Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Commissioners, we're all set. Thank you.

Good evening. Let's call to order the special planning commission meeting study session of 8th June, 2026 at 6 p.m. The city doesn't tolerate disruptive behavior in our meetings. This planning commission meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means the commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker comments must be limited to the agenda item being considered by the commission. If a speaker's comments are not related to an agenda item, the presiding officer will rule the speaker out of order. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of a disagreement with the content of their speech. Location and online meeting details are available on the planning commission agenda. Use the show caption button to view the captions on Zoom. Following the study session, the regular planning commission meeting will begin. We encourage the public to stay tuned and participate in the regular meeting. Recording officer, may we please have the roll calls?

Commissioner Davis? Present. Commissioner Fagoni.

Present.

Chair Iglesias.

Present.

Commissioner Pine.

Present.

Commissioner Cerrone.

Present.

Commissioner Segura.

Present. Vice Chair Shukla.

Present.

We have seven commissioners present.

Thank you. Moving on on our item, the file number 26-0568. proposed project related applications on a 0.69 acre site, special development permit to demolish the existing one story single family dwelling and construct eight two story single family dwellings with overall 65.8% FAR floor area ratio. The tentative map is to subdivide into nine lots. Location is 781 South Wolf Road, APN 211-05-009. Is there a staff report?

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. Yes, we do have a staff report. My name is Aastha Vashirishta. I'm project planner for this application, which is at 781 South Wolf Road. Next slide, please. The project includes demolition of existing one-story single-family home and construction of eight two-story new single-family homes with an overall FAR of around 66%. This requires a special development permit. Additionally, it also requires a tentative map for subdividing the existing lot into a total of nine lots, including one common lot. Next, please. So looking at the neighborhood here, it's located in vicinity of Village Center 3 site, which is at the intersection of Old San Francisco and South Wolf Road. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of a variety of residential uses, including single-family homes to the north. that are part of Firethorn Terrace development. There are also single-family homes to the south and the west. It's also located in vicinity of Braley Elementary School, and there are also multifamily near the property. Next, please. So a little bit background about the site. This site went through a general plan amendment and rezoning application last year. And the current general plan designation now is low-medium density residential with the zoning of R2, which is low-medium density residential again, with the plan development overlay. Next, please. So looking at site layout here, the site has two frontages, one along South Wolf Road and the other is along Luster Leaf Drive. The proposed vehicular access is from Luster Leaf Drive and the applicant is also proposing a publicly accessible pedestrian connection that will help in improving the neighborhood's connectivity with Wolf Road. The central private street, which is 20 feet wide, will serve these eight single-family homes, and each of these homes have their individual two-car garages. Additionally, the applicants are proposing several off-site improvements, including street trees, new sidewalks, new driveway approaches, curbs, as well as slurry seal along both the frontages. Next, please. The proposed architectural style, it's a mix. It's a combination of farmhouse and contemporary dance style. And the applicant is using a mix of different materials as well as wall plane changes to articulate the facade. Next, please. So this is another plan type, which has more contemporary dance style architecture again here, there is a mix of different material, including horizontal lap siding stucco. Standing see metal roof on the entry porch and role playing changes that help in articulating the facade next week. is a view from wolf road and here we can see the wrapped around entry porch on the corner property, we can also see the pedestal access to the South next, please. Another view from lustily private internal street and here we can see the proposed new 20 feet by private street next, please. Here's the elevation, north elevation and south elevation for all the homes. Next. So for this project, we hired a third party environmental consultant, David J. Powers, and for the general plan amendment application, they prepared a negative declaration. And for this project, they're working on preparing an addendum to the negative declaration. The project did not require a separate traffic study, but there were concerns during the GPA process about the traffic and pedestrian impacts by the neighbors. And to address that, the applicant voluntarily conducted a traffic study and they hired hexagon consultants to conduct that study and the study found more traffic or safety impacts. Additionally, as part of the safe routes to school program, there are ongoing improvements that are proposed at the nearby Gale and Gladiolia Avenue intersection. Next please. The project is requesting a total of 16 waivers and some of these include lot area, lot width, lot coverage. Next, please. As well as waivers from the rear yard encroachment, the driveway depth in front of the garage, usable open space. Next, please. And from various setbacks from on the first and second floor level, including front and reducible front and side and rare setbacks next week. they're also requesting a waiver from the mechanical equipment setback for the AC units, as well as landscape frontage next piece. And finally, the waiver they are requesting is from the off-site stormwater treatment for the impervious service. The requirement is to treat it 100% on-site. Because of the site constraints, they are requesting a waiver from this requirement. Next, please. There was a Community outreach meeting that was conducted last month, and there were three participants and they had questions about generally the construction timelines off site parking screening trees, as well as street signage and construction truck access details next week. This concludes task presentation today, we are requesting your feedback, specifically on the site design project design and requested waivers, thank you for your time.

Thank you. I have questions from my colleagues for the staff we have. Commissioner Davies, please.

Yes, you said there was an outreach meeting, I guess, a few weeks ago. How many people attended that?

Three people attended the meeting.

Three people? Yeah.

OK.

And this is zoned R2, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Our actual code on R2 is a little confusing to me because we asked for an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size, but then... then I think it's 3,600 square foot per dwelling unit. So does that mean it's not customary to subdivide into separate lots for R2?

So the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, but the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 3,600. So that dictates the density. So in this case, they do need the density, but they're requesting a waiver from the lot area, which is 8,000 square feet.

Yeah, I understand that. I'm just a little confused as to how this normally works then. So is it normally that we have... instead of subdividing the parcel into individual lots per house, the fact that we have two requirements seems to imply to me that we would normally have multiple units per lot then?

So traditionally, an R2 lot would be at least 8,000 square feet. You see a lot of lots throughout the city that have that. Some of those lots have duplexes. Some of them have single family homes. In some situations, there are very large lots. such as this one. This one is, what's the size of this lot? It's also down 29, yeah. So in a case like that, we do often sometimes see a small lot subdivision proposed, and through the use permit process, it allows a city to grant smaller lot sizes, widths that are also narrower, so long as the density is met. So this is pretty common for a small lot subdivision.

Yeah, it just... I can see how single-family homes would be unusual for multiple single-family homes. Okay, that makes sense to me. Thank you. Those are all my questions for the moment. I'll wait for the applicant.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. The next one is Commissioner Payne, please.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions. At this time, I first of all on the caption for this item, it says tentative map to some book subdivide into nine lots. In the. And the site plans we got on page three see three dot zero I see eight lots.

So there are eight single family home more than one common lot, which is for the private street area.

So just so to clarify, the ninth lot would... Just to make sure I'm getting this. The ninth lot is what's marked here as common lot A, that's just the private street?

Yeah, it includes the private street.

Okay, I would just observe that... There's also language in the zoning summary that's on page eight on zero, where it says number of lots eight. So I would suggest that when we get this, I would suggest that when we get the final plans, it would be helpful to have it phrased in a way that's a little less confusing. Also, just as a quick point of clarification, the safe routes to schools impacts that improvements you mentioned, those are not part of this project, correct?

That's not part of the project.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Just wanted to be sure. Thank you. I'll have more questions for the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Cerrone, please.

Thanks, Vice Chair. I just had one question. The stormwater is treated off-site. How does that work?

So that's a requirement that the stormwater that is on the public right of way needs to be treated on site. That's a relatively new requirement that came in effect, I think, a year ago. In this case, they're requesting a waiver because of the site constraints. And they're also working with the city to have an in-lieu treatment. So instead of, they are instead treating another part of the public right of way. and applicant has also included more details in the presentation, and they also have the civil engineer here who will be going through the details of that.

Okay, well, I guess I'll wait for that. I was wondering how, I mean, the stormwater is there, and it goes elsewhere, and somehow it's treated. Yeah. Okay, so there's more detail in that.

Yes.

All right, thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. We have next Commissioner Figoni, please.

All right. These are a couple of questions on section A1, which is the conceptual site plan. So I noticed there's a pedestrian access between Wolf and Luster Leaf meeting ADA requirements. So it looks like there's a sidewalk, but only on one side of the private road. And I'm curious why that is, why there isn't a corresponding sidewalk on the other side, because if someone's in a wheelchair, how are they gonna get on the other side of the properties? And I'm also curious, and I couldn't quite, I looked at the plans, but it looks like some of the properties have a step up to the porch. And I was wondering why that is. So I was wondering, is there access to the porch from the driveway in a wheelchair, or do you have to take a step to get up? And then the other question I have also on addition to that is inside the garage, Is it straight into the main unit or is there a step up? Or is it level? It looks like it's a slab. I'm assuming it should be flat, but sometimes they have a step to get in. I don't know if it's raised a little bit.

Thank you for your questions. So about firstly just having one distant connection on one side. That was done because of the small size of the lot and so there was the construal and having it on both the side. That would have required additional area to be dedicated for it. About the ADA components, that's something that building also evaluates closely, but applicant can also address those questions.

So I'd like to learn a little more on why there's, is that a state mandate for that access for ADA and who's making the decision that it's not on the other side? Is that from the builder? Is that from the city? So from my perspective, it doesn't seem fair and equitable because if someone's in a wheelchair, how are they going to get on the other side and move around? if they live over there, there's no sidewalk for them to, they have those curbs, right? So they go down that curb, they're gonna flip off the wheelchair. So I'm just a little curious how that works. I guess they could go down the driveway, but I'm just curious. So, you know, I'd like to learn a little more about that. Maybe that's an additional discussion.

We can check with building and get back to you on that. This was something the public, the pedestrian access was something that we negotiated with the applicant when they came with the project at the general plan in the state. And that was also something that city council strongly recommended to do, is to consider the pedestrian access between the south hall floor.

So when you say negotiate, can you tell me more what that means?

So that was something that as part of the general plan to include a distant connection to this project.

Okay, so my kind of follow-up question to this is, the private road, why can't that be used for accessibility? So the road, you know, the private road, the street, I mean, that should all be level, right? So why can't, I mean, theoretically, right? Wheelchairs or scooters could use that to move around. It should all be flat. So that's my question is, I'm not really understanding why is the city having them put in a dedicated sidewalk, you're only on one side, when in reality, you have that whole private street there that you could get through back and forth. You have access to Wolf and Luster Leaf.

Yeah, Commissioner Fagoni, thank you for that question. I think there's really two issues here. One is ADA access, which our building division responds to, and we'll look into that and have a response in the staff report. The second issue is with regards to enhanced pedestrian circulation through a site, and that's something that we strive for for all projects. And so that walkway along the northern side really was something that staff worked out with the applicant to enhance the pedestrian connectivity to the Wolf Road street footage.

I guess it still doesn't address my concern. I just don't understand why. I know why it doesn't decide because it's going to take square footage away from the properties. I get that. But what I'm saying to me, in some ways, the street is actually... If you change it a little bit, you took the stamp out, made it smooth... you know, smooth blacktop, it'd actually be a lot easier for people to move on mobility devices. So that was my thing is at the top of the concern, maybe taking the stamping out and have it be a smooth blacktop. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. And if the street is being used as ADA access, we'll get information from the building division about the surface and we'll confirm if it is used as part of their ADA access.

And my other question, bicycle access. So are bicyclists going to be allowed to go up and down the street? Is it a private road or is it a public street? Because I could see some danger if there's kids in there moving around cars. You get a bicyclist coming there making a right turn off wolf and people are backing out, not seeing them. Is there any consideration? Is that full bike access or... Was the city's policy on that?

So we initially were looking at the opportunity to add a bike access, but that was strongly recommended against by our traffic division because of safety concerns. Because there is this would have forced the bicyclist to cross South Wolf Road, which is a multi-lane arterial street. So that's why we just included a pedestrian access instead.

But bicyclists, in theory, can use it. There's no stopping.

It is publicly accessible.

OK. And then my last question is, on Luster Leaf, on the back side, where the property ends into a dead end, there's sidewalk up to the private road. Then it stops. And then it's all greenery. And I was wondering why doesn't the sidewalk keep going? Because it looks like it continues on the other side. So is that a reason they're just putting vegetation there for pets or something or for kids playing or what's that about?

We can check with our traffic and public works division to see if there is a specific reason why it can't be extended anymore.

Thank you. One more thing, sorry. What about parking? Is street parking allowed on South Wolf for guest parking?

Street parking is not eventually being allowed on South Wolf Road. Okay.

Okay. And so people, I noticed the trash cans are on two different sides. So people that live on certain side of lots, put their trash can on wolf and then other people put it on, on must, must relief, right?

Right.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Um, we have a missionary. Yes, please.

Uh, thank you, vice chair. So, uh, just two questions and I want to make sure I understand correctly regarding the stormwater drainage. Um, If that's a waiver, the way I understand waivers, and please correct me, is that if it's going to inhibit the ability to achieve a certain level of density. And so is that the justification that by having the stormwater drainage on site, that that's going to limit the ability to build eight units?

Oh, that's correct. So there were some site constraints. They had to have that treatment on site and in the applicants presentation. I know they are going to do they have a drawing included and they'll have the details of the stone water.

Okay, I just wanted to confirm that it had to do with impacting right the number of units in my second question was, is it Was it staff or was it the applicant that wanted the entrance to be off of Luster Leaf? And the reason I ask is during the last meeting, there was, I recall, public concern about it being on Luster Leaf. And I know that the current access is off of South Wolf.

So it's moved. So the applicants were also proposing lustily drive entrance and staff agrees with that recommendation because Wilford is an arterial street. So there were concerns about the car going in and out of this high speed and high volume arterial street.

All right. Thank you. No further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I have a question. Actually, I mean, two of my commissioner fellow members talked about the stormwater. So I was wondering that public work or any person from public works was informed about dumping the site water into storm because this is very unusual, correct?

So yeah they start the applicants have been closely working with public works engineer on resolution on that so yeah they have been there for them actively.

I'm just worried that, that like, I mean, there are different ways to contain the water on the site, maybe not filtered, but so I was just worrying that like, if we give that, you know, this is the waiver, then a lot of, I mean, a lot of our development will ask for it. And then very soon we'll have a flood, our flooding, our neighborhood, you know? So I don't know. I just wish that there is an engineer is involved, definitely. And then second question I had was the, the street pedestrian access from Luster Lift to Wolf. How do neighbors know? Because it will literally be a signpost or something. So we want to encourage people to walk through that. And so because it looks very much like a private development. So I think we should have some signage or some awareness, something the developers will do or who will do that.

Okay, thank you. I'll share your feedback with our traffic division. Thank you.

Thank you. So. At this time, we will start with an applicant report, so is there an applicant report.

Good evening, Commission. Thank you, Asha, for the report. I feel like it's been a year since I've seen you guys, but we made it back. Everyone looks the same. I think we're proud of this project. It's kind of funny. I feel like the smaller projects are more difficult than the big ones because you got to kind of fit everything in there. And I think we've done a really good job of doing that and working with the neighbors you know, with the screening of the trees and the windows of the houses on the second floor. So I think we're proud of this project. And I have my architect here and my civil engineer to kind of touch on, I think, some of the things you guys have already brought up in your questions. So I'm here for any questions, too. And we really look forward to your comments on the project. So if Justin, if you can hear that, you can start your presentation.

Good evening, everyone. Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, thanks. Am I able to control the slide deck? Or should I just say next?

You can say next so we can advance the slide for you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Justin Dahl. I'm a senior principal with Dahlen Architects, and we're based in the East Bay. We've worked with Forrest for many years, and we are very proud of this project. Next slide, please. Asta did a great job of kind of setting the stage for us. We've just put in a few more orientation slides here. What I like about this one is it shows the kind of scale and the grain of the Firethorn Terrace project to our north and how we think this is going to be a nice density transition project from the village center site just north of that into the single family neighborhood beyond. Next slide, please. Just a few street front images showing the conditions along both Lusterleaf, which is a blank fence right now, and along Wolf, which is a house set back from the street to a distance that's kind of incompatible with what's both to the north and the south. So again, we're kind of looking to fit this project into its context in a way that makes sense with what occurs on both sides. Next slide, please. We've seen the site plan. We just put this in here for way of orientation. We can probably go to the next. We did have a community meeting. I just put a few of the bullet points here of what some of the main points and takeaways were for us. The neighbors to the north have supported the access from Luster Leaf as they only have access to Wolf and they've cited safety concerns actually turning in and out of Wolf when cars are coming by pretty fast. I think that was a That was a good, even anecdotal support for the fact that it's going to be safer for us to be accessing the site via Lustre Leaf. We did hear concerns about parking. We understand those. Some about whether we need to control traffic exiting to Lustre Leaf and then more functionally during construction, if there's, we will be taking efforts to control dust and noise. And there were some comments that appreciated the design of the project in general. Next slide. Just a few excerpts to talk about the traffic study that was conducted. We can go next slide. Hexagon did do the traffic study. I summarized the conclusions with some bullets on the next slide, actually. Generally speaking, there were no major concerns. The intersections are all expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. No expected degradation of roadway safety in the vicinity due to a very small amount of vehicle and pedestrian trips. And the report also highlighted the safe routes to schools improvements that are already underway, beginning with the first one shown on the next slide. I believe, or in a couple of slides, but locating the intersection of Gladiola at the end adjacent to Braley. Next slide shows the future improvements that are also planned all along that corridor. So we feel that there's already in the works quite an attention to safety around the school as a result of traffic. The next slide shows an enhancement or an enlargement of that intersection controls to bulb out and create safer crossings there. Next slide, please. We just wanted to touch on a couple of the waivers. These were already mentioned, and we'll go into a little more detail on the stormwater treatment requirement. We do have a couple of waivers for setbacks, in particular at the The second floor, we'll show some examples of how we've addressed those through design. And then also the waiver for the AC units in the rear yards where we're limited to because we can't put them in front of the house. And so we'll do everything we can by selecting the quietest equipment that we can find that meets the recommendations of the noise report that we have conducted also. Next slide. I don't know if here's the stormwater treatment plan. If Scott is on, is there anything you'd like to present related to this, Scott, or should we wait for questions? I can speak to it.

I think you need to zoom in if possible near that a little bit. In general, The lower right, yeah. What we're asking for, I think it's been a little bit confusing. The city has a new requirement that all off-site stormwater be treated on-site. And by off-site stormwater that needs to be treated, they're referring to any new pavement. So that's represented in the kind of the beige colors, which is mostly some... curb, gutter, sidewalk. And what you do is you take all that area and you determine the total area that needs to be treated. You treat it in one spot. That's what we call it in lieu. So even though there's some stormwater that needs to be treated on lust relief, we treat it all in one spot on South Wolf. Now in the lower right-hand corner, and not to get too technical, you'll see it's hard, but you can't, it's difficult to see right now without zooming in, but we are actually treating the offsite water onsite, but in a public utility easement. So that's what we're asking the waiver for. We are still treated in onsite, but we're just treated in a public utility easement, which is not the norm. Usually it would be outside of that easement. And it is, with that ability to treat it onsite in that public utility easement, it does enable us to keep more units on the property. Otherwise, it would impact the ability to build units. That's the justification. So it's pretty typical, and that's how we've handled it.

Thanks, Scott. We can go ahead and advance to the next slide, I think. So we just wanted to highlight here a little bit about our actual tree planting strategy. You can see in small blue circles on the site existing trees that are to remain and the new trees that are shown as actual green trees and plant along the property lines are our attempt to fill in every place we can to actually where there might be a gap in those existing trees to provide as much of a continuous sort of landscape screening along the property line as we can. Next slide, please. On the elevations, we wanted to highlight here, specifically on the rear elevation, all the windows on the second floor are coming off of... There's a closet up there, and there's a window and a shower. And so we've arranged the uses on that second floor. So everything, this is indicative of all eight units... has high sill windows to minimize any direct visibility from our second floor into the neighboring properties. Next slide, please. This one just touches briefly on the recommendations of the noise study about equipment selection. And we're happy to discuss that further, namely looking at the 50 decibel requirement during nighttime hours. And so we'll be very careful about our equipment selection as we move into the future stages of the project. Next slide. Next two slides, I guess, are just showing a couple of the views that we already saw. This is a long wolf. The two look very similar. We put the existing view down there at the bottom. This one shows the wolf frontage with bollards that restrict public access but allow for emergency vehicle access. And that was decided upon through working with the fire department and their requirements for removable bollards. And next slide, please. That would be the lusterleaf side and shows how we've actually created an enhanced elevation at these corners to wrap the porches around and orient the front doors toward lusterleaf rather than internally to put as much of a sort of pedestrian and eyes on the street character as we can toward lusterleaf rather than fences or blank fences or blank walls, kind of like what's out there today. Next slide, please.

Thanks.

And so just a couple of items of our- Excuse me. Yes, sorry.

Your timing is done, but you do have some time once we ask questions and you can answer it.

Sure, that's it. That's our summary. Next slide, please, is a thank you very much.

Thanks. Now I'll ask for questions from my colleagues. So we have Chair Iglesias, please.

Thank you, Vice Chair. First question, this one is, I believe, from Mr. Shork. We have a lot of questions about the stormwater drainage. You talked about how it's handled effectively, I think, on the easement. Can you help detail what is stormwater treatment? Is that something that's a physical thing? Tell me about that. I don't fully understand it.

The concept of treating stormwater has been around for probably 20 years, but essentially what you're doing is you're taking runoff from a, call it manmade surface, whether it's the roof of a home, the street, the sidewalk, something that has say chemicals or something that you want to remove from the stormwater before it gets into the pipes and into the creek and the bay. So the way that's achieved is the water runs off that surface into soil and we direct it specifically to those what we call a stormwater treatment basin. It runs into that basin and it'll pond up generally to about six inches and that initial storm that takes the chemicals off the road and puts it into that basin, it will pond there and sink into the soil through a special soil we bring in, which is treatment soil, that removes those chemicals. And by the time it gets through the bottom, there's a perf pipe on the bottom that allows the stormwater to enter that perf pipe. And at that point, it's clean. It's wrapped in a filter fabric. It takes the clean water and then takes it to the storm line, which then takes it to the creek. So it's essentially your... You're cleansing the water before it leaves the site. And so there's a newer requirement to treat stormwater from the public street. And that's what we've been speaking to in terms of that. basin we have other means of treating the on-site that we uh we're not talking about because it's not it's not really we're not asking for a waiver we're just doing what is um required of us naturally on the on-site but so is that answer yeah that helps a lot two quick follow-up questions regarding that first so then the assumption if it's on the utilities easement then it has no no bearing it doesn't impair that easement correct

Okay. And then the second was, so if there's effectively soil that's treated in order to help with the filtering of the water, is that something, how is that maintained? Is that just indefinitely that there's a plan to sustain that soil?

The HOA, which will assume the property moving forward, there is a maintenance agreement that they enter into with the city, so it does require to be probably removed and replaced every 15 years. It varies. There's various things that need to be done over time, but yeah, it's all maintained in the a manual that the HOA gets and the city has access to. It gets recorded.

All right. I appreciate that. And I had one other question not related to stormwater, which is when I look at the architectural drawings, it doesn't appear that the windows on different sides, all of the sides are would have the high sill windows only as I understand it was five feet or higher. So I just wanted to confirm, I'm looking again at the architectural style and there's only of the four angles, only one of them appears to have that. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, that's correct. That's the side that faces the neighbors to the north and to the south.

Okay, so that one side that has, so the one side would be the one that always faces either the neighbors north or south?

Correct. We call it, titled rear elevation is the one facing the neighbors.

Got it. All right.

And then you could also compare the left and the right, and we've offset the windows. We look at those two as far as how the two homes, which are facing each other to the side, we arrange the windows so that they're not directly looking into each other. We look at those as well.

Okay.

Mostly concerned with the existing neighbors and making sure we preserve their privacy as a result of our project. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair. Next one is Commissioner Cerrone, please.

Thanks, Vice Chair. So I'm still trying to understand the stormwater. So this pond that filters the water is underground, right? In fact, it's underneath Wolf Road. Is that right?

Correct. The treatment occurs below grade.

And the easement, whose easement is that? The city has the authority to let you use the easement?

Correct. The city creates the public utility easement on behalf of utility companies that have the right to put infrastructure in there.

And this ultimately, the perforated tube or whatever goes into the sewer system, right? The storm sewer, yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Commissioner Davis, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess so some commentary, a couple of questions. So you're using the density bonus law, but you're not adding units, right? Which we see it all the time. Wish we didn't. We wish that people would add units when they are entitled to. So I guess my question is kind of a hypothetical, right? The things that you've done in terms of affordability entitle you to, I think, two or three more units, right? Is there anything the city could have done that would have gotten those two or three more units built?

I don't think you could fit it in here on the site and get everything to work now.

Okay. Okay, yeah, so this is not...

I mean, I guess you could have built little thousand square foot houses, but I don't think anyone's buying those. Fair enough, I understand that.

And this is not a criticism. If I was in your business, I'd be doing the same thing. It's just that we have a situation where the law as it's written is not delivering the intent, right? And this is something that was done in Sacramento that... The idea was to basically get the market rate units, you get the density bonus and then you add more units and those are the affordable units, right? And you get to build even more market rate units as well, right? So everybody makes more money and cities lose close to all their discretion. in terms of their zoning enforcement, right? So that's the question I ask, right? Like we have the intent of the law is well known, but the way the law is structured is not delivering the intent, right? Having said that, an affordable single family home. Yeah. Getting, getting one into the city with, with some in lieu fees to build some more units elsewhere. That's, that's an unmitigated good. Right. So thank you. Thank you for that. That's my main question. A commentary on it. I think, I think you guys have done a good job of blending into what's there already. There, there's a good transition. I'm, I'm all for, more families coming into the city all the time. I'm very much a data person. The city is getting older and older as it gets more expensive. And so more housing that comes in that will hopefully bring in families that are raising children. And it seems like the homes you're going to build are kind of targeted at that. I am all for it. I drive by this property. All the time. So multiple times a day, many days and so on. And it's always been, what's the right word? It's been kind of an anachronism, right? You have this old kind of, house that was built. You could tell somebody owned a bunch of land and they put a big old house there and probably when the city was like 10,000 people and we're 16 times that size. So yeah, I like the project. I'd like to see it get built as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Commissioner Svigoni, please.

I just wanted to thank you for a very thoughtful design I know it's been a long, long time ago working on it. And I think some of the designs that you have in there, I can see that. So one question I had was back to the water drainage, a very popular topic. If in the future, if some of the owners of these properties want to put pavers in their backyard, remove the grass, take some of that vegetation out, maybe put concrete back there. Does that change how this water drainage works? Do they actually need to have a certain amount of vegetation around their property for this to work? I'm just kind of curious if there's any restrictions on that because of this design.

Yeah, that's a good question. Scott, do you have a direct answer on that? I do, yeah.

I mean, it's The way that the yards are set up currently, they're going to self-treat. So if they do introduce some more paving in the rear area, it'll be directed to soil ultimately. And there's like a two to one ratio. You can pave a certain percentage of your yard and then just as it falls into natural soil, it will self-treat. You don't need to do the infiltration basins for every scenario. However, we are proposing in the front of each yard to do small basins, and I can't recall if it's tied into it. plumbing directly from the roofs or if it also includes plumbing from the rear yards. But it'll be a combo. It'll either be caught in that basin or just in general, self-treated in the rear yards. And another thing I wanted to mention, you had mentioned, brought up earlier about the private street being, it's a paver system. And the reason why we're doing the paver system is it's actually a permeable paver that the water goes through it, and we're going to be treating that street below grade in a different type of system. But we just don't have the real estate or the ability to do otherwise. And so that's why we're using the pavers on that street.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. So the HOA would be responsible for... making sure the owners don't over, I don't know the right word, change their yard so much that it have a negative effect on the drainage for everybody else. They over put papers all around their yard, they don't wanna have lawn, they don't wanna water their plants or whatever. They go ultra water conservation, but there is some restrictions on that, obviously, on what they could do, right?

I believe so, yes. Yeah, the HOA has the stormwater management plan as part of it, and the land use attorneys, they integrate that into their CCRs and things.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Payne, please.

Thank you. I did have a number of questions at the stormwater, but they've all been answered at this point, so that's good. The one kind of main question I had is just, there's somewhere between 16 and 18, depending on which document you looked at, waivers requested on this project. That did strike me as kind of on the high side. Could you comment on possibly why this I guess why this needed that number of waivers because I'm just, obviously you are entitled to them under state law. It's just, I just, when I see something with that number of waivers on, I'm always curious as to why and whether that's something that's a prop, that's something we should be looking at to fix on the code end or whether it was something law specific or just kind of what went into that.

Well, I think a lot of it is on the code end. You know, things are so, I want to say aggressive, it makes it hard to do anything. But Justin, do you have a couple specific answers to those?

I don't have any real response to that. I'll just say, you know, it's not actually that atypical for us to present a project with this many waivers under the sort of current climate of state density bonus law.

I thank you for that. I will just note that we're later tonight, we're hearing a project with triple digit units that's only requesting eight waivers. So I would just say that from my perspective, this is, it's not, it's not an unheard of number, but it is in my opinion on the high side. But that being said, I, I do broadly think this is a good project overall. I like the design. I like the increased connectivity between Lester Leaf and pedestrian connectivity between Lester Leaf and Wolf. I also like that we're not having increased vehicle connectivity between Lester Leaf and Wolf because that would be a mess. I echo what my other commissioners have said about the desirability of the homes the desirability of having a bmr home here i would actually suggest that if possible to look at possibly tweaking the plant palette a bit to include more more actual native species versus just adaptive species uh but that's so that's just something to take a look at uh but other than that i do look forward to this coming back i've you know i've been here since this was a zoning this was a general plan amendment so i'm I'm going to be happy to see this coming back for a final hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. And I have a few questions. I want to ask that once this lot will be sold, the houses are built and sold, will they have the same right to make like junior ADU and add ADU?

Yeah, I can answer that. Yes, it would be the same as single family homes.

Okay, so that's like kind of, they will come up with their creative ideas to build if they want to add, correct? So it can become more dense too.

They can, yeah, possibly.

Okay, so that's what I just want everybody to know that. And also I want to ask about the solar study you have done. Sorry, thank you. Thank you for that. Solar study you have done. So the one, the unit on the north side of the street, because you have a reduced setback. So I'm just wondering that the two houses, two or three houses behind, Even though your study shows, I feel that they will be completely in dark in certain time of the year, not throughout. So it's a page A4.

A4?

Yeah. So it's... I'm just looking at the between 9 a.m., December 21st, all the way to 4 p.m. Like in December time, those houses will be like dark. The whole, I mean, because you have two stories and also you have your roof is in such a way that, and you have reduced that back. So I just wondering that, I don't know what can you do, but.

I would I would just the only thing I might add to that is that we're at the trees that we either currently exist or will be planted along the property line will. will also probably create more shade actually than our than our units will, and I think that the streets actually already there is kind of pre existing condition of those.

yeah right now it's like I mean it's going to happen more and more because, as we are building. dense, everywhere density is increasing. So, but you know, it's like, I still wonder, I mean, if they come there, they are two stories too. So anyway, and there are trees also, but this is just observation, not directly a question. And I know that you have creatively maximize the lots efficiency So providing the maximum number. So that's great. I just want to bring out, I just want to comment this stormwater thing because I brought it out. There are two things, correct? Stormwater management. One is to clean and then slow down the water going to the, even though they are going out into the city sewer line. So I think there are like French rain and people like percolate the water through the site. So you have the whole, walkway in the middle I mean there is a lot of law there is a lot of land can be done you know so it's like absorb all the water on the middle of the road and the walkway and not only in there there you can do the treatment so but that's just I want to bring it out that is possible it's there is no constraint so you can easily do that well the driveway is permeable paper so the water will percolate through there and get down to the soil Yeah, but under the soil. So like in Los Altos Hills, they have this municipal law that you cannot have your site water going into the main drain. So all the water has to contain all on site. So that's what there are various ways they kind of use French drain and, you know, teaching them. soil in a certain way. But anyway, I just want to bring out that. You can easily remove that. I mean, if you can remove it, it'll be great. But anyway, that's just my comments. I can't say. And these are my... Let me see if any else... No. So my fellow commissioners have no questions. So now... Oh, sorry, I didn't see. Okay, sorry about it. It's okay, thank you.

I work a lot of times with the HOAs, small managed HOA and large ones. And a lot of time when you have small HOAs of six houses, eight houses, ten houses, I tend to see the people doing whatever they want in HOAs. in the future. I know that once you guys are ending the project and then it's being sold, then after that you don't have control of it. and everybody's bothered by the stormwater, et cetera, et cetera. The question is, if the applicant is willing to put a note or indices CNRs that you cannot change the surfaces to non-permeable surfaces, as well as if something like that happened has to go through obviously the HOA, the city and possibility of putting a dry well.

Yeah, I think I don't. I mean, yes, I wouldn't. I would put something in the CCRs that stated that, but I don't think I don't think they're allowed to do that anyway, though, regardless. of if it's in the CCRs or not, but...

The thing is that a lot of, you know, down the road, 10 years, 20 years down the road, obviously, you guys won't have any control, right?

Right, right, yeah.

But I'm saying just for the, you know, favor of the city and the systems and the utilities... Yeah, I can do that. Most people... you know, would not mind it. And again, permeable surfaces, there are many, many choices of beauty and functionality. So I want to support your project, but I would love and appreciate if it's possible to make sure that something like that goes into the CCNR. You go ahead.

I think we can do that.

If I can add to that as well, it is a standard requirement that we have that the stormwater infrastructure maintenance be included in the CCNRs. So that will happen regardless. Okay, awesome.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. So yeah, now I will go ahead and open the public comment on this specific item. Please submit the speaker card to the recording officer and raise your digital mic. digital hand now or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. Speakers will have three minutes to speak. So we have a speaker card and we have the first one, Nilambri Pradkar, please. Thank you.

Thank you members of Planning Commission for giving me a chance to speak. I also want to thank Forrest Mozart for this project and I especially thank them for being sensitive to all the concerns neighbors raised during previous meetings. So as I represent Firethorn Terrace Homeowner Association, and as direct neighbor to this new development, there are a few concerns. than homeowners have. And some of those concerns have already been addressed, but the few that have not been addressed are the dust. What are the plans to contain the dust resulting from demolition and ongoing construction? The privacy, the windows have been staggered. I really appreciate that. We all appreciate that. But the privacy trees that are going to be put in, question is, will they have invasive roots that might encroach on our properties? then what would be approximate distance between pre-existing fences, neighborhood fences and the home structure, the new home structure? And will the landscaping be already provided with the new homes or are the new home owners required to do their own landscaping? And will there be any restrictions for, let's say somebody purchases this home and is the HOA or builder going to place any restrictions on how soon the new homeowners flip this home, sell it or whatever? So yeah, those are our concerns right now. And thank you so much for giving me a chance. Thank you.

So we have no other speaker here. So I will call on the members of the public participating in person first and followed by remote participants. Remote speakers are warned to limit their comments to the agenda item being considered. Speakers who are ruled out of the order will not be given another chance to speak on this item. And this is the item number 26-0568. And it's a special development permit on the address is 781 South Wolf Road. So recording officer, do we have any remote participant wishing to speak on this item?

Yes, we have one hand raised. Koma, you have the floor to speak now. Thank you.

Here's Burma.

I am the next door resident in the single family home on the south side. I did attend the community meeting held by Mozart and the city, which was very helpful. Thank you to him and the city and the planning commission study being open here. My three points, one was also raised by Neil Ambury about the distance from the fence to the home. I hope that is not a waiver. That needs to meet the requirement from my standpoint because we are losing the privacy as such and the plans on my side will be quite restricted in terms of sunshine. And hopefully we are keeping... to the limit that is prescribed by the low, medium density homes. And the second point is I had brought this up in terms of safety concerns for the traffic that is coming out of this new development and crossing the intersection at Gladiola. At that intersection, there should be a stop sign so that when they head into Luster Leaf at Gladiola, the cars coming from Gladiola, from Braley School, are not at risk. So that intersection needs to be protected. The third point is I had brought up the parking for guests and spillover parking because most of these homes, they will fill up the garage with their stuff and the cars will be sitting in the driveway and the guests won't have any space to park. And it's going to be loaded into Luster Leaf. And we already have a new parking zone beyond my house where we could be considering permit parking. for a few guest lots for that new development specifically. So if we restrict that parking as a permit parking for the new development, that would be a great idea, I think. And I've also talked to some of my neighbors about this proposal, if we can consider that.

That's it.

Thank you.

Vice Chair, we have no further hands raised from remote speakers, but the previous speaker would like to use the remainder of her time to provide additional comments, if that's permitted.

Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Pink, please.

I was going to, I thought we were done with public comment. I'll defer until the end of public comment. It's a question to staff.

okay so okay thank you uh so i will uh if there is no other speaker uh or any public wants to speak i'm going to close i will close the public comment

Okay, I'll just clear. Okay, before I go, it was my understanding that the member of the public was requesting to use the remaining time at this point, which is a little irregular, but I will defer to the chair whether or not to allow it, but I was going to wait for that.

Excuse me, so the public, they want to speak after the applicant's answer?

It was my understanding that the member of the, from what staff said, that the member of the public who spoke initially had not used all of their time and was wishing to use the balance of their time to make additional points. Again, it's a little irregular, but I will defer to the vice chair whether or not to allow it.

Okay, so I will further allow the public to speak.

No, there are 55 seconds remaining.

Only for that. Okay, so I didn't know that. Okay, I get it now. I got it. Thank you. Come on, please.

Thank you for making that exception. My only question I have is all the four homes along this new development have solar panels. And question is, will the construction or the new homes and the vegetation related to it will affect our solar production? Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wants to speak now?

Okay.

So I will close the public comments and now the applicants will have another five minutes to speak. So in order, what is the next step?

Okay, so on a point of order, I didn't think we gave applicants the five minutes at the end for study sessions. I thought that was just for public hearings.

Okay, so we don't give, I got confused with the, okay, so I'm still getting confused. So we don't give applicants for five minutes for it, but do we allow commissioners to have few questions?

I just had a request for a stand based on what we've heard from public comment.

Okay, so I will now ask my question. members to have any questions or comments on this topic. So Commissioner Payne, please.

Yes, very briefly, I would just want to request staff that when this comes back for a public hearing, we have somebody from traffic safety available because I do think there are, we have heard concerns from the public both tonight and previously about about how this interacts with the gladiola luster leaf intersection how this also results in school safety i also we also just heard concerns from the public regarding regarding restricted pros restricted sidewalk access i don't think that's something we as the planning commission can do but i know there's a process for that and i think it would be worth discussing what neighbors could do to initiate that process when was again when this comes back for public hearing so just just a request because i don't want to get in a situation where we're asking for things and it's traffic safety and nobody from traffic safety is present and everyone gets mad and we have to go and takes it to a city account a city council hearing that could be avoided thank you thank you and we have a commissioner davis please

Um, yes, I just have a small request for staff that public comments actually touched on things that we do is normal course of business in the city of Sunnyvale with our building standards and so on. So if you could provide them with a card or something so they could contact you and you could and Very valid questions, I would say we're fortunate to live in a city that thinks about those things ahead of time so but things like construction dust and noise and privacy during construction, so I think you'll like the answers when you get them, thank you.

Thank you, and at this time I see no other hands. The meeting is adjourned at 713 and the regular planning Commission meeting will start. At 720.

Good evening, let's call to order the Planning Commission meeting of June 8th at 7.20 p.m. The city does not tolerate disruptive behavior in our meetings. Sunnyvale prides itself on the rich diversity of our residents, and we are committed to creating a culture of belonging where members of our diverse community feel included, safe, and respected. This Planning Commission meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means the Commission can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker comments must be limited to the agenda item being considered by the Commission for consent, calendar, or public hearing items. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the Commission's authority, generally referred to as within the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are not related to an agenda item, the presiding officer will rule the speaker as out of order. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of a disagreement with the content of their speech. Location and online meeting details are available on the Planning Commission agenda. Please use the Show Captions button to view captions on Zoom. Comments on matters not in the agenda must be submitted prior to the time I call the item for oral communications. Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time I close the public hearing on the agenda item. Speakers requested to keep their comments to the time limit set for public comments for the agenda item, which will be strictly enforced. Guidelines are posted on the Cindy's website and on the planning commission meeting agenda. Please join me in a salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, Recording officer, may we please have the roll call?

Commissioner Segura?

Present.

Commissioner Cerrone?

Present.

Commissioner Fagoni?

Present.

Commissioner Davis?

Present.

Vice Chair Shukla?

Present.

Commissioner Pine?

Present.

Chair Iglesias?

Present.

We have seven commissioners present.

Thank you. All right, this brings us to oral communications. This is the public's opportunity to address the commission on topics not listed on tonight's agenda. This section is limited to 15 minutes and may be extended or continued after the public hearings general business section of the meeting. Individuals may only speak once during oral communications. This planning commission meeting is a limited public forum and commission can regulate the time, place and manner of speech. Speaker comments during oral communications must be limited to matters within the commission's authority, which is known as the commission subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are outside the commission subject matter jurisdiction, the presiding officer will rule the speaker as out of order. This allows the commission to conduct its business in a reasonably efficient manner and protects the rights of other speakers. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of a disagreement with the content of their speech. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer, raise your digital hand now, or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate that you wish to speak. I will call members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. Speakers will have three minutes. Would anyone like to speak on oral communications before we hear from remote speakers? All right, seeing none. Because of the nature of remote communications, speakers who are rolled out of order will not be given another opportunity to speak on this item. Therefore, speakers are warned to limit their comments to subjects that fall within this commission's authority to decide or take action. According to officer, do we have any remote participants wishing to speak on oral communications?

No, we do not, Chair.

Thank you so much. I will go ahead and close oral communications. This brings us to the consent calendar. I will go ahead and open public comment on consent calendar items. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate that you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. And speakers will have three minutes to speak. Would anyone like to speak on a consent calendar item before we hear from remote speakers? Seeing none, recording officer, do we have any remote participants wishing to speak on this item?

No, we do not.

Thank you, I will close public comment, and I will now ask for a motion from my colleagues. Commissioner Payne.

Thank you. I move that the minutes be adopt, I move consent calendar be adopted with a revision to the minutes on page six, that the first commissioner comment should be attributed to Commissioner Figoni instead of myself.

Thank you, Commissioner Payne. Commissioner Davis.

I second the motion.

All right, thank you so much. Recording officer, please connect to vote.

The motion passes with seven yeses.

Thank you so much. This brings us to the public hearing general business. We have two items for this evening. Our first item is 26-0564. It's a proposed project to recommend that city council adopt an ordinance extending the urgency interim ordinance pursuant to government code section 65858, imposing a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of smoke shops for an additional 10 months and 15 days. And the location would be citywide. Is there a staff report?

Yes, thank you. Good evening chair and planning commissioners. I'm gonna be very brief because this is the second time you've heard this item. As you will recall last month, I was here asking you to recommend a city council to adopt a 45 day moratorium on the establishment of smoke shops. And pursuant to the statute, we are now back to extend that moratorium for another 10 months and 15 days or a total of one year. And during that time, staff will be able to study regulations of smoke shops and prevent new smoke shops from establishing businesses while we're in that process. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. At this point, I'll open it up to commissioners for questions. Commissioner Davis.

I'm just curious, what was the city council vote on this?

The City Council, I believe they had some absences, but it was unanimous.

Okay, thank you. All right, thank you, Commissioner Davis. Next, we have Commissioner Cerrone.

Actually, I need to correct myself. They continued it because they had absences, and at the second meeting, it passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cerrone. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. So I just, you know, I had some clarifying questions. So this, I think you said this does not apply to things like cigars and smoking supplies sold at Walgreens and other stores like that, right? That's correct. The term, the primary, a smoke shop is a retail business that primarily sells products and accessories related to smoking and vaping. That's like more than 50% or...

So the concept of primarily is something we have in our zoning code related to a variety of other businesses. So we aren't defining it with a specific percentage of gross receipts or something like that, because that'd be very difficult to enforce. So we would have to use some discretion in determining what is a primary use. And then we have to go through a due process for the business. So they would have the opportunity to challenge that at that time. But we don't have a more specific definition.

okay okay i'm just thinking years ago in kansas city they passed a blue law so you couldn't serve liquor on sunday unless you you serve food which made you a restaurant and so all the liquor stores ran out and got an oven and a bunch of frozen pizzas and were selling food all of a sudden so they became a restaurant

Yeah, that is the difficulty in defining businesses based on a certain product versus other products because then they have a bright line they can cross over and then claim they aren't covered. So we try to avoid that with just having a general concept of primary use.

How about a standalone cigar store or a place that sells pipe tobacco?

That would likely be subject to the ordinance because smoking paraphernalia and tobacco paraphernalia would be a primary use in that type of a shop. However, those businesses that are already lawfully established would be grandfathered under this moratorium so they can continue to operate.

So, you know, since tobacco and cannabis are legal for adults, it seems like ultimately that it should be possible to by these products and accessories in Sunnyvale with appropriate regulation comparable to other cities in the county. But I was curious, why don't we require a local or Santa Clara County tobacco retail

So that's why we're imposing the moratorium so that we can look into what the appropriate regulatory scheme would be. There's a couple of different options. We could have our own permit or we could opt into the Santa Clara County permit, but we need to look at the pros and cons of those different approaches.

Yeah, I think we talked about this last time you were here, but it seems like the concern is not so much with the primary products, it's the fact that these smoke shops seem to be associated with selling a lot of illegal drugs and we can't stop them doing that or it's difficult to do it. So we're trying to stop the smoke shops to get rid of more people selling illegal drugs. but ultimately it's illegal drugs. So my concern is, well, first of all, we're putting moratorium on, so we still have several smoke shops, which presumably are continuing to sell illegal drugs, which doesn't sound like a good thing. And then even if we shut down all the smoke shops, What keeps other entities such as gas stations or convenience stores or even food trucks from selling these illegal drugs? They probably look for another outlet, right? If we can't stop the smoke shops from selling illegal drugs, how would we stop these other venues from doing it?

Those are great questions that I don't really have answers for. So the purpose of the moratorium is to study the issue and get a better understanding of the problems. Yes, the sale of illegal substances at these shops, some of these shops is a major problem, but there are also some zoning issues with, even if they were only selling tobacco, locating near schools, and catering to a younger crowd through some of the other associated things that they sell, such as toys, backpacks, candy, and things of that nature. Obviously, this is a much bigger problem than just one store selling some flavored vapes or something like that. This is a society-wide problem. um with not just tobacco but with with unlawful products as well that are for whatever reason associated with these businesses um but you know i i don't have the answers you know sitting here for how you know how we would stop all you know drug trafficking i wish i had the answer to that okay well thank you i mean i'll i'll support this uh um

Yeah, and I'm definitely concerned about people working around it. For example, smoke shops just getting a line of T-shirts in there or something to claim they're no longer a smoke shop. All right, well, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cerrone. Next, we have Commissioner Pine.

Thank you. Just briefly, would the staff have any estimate on when we can expect this to come back in the form of a final policy?

Hopefully in the next year. We could extend it one more time for another year.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Pine. Next, we have Vice Chair Shukla.

Oh, suddenly it occurred to me that what happens people order it online. This illegal products, which you say, is it not available through Amazon?

Um, I don't know. I haven't gone looking, um, to buy anything illegal on Amazon. So I don't know what you can get on that. So I, I guess, you know, I think you're all asking really good questions about, you know, what, you know, is this going to solve the problem of, of people using illegal substances, people using cannabis, um, where we, you know, we don't allow, or people, people procuring cannabis in Sunnyvale and we don't allow it in stores. Um, and things of that nature. And if I can just explain maybe a little bit better, currently we don't have a city permit for these businesses. We have permits for a lot of things. We have permits if you want to have a bingo game, if you want to have a pawn shop, if you want to sell secondhand gold. We regulate that, but we aren't regulating smoke shops. If we require a permit, that gives us another tool for us to regulate these businesses and we can revoke their permits if they are engaged in illegal conduct, which we don't have that tool right now. All we would have is we can cite the owners or we could sue them for nuisance and try to shut their business. It would be a lot easier to have a permit. And then also we can, similarly with massage businesses, you know, we have permitted businesses and if they open without permits, we have a tool, a legal tool to shut them down more easily. So that's really, you know, it's not going to solve the problem completely, but it gives us a tool in our toolkit that we don't currently have.

Okay, thank you. And medicinal cannabis will be available to like, not to the businesses with the permit, but let's say yoga studio.

No, we don't allow cannabis to be sold in Sunnyvale in stores.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other commissioner hands. I only had one comment, not a question for the draft ordinance. The first sentence has an error. It says, whereas on May 19th, 2019, and where it should be May 19th, 2026.

Oh, I'm not sure how that happened. We'll fix that.

But no questions about cannabis. or what you've looked up online. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on the specific item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star nine on a telephone to indicate that you wish to speak. I will call on members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants, and speakers will have three minutes to speak. Would anyone like to speak before we move to remote participants? All right, seeing none. Recording officer, do we have any remote participants wishing to speak on this item?

No, we did not, Chair.

Okay, I will go ahead and close the public hearing for this, and I'll ask for a motion or discussion from my colleagues. Commissioner Pine.

Thank you, Chair. I'm ready with a motion. I'll defer to Commissioner Segura if he has a question. Commissioner Segura?

No, I wanted to suggest a motion as well, but let him do that, and we'll see what he's suggesting.

All right, Commissioner Pine. Yeah, I move alternative two, which is... I adopt the ordinance extending the urgency interim ordinance imposing a temporary more time on the solution and operation of smoke shops for additional 10 months and 15 days as found in attachment to with the modification to correct the preamble to note that happened in 2026 and not in 2019. Thank you, chair for the catch.

Thank you, Commissioner pine and Commissioner cigar.

So I'm in favor of it. I do think that the city needs to do the proper homework and get on licensing to make sure that they can control other businesses and making sure that everything is done legally as possible and then give this way more free hand to law enforcement to enforce the law.

Commissioner Chigurh. If I may ask, are you seconding the motion? Yeah. Okay.

That's what I said. Sorry.

Okay. Sorry. I missed that. Okay. So you are seconding the motion. Let me give it back to Commissioner Pine for his. Okay. And then I'll bring it back to you.

Sorry.

Commissioner Pine, do you have a motion? Thank you. Please vote yes. Thank you, Commissioner Payne. And Commissioner Segura, to your second.

Yes. Thank you. So again, just to make sure that the city has the power to regulate and have the law enforcement enforcing people that are doing businesses in an illegal way and make sure that no harms happen to young population and et cetera. So I'm in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Segura. Okay, Commissioner Davis, to you.

Yeah, I'll just say I'll be supporting the motion. Really, all we're doing is buying time to come up with the sensible policy, and we approved it once before. So let's give city staff the time to do this right. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Davis. And seeing no other commissioner hands, recording officer, please conduct a vote.

The motion passes with seven yeses.

Thank you so much. And what are the next steps for this project?

This will be going to council on June 16th.

Thank you very much. All right, this brings us to the second item and our last item for this evening. It's item 26-0541. It's a proposed project related to an application on a 1.97 acre site, Moffett Park Special Development Permit to demolish the existing one story, 25,820 square foot office building and construct an eight story, 265 unit apartment building with 217 parking spaces and a 14,700 square foot neighborhood park Location is 1215 Bordeaux Drive. Is there a staff report?

Yes, there is. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Davis and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Wendy Lau. I am the project planner. The item before you this evening is Planning Application 2025-0582 for a proposed residential project at 1215 Bordeaux Drive. The application consists of a Moffett Park special development permit to construct an eight-story building with 265 residential units, totaling 297,406 square feet. The project includes 217 parking spaces inside a garage and a 14,700 square foot neighborhood park. The project site is 1.97 acres in size and has a general plan land use designation of Moffett Park, and the zoning designation is Moffett Park's specific plan residential. The existing building was constructed in 1973 and will be demolished as part of the proposed project. The site is located in northern Sunnyvale within the Moffett Park Pacific Plan area. The site is bounded by Bordeaux Drive to the east, Fifth Avenue to the south, and multiple office or research and development buildings to the west and north and larger surrounding areas. There is an existing bike path, indicated by a light green color, on the south side of Fifth Avenue across the project site. Here is an image of the proposed site plan. The image on the left shows the ground floor plan. As mentioned, the site is bordered by two streets. There is no parking on Bordeaux Drive, as this is where the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is focused. Along Fifth Avenue are both the vehicular and pedestrian entrances to the building's ground floor garage, which consists primarily of mechanical parking for the residents, which the applicant will discuss in more detail. Fifth Avenue is where many of the building's back-of-house operations are located, including a trash room and a transformer room. Fifth Avenue also includes a dual-use loading zone for garbage pickup, as well as moving trucks for residential move-ins and move-outs. To the east of the building along Bordeaux Drive are the leasing and amenity room, bike room, and electrical room. A project condition approval requires adding a second electrical vehicle charging station to the ground floor, which the applicant is receptive to. The project proposes multiple open space and landscape areas. To the north of the building is a 70-foot wide neighborhood park, which is part of the greater anticipated Bordeaux neighborhood park. There is also an entry plaza on the southeast corner of Fifth Avenue and Bordeaux Drive. On the image to the right is the third floor plan. Beginning on the third floor, the building form is arranged in an E-shaped layout. The third floor layout includes an amenity room highlighted in red and two outdoor courtyards with a pool, seating, and additional landscaping. The residential units are located on floors three through eight, and each floor is mostly identical in layout. This is an image of the east elevation of the building along Bordeaux Drive. The ground floor, which is approximately two stories in height, includes the lobby and a mini space, which have large windows that provide visibility into the activities inside the building. Oops, sorry. Can I go back? The bicycle room would consist of obscured glass for security and privacy reasons. A project condition approval requires a privacy glass to incorporate a nature-inspired designer pattern, which the applicant is amenable to. Above the ground floor are the two residential courtyards. The residential portion of the building are the upper six stories, which are visually divided into three building sections. The building is designed with articulation in the wall plane through building step backs and varied roof lines. On the screen is an elevation of the north side, which faces the neighborhood park. The ground floor glazing on the left side provides indoor outdoor visual connectivity to Bordeaux Park. To the right of the many room is the garage parking and pet washing station. Since the study session, the applicant has made changes to this building facade, including adding more windows on the ground floor, adding variation to the balcony design, and adding more variation in the wall planes. This is the south elevation facing Fifth Avenue. The main building entrance is located at the right side of the ground floor and consists primarily of glazing. Towards the center are the vehicle and pedestrian access to the garage. There are five additional doors that provide entrance to the transformer room, fire pump room, storage, and stairwell. A partial condition approval requires adding culinary plants adjacent to the doors, which the applicant is amenable to. On the screen is an image of the West elevation of the building which faces the Jason office buildings and parking lot. The ground floors now vertical windows are spaced at point for foot intervals with a board form concrete or stucco in between, for the upper stories, there is one column of recessed balconies at the left end. The building includes projecting metal balconies in two different colors on this elevation. A condition approval requires adding an awning of approximately 155 feet to the right side of the building above the eighth floor, which the applicant is receptive to. This is a material board of the proposed project, which is also found on sheet A6 of the project plans. This is a streetscape elevation of the building along Bordeaux Drive with the neighboring office buildings to the left and right. As mentioned earlier, the site is located in the Moffett Park specific plan area. The project site is indicated by the red rectangle. The Moffett Park specific plan calls for various neighborhood park habitat patches, which are indicated by the pink ovals. The Bordeaux neighborhood park habitat patch includes the northern portion of the project site. The profit price specific plan also includes natural areas and greenway ecological quarters, such as the West channel which leads toward the bay many parks and plaza as indicated in orange and Community park ecological quarters as indicated in purple. This image provides a more detailed illustration of the soldier neighborhood open space and mobility network diagram. That project site was designated to be residential with a northern 80 feet consisting of open space for the bordeaux neighborhood park. The entire bordeaux neighborhood park indicated by the letter a was planned for 3.5 acres and includes the northern portion of the project site. This is a close-up of the proposed park within the project site. The project proposes a 70-foot wide park consisting of a dog park towards the west and a mini patio towards the east and picnic area at the northeast. Several seat walls are provided throughout the park. The project site is intended to serve as both a neighborhood park and a habitat patch. To satisfy the neighborhood park requirement, the project includes a dog park and high quality native habitat in non-programmed areas. At least 80% of the plants will consist of native plant species. To satisfy the habitat patch requirement, the project includes nature trails and picnicking in designated areas. The designated high quality native plant habitat will have 100% native species. The project includes 40 below market rate units of which 27 are for low income levels and 13 are for the very low income levels. The project would comply with the city's inclusionary BMR housing program ordinance. As a result, the project is entitled to one concession and any number of waivers or reductions of development standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density. The project proposes one concession and 11 waivers. On the screen are the list of concessions and waivers. The applicant proposes one concession for the reduction in EV ready and EV charging stations. The applicant also requests 11 waivers relating to setbacks, breaks in building facades, open space dimensions, lockable storage, green roof, neighborhood park dimensions, and loading zone dimensions. Staff supports the requested concession waivers for the proposed project. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 3rd, in which approximately five members of the public attended the meeting. Many attendees expressed support for the project while raising questions related to parking and construction timeline. This project was also heard by the Plan Commission at a study session on March 9th, in which three members of the public spoke about unionized labor, synthetic turf, and travel to local schools. The applicant also received feedback about building design, landscaping, parking, and the dual-use loading zone. Staff has not received additional public comments as of date. This slide provides the Planning Commission with alternatives for your decision tonight. The first option is to approve the Sequel Determination and Moffett Park Special Development Permit. The second option is to approve the Sequel Determination and Moffett Park Special Development Permit with modifications. The third option is to not make the required findings to approve the project and direct staff where changes should be made. Staff has analyzed the project and recommends alternative one, which is to make the required findings to approve the CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the Moffitt Park Special Plan, sorry, Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and approve the Moffitt Park Special Development Permit based on the recommended findings in attachment two and recommended conditions of approval in attachment three. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the city's environmental consultants are available for any questions the commission may have. The applicant is also here tonight to provide a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

To kick it off, we're going to have the commissioners ask some questions.

First up, we have Commissioner Cerrone.

Thank you, Chair. So there's a lot of good things about this project, but it's a big project. complicated it involves a lot of different uh requirements and so on uh so i do have some questions um uh first of all starting with the parking um so i believe state law mandates that because it's close to transit um no uh there's no minimum parking required and uh On top of that, Moffett Park's specific plan has a maximum of one space per unit. So the parking must be less than 265 parking spaces They propose 217, so this is compliant. There are 306 bedrooms there, so a large percentage of residents will not be able to park a car in this project. Now, I ask about this at the study session. Have any attempts yet been made to arrange shared parking with neighboring office parking, which seems like it would be an easy thing to do because, you know, the residential parking would peak at night and the employees would park during the day. And this was an important part of what was envisioned for the Moffett Park's specific plan that there would be be opportunities for shared parking. Has anything been done to look at that?

Sure. Staff has spoken to the applicant about this before. It's my understanding the applicant has reached out to the neighboring office buildings to find some solution, but they have not been successful as of date. However, staff still encourages the applicant to continue reaching out to the neighboring properties.

Okay, so the assumption would be that we, you know, somehow we will not expect to hear complaints from the neighboring properties about people illegally parking in their lots. Is that our assumption?

It's hard to say, you know, depending on if the sites that are adjacent or if their parking lots are monitored at night. If the adjacent property owners are open-minded, you know, they may allow that, you know, but we don't know until something happens and then we hear the complaints.

You know, we've seen that in other parts of the city and certainly other parts of the county, so... Now, about the EV charging concession, I think the requirement is 30% level one, 30% level two, charging that's 65 and 65. The developer proposes two stations. Unlike many of the waivers or concessions we see where the justification is that they would lose housing units, by complying with this. In this case, the justification is that the stations would cost money and they don't want to spend that money. Are all of our state and local environmental laws, including our reach codes, rendered non-applicable under SB 330 or the state density bonus law or the state housing laws?

No, the project is meeting the portions of the REACH code that's applicable. And the EV charging only applies to the non-mechanical. So there is an exception in the California code regarding the mechanical parking system.

You're saying the REACH codes only require... Two charging stations for a project of this size?

It's not the reach code. It's a different section. The project will be in compliance with the 2025 Cal Green residential mandatory measures, which applies only to the non-mechanical parking spaces. So the project will be in compliance with that by providing two EV charging stations and three EV ready spaces.

we did double check that with the building staff just to make sure it is the current code and not, you know, a previous cycle.

Okay. Yeah. The I mean the, you know, the California at least has had a mandate that by 2020, 20, 35, 100% of new passenger vehicles must be zero emission vehicles. And even a target of, uh, 35% for 20, 26, uh, model year, whether that any of that is met or not. And ignoring the fact that the, uh, federal, uh, administration is trying to negate all of these, uh, requirements, but still, um, It certainly seems like two is... Even the 30% seems very low, but two seems kind of absurdly low. So the requirement for... For EV chargers, well, if it's a requirement for only two, then I won't even ask if it's EV chargers or EV ready. In terms of the cost, well, first of all, if you're saying they're meeting the requirement that they don't even need a concession, right? Right.

To clarify, they will be meeting the 2025 Cal Green residential measures, which is a lower standard than the Moffett Park specific plan requirement, which was what required 30% level two EV ready and 30% additional 30% level one EV ready. Yeah. Okay.

And are those for EV, okay, EV ready, half are EV ready and half are EV chargers? Is that what you're saying, 30 and 30?

Yes, the Moffett Park specific plan has a higher requirement than the Cal Green residential measures.

Right, right.

So the project will not be in compliance with the Moffett Park specific plan requirements. That's what the concession is for.

I see, okay.

But they will be in compliance with the Cal Green residential measures.

Okay, that's what I thought. So now if the added cost for the chargers is, let's say, $100, I know it's not, but does that allow the concession? What I'm asking is, where is the threshold for it costs too much? Is it $1, a million dollars?

Given that the request for the concession is coming from the applicant, could we save that question for the applicant? Sure, sure. Can I respond to that?

I can respond to that question. There is no established threshold in state law as to what is sufficient cost savings. But so concessions are different from waivers in that waivers address physical preclusion of the projects. components, including the loud density, but concessions are really focused on costs and whether or not the request results in actual cost reductions to allow for the provision of affordable housing.

So there, but, well, so that's what I was asking, though. Is there a threshold for how much cost is...

There's no established threshold for

Could it be $1?

Theoretically, that would be a bit of a waste of a concession, because it's a very powerful piece of state density bonus law, and one might say the most powerful piece of it. So rarely do you find an applicant requesting a concession for a $1 saving. Well...

uh all right uh it seems like we may be reaching cuckoo we may not see chargers again um now i appreciate that the mechanical puzzle parking which i love makes the charging more complicated but Um, I mean, I had looked into it enough to see that, uh, as far as I can tell, everybody, every vendor who makes the mechanical puzzle parking also has solutions for EV parking because it's a obvious requirement, not necessarily, apparently not in Sunnyvale, but, uh, uh, elsewhere in the world. Um, uh, final, uh, question on the parking, uh, Our because it's a mechanical system requires power our power outages handled. I didn't see anything in the Conditions of approval, you can end up not being able to get your car. Out of it. Is that one for the applicant.

That should be for the applicant. It also depends on the final sort of vendor that they go with in terms of the mechanical parking system. Different providers may have like a backup generator that does minimal function, but doesn't, if somebody's sort of in mid cycle and there's power outage, it might allow you to complete the cycle, but not draw another vehicle, you know, but they can explain that based on the models they've looked at.

Okay. Okay. On bird safe design. And I'm talking about the report from WRA. They identified several hazards to birds, skyways, walkways, glass walls. They identified, you know, hazards, glass railings on the northeast southern balconies, transparent building corners. There's also uplighting of trees. Have these been addressed somewhere? they just called out in the report as a hazard, but.

There is a project condition approval that the final design will be in compliance with all the bird safe design requirements. But the report did not necessarily say all of those items were a concern with this project. They were just, I believe they were listing potential concerns in general.

Well, these are specific to this project though, these hazards.

So do you want to go ahead and say that? There are elements of that that are listed there that are pulled straight from the Moffett Park specific plan. It serves more as a reminder to both the staff and the applicant that the building permit will be checked. You know, when the sort of the construction materials and details are provided, we will check and double check, you know, to make sure that it meets those. But if you look, I think Wendy mentioned that there's a bridge.

Oh, no, there's not a bridge.

Sorry, Ms. Buck, did you want to say more?

Can I ask if our CEQA consultants can also chime in? Christy or Maria? I think Maria is getting ready to speak.

I think that she's got her hands raised. I think she just needs to be unmuted.

They should be able to unmute. themselves. I can't.

Hi, I think I did it.

There we go.

Okay. Hi, everyone. My name is Christy Weiss. I'm with David J. Powers and Associates, and we're the City CEQA consultant for this project. So you're correct that the WRI peer review of the The project spurred compliance, found some deficiencies with the applicant's plans. And so those were specifically called out in that report. And the way we understood the city staff was going to address it was there was a discussion with the applicant and the applicant agreed to address those deficiencies and staff would check that at their final review.

Okay, thank you. So this, well, let me go to the next question, which is similar in a sense. But given the high-tech history of the site, soil contamination may be an issue. So apparently the process is a site assessment that's done, followed by a site management plan. Like a D watering manager plan vapor intrusion mitigation plan and so on. Do these need to be approved before or after the permit is issued. This plan for handling soil contamination.

Christy may be able to elaborate a little bit more, but in general, the recommendations from the applicants, phase one and phase two consultants would have a list of different actions that need to be taken. The soil management plan, the details of that can be provided during building permit stage. It's how they would handle the soil that's currently on site, whether that's taking it off site or at a treatment facility or a place that they are licensed to be able to take contaminated soil. So there's different options that the applicant's consultant can elaborate during their development of the soil mitigation plan, soil management plan, I'm sorry. So there are typical actions that can be done and we've, do you have the... There should be a condition of approval. Wendy's trying to find it. But there should be a condition of approval that allows the staff and the applicant to work through that during building permit stage. Christy, do you want to add to that?

Sure. I'm just confirming what you said, Julia. So the contaminants on site are going to be addressed through a site management plan that would be prepared and approved prior to issuance of building permits or demolition permits, whichever comes first. So demo grading building permits. And then same for the vapor intrusion mitigation plan. It's a condition of approval. And that would be submitted and reviewed and approved prior to issuing permits.

Have we ever stopped a project because of these steps to evaluate the site and basically soil contamination? Has that ever stopped? It never has?

We would not be at this stage if there was not a way to mitigate the contaminated soil. The recommendation, as far as I can recollect, for residential development, there are thresholds that need to be met. During the SMP, the site management plan, the information that the consultant needs to demonstrate is that by removing the soil off-site, the contamination on-site will meet the threshold for residential development. So that is a normal process that has been practiced elsewhere. And so I don't see this particular site and the recommendations as anything that's unusual.

Okay, I... So, I mean, it's a general comment. This is our final vote, right, on this project. And so it seems like, you know, so there's the bird safety thing and then there's this whole environmental plan with soil contamination and so on. But all of these things happen after we vote to approve or not approve it so we just I guess we just have to trust that somehow this will all get done by by somebody so.

Commissioner Cerrone, there are a number of conditions of approval, starting with, I think, BP 49. These are all conditions that must be met prior to building permit issuance. So before soil disturbance and all that. And these are conditions that are taken from the Moffett Park specific plan EIR. and our mitigation measures to address hazards and hazardous materials that were identified in the EIR and they apply to all development in the Moffett Park specific plan area that are utilizing the EIR for their CEQA clearance.

All right, thank you. On the TDM plan, the enforcement, is there, what specific mechanism beyond annual reporting ensures compliance with the 30% long-term trip reduction target. What if that target isn't met?

This is Julia. So the long term target for the TDM plan as specified in the Moth Park specific plan is 2033. The city along with the Moth Park business group need to form the TMA first during this period and through the TMA we will be basically all the property owners that are in the Moth Park specific can participate in that and then the annual assessments will happen. So we have some late work to do before then.

All right. And so, I mean, along those lines, when it stated the project is determined to be consistent with the Moffett Park specific plan EIR, does that being consistent with the EIR include, is it consistent with all the waivers and concessions or is it consistent before those are applied?

The waivers and concessions cannot be used to waive away sort of EIR mitigation measures that are intended for safety reasons. For example, the birth safe, there's a safety reason for that, so you can't waive that away. The phase one and phase two contamination, I don't fully remember the EIR and all the mitigation measures. But there are different options, you know, that if you have certain types of contamination, the consultants can recommend different options and then the applicant can choose those options. So I think, you know, things that are safety reasons, you cannot waive them away. So the ones that you see before you this evening are non-safety related waivers and concession.

But apparently environmental waivers can be done. I mean, for example, the EIR, the checklist for streamlined review says, you know, the project would be building accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code, et cetera, et cetera. The project will incorporate green building features, drought tolerant landscaping, water efficient fixtures, high efficiency appliances, EV charging infrastructure, solar panels, and recycled water. But we're waiving the EV charging infrastructure and solar panels too, correct?

Not solar panels, but the green roof.

Okay. But the EV charging infrastructure is... Well, I guess if there's... two chargers. Does that count as EV charging infrastructure?

The infrastructure will be done. That's part of the EV ready requirement. So under the 2025 Cal Green 2025 I don't know the acronyms 2025 Cal Green it's required that the other. So there's five non mechanical parking spaces to will have the EV chargers the other three will be ready so they'll have the infrastructure.

Aren't those all the accessible parking spaces.

Yes.

So if you don't have an accessibility sticker, you can't use the charging stations, right?

That would be correct.

So for most people, it's zero charging stations.

Moffett Park specific plan is still growing. The development in the nearby areas is still growing. Staff anticipates that as more developments come onto line, the non-residential properties will have publicly available EV charging spaces. We see that happening in other parts of the city. And so I would anticipate that residents who do have EV vehicles would be able to take advantage of the ones that are EV sort of stations, you know, elsewhere in the city. If there are new projects that are coming in, you know, we, for example, Planning Commission approved the 333 Moffett Park specific, Moffett Park Drive office R&D project earlier in 2020. in 2025, that has surface parking spaces that are EV ready and EV charge spaces. So this project is relatively close, so residents there can also take advantage of that. I think one of the One of the things that we can do is try through the TDM program that the applicant will be sharing with residents is make available information about where these EV charging stations and spaces are available.

Okay, sure. I think you're saying they can drive to another part of the city and charge, or charge at work. Yeah.

I would also add that one of the parking spaces is actually a loading space in the garage. So staff can consider discussing with building and seeing if the EV charging can be shared with that loading space potentially.

Okay. And my last question here, that neighborhood park was reduced from 80 to 70 feet under the density bonus law. Could they have reduced it even more, reduced it in half? And we would have also had to accept that.

um in theory i think what we were trying to do in our conversations with the applicant which has been a very good sort of a dialogue is that arthur park specific plan the entire specific plan area is new for residential so without building these neighborhood parks the residents would have very little opportunity And so when you look at the entire Moffitt Park specific plan and where these large, you know, 3.5 acres is pretty large, but it requires every single property owner in that area to contribute something. So in our discussions with the applicant, and again, they've been, you know, great to work with and having this dialogue, you know, 70 feet was out of that 80, which is a good percentage, right? But, you know, part of that is looking at reducing the setback on Fifth Avenue. And so normally, if you look at the Moffett Park specific plan, that required setback is a lot more, you know, along Fifth Avenue. So it was a compromise. You know, you have reduced setback on Fifth Avenue, which is where all the back of house functions are concentrated. But instead, the tradeoff is to get more square footage, you know, for the neighborhood park. So we've been able to have very fruitful discussions with this applicant, you know, about that.

My concern is that the park, as you said, the park is associated with multiple developers, ultimately, in some future. And if they all ask for waivers and cut back, the park may be sort of disappear before, you know, everybody takes a chunk out of it. And pretty soon, there's just a small little patio there. But all right.

All right. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Cerrone. Next we have Commissioner Pine.

Thank you. Just two questions. First, am I correct in stating that the standard for denying a concession or waiver would be defined that had a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety?

That's correct, Commissioner Pine.

Thank you. And my other question was that, and this goes back to attachment 13, which was the bird safe design review. There was a bunch of language in that attachment about about referring native species to various alternatives. So when I went and looked at the applicant's plant palette in the resubmittal, it looked to me like it was actually complying with the recommendation and attachment 13 I saw a lot of the recommended native species and I didn't see the species that were that the recommend against so is that part of the at least that part of the bird safe designer you just kind of done resolved and not requiring any further action.

The final landscape plan will be finalized during the building permit stage. And that's because one of the Moffitt Park requirements, which is also a project condition approval, is that during the construction phase, soil testing must be done to ensure that the proposed plans would succeed in the site.

Sure. But I guess what I'm just saying is, though, and I guess maybe this could be a question for the applicant, but is Is I guess I'm asking is that recommendation that about native season bird safe design already taken into account in this submittal because that's what it looked like to me when I looked at the proposed plan palette, but I just like to see if that could be confirmed.

Could that be a question for the applicant.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner pine next we have Commissioner Davis.

Yes, thank you for the presentation. I realized that I've gotten so used to hearing about SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, and I didn't hear about it this time. So the question is, do those apply? Are we limited in number of hearings? And we are.

Yes, we are, Commissioner Davis.

Okay, okay, so. It's just kind of normal operating procedure now. And I wanted to confirm, so I was looking at, we don't actually have a maximum dwelling units per acre in this zoning, right?

Not in this zoning district, no.

Okay. So this is not commenting on the application itself or approval or denial, but we have another situation where the density bonus is being used and it's not getting us any more units. Can you confirm that?

The project, let me see, is proposing nearly 145 billion units per acre, where they're required to provide at least 70 billion units per acre. So they are meeting or exceeding that requirement. But they have not provided density units yet, no.

Right. I guess my point is that we've actually zoned Moffett Park in such a way that you don't need a density bonus. We'll let you build as much as you want. But they use the density bonus law, even though you don't need more units, because it comes with all these goodies in terms of concessions and waivers. So it's another one of those, the letter of the law is not leading to the to the outcomes that the law was designed to produce.

Right. And also in the Moffitt Park specific plan area, there's no maximum density.

Correct. Which is the right policy choice. I completely agree with that. It's just maybe we should be having conversations with our legislators about that. squaring up the density bonus law to deliver its intent rather than just being a nice trump card. I hate using that word now, but anyway, you get the idea, right? So they always have the winning bridge hand. Okay, those are all my questions. Commissioner Cerrone really dug into the same things I wanted to dig into.

Thank you. Commissioner Navis, thanks for your comments on the density bonus. I did just want to mention, too, one of the main goals of the density bonus was also to incentivize affordable units. And while a number of cities don't have inclusionary housing requirements and Sunnyvale does, that's really the main driver of those incentives. So they are providing those. And so whether they add the units or not, we are getting some incentive out of it.

Thank you. That's a very valid point. Especially in a city like Sunnyvale, more affordable units is definitely a good thing. Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Davis. Seeing no other commissioner hands at this point, we'll move to the applicant. There is one applicant. There are 10 minutes to be provided at the beginning of the public hearing to address the planning commission along with five minutes at the end of the public hearing. Is there an applicant presentation?

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Tom Holt with BeamReach. We're the project sponsor. I'm going to hand it over. We only have these 10 minutes. So I'll hand it over to Ed, the true professional, to do the presentation. But please know we're here to answer any questions you may have. I already heard some great ones. So look forward to the dialogue. Thank you.

And then is there a clicker available? Or should I just say next? Oh, perfect.

Perfect. Great.

Thank you. Good evening chair, vice chair and commissioners. Thank you again for having us back tonight. My name is again Edward Kim with KTGY. Again, joining virtually, the design team is available for questions after the presentation. You gave us a very thorough study session in March. Tonight we're returning with a project that is refined from your feedback and months of collaborative coordination with planning and city staff departments. So before I get into specifics, I do want to be transparent and direct. The fundamental project before you tonight is consistent with what you've seen in March. However, we have resolved items that were still in progress then, strengthened the documentation that you had requested us to consider, and made targeted design refinements through collaboration and recommendation from city staff. As Wendy iterated, the building is still eight stories, type three podium structure with 265 units. 40 of those would be deed restricted BMR units fully integrated throughout this project on every level, on every floor, with identical finishes and amenity access as the market rate units. Commissioner Pine, you had mentioned in March that you had given other applicants grief about BMR distribution over the years. And we believe this project does this right. And our BMR approach has not changed since March. Just a quick recap of the design that you had previously seen. Again, it's an E-shaped building form. The material palette and the design aesthetic, the ground floor activation along Bordeaux Drive, and the relationship to the Bordeaux Neighborhood Park. These are the design decisions that you supported, and you've stated that you support, and they remain the foundation of what we bring forward tonight. And what follows are the refinements made on top of that. This slide addresses two questions that came directly out of the study session. Commissioner Pine, again, you asked for a bike and pedestrian circulation diagram. And this site plan here illustrates that. It's a little hard to see on my screen. I'm hoping that you can see it clearly on yours. The blue dashed line and the green dashed dotted line represent both the public sidewalk and the protected bike lane. Extending from the public sidewalk with the purple arrows is the pedestrian access to the neighborhood park to the north and the future connection points ultimately when the park expansion and further development is constructed. The large red arrows highlight the main points of residential access, engaging with the public realm, with short-term bicycle parking readily available in close proximity, and those are shown in the yellow dots. The red arrow pointing to Bordeaux Drive calls out the resident bike access onto Bordeaux through secured building thresholds, key fob and security. And then lastly, vehicular access shown in the dark gray arrow towards Fifth Avenue would be, again, limited to Fifth Avenue as previously proposed. In addition, one thing that we were working through with traffic and city departments, the bike parking layout has also been updated to accommodate both cargo and oversized bikes. Chair, Mr. Chair, Chair Iglesias, you had asked how loading and trash operations on Fifth Avenue would operate and be managed without impairing traffic. And today we have a fully coordinated answer. Working with DPW traffic and environmental solid waste, the project proposes that your trash bins be moved by building staff and not by the waste hauler. This has been acknowledged and both bought off by planning solid waste and traffic and DPW as the preferred operational model. Per DPW traffic and solid waste department comments as well and recommendation, we've also consolidated the curb cuts along Fifth Avenue. And so now the proposed driveway accommodates the waste bin and maneuvering path out to this staging area. The staging zone, Itself on Fifth Avenue has been sized and confirmed with all relevant departments. And then on-site property management will coordinate timing for move-ins, move-outs, and bin staging on trash pickup. Vice Chair Shukla, you expressed in March that the architecture is visually interesting due to the variation of materials and massing. We're continuing to build off of that with these refinements through coordination and recommendation from planning staff. As we're working collaborative together, one of the recommendations and the direction from planning staff was to introduce a massing break along the northern facade and transition to a different material at that break. This reduces the perceived length of the building along the elevation and breaks down the apparent scale of the facade again consistent with the Moffitt Park specific plan articulation standards. Again, with planning staff recommendation and coordination, the ground floor garage wall along the northern and western facades has also been articulated further. We increased the frequency of the garage openings from a previous interval of about 23 feet or so to about 18 feet now. Added offset wall planes to create shadow lines and create visual interest. Again, this is a measurable improvement to the pedestrian experience along those edges. And we coordinated directly with planning staff and city biologists, again, on bird safe glazing recommendations. And we're committed to providing and being compliant with all the bird safe standards within the Moffitt Park specific plan. We've also documented those within the elevation sheets within the plan set. This slide, again, addresses some additional comments and questions raised during the study session in March, including modular, Commissioner Davis. sustainability, Commissioner Cerrone, and EV charging. Commissioner Davis, we appreciated the enthusiasm for modular on this site. I think, to be honest, given where the project was in the design development at that time, converting to modular was not a feasible path forward, and so we did take a look at it. Again, the two methods require fundamentally different design approaches from the outset. And so I think our project was too far along to be able to go and kind of restart or reboot. And so again, tonight, conventional type three stick frame is the right approach for this project on this timeline. Commissioner Cerrone, you noted in March that the Calgary mandatory measures checklist had too many noted comments on it. And so this is what I'd like to present today. The project commits to providing all Calgary mandatory state measures as a baseline. On top of that, we've prepared a Greenpoint-rated checklist that shows compliance with the prescribed 120-point minimum threshold within the Moffett Park-specific plan, and that could be found on Sheets A0.17 and 0.18. Again, this point minimum or the Greenpoint rating is a project commitment, and compliance will be carried through construction documents and confirmed at building permit. And you also mentioned about Evie spaces and as I like to talk about that briefly today and as staff noted the configuration is compliant with the Calgary mandatory measures. And the five spaces are both conduit EV ready spaces with low power receptacle and two dedicated for EV charging with installed charging stations. However, beyond the baseline, I think what we're anticipating and proposing is that the mechanical parking stalls are conduit ready. And so ultimately what that is trying to do is position the garage that should there be an expansion or EV demand by residents that we can pull those conduits and start to create and introduce more EV parking within those mechanical systems. And to just to read a couple remarks that stood out to us from the last study session cherry glaciers you had mentioned that this is a fitting and exciting project for this specific plan area. Chair device chair shukla you noted that this was a great looking project and we look forward to its future. Commissioner saroni Commissioner pine yet both mentioned that this is exactly what the specific plan and visions. and you're looking forward to getting built. And again, and Commissioner Davis as well, to come back and get it built. So through the three months of coordination with refinement, we're here to do that. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for the presentation. At this point, I'm going to go ahead and allow commissioners to ask you any questions. Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Serrani, please.

Thanks, Chair, and thanks for the presentation. So let's see. We asked you before about shared parking, about talking to the neighbors. Could you elaborate on that, where you are with that?

Yeah. Yeah, sure. I can speak to that. So we have had conversations. We don't have a specific solution today. But if we don't have enough parking to rent 265 units, we'll figure out a solution. I do know that there are properties within close proximity that do have excess parking. So we're hopeful that it can be resolved. Right. I mean, it's right there. Yeah.

There's a lot of parking in the neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. These you know, these developments with minimal parking or parking below what any reasonable person would think makes sense. There's benefits from that. And I'm happy with sort of any solution. Well, the mechanical parking system is a big step towards that. That's a big deal. And I think that's great. And shared parking is another one. So there are ways to do it. But just pretending that cars are going to disappear in three years and we're all going to be riding bikes is not a solution that I consider reasonable. So... We talked about the problem that the current EV ready parking spots are in the accessible spaces. Even if you wanted to charge, if you didn't have an accessible sticker, you couldn't use them.

As Edward alluded to, we fully expect to have many more EV charging stations when we open. At my house, we have an electric car. We charge it. We understand that the market is going to demand far more than what are in the plans now. But we will be providing the conduit for it so that we can build that when it's demanded.

Okay, that was my other question. So you said conduit ready, which sounds like nothing at all. You mean conduit is there and it's wiring ready?

Well, for the... So we have...

going to take that yeah yeah so so typically what we'll do is um we'll run conduit through the mechanical system and so then if there is a demand and we need to install a charger that we can just pull the wiring from the wall um that's adjacent to the mechanical system and so they would yeah how about the uh sizing for the panels and the uh

I mean, a lot of this stuff is easy when you're building the thing and running conduit, it's not that expensive, but very hard to do after the fact. So are you scaling your panel, your electricals, you know, panels for... for this eventually or a place to put them or something like that?

Yeah, so I can't answer that specifically because we haven't gotten into the electrical design yet. We'll do that when we get into construction documents. But what I will say is I think our goal is aligned with your goal that when there's demand for charging that will meet that demand within the building.

And so, you know, there was an article in the Mercury News yesterday about maybe you saw it about an apartment complex in San Jose has parking for one third of the apartments. After two years, it's 60 percent vacant, has gone into foreclosure. And the main reason is lack of parking. People don't want to rent a place to where they can't. park a car. And the article referred to similar projects where residents are accumulating a lot of parking tickets from parking illegally on the street. So do you have any concerns about your ability to rent these spaces and that

under those kind of constraints yeah i i did not read the article because it's behind a paywall but um i'm familiar with the project um and i believe so our parking ratio here is 0.8 um spaces per unit roughly i believe that's much higher than what they had there um and again there is a lot of excess parking in this neighborhood um so i'm confident that we'll come up with a solution if it's needed And it's also a unique location where we believe a lot of the tenants are going to work in that immediate neighborhood. And so from a biking and walkability perspective, we believe that it's a very strong location. So it's possible and maybe likely that 0.8 is okay. But if it's not, then we have ideas for how to solve it.

Yeah, I mean, maybe so. But even... I believe 90-some percent of regular bike riders also own a car because our transportation infrastructure doesn't really get you everywhere. So having a lot of non-vehicle trips is one thing, but getting rid of the car ownership is another. I noticed you are not using Silicon Valley Clean Energy as your energy provider. Why is that?

I have no idea. I'm not sure. We haven't gotten into designing the electrical system, so I'm not sure.

Okay, yeah. I think it's the... Project description letter explicitly says you're using PG&E instead of Silicon Valley clean energy. And finally, just regarding Commissioner Davis's question about the height or the density, I believe we asked about this at the study session. And the issue was that it's the construction materials that when you've got the podium and then above that, you can only go with wood you can only go so many stories so regardless of the density bonus or whatever that you need to either go four more stories or five more stories or ten more stories uh and you steal which you know which is an ongoing problem we have with density right there's this no man's land of uh You could say, well, hey, why don't you just add another floor? Well, okay, that's fine, but the thing would fall down. So that was my understanding anyway.

All right.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cerrone. Next, we have Vice Chair Shukla.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, and thanks for kind of taking all the comments we had given in our study. So it's great. And I do like what you have done with the project, but I do have a couple of questions. And the one, I will just talk about the material you used. So there are columns, like there is on two columns, you have this one column going like, which is structural or is it just for the decoration? Because it's like a round column in the rendering. So maybe it's not there on the front page. If you see it, the view from the front page cover sheets on the white two towers, you have this column on the balcony, are they structural or is just for the?

Yes, they would be structural.

So, I mean, I like that because you are adding some variations into the little balconies, the look of the tower. I have a major question I have is the storage because you have no storage. So I was wondering that do you have, like you have one bedroom unit, Very many and small units. Are you going to thinking of a short term stay or the real rental for long term?

Yeah, I'll say that the units are being designed for long term rentals. It's possible we'll have a small component of short term rentals, but the primary business plan is people who live here.

Yeah, because there is a Terra Hotel just across the other side. And so because I'm like, you have no public storage, no parking for them to store anything. And, you know, people can't like just live. I mean, that's not human being. As a nature, human being likes to store their history, culture. So I was just wondering that I think there is a public storage will come up there soon because I was just checking out how many different public storage has come up, cropped up in Sunnyvale. And people are, there is a, places they go. So I just, you know, I think you're creating a new problem and maybe the market will solve it, but I'm just going to bring it out. So that's one. And then second one, have you provided this mechanical parking before in any development?

Yeah, it's becoming more and more common throughout the Bay Area. And so I have done systems like this before.

Did you have major any complaints or problems you faced? Just curious.

Yeah, no. One comment that has been made about mechanical parking systems is that it takes a little bit longer to get your car than if you walk up to a traditional parking stall. Now, some would argue that that's a benefit because it discourages people from using their car, but the person that wants their car to go to work, it can take two to three minutes longer. There are more elaborate and complicated parking systems that had been built recently on the peninsula. Those ones do take a little bit longer and are more complicated, but this one is becoming fairly straightforward throughout the Bay Area.

Okay, thank you. So I think, yeah, I mean, those are the issues. The people just have no idea that when they rent it and then what kind of problems they can face, you know, like that's one of them too. So I think, yeah, just was just curious about it. The second one was that... So all the, I think you have given the lighting studies, lighting studies, and just want to make sure that you follow that, the illumination. And it doesn't, because it's more like you want bird safe plantings and, and you, whatever the contents, you have two courtyards and then the things. So I hope that, you just follow that standard and do the good job but i have um i'm pretty much happy with the project and i really appreciate it no comments thanks thank you thank you next we have commissioner pine

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, applicant, for the presentation. Thank you in particular for that bike pad circulation diagram. It was very helpful. I had a couple questions. First of all, to circle back to the EV thing, I guess what I am having trouble squaring right now is you're talking about having installing the this, you know, getting installing the wiring and such for the for spaces that will make them EV capable in the future. And I guess I'm having a little trouble actually squaring this with the requested concession. So could you just explain how that all interacts?

Yeah, I think from our perspective, by getting that concession, we'll be able to build what the market demands rather than overbuild the number of chargers. So it's really giving us flexibility.

Okay. Because I guess what I'm looking at just from a policy perspective is that there's what is trying to make things future-proof because we do anticipate that the number of electric vehicles will be increasing in the future. And as Commissioner Cerny pointed out, it's, I get not wanting to, I get not wanting to necessarily overbuild for current conditions, but we do just, again, this is from a policy perspective, want to make, but I think this is, from a development perspective as well, just because we want to have demand for these units going into the future. And definitely we want to be able to say that for the expected life of the building, there's going to be enough EV charging for EV, for, for electric vehicles. So that's kind of the policy angle I'm looking at.

Yep. Yeah. And again, I think our goals are aligned is that we do want to provide sufficient charging when it is demanded. So our intent is fully to make sure that if every vehicle needs charging, then we'll figure out a way to make it happen.

Okay, yeah. And I'll just say, I appreciate hearing that, but you will understand why I'm just a little nervous, and there's not much I can do about it. But you do understand why I get a little... It's like, I like what you're saying, but also from... I don't actually have any way to guarantee it other than trust. And I know, and I will say that from a... Just from a governance perspective, I tend to prefer having a little more to go on than the applicant said so at a public hearing, possibly years in the past when it could come up. The other question I had was... was the one I asked the staff earlier. In attachment 13 bird safe design review, there were a number of plant palette recommendations. From when I looked at your plant palette In the recent middle, it looked like all of those recommendations had been adopted. So is that the case? Am I understanding things correctly? That's correct. Okay. That's correct. Cool. I'm very happy with your plant palette. So it's very nice to hear me to actually be able to say that instead of what I'm usually saying to applicants, which is, please consider native please consider native species please just don't go with the same old the same set of non-native species that i feel like we see in every other application so i appreciate it thank you thank you commissioner pine and next we have commissioner davis

Thank you for the presentation. Also, thank you just for the dotting your I's and crossing your T's. It's really nice to see everything updated and current. First, I have maybe a peculiar question. It's about the plant palette. In the earlier renderings, we had jacaranda trees all over the place, and it looks like those have come out. Was that on the recommendation because it's not a native species? That's correct. Okay. I'm all for native species, but I love those trees. I'm not California native either myself. So I'll think this side. I can't criticize that choice. The bird safe design came up earlier. And are the changes recommended in there? Are those reflected in these plans as well? They are. Okay, excellent. That makes it very easy. Yeah, I'll save the qualitative comments until we have public comments, but this is a very thorough application. Very, very much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Davis. And seeing no other commissioner hands, I just had a couple of comments, no questions. First, I wanted to just extend some appreciation for being very thoughtful about hearing us during the original session and then bringing back how you've made changes and updates that I thought it was a very thoughtful approach. And I wanted to also offer a different perspective from my fellow commissioners regarding parking and regarding EV charging. There are a lot of us in Sunnyvale that do drive EVs. In fact, the Bay Area, three years ago, crossed a threshold where more than 50% of the vehicles purchased, new vehicles purchased, were either EV or hybrid that was plug-in EV. And that was three years ago. So there's no doubt a tremendous demand for EV charging. I do think in the not too distant future, having at-home charging might actually be an anachronism as well. And that if charging becomes faster and easier, almost akin to a gas station with speed, then people would look back on the time of transitionary time and saying like, okay, well that was, was that really necessary at the time? Was that overbuilt? And the truth is we don't really know, but that's the direction we're moving. So I do think that where this building is located and what we're trying to build over in that space of a live-work type environment, I think that this is actually an ideal spot for it. I think it's a good challenge and I think it has a decent amount of parking, so where it still enables a transition to occur. The fact that there's the alternative light rail as well, which you can take to San Jose, you can take to the Caltrain, it gives you access. I think that this is actually a really exciting space. And I'm kind of grateful in the sense that there was a previous commissioner here who was also chair at one point, Howard, who would have said, no parking. Like, you know, really, you know, force the issue. If we don't slowly start applying pressure to that, we're not going to transition. And so I think that this is exciting and I'm supportive of the plan as is decided. With that, we will go ahead and open the public hearing on the specific items. So what will happen next is we'll allow the public to provide comments as well. After that, you'll have five minutes, and that's to respond to anything that you've heard or any additional comments you'd like to make. So I'm opening the public hearing on a specific item. Please submit a speaker card to the recording officer. Raise your digital hand now or dial star nine on the telephone to indicate that you wish to speak. I will call members of the public participating in person first, followed by remote participants. And speakers will have three minutes to speak. Would anyone like to speak on this item before we hear from remote speakers? Seeing none, Recording Officer, do we have any real participants wishing to speak on this item?

No, we do not, Chair.

Okay, well, that was easy. We now have five minutes for you. Right back to you. If there's anything that you'd like to add, you just have five minutes. The Commissioner should be giving you some feedback as well. You don't have to take it, but you're welcome to take it.

I don't think we have much more to say, but I do want to say, Commissioner Cerrone, you'd ask the question about the park. And it was our understanding from a legal perspective that using SB 330, we didn't have to build a park. But we've had a great push and pull with city staff. Wendy particularly has worked very hard in this project and she's been very diligent and she's forced us at kind of every stage of the project to make it a better project. And so we're really happy with where we've ended up and we're very excited about the project. Thank you.

Thanks so much. At this point, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. I will now ask for a motion or discussion for my colleagues. Commissioner Davis.

If there's no further discussion, I'm ready to make a motion. Well, you are the only hand that's raised, so the floor is yours. Okay, so my motion is to follow the staff recommendation, which is alternative one, approve the Moffitt Park Special Development Permit with the recommended findings in attachment two and recommended conditions of approval in attachment three. Yeah, that's the motion.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Davis. Now, Vice Chair Shukla.

I will second the motion.

Thank you, Vice Chair and Commissioner Davis to your motion.

Yeah, this is honestly one of the most thorough and professional application packets I've seen in my time in the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for doing such a great job with it. We're used to There's a ton of work that goes into these, so we overlook if maybe your renderings are a little bit out of date from the landscape and so on. But none of that is the case. This is a greenfield area for housing in Sunnyvale. We've got a lot riding on this in terms of our housing. in terms of our housing plan. Once this is all built out, it'll move the demographic center of gravity for the city and so on. I personally have children who are in the in the age group who may be looking at this kind of housing once it's actually built. So it's hitting me in a lot of spots. I think this is just a great project. I am sensitive to the car chargers and I'm glad to hear that you're planning for the future. And yes, we don't know what the future looks like. I think a lot of us with single family homes who've gone in and bought electric cars, it's so lovely having a charger. and pulling up and just charging your car. It's so lovely. That's not going to work in most of the world. I know that. It just doesn't work in a multifamily type of thing. I know with fast charging, the 10 to 80% happens in like 20 minutes on the newer models and so on. So I think going and And recharging your car will be like filling up your gas has been in the past. But we don't know. So flexibility is the key. Yeah, I really love this project. And so I hope everyone else will join me in voting to approve it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Davis.

And Vice Chair Shukla, do you second?

Thank you, Chair. Well, I am completely in awe of this project because we have seen many projects and this is the different look in the sense different materials. Also, it's very innovative in a sense that even though there are many units are given, there are a lot of variables. So they don't look like apartment building, which you see generally. And also it has been opened up in a way that every unit has access to their courtyard. So even though they are smaller, one bedroom size or two small bedroom, but they have access to open space. There is a park you have provided. So I really, really like... uh that and also the location wise there are google offices around there are so many uh high-tech offices and i know i know so many people and my kids friends and all they all park their cars at their offices they don't have they don't so i'm hoping that somehow those people who are like they don't own the car maybe or they may share the cars or they use them uber and like Avoid the owning the car or they if they own, then they can use that in their offices. So hopefully that we will figure it out as the market demand changes. And the other thing is, I do like them. the local amenities you have provided for pet washing facility and bike storage facilities. And in our city, probably your project is the first one where we have mechanical parking. So that is good that we are Do we have? I don't remember having. At least I haven't come across. So I appreciate all the efforts you have made. I also like the little terrace, little service space. You have made it on the seventh or eighth floor to look down. So I think everything, that's why I'm going to support in this project. Thank you.

you very sure next we have commissioner pine thank you okay so my last word on the uh on the parking thing is just i know my perspective on this is color because i live i'm i live in a relatively older apartment that does not have any kind of electric vehicle electric charging facility and i genuinely do not know how it could be made to do one without putting like cables across a driveway or something awful like that and i know and i work from home so i don't really have an office charging option so i know my my and so when i was buying a new car a few years ago i didn't really consider an ev because i would have not really had any um opportunity to charge it in any regular capacity. So that's kind of where I'm coming from, just to put that out there. But you can see a lot of us have kind of varied perspectives on that. But we've worried that to death. So I'm going to talk about all this. So I'm just going to say, I do think this is a really solid project. I I will say that I'm able to make all the required findings and I'll note that one of the required findings is that the proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the general plan of the City of Sunnyvale and the Moffett Park specific plan. And I'm just gonna say that there are a lot of things that go towards this. The included segment of the park is definitely one of the things that goes towards that. It helps the vision of the plan uh, come into existence. I, even just beyond the park, I, I appreciate all, like, I appreciate all the other ecological nods, the, the limit, the, uh, little, the little landscape entryway to the, to the lobby. I, I think that's really cool. Uh, I, uh, the third, the, uh, PB, John Gerstle PB, David Ensign — He, Him, Level three landscaping I think that's going to be a great humanity for the residents, I. PB, John Gerstle PB, David Ensign — He, Him, I appreciate that in the I appreciate, then the final version, we did kind of limit those curb cuts to just avoid those potential pedestrian. PB, John Gerstle PB, David Ensign — He, Him, vehicle conflict areas I. PB, John Gerstle PB, David Ensign — He, Him, Again, and echoing. I going up at going what a chair glacier said I do actually think this is a reasonable parking ratio for for this site it's not point I given given the access to transit, given the act, given the access to to nearby offices, I. And this is, again, this is an area we're hoping to develop out in the future. So I think this is a great, this makes great progress towards that. And I'm hoping to see if in the other areas around this at our zone residential, we saw similar projects, I'd be very happy. So I'm voting yes on this motion. I'd urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Pine.

And next we have Commissioner Cerrone. Thanks, Chair. So, yeah, in many ways, this is a great project and I do want to see this built. It's significant housing in Moffett Park, which was our dream years ago when we were approving the Moffett Park specific plan. That was the whole, the main point of that because previously there was no housing permitted in Moffett Park. So, you know, many things to like about this. I think without your assurances that you would be adding EV chargers, I would have voted against it based on that. That's a lot of, I mean, essentially, That's a lot of greenhouse gases over a long period of time. For sort of, you know, really no good reason and But I so I'm taking you at your word that you will expand that although your assurances are kind of undercut that I don't think any reasonable person would say the right number right now is what the market wants right now is effectively zero chargers. I don't, I think most people would estimate something like just based on general ownership, you know, 10 or 20% at least to get started and then expanding more as the market's But, you know, again, there's a lot of good things about this. I think there's parking there that can be used, so I'm less concerned about the amount of parking. I think it may well be appropriate, and there is transit there, and there are a lot of jobs there. So all of that's really good, and the general design is very good. So I will be supporting the motion. Just, I mean, regarding home chargers, I hear what other commissioners are saying about, you know, maybe you'll go back to a gas station model, but I think for single family residents, doesn't apply to this, that we will move to bi-directional charging, where you can power your house from your car and do load shifting as a result of that. And in case of power outage, be able to power your home. So, and you know, depending on if you have solar or whatever. So I think for that reason, the, you know, a lot of home charging will persist when they, as you start to implement the bi-directional But it's a good point that for a lot of people, when you get to the, which I think they're doing in China already, where you can very quickly charge an EV, the importance of having a charger where you live maybe will go down. So we'll see what happens. But I will be... John Potter, Supporting the motion and just quickly a side comment really to staff, but that the greenpoint rating checklist and this isn't just this project is basically unreadable either in the hard copy or online, I was able to. estimate that it was compliant using a jeweler's loop. And just by looking at the size of the numbers without being able to tell what the actual numbers were, but I'm not sure what we can do about it. There's a lot of information in a small space, so.

I'd be happy to send you a more readable copy of the checklist offline.

Okay. Well, I think it was able to sort it out. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Cerrone. And seeing no other Commissioner Hance, just a couple comments. One, I wanted to say how exciting it is to see Moffett Park really kind of come to life. If you go to Moffett Park, there are buildings there that kind of don't look like other buildings in the area. It's almost like you can see the Jetson City kind of emerging. And it's exciting. There's some incredibly beautiful and diverse architecture that's there. It's at the cusp of the bay. It has the bay breeze. It's at the intersection of 237 and 101. And I think it's just phenomenally exciting to see this come to life. And so there's a lot of appreciation that this project is also demonstrating. This will prove that this is the right path forward. And so I think that's exciting. I think also you've done a service to other developers by paving the way of how to kind of do it right. And in coming to the commission, engaging with us in a study session and responding in a way that's really effective and so i think that you know a lot of appreciation and kudos to you for this and for this beautiful project and i like many of the other commissioners who have already spoken before me will be will be very enthusiastically in supporting this motion uh with that uh recording officer please connect to vote the motion passes with seven yeses Thank you so much in water, the next steps for this project.

So the planning decision may be appealed within 15 business i'm sorry 15 calendar days. So if there is any members of the public or anybody else, you know that may be interested, please contact Wendy.

Thank you so much. And that brings us to our non agenda items comments. The next portion of the agenda is for oral reports and announcements by commissioners and staff to share information. For the planning commissioners, do any commissioners have any non agenda items or comments? All right, seeing no hands. Planning Officer, do you have any non agenda items or comments?

Just one item. The City Council on June 16th will be reviewing the fiscal year 2026-27 budget and fee schedule for adoption. So for those that are interested, please tune in.

Thank you so much. And at this point, the meeting is adjourned at 9.09 p.m. And I'd like to thank everyone for your participation tonight.