to council too, if they don't like that recommendation um and three, that um that Council consider a more lenient, um a more lenient standard for existing structures like a at where, where additions and things like that, um and if they wish to do that, you know we can explore that further or staff can explore that further and bring back something more fully baked and if they are interested in it and they want to keep it super clean, then so be it.

I

But at least we've noted that the the discussion here was um there was at least um I think some consensus around, maybe looking at a more lenient standard from those particular cases.

A

Mr Gutierrez: are you in a second England? Yes,.

G

I'm second, in that and I appreciate, Chris's perspective on that. So thank you for saying.

A

E

uh Just to just to clarify, if even if today's staff's recommendation passed is there still a way for someone to come in when gatekeeper process is open to just become a gatekeeper project if they did not meet what we're talking about here,.

S

Yeah anybody can propose any uh um application that doesn't comply with development standards through the gatekeeper process, um and so um that would be councils uh acquiescence to for staff to study and work on that project. Okay,.

A

For clarity that they, anybody can propose that hey I want to be a gatekeeper, but it's up to council to say: okay, we are going to Grant this one right, yeah, exactly okay,.

E

Just wanted to double check.

A

Say I'm going to allow this gatekeeper in downtown to go further forward right.

P

T

That gatekeeper would probably include in another amendment to the precise plan to allow for it. So oh.

E

Really: okay, okay, um I I'm comfortable with what commissioner Clark had presented, um because, at least from what I'm seeing that's the direction we're going. That would uh that feels comfortable for I? Think the majority of the EBC is my sense of it, but I'll wait till everyone else speaks.

A

F

Yeah, it looks like we're getting close to a boat here. um I wanted to say just two things, one um with the Nuance. That's been added, I. Think to this. That gets me close enough, so I I'll be comfortable.

F

um I'll be comfortable going along with this and I wanted to commend commissioner Clark for all this hard work. Trying to like you know, piece all that piece all that stuff together to get it to where we were so I commend him for his uh clever work there um and look forward to getting this done.

F

H

Yeah I can support the proposal on the table.

A

A

um Looks like we have uh they're gonna make it a formal motion, commissioner.

I

Yeah I don't know if Safari captured it or if I need to repeat it. One more time is this normal motion, but.

S

uh I'll just confirm real, quick, uh make sure I have it.

S

um Basically, it's a staff recommendation plus a recommendation that Council prioritize phase two of the precise plan uh that uh recommendation that a pipeline provision also be included uh with a cut off date um or some options for cutoff date, but likely no later than the notice for the council meeting um and then early no earlier no earlier than the capsule, the notice, okay, I'm glad I'm terrified um uh and then a also a recommendation that Council uh request staff to study a separate, more lenient cap for additions or modifications to a building uh that we could come back to later.

I

um Just two minor changes, the the last one, not that the epz requests that Council um do that, but that the council um basically indicates that the there was interest amongst the APC and having a separate, more lenient standard and that the council consider that um I I wouldn't go so far as to say that we want the council to do that. And then um there was one other, um um oh, yes and and I, um while the epcs I I.

I

Think General consensus was that the the date should be no earlier than the for the pipeline provision should be nowhere than the council. um The note, the public notice of the council um uh meeting for that item that you you'll present all the options that they have to be.

I

You know more stricter, more lenient um and then uh not really part of what we go, um but just maybe, if you'd be willing to just update the list of applications for Council that you've received um at that point, whatever you feel is most um reasonable for you, I, don't know if you can do it up until the point when the staff report goes out, but but I'm sure Council might be interested in what has come in since so they can make a make a decision on whether to make it earlier or later for that pipeline provision, because there might be folks we haven't heard from tonight who submit something, and maybe those won't be those applications won't be of interest but anyway, that that all captures it I think and if and if um Eric that's okay with you, then I'll I'll make that my motion.

S

I

A

C

A

Secretary is, are you still seconding.

G

Of course, yeah.

A

Okay, that's true, and you had your hand up. We had a question.

A

E

I was gonna, say what commissioner Clark just said, which is to to not say we're requesting that it be no later, but that it is up to their discretion if they want it earlier um or not, and I was also going to to just ask if we wanted to put a later uh the the latest date for for the point that um commissioner Clark had said earlier about the state law passing and there's a there's that date that is looming, that would sort of take us into the realm of um you know losing out on some of the the benefits for which we're doing this entire thing um and I don't know exactly what that date would be if it doesn't take effect 30 days until it's noticed or until the vote so wait.

E

A minute. December 6 is when the council might meet on this, so it's possible that it would be January 6th that it goes into effect. Yeah.

S

So Sandy was right: it actually does go into effect immediately um and you it doesn't matter either way because nobody would be vested in that month anyway, right, nobody would would get their uh their vesting rights at that period.

E

I understand now: okay, thank you. Thank you. It's I! Third, it.

A

Very clear or we're not.

P

Clinton, yes,.

A

Nothing is sending nothing here: okay, Mr, Clark,.

I

Yeah before we vote I just wanted to say thank you to everyone like I know, I'm still personally uncomfortable with this, but I I feel better about it and I'm sure we all have some level of discomfort with the compromise we've agreed to, but I um anyway. I really appreciate you all sort of putting up but trying to come up uh all all um all of your um uh recommendations, sort of putting everything together so that we could figure out a path forward.

I

That I think probably fully satisfies no one, but at least gets us moves the ball forward and solves whatever problem is people.

A

G

Yeah I think this is a cool process when we work like a team like this, you can problem solve and and- and this is I think this is what it's all about for me, at least so this was a good night.

A

All right, so, where did my clerk coach we're on the screen? Okay, Joe? um Can we go ahead and call the room.

B

All right, commissioner, Clark.

B

T

I

Mute, yes, oh I said I.

B

Commissioner Dempsey commissioner Gutierrez.

C

B

Commissioner hamai aye, commissioner newness aye a vice chair in aye and chair question.

B

Motion carries the anonymously.

A

Thank you. Everyone.

A

Good work, um so we will move on to item six commission staff, announcements updates, requests committee reports. No action will be taken by any item brought up during this time. So Eric. Could you have uh update on our next meetings.

S

Sure yeah, so the next meeting is uh going to be the housing element, um we're uh getting all of that ready for you. You should expect um the final eir uh out uh end of the week.

S

uh That's that's our goal for getting that out, so you should be able to find that on the web on the website, then um we're we're working hard to finalize the the housing element for your review.

S

um You know our goal is to try to get it out as early next week as we can um if it comes out on Thursday, and you only get the long weekend to review it, I apologize, but that that is that may be a reality given um given what we're working on so, um but it will come out no later than Thursday foreign.

S

Yeah we do um tentatively, um uh let's see well I'll, just say right now that we we do technically have some items. um I, don't I'll have to give a report on those next. The.

V

D

Just on that I'm holding the 14th of December for a special EPC meeting is that right or is that old.

S

uh So it was a special EPC meeting um uh on the original calendar. um It actually doesn't look like we have any items scheduled for that meeting at this time. um Give us another two weeks, yeah and we'll we'll give let you know if it. If it's going to be officially canceled.

D

Of course, thank you.

A

I

Clark just to be clear, we should be holding just to be safe. We should hold the seventh and the 14th for now, but not the 20th.

S

Yes, the Set, uh the seventh uh but sorry, but not.

I

Sorry, the seventh and 14th, and but not the 21st yeah.

S

No, the 21st was never scheduled as a c meeting, just because of the holidays um but yeah for now. This is the seven from the court.

I

Okay and not November 30th, so okay now got it. Thank you.

A

Any other announcement.

S

Yeah, just that it's getting to be that time and so I'm gonna be sending out. um You know holiday party ideas. uh It's always nice to get together um outside of this. These great heady discussions, but um in a more relaxed atmosphere. uh So um any uh just be ready for that and I'll set up some dates and some possible locations.

S

A

The November second meeting of.

C

The environmental.

A

Planning Commission at 10, 16 p.m, and our next regularly meeting regular meeting will be November, 16 2022.. Thank you. Everyone.

D

Thanks everybody thanks.