Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Sobrato project

From: domainremoved <John>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:43:28 -0400

Dear CC:

In reviewing the upcoming Sobrato office buildings you will benefit from the PC discussion in our Minutes.  You will also see that we (5-1-0, Vince absent, Drew opposed) have asked you to consider two improvements to the benefits package, which of course would require applicant acceptance. 

1.  Greater revenue directly to MP. Now the amount is to 'fill in' sales tax revenue up to $75K/year for 10 years. The dollar amount and/or years could be higher, especially considering that if some revenue is brought in by the tenants, Sobrato makes up only the difference, if any , to $75K/yr.   In the M-2, we need to strongly incentivize developers to bring in tenants with good revenue streams for the city.

2. While the project will rate LEED Gold (perhaps + 15% according to the Sobrato team), apparently  that is now not much over what CA now requires anyway. We ask then what could be even better for a 30+ year building ?  It's not a matter of LEED 'points' but of performance. (Sobrato will be LEED 'equivalent' anyway.) The PC minutes do not show a comment of mine on the topic on p.15.  I've included that below as I'm out of town and have requested by email that the Minutes be edited to note my comment.

Bottom line: This project should be the 'first' project of the new M-2, not the last project of the old M-2. 

Sincerely, John Kadvany / MP Planning Commissioner

Comment on Sobrato energy consumption and PC Minutes below:

- [sent to PC chair] In the Minutes, I did respond to Drew when, in the context of the Sobrato project, he said he did not know what 'world class energy efficiency' meant (p.15).  The Minutes show no reply.  I actually did say that one compared (today I'd add, eg on a watt-per-sq-ft and/or per person basis; there's a composite metric I believe was mentioned by Sobrato) what the possible performance improvement is over our CA standard plus 15% (as Sobrato rates their  expected project consumption) for development projects 'of this type'.  'Of this type' means  the comparison should be for flexibly designed spec-built office space along the lines proposed  here (I may have said something like that, unsure. ). The 15% improvement is good, but might be better allowing for a long-term capital payback  for a 30+ year expected building life; hence a realistic cost-benefit consideration is relevant, but a large fixed cost today might be needed.   Perhaps a brief indication of my reply  without much deta
il could be added to the Minutes. 
Received on Sun Aug 17 2014 - 13:39:54 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)