The following pages contain public comment provided for the April 20, 2022 Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) public hearing on this project.
Attachment 10
From: Sheryl Stark
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:02 PM
To: Cheechov, Joy
Subject: Item 5.1 365 - 405 San Antonio Road/2585-2595 California Street Hi Joy,
Always a pleasure talking to you!
Please add to the statement about foot traffic that in my experience it is particularly difficult for shoppers with personal carts to pass each other on a sidewalk that is only 8' wide. There are plenty of people in my apartment building and in my neighborhood who use personal carts.
If the meeting is recorded, I would like to watch it.
Thank you for all your help!
Sheryl
Hello,
We received a call from Ms. Stark regarding the meeting agenda item 5.1 “365-405 San Antonio Road/2585-2595 California Street”.
She has two main concerns about the project.
The first concern is about the size of the sidewalks being “at a minimum eight feet” in length. She wanted to say that eight feet for a sidewalk is not sufficient for foot traffic in this area.
The second concern is about posting closure notices for sidewalks during the project.
She wants to make sure that the people responsible for the project properly communicate ahead of time about sidewalks closures. She also wants to ensure that these closures notices are updated regularly, along with signage for the sidewalks closures.
Hi Ms. Stark, please let me know if I missed anything.
Thank you so much!
Best regards,
Joy
From: Ronit Bryant
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 5.1 Commercial Development Project at 365-405 San Antonio Road and 2585-2595 California Street
Dear EPC Commissioners,
I looked at Figures 3 and 4, the previous and proposed designs. I am astonished that staff considers the proposed design superior to the previous one. To my eyes, the first design, while not exciting, looks open to the world, permeable, and resembles a residential building. The proposed design reminds me of nothing so much as a space ship from Star Wars, alien and closed-in on itself. Nothing about it says Mountain View or California. It could have landed anywhere at all. I do hope you consider asking staff to direct the developer to change the exterior so it looks like part of our city rather than an office building dropped in from the sky.
Sincerely,
ronit bryant
From: Tim Mather
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 3:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Michelle Ohye
Subject: 04/20/2022 EPC Meeting - Agenda Item #5.1
We, Tim Mather and Michelle Ohye (next door neighbors), each request three minutes to discuss agenda item #5.1, to review the attached presentation with the Commission. We would like to share a six minute session for the two of us. (Share two x three minute sessions sequentially.) Thank you.
Tim
Tim Mather
Mountain View, CA (Silicon Valley)
U.S.A.
Mountain View´s Overwhelmed,
Failing Infrastructure
And residents´ declining quality of life
Tim Mather, Michelle Ohye (next door neighbors)
Both are Mountain View residents for > 20 years
● San Antonio Road
●
●
● Telecommunications (MNOs - mobile network operators)
● Wi-Fi
● Electric vehicle charging stations
What infrastructure is overwhelmed, failing?
2 San Antonio Road - daily; this is 10:40 AM
3 Exif data:
Camera
Apple iPhone 12 Pro
GPS Position
37.414903 degrees N, 122.103858 degrees W
Date of Creation
2022:04:12 10:39:54
Resolution
2016x1512
Let's look at this 1.6 mile section of San Antonio Road ● East Charleston Road to
El Camino Real
● Important because this is
how many residents in
this part of the city (and
parts of Los Altos) get to /
from Highway 101
● Even at the outset of the
pandemic, the road was
overwhelmed
PA
MV
4 No traffic analysis for San Antonio Road
● What coordination has the City of Mountain View done with the City of Palo Alto on this traffic problem?
● City of Mountain View´s P-40 (San Antonio) Precise Plan does not contain a traffic analysis for San Antonio Road; it contains only a description of the current transportation infrastructure
● Far more attention has been paid to parking analysis than traffic analysis to get to that parking
● Addendum to the San Antonio Precise Plan EIR for Precise Plan Amendments, dated February 2022, acknowledges that the ¨...traffic volumes at affected intersections [on San Antonio Road, will not increase] beyond 44,000 vehicles per hour;¨ [Emphasis added; page #57] - that is an expected metric for Highway 85, not San Antonio Road 5 And yet, magically…
● That same report states on page #35 that:
● ¨The project proposes the following T ransportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and strategies, which are anticipated to reduce peak-hour traffic by approximately 30 percent. [Emphasis added.] These measures include, but are not limited to:
○ Providing secure, transit-oriented building entrances ○ Enhancing transit stops, pedestrian crossings, and bicycle network through incorporation of shuttle stops and passenger loading zones, and supporting new bike signage, sharrows, and lanes
○ Constructing secure bicycle parking
○ Providing an onsite bicycle maintenance and repair station ○ Implementing a Bicycle Share program;....¨
6 And, the traffic problem is only going to get much worse ● San Antonio Village Center Phase I: 330 apartment units ● San Antonio Village Center Phase II ( Hyatt Centric): 167 hotel rooms ● 458 San Antonio Road ( The Dean): 7 stories with 583 apartment units ● 2580 and 2590 California Street / 201 San Antonio Circle ( Landsby):
mixed-use development with 632 residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space with below-grade parking (not yet completed) ● 744 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto (
AC Hotel by Marriott): 144 guest rooms
● 750 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto ( Hotel Citrine): 150 guest rooms ● 334 San Antonio Road (currently a Valero gas station): 5-story, mixed-use building with 62 condominium units and 2,003 square feet of ground floor retail with underground parking (not yet approved)
7 Let's summarize that:
● That is an increase of 2,058 ´residential´ units (i.e., apartments, condominiums, and hotel rooms) - that is just directly along San Antonio Road in < ten (10) years, not even ´nearby´
● These are all new, additional ´residential´ units; none of these developments have replaced existing residential housing ● This is just from East Charleston Road to El Camino Real - a mere 1.6 miles
● Sources: Planning Division Development Update, February 2022; Mountain View Voice 8 San Antonio Road traffic offset by CalTrain ridership? ● Several developments are proclaiming themselves close to CalTrain as an offset to increasing traffic
○ ¨ It is located within easy walking distance of the San Antonio station¨ (Landsby) ○ ¨ Walk to San Antonio Caltrain Station¨ (The Villages Residences @ San Antonio Center) ● Even though San Antonio (CalTrain) station is a limited station (i.e., no Baby Bullet service), it is the 17th busiest station already (out of 31 total stations) ● #233 train leaving San Antonio station northbound is already one of the fullest trains, over capacity @ 104%
● How much more passenger traffic are trains to / from San Antonio station expected to absorb?
● Source: Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings (latest available) 9 PG&E´s capacity planning is completely unacceptable
Outage Date: # of Customers
Impacted
Outage Date: # of Customers
Impacted
May 20th, 2020 September 18th, 2021 Planned; 5 .5 hours August 27th, 2020 December 13th, 2021 2,227
January 19th, 2021 December 14th, 2021 1,771
March 24th, 2021 8,213 December 20, 2021 2,213
April 9th, 2021 March 27, 2022 2,223
June 3rd, 2021 2,213 April 11, 2022 4,851
July 12, 2021 2,218 Next? ?
Thirteen (13) outages in < two (2) years, running from ≈ 4 minutes to several hours ¨Customers¨ = households or businesses, not individuals. Source: PG&E voicemail messages 10 Impact of PG&E´s unacceptable capacity planning
11 ● Beyond annoyance and inconvenience to existing PG&E customers in the area, the property manager for Crossings Condominiums stated in an HOA meeting on the evening of April 14th that PG&E has informed the 2580 California Street development (Landsby) that electrical power for the development will not be available until four (4) months after promised for opening [Tim was on the call.]
● For how many years has PG&E been aware of that development? ● What is the City´s liaison to PG&E doing about these issues? 5G Telecommunications - no public access high band
● Check the MNOs (mobile network operators) own coverage maps ○ AT&T - midband only
○ T-Mobile - low band only
○ Verizon - midband only, with the exception of the Waymo campus (100 Mayfield Avenue, adjacent to San Antonio Road), which has high band for its own use ● The result: dropped calls, calls that never complete dialing, voicemail messages that arrive hours after being sent
● Certainly understand that this is not directly under control of the City; however, the City should be pressuring the MNOs to increase capacity along the San Antonio Road corridor
12 Wi-Fi
● Wi-Fi density is so high in newer
housing developments, that latency
often makes the networks unusable
● Not a City responsibility. However,
the City should be running a public
service campaign to educate and
encourage residents´ to upgrade to
Wi-Fi 6
● It's about the City working to
improve residents´ quality of life
13 EV charging stations
● Thirteen charging stations @ four
(4)
locations - that's it. That's
unacceptable
○ CSMA (Community School of Music &
Arts) - 4 chargers
○ ShowPlace ICON
Theater - 2 chargers
○ The Villages Residences @ San Antonio
Center - 2 chargers
○ WalMart - 5 chargers
● Why aren't charging stations
required for all new development -
regardless of usage (residential,
commercial, whatever)?
14 Call to Action
● Milk Pail development (365 - 405 San Antonio Road / 2585 - 2595 California Street): turn it into open space instead
● Valero gas station development (334 San Antonio Road): leave the gas station as is, for now
● Both projects need to be rejected; current infrastructure, and projected improvements, cannot and will not handle these additional developments 15 In Summary
● As of 2014, ZIP code 94040 had a population of 34K, with a density of 9,205.41 inhabitants / square mile; detailed 2020 census data is not yet available (May, June). There is no substantive discussion about density and its impact on the San Antonio Road corridor in either PR-40 nor it´s addendum ○ R4 + R4 + R4 = too much
● Infrastructure in the San Antonio Road corridor is overwhelmed, and the problems are only going to get significantly worse under current City planning ● Residents´ quality of life is deteriorating
● The City of Mountain View is failing to properly serve its residents 16