Nov. 5, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 2

[00:00:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Can't recommend anything that would uh or we ought not to. Okay, um, and then another question. When it comes to the SB 79 component, um, was there, it's it's new, it's fresh, I'm just wondering um, of what is expected or or just broadly known about SB 79 at this stage in point in time, um, does that obviate anything or or is that going above and beyond what we're like um, looking at in terms of densities within the scope of what we put forward in our housing element or or is it too early to to tell yet what the like um, comparison would look like between what we committed and what SB 79 now calls for?

[00:00:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So I think it's first important to note that SB 79 um, takes effect July 1st, 2026, and so it's not in place now and it wouldn't resolve any obligations the city has broadly uh, in the housing element. Um, also I don't know that any of the areas specifically are um, within the SB 79 area other than the transit center site. And so, uh, we may need to take a closer look at that, you know, when we do our work related to SB 79, but um, it's not of immediate import for uh, the question tonight for the Commission because the law is not in effect yet.

[00:01:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. And the last question from my end. Um, in in these public notices that go out, um, to what extent, I I know that, you know, there's like limitations and and pragmatism that has to be kind of um, you know, if if not actual requirements technically in terms of how these get put forward, but um, is staff or or does staff have a sense that they can share in terms of um, what kind of like contextualization um, gets communicated as part of these uh, notices in terms of, you know, how how we communicate that right? I mean, cuz cuz if this is something that is a continuation of, right, like the housing element, which itself is a very complicated beast, right? Um, and I'm sure we all don't want to relive that trauma, but but to what extent are we kind of contextualizing that when when we're communicating with with residents?

Segment 1

[00:02:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: It's 7:00 p.m. and it's time to call this EPC meeting of November 5th, 2025 to order. Good evening everyone, welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of November 5th, 2025. For those joining us in person, please note that due to a hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern.

Segment 2

[00:02:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I'll I'll provide a general response first and then allow Planning Manager Anderson to elaborate on the considerations that may have gone into this particular notice. So, um, it's certainly a balancing act. You know, there's limited space to communicate this information. Um, it's important to do so in a way that's legally uh, adequate and accurate as to parcels being acted upon for zoning for example, uh, but not to get so technical and specific and extensive that the message is lost and that, you know, an ordinary person would not be able to digest and understand the subject matter. And so there is some judgment that goes in uh, to to crafting those public notices and maybe um, Mr. Anderson can speak a little more about the noticing for this item.

Segment 1

[00:02:25] Chair José Gutiérrez: Requests for showing audio or video presentations during the meeting should be directed to EPC@mountainview.gov by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card.

[00:02:45] Chair José Gutiérrez: Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC Clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on.

Segment 2

[00:02:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, for this item we focused on implementing the housing element, allowing multifamily development, and of course as uh, the the director said, uh, our statutory noticing requirements which include identifying all the properties as clearly as we can. Uh, so that uh, um, the uh, you know, we we also provide our contact information uh, for anybody that wants to reach out and better understand the content of what's being discussed.

Segment 1

[00:03:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Instructions for addressing the Commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now I will ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with the roll call.

[00:03:10] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:03:12] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:03:13] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:03:14] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:03:15] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Yin?

[00:03:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:03:18] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:03:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:03:21] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham?

[00:03:22] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:03:23] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Nuñez?

[00:03:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:03:26] EPC Clerk: And Chair Gutiérrez.

[00:03:27] Chair José Gutiérrez: Here.

[00:03:28] EPC Clerk: All commissioners are present.

[00:03:30] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you Clerk. Before we get started with today's business, please note the City is recruiting applicants for appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Downtown Committee, downtown property owner and/or business representatives in the downtown area, and the Senior Advisory Committee.

Segment 2

[00:03:35] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you.

[00:03:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:03:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, a few questions. Um, can you remind me what the, some of the the the the height restrictions and so forth are for the neighborhood mixed use? I don't have all the zoning memorized.

Segment 1

[00:03:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. on November 6th, which is tomorrow. So if you're interested, by all means, please apply. Moving on now to Section 3, Minutes Approval. 3.1. We should be approving the Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 5th, 2025.

Segment 2

[00:03:58] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Yeah, so the maximum height for the Miramonte and Cuesta sites is 45 feet.

[00:04:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So that would, so a townhome would fit within that?

Segment 1

[00:04:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Let's start off with EPC discussion. Do we have any? Being that we don't have any, do we have any public comment? If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk.

Segment 2

[00:04:09] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Yeah, and currently the existing zoning is about 35 feet, so a mixed use would be 45, so an additional 10 above existing.

[00:04:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And by changing the designations, it doesn't prevent or require or relieve the obligation of any applicant from going through the normal business process in the future. They would have to submit plans, they'd have to submit what they plan to do, how it would fit into the area, meet the city's codes and so forth. So there's nothing in this that says that they can do away with anything that's part of the normal process. It's still simply saying this land use is permitted, but you still have to go through the normal process, correct?

Segment 1

[00:04:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. EPC Clerk?

[00:04:32] EPC Clerk: We do not have any speakers online or in person.

[00:04:36] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you sir. I need a motion to approve the minutes. And the motion should state approve the Environmental Planning Commission minutes of February 5th, 2025.

Segment 2

[00:04:48] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Yes, that's correct.

[00:04:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then um, I didn't think this was anywhere close to the SB 79 area. I don't actually believe this area falls in anything in some, something that would have any, that anything would re reduce the requirement for parking as, so any any project submitted would have to go through the normal, existing, already established parking regulations for a property of this type on the number of spaces. Am I correct on that?

Segment 1

[00:05:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: I'll make the motion to approve the Environmental Planning Commission min-- oh oh, here we go. Oh, I don't have that on, here, let's see. Okay. The mover is Bill Cranston and the second is Hank Dempsey. Thank you sirs. To approve the Environmental Planning Commission minutes of February 5th, 2025.

[00:05:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Now we'll vote.

Segment 2

[00:05:16] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Yes, that's correct. These sites aren't impacted by uh, it's not near a major transit stop, so minimum parking regulations still apply.

[00:05:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So all the normal. Correct. Okay. Alright, um, those were my main two questions. Thanks.

Segment 1

[00:05:32] Chair José Gutiérrez: EPC Clerk, mine says no signal detected. But I'd like to vote yes.

Segment 2

[00:05:34] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you sir. Commissioner Yin.

[00:05:38] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, um, actually Commissioner Cranston asked my question so I'm, I forgot to withdraw.

Segment 1

[00:05:40] EPC Clerk: The motion passes with all the commissioners aye.

Segment 2

[00:05:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: No problem. Commissioner Donahue.

Segment 1

[00:05:46] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you sir. Moving on to Section 4, Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during the section. State law prohibits the Commission from acting on non-agenda items.

Segment 2

[00:05:49] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, one thing I noticed actually just around dinner time was that it, we're talking about 1702 and 1704 Miramonte, but the housing element only talks about 1702 Miramonte. So is this an expansion of the um, like additional property or?

Segment 1

[00:06:02] Chair José Gutiérrez: If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. EPC Clerk?

Segment 2

[00:06:10] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: No, it's it's just an additional address, so it's on the same parcel, but the two buildings have different addressing. So the intent was for that one parcel.

[00:06:18] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Um, and I, okay, another question that I sent to staff. The in in exhibit one that some of the parcel numbers, not, I don't think it was for this one but for some of the parcel numbers uh expressed didn't follow the three digit, two dig, digit, three digit format and I wasn't sure if they were correct parcel numbers or or what.

Segment 1

[00:06:23] EPC Clerk: We have two attendees online.

[00:06:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, so we'll do three minutes each.

Segment 2

[00:06:47] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Yes, I think we accidentally omitted a zero in front of the third digit, so we will update that.

[00:06:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. So I I just want to make sure that there's like no, it's 323, you're correct. Yeah, yeah, but I I just want to make sure that there's no like kind of that something would would go wrong or not be legally binding or something if if that, if this mistake was found later.

[00:07:12] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Yeah, so I think we can we still, we can update those.

[00:07:15] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, okay great. Um, and um, there's a an amendment to, I'm I'm not sure whether to ask this now or later, it's this whole kind of splitting it up is a little confusing, but in the amendment to uh uh 36.30.115, it changes the width from 70 feet to 60 feet for the the storefront um, uh, where you can have a storefront. Um, and it says that the the the purpose was to capture certain parcels but not capture a certain uh, streets or parcels I guess, uh, but not to capture some others like uh Plaza Court and uh Dalma on the kind of the backside of that that property. Uh, does it affect any other, like is that a full list of the of the uh, of the streets that that would be affected in the in the staff report where it lists which ones you you intend to uh, to enable the storefronts and not to enable the other storefronts?

Segment 1

[00:07:38] EPC Clerk: First up is Robert Cox. Robert, you may speak.

[00:07:45] Robert Cox: Okay, can you hear me?

[00:07:48] EPC Clerk: Yes.

[00:07:49] Robert Cox: Okay, thank you. Robert Cox here speaking on behalf of Livable Mountain View. On Monday, October 27th, representatives of our organization met with Community Development Staff at their invitation. We spoke about the impact SB 79 could have on our Downtown Historic Retail District, explained how adopting an SB 79 Local Alternative Plan could preserve the district.

[00:08:09] Robert Cox: We are advocating that consideration of such a local alternative plan be done quickly. SB 79 will become State law on July 1st, 2026. The SB 79 text outlines the adoption process for a Local Alternative Plan, noting that the review process can take as long as six months and two weeks.

[00:08:28] Robert Cox: Palo Alto has authorized moving forward their Local Alternative Plan on October 22nd. Los Angeles expects their Local Alternative Plan to be submitted to California HCD by mid-February. Staff advised us that missing the July 1st deadline could leave Mountain View open to the default SB 79 provisions which include no protections for the Downtown Historic Retail District.

[00:08:50] Robert Cox: Therefore, we are asking the EPC agendize a vote to recommend to Council to move forward on an SB 79 Local Alternative Plan. Work on the dependent work items like the Downtown Precise Plan and Historic Ordinance Register update should be suspended until the SB 79 Local Alternative Plan is submitted.

Segment 2

[00:09:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that's the intent was to allow the storefronts on those streets that we listed in the staff report. I think it was Evandale, uh Leong and uh Calderon. Calderon, yeah, and Church. And Church, right.

Segment 1

[00:09:08] Robert Cox: This will make available resources to complete the Local Alternative Plan in a timely fashion. If needed, consultants could be hired to support this effort. As was seen in the sixth cycle Housing Element, missing a deadline can have serious consequences. Thank you for listening to our request.

Segment 2

[00:09:19] Commissioner Paul Donahue: But I just want to make sure there weren't any additional things that weren't listed there that that would also have been affected or or that that you know there's not any unintended consequences to that. So I think it sounds like the answer is no. Okay, um, and I think other people actually already an, asked my uh, my questions so thanks.

Segment 1

[00:09:34] EPC Clerk: Next we have Bruce England. Bruce, you should be able to unmute.

Segment 2

[00:09:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Pham.

Segment 1

[00:09:40] Bruce England: Yep, I did. Thank you very much. Hello everybody. Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive, speaking as a member of Green Spaces Mountain View. On the 29th of October at the PRC meeting, a proposal was heard about ADU installments at 151 Calderon, which is near Evelyn and right next to Stevens Creek.

Segment 2

[00:09:41] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, let me know if this is not the right time to ask the question if I should wait um after the recusal, but I had a more general question about how the opportunity sites were identified um, for housing element program 1.1(g). I know that this item um, had come up in January and February but that was before I joined EPC, so I just wanted some context.

[00:10:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Um, uh, early in the housing element process, uh, we had um, determined or we had uh projected that we had enough sites in order to accommodate our uh regional housing needs allocation um, already zoned because we had recently done big rezonings in East Whisman and North Bayshore and other areas. Um, however later in the housing, we at that time, uh sorry, earlier in the housing element process we also identified some uh, what we called back pocket sites. Sites that we would continue to uh study as potentially including in the sites inventory or rezoning in case uh something came up in the housing element process. It was a very uncertain housing element process. We didn't know how the state was going to respond to our drafts. Uh, and of course later on in the process we did get some resistance from the state on uh some of our drafts and some of our uh uh proposed uh opportunity sites. And so we went back to those back pocket sites that we had identified earlier on and especially focused on the ones that are in higher opportunity neighborhoods, neighborhoods south of El Camino and around downtown. Uh, so that's why we included commercial sites uh specifically south of El Camino and around downtown. And then as well the um, the uh Evandale area is a commercial area that has several underutilized sites, so that was a another opportunity through the housing element to identify um uh areas where housing development is likely feasible. Um, so uh, and then we were also aware that Caltrans was uh, Caltrain was uh interested in potentially developing the transit center. So that's why these sites uh, we've got several commercial sites south of El Camino, we've got uh and around downtown on the Calderon site and then Evandale uh and the transit center.

Segment 1

[00:10:05] Bruce England: The commissioners there were concerned, very concerned, I would say, about the idea of putting ADUs in such an environmentally sensitive area. And yet State law allows the developer, in this case Avalon Bay, to do such a thing. Because State law allows this, it pretty much tied their hands.

[00:10:25] Bruce England: They had to go ahead and approve the project, but I spoke at the City Council meeting the other night, I just wanted to tell you also as an FYI that I think it's worth the City pursuing to find out how the State law might be modified to ensure that everybody knows what an ADU is.

[00:10:43] Bruce England: Because if you can just put any dwelling unit anywhere you want and you call it an ADU, regardless of any definition of what an ADU is, then that opens the door to all kinds of things similar to the builder's remedy problem that you're familiar with.

[00:10:59] Bruce England: So I'm hoping that the City will talk with our representatives at the State level, Becker and Berman, about this and use their legislative analyst consultant to look into it. I don't know if they will, but like I said, I'm just letting you know that that happened at the PRC meeting and I brought it up the other night at Council as well. Thanks.

[00:11:22] EPC Clerk: There are no no more speakers.

[00:11:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Clerk. We'll move on to Section 5, Public Hearing 5.1 Housing Element Program. Excuse me. 1.1G Zoning Precise Plan and General Plan Amendments. We will take this item through a special deliberation process due to commissioner conflicts of interest.

[00:11:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: First, we will have a staff presentation. Then, public comment. At the closure of public comment, the Commission will discuss individual topics including any questions about those topics. So let's begin with a staff presentation from Senior Planner Krisha Penollar and Planning Manager Eric Anderson.

[00:12:00] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Thank you. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Krisha Penollar, Senior Planner, and I'm joined today with Eric Anderson, Planning Manager, and we're here to present this item. At today's meeting we'll be reviewing the proposed amendments to implement Program 1.1G of the Housing Element.

[00:12:18] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: The Housing Element rezoning sites and densities are shown here and as a reminder, the Moffett Boulevard will be completed as a separate project through the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan and the program has a Housing Element deadline of December 31st of this year.

[00:12:37] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: At previous meetings, the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the proposed General Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning approaches presented tonight. City Council expressed support for a General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center land use approach for the sites as shown in blue on the map.

[00:12:55] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: This approach would help preserve locally serving businesses, would avoid making existing uses non-conforming, and would also support placemaking and transition strategies. The City Council also supported a Flexible Precise Plan approach for the remainder sites as shown in orange, which would allow site specific language to allow the densities and character appropriate for the area.

[00:13:17] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Additionally, Council directed staff to study opportunities to prevent small business displacement that could result from redevelopment. And on September 24, 2025, the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the Evandale Precise Plan and Mountain View Transit Center, as these areas are in the Airport Influence Area.

[00:13:38] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: And at the meeting, ALUC found the proposed General Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning amendments consistent with the adopted Moffett Federal Airfield's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. As a reminder, the General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center land use is a set of existing mixed-use development policies that preserve the existing commercial zoning but allows opportunities for multi-family housing.

Segment 2

[00:13:39] Commissioner Tina Pham: Alright. Um, perhaps I'll ask my Caltrain related question later um since it's not pertaining to the item right in front of us. Um, I did have a question related to the staff report um, mentioning outreach and I know um Vice Chair Nuñez asked a question related to notices which was a great um question and so I appreciate he asked that question. I had a follow up question about um, outreach related to the landlords and the staff report mentioned a lot of the outreach happened during the housing element time frame. Um, so it's been some time. Do we know um if additional outreach has happened or if um, my concern is um has there been any turnover for the landlords for these particular parcels that may have been missed in terms of outreach?

Segment 1

[00:14:03] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: The location for these developments are determined by the General Plan through mixed-use designations. However, the zoning districts remain commercial, including commercial office, commercial services and commercial neighborhoods, with General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center developments as the only residential use allowed in these commercial zones.

[00:14:23] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: The development standards for this use is established in the zoning ordinance or precise plans and include requirements such as ground floor commercial, public plazas, transition standards and pedestrian connections. In summary, this approach utilizes existing mechanisms to preserve existing commercial businesses without the need to create a new mixed-use district.

Segment 2

[00:14:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I'm not aware of any turnover. Uh, it's not something that we track directly uh, but we do send uh notices and I believe we also sent formal letters during this process. So we sent formal letters during the housing element process, during this process as well as notices uh for these meetings. Uh, some uh property owners responded, some didn't. Uh, and uh to the extent that it's possible for us to um kind of find contact information for property owners, which is very difficult, that's our best way to get a hold of people.

Segment 1

[00:14:43] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: This does not change the underlying zoning, avoids non-conformances for existing developments and creates a pathway for residential development consistent with the General Plan's Village Center policies. And this slide is intended to review the proposed General Plan map and text amendments.

[00:15:01] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: The sites proposed for General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center land use approach are shown in blue and orange shows the Flexible Precise Plan approach with corresponding General Plan amendments. And as stated earlier, the General Plan determines locations of General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center.

Segment 2

[00:15:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah and I'll just add um the uh extra effort is well by staff to hand deliver notices to uh business tenants within the affected commercial areas as well, which is beyond the legal requirements for this process.

Segment 1

[00:15:17] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: As such, the Evandale, Miramonte, Cuesta, and Calderon sites require General Plan amendments to a mixed-use designation. General mixed-use land use designation is proposed for the Evandale Precise Plan to allow densities of 43 dwelling units per acre. The other sites in blue are proposed Neighborhood Mixed-Use to allow 30 dwelling units per acre.

Segment 2

[00:15:22] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[00:15:24] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Donahue.

[00:15:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay sorry, I have I have another question. The um, one of the things in the in one of the emails that we got around the Miramonte uh site was studying cumulative impacts of having multiple developments like at um the the property on Cuesta Drive and the and the the Miramonte ones or one that has two addresses I guess. Um, and uh I know that as as Commissioner Cranston asked that there would be uh studies done I guess when an actual development proposal is done, but as far as the EIR goes were, do you have any comments about the the study of of cumulative impacts and uh uh...

Segment 1

[00:15:41] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: 1949 Grant Road proposes a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation which allows 35 dwelling units per acre which is slightly greater than the 30 dwelling units per acre required by the Housing Element. And lastly the Mountain View Transit Center proposes text amendments to allow residential at 75 dwelling units per acre.

[00:16:01] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: And staff has made several zoning and precise plan updates to implement the General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center land use. The Evandale Precise Plan has been modified to allow this land use in Area A of the precise plan and the zoning ordinance has been modified to allow this land use in the Commercial Office district, which would allow them for the Miramonte and Cuesta sites.

Segment 2

[00:16:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. I I will say that um at the program EIR level the analysis of cumulative impacts is necessarily um less precise than it would be at a project CEQA level. Uh, so there are a lot of unknowns because we don't know exactly what projects are going to look like, we don't know everything there is to know about these properties like what's in the soil or anything like that, right? Like we can't know that until a development actually comes through. Um, so looking at cumulative impacts from a housing element level, yeah, we looked at utility impacts and um population impacts and all the all the other required impacts, things that we need to study for a CEQA document at the scale of city-wide growth for the 11,000 plus additional units that we need to across the city. And this project is consistent with that analysis. The next level of analysis would happen either at, you know, at the project level if they are required to go through CEQA at the project level, um, and you know through the development review process.

Segment 1

[00:16:23] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Additional changes to the development standards are proposed to allow existing office businesses to return to the sites if redeveloped and reduction in street lot width requirements to allow commercial to be retained in the Calderon and Evandale Precise Plan sites.

[00:16:37] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Additionally, updates to the Grant-Martens Precise Plan to create a new Area C and add new uses and develop development standards have been incorporated. The Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan modifies the Transit Services sub-area to allow residential and to also add a height provision.

[00:16:54] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Other minor code updates have been made to update outdated code references in the precise plan and to amend the Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan to remove minimum parking consistent with City Code and State Law. And lastly to clarify when avigation easements are required Citywide.

[00:17:13] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: As directed by Council, staff reviewed existing resources to help small businesses return to redeveloped sites. Existing programs to assist small businesses include site selection to provide hands-on support to businesses to evaluate relocation or expansion opportunities, business development to connect small businesses with tools for technical assistance to help with everyday operations and financial resources.

Segment 2

[00:17:13] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay thanks.

[00:17:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. And I have a simple question in terms of parking. Um, how was that process addressed? Because I know we had talked about it before. I mean we had talked about all these plans back in 2023, touched on them in 2022, took them on in 2024, and then now earlier in the year we also talked about it in January. And we had brought up that issue. Could you please remind um from folks who are viewing or who are who are here now uh what that looked like?

Segment 1

[00:17:36] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: And lastly, Small Business Loan Program is under development and intended to provide capital for small businesses for things such as new equipment, tenant improvements and other operating expenses. Additionally, the Economic Vitality Strategy outlines tools such as rent caps and commercial rent subsidies to help bridge market gaps.

Segment 2

[00:17:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, discussion of parking and regulations and in terms of construction growth and there not being any specific minimum one to one requirements but rather minimum standards which means you can afford to build and not have enough parking spaces. That was my understanding, right? Uh, there are uh there are minimum parking standards that would apply to developments at Miramonte Avenue and Cuesta Drive. Um, now I will say that there are um processes in state law for developers to request adjustments to those standards. Uh, but we do have those standards and we will enforce them to the extent that we can under state law. Um, and so this is not uh you know, the uh we we are doing the the extent of parking enforcement that we can under state law with these development standards.

Segment 1

[00:17:56] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: This can serve as a support mechanism to allow businesses to return in new developments, however further work is needed to identify a stable funding source to ensure success of this program. And as directed by Council, staff also studied several zoning options to retain small businesses.

[00:18:14] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: There are limited land use and zoning tools as restrictions on residential development conflicts with the Housing Element goals to create more housing opportunities or may be difficult to implement under State Law. One zoning alternative approach may help preserve several small businesses in the Evandale Precise Plan.

[00:18:31] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: This alternative would continue to prohibit residential development on three parcels shown in the hatched lines. This alternative would meet the Housing Element Program as these excluded sites are not in the site inventory and the program itself does not prescribe the entire Area A to be rezoned.

Segment 2

[00:18:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. So you did factor them in and they are what they are basically is what I'm hearing. And there's a there's a process involved so that once a developer comes in and says I'm interested in doing XYZ, that will also then be talked about at that time and right exactly, okay exactly. Great, thank you. Do any other commissioners have any questions? Commissioner Yin.

Segment 1

[00:18:51] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: A drawback to this option is it reduces potential housing capacity in Area A and as such, staff does not recommend this alternative and recommends rezoning the entirety of Area A to maximize housing opportunity. Additionally, small business displacement is a Citywide issue and not limited to this area alone.

Segment 2

[00:19:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah quick question. Uh, what is the current parking standard for the office?

[00:19:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, office is typically required to provide uh one space for every 300 square feet. Okay thank you. Uh, actually medical is a little higher, so if it's majority medical I think it's one space per 150 square feet.

Segment 1

[00:19:10] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Therefore other options should be considered outside of implementation of this Housing Element Program to look at this issue more broadly. As for next steps, following a recommendation from EPC at this public hearing, the proposed amendments would be reviewed at City Council on December 16 where a final decision will be made.

[00:19:30] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: And staff reviewed the amendments to understand if there were new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts and found that the project was analyzed as part of the Citywide Housing Element Update Program EIR which was adopted in 2023.

Segment 2

[00:19:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. I asked because the uh, a lot of the public members said that the current parking situation is already a little bit challenged given the standards were at today.

[00:19:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And it may be a case where the existing building is not built to current parking standards as they are as they're required today. Um, and so that could be an issue that could be helped by future development cuz it could be built to current parking standards uh in the future.

Segment 1

[00:19:47] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Therefore no additional environmental documentation is needed under CEQA. And staff did receive 12 written public comments prior to this meeting. One comment disagreed with the proposed approach for the Evandale Precise Plan, one supported the amendments and several voiced concerns related to the amendments at 1702 Miramonte.

Segment 2

[00:20:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thanks.

Segment 1

[00:20:09] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: As such, staff does recommend EPC recommend the General Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning amendments. Thank you for your time and this concludes staff presentation. We're available to answer any additional questions. Thank you.

Segment 2

[00:20:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Do you have any other questions Commissioner Yin? That was it? Thank you. Great. Okay, who would like to start with deliberations? Vice Chair Nuñez.

[00:20:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, I'm going to uh support this as is. Um, and the reason why is because uh this is part of our housing element process uh or or at no longer I mean it's part of fulfilling our obligations to the housing element that you know as a city we undertook through a years long process that most of us were a part of in some shape or form. Um, I'm, yeah, it's as I understand that from a noticing perspective there's um only so much from a um contextualization side and um you know kind of like uh amount of kind of like the percentage of people that get them, that these notices, that read these notices along the way of any process not just like this one involved but even the housing element for example. And so, um, yeah and and the housing element obviously being one of the most noticed processes that the city runs. Um, and and so it's just unfortunate. Um, but I mean this is where we're at with this. Um, from a consistency perspective as much as I would like to um also save some of those small businesses um in the um uh kind of discretionary part of this I believe around the the Evandale kind of situation um Mexican restaurant I think, as much as as much as I would love to do that, um I also agree that from a um from a policy perspective that's better addressed through a a dedicated policy program for that. And then in addition to that, um you know again we have to you know, I was a part of the the housing element process and if you know I started trying to chip away at that now then then I would be not consistent with that. Um, so that's where I'm at. I will be supporting the recommendations.

Segment 1

[00:20:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Man I'm having a rough day today. I'm so sorry. So now should we move on to public comment and then do questions? Yeah, let's do that. Okay. Bear with me folks. All right, so let's move on to public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk.

[00:20:45] Chair José Gutiérrez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please check the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. EPC Clerk?

[00:20:58] EPC Clerk: We have one member online and several speakers in person. Which would you like first?

[00:21:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: How many speakers in person do we have?

[00:21:07] EPC Clerk: Six apparently. Yeah.

[00:21:10] Chair José Gutiérrez: Six. Okay, let's go with two minutes. And let if if there's no specific order, can we do Zoom first and then in person?

[00:21:20] EPC Clerk: Sure. Oh, sorry, we have two on Zoom now. First speaker will be Bruce England. Bruce, you should be able to unmute and speak.

[00:21:30] Bruce England: Thank you. Hello everybody again. Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive, speaking for myself this time. I just wanted to let everyone know that so where I live is in the Whisman Station area and this was zoned light industrial for a very long time and then in the late 1990s it was changed to enable a precise plan for our area and also to put in HOA development with townhomes and single-family homes and so on.

[00:21:58] Bruce England: I've lived here since 1997 and I really enjoy this neighborhood. One of the things that we were told at the time was that we wouldn't be able to have the services that we really wanted until the population went up. We needed more development, more housing here so more people lived here so we could get the services.

[00:22:15] Bruce England: So we do have a shopping center at Whisman and Middlefield, but even better from my perspective is Pyramid Park which is a jewel park, a new park that exists in Mountain View and the City would not have installed it, I'm pretty sure, unless there was a need from residents who lived here.

[00:22:33] Bruce England: So we've created a new neighborhood, relatively new neighborhood, by changing the zoning and recognizing that we needed this kind of a neighborhood on this side of Mountain View. I wanted to say that because people who are concerned about change in their part of Mountain View might consider that their part of Mountain View might actually be improved as a result of the changes. Thanks.

[00:22:55] EPC Clerk: Next we have Zoe Martin. Zoe, you should be able to unmute and speak.

[00:23:00] Zoe Martin: Um, hi, my name is Zoe Martin and I am a resident of the Varsity Park Blossom Valley neighborhood. I wanted to express my support for the changes of the Housing Element Program, specifically for the Neighborhood Mixed-Use rezoning proposed for 1702 and 1704 Miramonte Avenue.

[00:23:20] Zoe Martin: I've lived in this neighborhood pretty much my entire life and I know what a great place it is to live. We have great schools, parks, streets and other resources such as gas stations, grocery stores, churches and much more nearby. I know that some of my neighbors have expressed concerns about the rezoning.

[00:23:38] Zoe Martin: While I, sorry, while I can sympathize with their concerns in my opinion and experience, and without details of an actual proposed development, I see this change as an extension of, rather than disruption to, the existing neighborhood and I am excited to see a positive change in our city's development happen in a place I know well and love.

Segment 2

[00:23:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Vice Chair Nuñez. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Yin.

[00:23:52] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, I uh have always been a pro a proponent of, you know, transitioning to existing and that's usually when we have a project before us that's more defined and that is the hope. Um, because of where we are and why we're doing this, it's a, it has been a very long process. I sympathize with those that have taken the time and effort to come speak. So much has already gone into it and so much research and analysis and these, a lot of these are state mandated, we are required to follow through, and unfortunately we are where we are. And at this meeting we're really just trying to implement what we've promised we would do in a sense. So there are opportunities to take your voice and share them further when a project does arise. But at this point for this meeting we're looking at a larger sort of um goal which is to just rezone according to the housing element that has already been passed and approved. So from my perspective given that this is what we're what what I am going to say is what I'm going to do, so I'm going to be in favor of the change to the ordinance and the zoning to accommodate residential on the site as well as what's already there bringing it to mixed use.

Segment 1

[00:23:58] Zoe Martin: In the face of the Bay Area housing crisis and especially considering affordable housing, I am happy to see Mountain View taking action and incorporating more mixed-use zoning into our city. If we want things to change, we have to be willing to see and experience change. I also appreciate efforts to retain local businesses in their existing spaces with the mixed-use zoning. Thank you for your time.

[00:24:24] EPC Clerk: In speaker, uh in person speakers. First will be Lewis Lin.

[00:24:38] Lewis Lin: Oh, good evening Honorable Council, thank you for sending me the notice about my neighborhood. I just had a quick comment about Leong. I drive there all the time and it's on a blind curve, so please make the developers know that probably someone's going to get T-boned if there's more density there. Right now it's just a bunch of duplexes.

[00:25:05] Lewis Lin: I actually don't know what's being built there but I'm pretty much fine with it. Also I wanted to ask how can Easy Street get rezoned because it's ripe for rezoning. You know, the recent property sales were quite disappointing. All those duplexes were old back in the day and they're not getting any younger.

[00:25:28] Lewis Lin: So all the lots are pretty much between 7 and 8,000 square feet, they only have 1,800 square foot duplexes on them. I don't know how it'd work out but I'd be interested. I'm thinking like, I was wondering why no one's been talking about this but I'm assuming the reason why is because there's single-family homes on the other side of my fence.

[00:25:48] Lewis Lin: And the single-family people, even though these are like homes that were probably worth like 80,000 dollars not that long ago, are probably have a pretty big influence. But I think there's plenty of spots to at least build fourplexes or whatnot. But I guess I could say it's not easy living on Easy Street, unfortunately.

Segment 2

[00:25:49] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. Commissioner Donahue.

[00:25:53] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, I have similar thoughts. I uh, I appreciate you you guys are showing up at the meetings and and that's I think absolutely the right thing to do and and and show up. This will go to the city council, you should go to that meeting. If there's any development uh like concrete development proposals, you know, there will be a whole process for that absolutely. I think um you should should be involved. I mean it's it's important. Um, we we got to this this this point, uh there's a housing element that uh we have an agreement with the state and um it took a long time to get there and I think that it's uh that we need to fulfill our obligations under that agreement and um and uh yeah. So I I guess I uh I don't, you know, if this were from fresh looking at it I I don't know how I would come out but but I think I'm going to have to to support uh fulfilling our our obligations so thanks.

Segment 1

[00:26:08] Lewis Lin: So that's pretty much all I have to say. If there's anyone who wants to reach out, or at least who could I reach out to, to ask of how this process could get started? It was kind of went off in my mind when Leong showed up on the public notice.

[00:26:25] Lewis Lin: So but you know, this neighborhood is like the crossroads, northern crossroads of the Bay Area. I mean Middlefield, 101, Central, El Camino, 85, they all come through this neighborhood so it's definitely underutilized. Thank you.

[00:26:45] EPC Clerk: The next speaker is Prerna Dhillon?

[00:26:58] Prerna Dhillon: Hi, I'm Prerna Dhillon and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of giving me a chance to speak here today. I'm from the Varsity Park neighborhood and I'm here to express concerns on the rezoning for 1702 and 1704 and 777 Cuesta.

[00:27:18] Prerna Dhillon: While I am also pro-housing and I understand that we are in a crisis where we need more housing, my concerns are around whether sufficient studies have been performed on say the impact to the traffic, the parking, neighborhood schools, parks, how would we really absorb this high-density housing?

[00:27:40] Prerna Dhillon: I just haven't seen that kind of analysis done in whatever information was shared with us today and that is my plea, that if we are rezoning, are we taking into consideration the impact to the quality of life for existing neighbors and the existing neighborhood where we all bought our homes because they are quiet streets where our kids can ride their bikes to school.

Segment 2

[00:27:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Donahue. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:27:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So a key part of the housing element was making sure that when we created these opportunity sites that it presented an opportunity in all areas of the city. Um, we don't want a a process that says okay well these people can only live in this area, these people only the ladder. And when we were when this when this was challenged during the housing element process these areas were identified specifically because they are high opportunity areas, that if someone's going to, we're going to build some housing, they're areas that um there's good schools, there's shopping nearby, um it's a it's a nice neighborhood and and that was an important factor in our original evaluation of these sites was to make sure that whatever we did um met those met those needs. The fact that again this is not a, this is not a specific project, it's not a, and I would, that's that was the reason I asked that question because I just wanted to be sure we weren't doing anything that was going to remove that. And it's not in an area where the ability to waive parking standards go is is in place, this state is required in areas like downtown. So I think this, there's, this is what I had expected when we looked at this. Um, it's not a sub it's not a huge change in the site and it's important to recognize and and I I do it myself, it's like you look at something say well it's a single story building today, but that's not how it's zoned today. Okay, it's zoned bigger. So we're not comparing to what's there, we're comparing to what's what's permitted today and we're doing something that allows housing in a space that's actually permitted for larger than what's in in either location. So I'm comfortable with proceeding on this. Um, it still meets those things that when we originally talked about it as to why we would include it and I don't, none of those have changed in my mind as to the the the reasoning behind it at that time. So uh I think we should proceed.

Segment 1

[00:28:05] Prerna Dhillon: There were accidents on Grant on kids biking to school and this is something that really concerns me that if we increase the density, how are we maintaining the safety of our existing neighborhood. That's all. Thank you.

[00:28:25] EPC Clerk: Next is Kristen L.

[00:28:38] Kristen L: Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I can't see you with my glasses on but I'm gonna I'm gonna read this. Um, so I'm particularly concerned about the zoning proposal for 777 Cuesta. This is a building that's literally 10 feet from my house.

[00:28:55] Kristen L: We would lose privacy. Part of the zoning is for a potential high-rise and we would lose privacy everyone in that strip along our entire backyard if we had a high-rise residences be able to look over the backyards. The high-rise would eliminate all light into our house. Imagine the house that you live in and a tall building 10 feet from your house going up. There's one room in our house that gets direct sun and that would be eliminated.

[00:29:22] Kristen L: A multi-residential property creates additional density which is a major safety issue. Cars are currently, we currently are having an issue with the traffic at this intersection where it's Miramonte, Sladky and Tulane. The cars create U-turns mid-street, especially because we have the Tulane-Sladky intersection.

[00:29:42] Kristen L: My daughter experiences a lack of safety daily with her biking and more traffic would create major safety hazards. There's currently no street parking near our house. When we come home after 3:00 p.m., we have to park two or three blocks away and then we go move our car at night.

[00:29:55] Kristen L: We experience excessive noise. People park, people who are the employees of the current building, they park between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and blare their music until they go to work at 8:00 a.m. and during their breaks they turn on the music in their car and are blaring their music during their breaks.

[00:30:12] Kristen L: People are parking illegally. Every single day you'll see people parking on the red curbs. They sometimes cross into our driveway and make it hard to get in and they are covering public fire hydrants. This is a major concern. We understand that housing is an issue but this solution isn't an appropriate one for this street. And one more thing.

[00:30:32] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, I'm so sorry.

[00:30:33] Kristen L: Okay.

[00:30:34] Chair José Gutiérrez: But just so you know, we did, I, we read your emails that came in, so I know you had sent something in as well. I want all the other folks here, but if you'd like to continue with sending us additional comments by all means feel free to reach us through email.

[00:30:45] Kristen L: Okay. I just want to say that more people are are also upset about this and the information was relatively hidden in the postcard and communication things.

[00:30:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you.

[00:30:55] EPC Clerk: Next up is Anna Duran.

Segment 2

[00:31:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Yin. Oh no, I had already gone, that was leftover. Commissioner Pham.

Segment 1

[00:31:08] Anna Duran: Hello, this is Anna, thank you for the opportunity to speak. So I'm a resident of the Tulane Drive and I have strong opposition towards the 1702 Miramonte, 1704, 777 Cuesta Drive. We are a community of families who invested in this neighborhood in a stable neighborhood, quiet where all of our kids, two, three, four years old, they run around, they are so happy playing with their friends and going with bikes.

Segment 2

[00:31:12] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, I'm going to be supporting this. Um, I want to thank staff for giving some of the context. A lot of this work and a lot of the work of the fellow commissioners here happened long time before I joined EPC but even so I can see that a lot of work and analysis has happened you know over many years. So I I'll say that. Um, I also appreciate um you know the look at small businesses and you know having commercial being able to remain there as well as well as housing. Um, and also staff being very careful about not creating non conformance issues. Um, I also want to encourage staff to think about what additional outreach could happen between now and um the council meeting on planned December 16th. Um, I know that um all the notices that are you know legally required have gone out which is great, um but just to go over and beyond something that staff could consider.

Segment 1

[00:31:38] Anna Duran: So adding a more residences and more cluster and just creates unsafety for our neighborhood and for our kids. There are schools surrounding that neighborhood and all the kids bike to school, so just imagine having hundreds of more cars doing illegal things on the street.

[00:31:58] Anna Duran: It's already a problem right now so adding more residencies creates a bigger problem. We believe that this is a arbitrary spot zoning. Is actually in direct conflict with the General Plan of protecting and maintaining the character and the quality of single-family neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood where is single-family mainly, so adding those high rises there is in direct contrast to that.

[00:32:23] Anna Duran: Then we just don't think that there has been enough analysis on what's it gonna do to the traffic. What about the safety? I'm hearing a lot of commercial, commercial, commercial but what about the safety and all of our residents that have paid millions of dollars for every single house of that. Then this proposal is also based on an assumption it's like near Major Transit Stops but the VTA is not a Major Transit Stop.

[00:32:48] Anna Duran: So we don't believe that this is factually correct, that this is next to a place where there's a lot of like public transportation. There is just the VTA. We also believe that there are other areas that could be analyzed: El Camino, San Antonio Road, Moffett. All of those have already high-rise buildings so it's more consistent with that rather than our neighborhood and just...

Segment 2

[00:32:57] Chair José Gutiérrez: Anyone else? No, okay I'll I'll go ahead and chime in. Um, I think when we have folks like we do now here present and they're becoming involved with how this process works there's a sudden realization that holy cow this was in the works for a long time and now we're finding out, now we're participating, now we're speaking up, we are concerned. And change like that is always hard when it affects you personally. When you're up here on the dais and if you're not in that particular area or neighborhood, you know one of the one of the things that's asked of us which I think is is good is to go visit those sites, try and imagine yourself as if you were in the neighborhood as if you lived there and and try to envision what this may or may not look like. So I just have to stress to everyone that like it's been said before we're just changing the zoning category right now that gives then the property owners the ability to have the option to then do something else in compliance of the norms that we've established today and then that council will ratify later on according to what we submitted to the state. And if and when something's then submitted for proposal like Commissioner Cranston and Yin have mentioned, that's the time when you would then go into these particulars about how will this look like, how will this impact my view, my sunlight, parking spaces. One key point that I'd like to stress again is what Eric had mentioned earlier which is it could be that at the sites by Miramonte at that time the standards weren't meant for parking, which would possibly, and I'm saying this is the reason why it is the way it is, but it could possibly explain why there's some issues there. So having heard that there's still concerns about parking spaces there, people parked in red spots or by fire hydrants, that there's an issue there for allocation of spots of uh vehicles for the property owners that live there because people come in and work there and then they take over some of those spots. I I think that's also something where the team here including the city attorney's team and Eric and everyone here have have have listened to that. So possibly if there's a way to let the Chief know about the concerns that were brought up to us about those issues I think that would be greatly appreciated to a point. I I can send an email to him as well or whatever process you think was is fine to inform them of of these concerns that would be appreciated. Um, and I'm just leaving that there for follow up and and I welcome your input on that front. Um, but I'll be supporting this as well because it's been um in the works for a while and what I want to also stress is our ability to also try and have the businesses stay and be part of the community still, right? Because we don't know what the future holds and that's the scary part because you don't know and when you don't know your imagination can run amok but at least there's a possibility there that we will have not just business but business and housing if it even comes to that because it could be that nothing happens. And and that's something else that we have to think about because that could then affect our plans of how we look at the overall uh goals of what we wanted to do with the um housing element plan. Okay thank you. All right so at this point in time I think we're moving on to point two uh where which is where we'll discuss the remaining amendments including the general plan amendments and precise plan amendments regarding the transit center the Leon Evandale area... excuse me chair you you may want to have a a motion for the recommendation.

Segment 1

[00:33:13] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you very much. Appreciate your concern.

[00:33:15] Anna Duran: If you all have family and kids, if you can think about it from that perspective.

[00:33:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: EPC Clerk, can you call our next guest speaker please?

[00:33:20] EPC Clerk: Next is Pradeep Bardia and followed by Tejash Mistry.

[00:33:28] Pradeep Bardia: Hi, good evening. I will try to be quick. I'm opposing 1702, 1704. My house is directly in front of that. I have, when I moved into the neighborhood 14 years back, there were two medical dental offices. Now there are 10 of them. On top of that, I've never had the problem of parking on the street.

[00:33:48] Pradeep Bardia: You guys, I don't know if the team has analyzed the transportation. We've complained over years and years of complaints but either my options are, should I convert my house into a rezoned public mixed-use land or what? Cause I can't stay there. There's no way I can stay there if you guys are directly, you know, putting an apartment complex right in, blocking everything that I have invested in that property.

[00:34:12] Pradeep Bardia: It's all gone. So my concerns are basically how do you address the parking situation is never been resolved and on top of that, you know, if would I be allowed to rezone my house? Because there's no point in staying there. I can't be sitting and staying in front of an apartment complex.

[00:34:28] Pradeep Bardia: Is that possibility or what are the options I have? Because I don't think I can live there with the decisions that you guys are making so I solely, I'm not sure if all of you know the property, but solely oppose 1702, 1704 Miramonte. I've been living with it for 10 years from two medical offices to 10 medical offices and now mixed use. You forcing me out of the community. Thank you.

[00:34:57] EPC Clerk: And lastly Tejash Mistry.

[00:35:05] Tejash Mistry: Hi good evening Commission. Speaking on behalf of 55 Fairchild Drive which is in Evandale Precise Plan Area A. I spoke at the last meeting where we discussed the rezoning and I raise the same concern again that with this mixed-use village, we will have 1.35 FAR for residential but the neighborhood commercial zoning will still limit my property as well as everyone else's to 0.35 FAR.

[00:35:33] Tejash Mistry: Which basically will uh essentially discourage any sort of commercial redevelopment in that area. I just want you all to be aware that the hotels that are in Evandale Precise Plan Area A generate about half a million dollars of transit tax for this City every year and as soon as we all redevelop as housing, all that money goes away.

[00:35:54] Tejash Mistry: So I would really strongly suggest you talk to the Planning Department about rezoning the commercial side as well because honestly Mountain View does not need to lose half a million dollars of transit tax. Two other points to mention. As it is with 1.35 FAR and 43 dwelling units per acre, I do have a concern about what the height restriction would be for us considering that Moffett Field is across the street.

[00:36:18] Tejash Mistry: Will we be able to actually achieve 43 dwelling units? So that's something that I would like to follow up with the Planning Department. And the third thing is our part of the precise plan essentially intentionally does not have a sound wall on 101 because we're the commercial part of Highway 101.

[00:36:37] Tejash Mistry: Right after my property there is a 12 foot tall sound barrier. If eventually all of our properties turn into multi-family residential, how do we petition Caltrans to change that to a sound wall? Because there's no way we'll be able to meet the decibel rating that the City is going to oblige us to for having residential there. Thank you.

[00:36:53] EPC Clerk: There are no other speakers.

[00:36:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you and thank you for everyone who stopped by to give us your perspectives and view points. Please know that when we limit the time it's because we have a lengthy meeting and we need to respect that just so that everyone has a fair amount of time to be able to speak on the issue. That way we don't treat anyone more um we don't give anyone more time than others and everyone is treated equally.

[00:37:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: We will move on to the segment of the EPC deliberation and take it into two parts. The first one is the first part will include a commissioner recusal and will focus on discussion about General Plan amendments at 1702, 1704 Miramonte Avenue and 777 Cuesta Drive and zoning amendments affecting Commercial Districts and General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center developments.

[00:37:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: We must also consider the Leong Evandale area and 677, 699 Calderon Avenue in our deliberation regarding the General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center development standards and the zoning ordinance amendments. Afterwards the second part will be the commissioner's recusal. Well we will discuss the remaining amendments including the General Plan amendments and Precise Plan amendments regarding the Transit Center, the Leong Evandale area, the Grant Road site and the Calderon Avenue site and the zoning amendment regarding avigation easements.

[00:38:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: That will also be the appropriate time to discuss the Leong Evandale area small business alternative in the staff report. I will now ask the Commissioner with conflict of interest to make their recusal statement.

[00:38:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: No sense in being formal about it. Mr. Chair, I unfortunately need to recuse myself from the discussions pertaining to the Cuesta and Miramonte properties because of the proximity of my primary residence.

Segment 2

[00:38:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh that's right that's right let's let's go ahead and do that which would be point number one. Thank you for for that.

Segment 1

[00:38:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you sir.

Segment 2

[00:38:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. Truth be told I got hit right before I came here from behind I I got bumped uh over on the way to the meeting so that's why I'm a little out of it right now. Right so anyways having said that let's move on with a possible motion for point one um and then would you like me to read that right now?

[00:39:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um can you, is a mover, yeah can you bring up the recommendation? So this this is a slightly adjusted recommendation that removed the unrelated properties uh from the uh general plan action and then the there'll be another uh more text for the zoning action so if you can read from the screen I don't know if it's possible to bring it up.

Segment 1

[00:39:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Let's let's discuss. Deliberations regarding General Plan amendments at 1702, 1704 Miramonte Avenue and 777 Cuesta Drive and zoning amendments affecting commercial districts and General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center developments including development standards for General Plan Mixed-Use Village Center developments at Evandale Precise Plan and 677, 699 Calderon Avenue.

[00:39:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Do I have any speakers? Vice Chair Nuñez?

Segment 2

[00:39:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. So first I'll announce to the EPC Clerk and to the team that a motion has been made by Vice Chair Nuñez and seconded by Commissioner Cranston.

[00:39:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Should I read that just as is?

Segment 1

[00:39:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh just point of I guess uh clarification on the process. Are we moving straight to deliberation, questions, uh and can you just, I appreciate the script reading, I just want to make sure if a more plain kind of stated um what's in the scope of this round.

Segment 2

[00:39:49] Chair José Gutiérrez: Exactly as is.

[00:39:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um yeah. Do they need to read the the title text for the or the the text for the motion?

[00:39:57] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yes.

[00:39:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay all right. I make a motion that the Environmental Planning Commission one recommend the City Council adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting a general plan amendment to update the land use and design element and modify the general plan land use map to change the land use designation for the following properties to implement housing element program 1.1(g) uh colon two 1702 and 1704 Miramonte Avenue and 777 Cuesta Drive from Office to Neighborhood Mixed Use as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission on January 24 2023. The City Council certified the 2023 to 2031 housing element update environmental impact report adopted by resolution 18755 pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15168, 15162 and 15163. None of the circumstances necessitating further CEQA review are present exhibit one to the EPC staff report.

Segment 1

[00:40:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: Right. You know that's a great point of clarification. That was my understanding but if Deanna or Eric have a different interpretation I'm sure they'll let us know right now or Chris.

[00:40:15] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh yes, we would encourage you to um make a recommendation, make your recommendation on these items. Uh specifically the Chapter 36 commercial zones, uh the Chapter 36 General Plan Mixed-Use development standards and the General Plan amendments at Miramonte and Cuesta.

[00:40:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um now if there's conversation about the Evandale area or the Calderon area after the recusal item is over, uh then we will ask uh the Commissioner to leave again and you can reopen that item if you feel like you need to.

[00:40:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, cool, thank you. Um then in that case unless there's more questions on process I can go ahead and ask questions on subject matter. Um so I have a quick question just to kind of make sure I'm clarifying my understanding on this.

Segment 2

[00:40:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: And that the Environmental Planning Commission two recommend that recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the city code to implement subtask G of housing element program 1.1 including updates to article 5 commercial zones to allow general plan mixed use village center land uses in the CO commercial offices zoning district and to make other clarifying and conforming changes such as modifying and reorganizing standards in division 23 general plan mixed use village center developments of article 9 standards for specific land uses to be consistent with the CO zoning district and Evandale precise plan exhibit two to the EPC staff report.

Segment 1

[00:41:10] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um this is us as the City seeking to uh you know formally uh finalize the commitments made as part of the Housing Element uh that was certified by the State as of last year for the latest uh cycle. Um and so just really I guess like either as simply or broadly as possible if that's okay, um to to staff.

[00:41:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: What elements are like at all within the discretion of any discussion today for the Commission?

[00:41:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Honorable Chair and Commissioners, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um I think it's important to keep in mind that um this subject matter was discussed in extensive detail uh back in January uh by the EPC and City Council in February, um at which time the City Council provided direction on uh the approaches to take relative to these General Plan amendments and and zoning amendments.

Segment 2

[00:41:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Second.

[00:41:58] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay great. Let's uh let's vote.

Segment 1

[00:42:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And so uh I feel as though um you know the task has been given to the Commission and really uh the role tonight is to explore what's been prepared by staff and to ensure that it accomplishes that City Council direction. Um I think more broadly uh there is some discretion related to the small business zoning alternative and uh the question posed by staff where staff recommends rezoning the entire Evandale Precise Plan area uh as noted in the staff report.

Segment 2

[00:42:16] EPC Clerk: The motion passes with six yays and one recused.

[00:42:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great thank you sir, thank you commissioners. Okay now let's move on to point two. After the commissioner's recusal we will discuss the remaining amendments including the general plan amendments and precise plan amendments regarding the transit center, the Leon Evandale area, the Grant Road site and the Calderon Avenue site and the zoning amendment regarding avigation easements. That will be the appropriate time to discuss then the Leon Evandale area small business alternative and the staff report. I will now ask the commissioner with conflict of interest to make... well no no no that's forget that. Commissioner Dempsey you're back, thank you for being part of the team again. And who would like to ask questions first because we'll do again questions and then deliberation. Commissioner Cranston.

Segment 1

[00:42:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Or the alternative that the Commission could consider uh in favor of small business preservation and just scale back and exclude three parcels from that rezoning. I think it's really on that question of the um small business retention in the Evandale Precise Plan area where most of the discretion remains at this point.

[00:42:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So then for the remaining uh parcels, properties, uh tracks, plots, uh etcetera, uh it's it sounds like, and correct me if I'm uh mistaken in this, it sounds like the Commission cannot reject, delay, reduce or substitute any committed sites or densities as part of the connection to the uh certified Housing Element. Is that a uh accurate statement?

Segment 2

[00:43:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um I guess I had maybe a misunderstood in the staff report. Um, Krisha said that the areas that were hashed were not part of the original um scope of what was an opportunity area or they are? I I got the impression that if we removed those then we were actually taking something off of the the site inventory. Is that, but she made it sound like it wasn't there at all or did I misunderstand?

Segment 1

[00:43:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think it's important to note that the Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council. Um but I would encourage you to make a recommendation that respects the Housing Element and the City Council's prior direction on this subject matter. And so that would be to continue with these sites and to effectuate the changes as staff has prepared in the materials for the meeting.

Segment 2

[00:43:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so the site inventory in the housing element does not include the three sites that were hatched on the map that she showed. Uh the language in the housing element for program 1.1(g) does include sites that are not in the site inventory, so for example 777 Cuesta is not in the site inventory, 1949 Grant Road not in the site inventory. Um so it's a uh it's a a belt and suspenders approach to rezoning that we are um rezoning for more opportunity than even the sites that were deemed underutilized in the site inventory. Um so in this uh um portion of uh the Evandale precise plan uh a number of those sites are in the site inventory, I don't recall exactly which ones but probably at least three or four of them are in the sites inventory but um several of them are not.

[00:44:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay thanks.

[00:44:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Yin.

[00:44:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Could you go into a little bit more detail about the avigation requirements I just to understand it better?

[00:44:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh sure. So the comprehensive land use plan for Moffett Field does have a whole section about uh avigation easements. Uh avigation easements are typically uh uh a um kind of a property owner notice that there will be planes flying overhead generating noise uh and um you know potentially other other disruptions. Uh they also can occasionally have the benefit if um like let's say you have a tall building that needs to under federal law have like light special lighting, it can also provide um whoever uh owns the easement, in this case it would be Moffett Field, they would have the right to maintain that lighting or require that that lighting be maintained. That can also be part of an avigation easement. Now these sites aren't going to be built tall enough to require any of that. Uh we've gone through the um the uh uh ALUC process and they're they're not going to be going through the the maximum height, going above the maximum heights where any of those mitigations are going to be necessary. So in general for these cases avigation easements are the former case that I was talking about when a uh a property owner is essentially being notified that there are sources of uh noise or other quality of life impacts from the airport. Um because of that our determination during the the the comprehensive land use plan has this language that says where legally allowed the city should require avigation easements but it doesn't provide much more detail than that. So they put it on the cities to determine to answer that question where legally allowed. So we did some analysis, we looked at other parts of state law and we determined along with this relationship with the um the noise impact that avigation easements can be um kind of uh can be allowed unilaterally only in areas where noise is an identified impact of the airport. Uh and so that is the the what we've drafted in the zoning ordinance to be consistent with the CLUP so that our zoning ordinance says what implements what the CLUP requires it to implement. Um it only affects a few parcels in the East Whisman area because those are the only areas where approaching aircraft will generate or taking off aircraft from Moffett Field will generate enough noise to be an impact. Um and so that's what the um that's what the ease the the language in the zoning ordinance essentially says.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's a very subtle argument. Um, and I'm not sure that it would rise to the level of um... of uh kind of invalidating our sites inventory. Uh, it is possible, that is certainly possible uh concern that somebody could raise in um... in uh, you know, kind of addressing concerns about implementation of our... of our housing element to HCD. So that is always a risk. Uh, we do have some analysis in our housing element uh sites inventory justification for um... assumptions about the mix of uses that might be built when a mix of uses are allowed, that is... was required for populating our sites inventory. Of course, I don't remember what those calculations were um, you know, years and years ago, but uh... that could be something that we could rely on for uh further justifying the um... the sites inventory even if a mix of... a mix of uses at higher intensities are allowed.

[01:31:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: Any other questions? Nope. Okay. Let's move on to deliberations. Who'd like to opine first?

[01:31:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:31:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I... I guess just in general... I mean as a discussion I don't... I don't see any downside of including the hatched areas in the... the change. Um, it... it doesn't apparent to me that it would... would hurt in any way um and could actually create some more opportunity. Um, so I'm uninclined... I'm inclined to support the staff approach um of including those... was it two or three tiny parcels? Um, in the... in the recommendation. Um, everything else was... that was consistent. I do want to thank staff for addressing the potential um for uh alternative use at the Grant Road site. I... thank you. So uh... but in general I... that was my... I'd be inclined to go ahead and add the... the hatched out areas as staff's recom... recommending.

[01:32:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin?

[01:32:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh just to discuss the point of the hatched area. Um, I was just curious... I'm glad to hear that given that the city says in the precise plan that they want that to be a mixed use area and to have ground floor retail... um, I wouldn't want to, you know, do anything that says 'okay' or take any steps that allowed for an easy path for people to forego that requirement. I'm glad to hear that no one has taken advantage of that even with the State Density Bonus Law. Um, but it's a possibility. And so I'm weighing my... in... internally just sort of weighing uh knowing that when a project comes forward uh, you know, policy is very powerful but it cannot design a building. And so very often what you get is based on the intent of the developer. If they wanted ground floor retail, you'd get it because they would design space that allowed for it. Um, and maybe the city has some levers to pull a little bit to say, yeah, we'd like, you know, we're really seeing that this is a desirable thing, Council might look favorably if you allowed enough room for X, Y, or Z. But if the intention is we really don't want to do it, then even with all the wonderful economic development strategies, if it's not designed to house anything, you won't get any of it. So my internal struggle is you know, the state of things is that we don't, as a city, do not have as many tools available to work with developers in getting sort of some of the small things that we want. Not small, I don't want to say small, some of the things that we want. And that's sort of soft... not hard policy, right? It's sort of just going with the culture, just working together for a goal that the city has decided that they wanted long ago. Because we have less power as the city to kind of work with a developer, I worry that there's the possibility that it will just be gone. And the question is: do we really want to ensure that small businesses can stay? They might not want to. But can they? If the choice is, well, we're going to allow for the developer to decide, and they can if they follow certain rules, then we won't get any of it. If the only way we have is to say we have to remove this from the site... the general plan right now, and it can change, if the priority is to retain what is there, then that is almost the only way to guarantee it. So it's really a matter like for Council: do they really want the small businesses to stay? If that's a priority, we leave it out. If it's a wish, we'd like, it may not happen. I understand that from a planning perspective, it is much easier to have the whole site available for housing. So that's my internal struggle. Because in projects that we've seen, it's less and less sort of availability for the city to work the soft power.

[01:36:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, if I may.

[01:36:51] Chair José Gutiérrez: Of course.

[01:36:53] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you. Um, so Commissioner Yin I think raises some important points and there are unknowns and risks related to State Density Bonus Law. I think um a different perspective on the challenge um is really not so much related to that aspect, but it's the specific uh impact to specific businesses that are present currently caused by the inducement, if we... if we'll call it that, of higher economic opportunity driven by redevelopment of the site. And how those individual businesses would be displaced from the site during the project construction for a year, two years, however long. And may be unable to find other suitable places in Mountain View at a rent or of a space type um and location that suits them. Or um, you know, even if they could endure during that time, maybe couldn't afford to return because the rents would be higher for the new commercial space. So I think that's another aspect of this and it's really this question of business generally, which probably will continue to remain, you know, a viable space in these projects in the future, but probably for different businesses. And it's really the impact to those existing, you know, commonly local small businesses that's I think the essence of the issue from staff's perspective. And that's why this sort of hinges on that aspect where removing some of the development pressure from these three parcels um is one approach and one of the very few approaches that we have to offer at this time.

[01:38:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin?

[01:38:25] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was done. Thank you.

[01:38:27] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. Any... anyone else? Nope. Okay. Um, I'm... I agree with Commissioner Yin, I thought about that too because there's an inherent tension there. And I'm not sure which way to go. And so I had to look at it more from the perspective of like, okay, well what... what can I do? And so I thought, well, the only thing I can do right now is not look at it from a policy perspective but more from a zoning perspective. And if I look at that way, then I... I agree with what's been presented. From a... from a policy perspective, I would like to make the exception, but that's for City Council to try and figure out one way or another. And that's the part of all this right now that kind of... kind of like when the folks were here earlier, they realized something and they're like, 'Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't seem right to us.' And that's what... when I read this, that it hit me that way too. So I... I... I know what you mean, Commissioner Yin, from that perspective. And it's hard to... to come to a resolution to something like that because you just don't know. And that... and that having that certainty of what's going to happen in all this process is what sometimes holds me back a little bit to always fully support what the staff recommends, right? And so hence the... the questioning. It's not because of lack of trust, it's more just because of the 'what ifs'. So. If anyone has any other comments, then great. If not, then Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:39:54] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let me try to keep this brief. I'm going to be supporting the staff recommendations today. I think uh in many ways this... this vote is a bit pro forma. I think we've already committed to what we've committed to in the housing element and we've got to get that done. So, you know, to me it's... it's pretty cut and dried. I think the one thing that I want to say, and maybe this is a broader comment about densification and growth in Mountain View. And it is simply this: If we as a community want greater density, and I understand that we do as a policy, if we want neighborhoods to embrace not only that density but the... the humans that come with it, the people that move in, the people that become our neighbors, then we as a city have to do a better job of managing the externalities, the problems that come with denser living. Because if you wonder what the fuel is for people pushing back against densification, the fuel is problems that they see every day. And, you know, here... here with the Planning Commission we make plans, we make maps, but the map is not always the territory. Um, and I can speak with personal experience that some of the things that our neighbors are talking about are real. And so I would simply make the plea to the... to the city that we... when people come in and tell us they're actually having real problems right now, that we listen seriously to that. And maybe... maybe we care, maybe we don't, maybe that... oh, that's a small problem in a small part of the city. Okay, you can say that. But that is where opposition to growth comes from. It's not a theoretical or ideological thing. It's because of problems they experience when they're trying to take their kids to school, when they walk out their front door. So that was a lot longer than I expec... expected it to be. Um, let's just take that very, very seriously when people come in and say that stuff because it's for real. With that, I'll be supporting the measure.

[01:42:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey. Anyone else? No. Oh, oh, here we go. Commissioner Donahue.

[01:42:24] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I will also be supporting the measure. I... I agree that there are real problems and that... that they need to be taken seriously. I mean it's... it's... it's clear. Um, I think that though sometimes... I mean sometimes there's existing problems, there's people parking in front of fire hydrants and things like that, um, which uh, you know, it happens once, you are annoyed. It happens, you know, once a week, that... this is really a problem. It happens, you know, five days a week, what the heck's going on around here? Um, so I think that uh... that... that definitely... And I... I do think that in general the city is... is pretty good at... at listening to... to... to those types of things and addressing... but of course it's not perfect. And... and I think that uh the... the goal of the uh of the entire organization should be to... to really strive to uh... to address these kinds of problems. Um, as far as this uh specific like the... the Evandale area and the... the hatched uh area that... that we're talking about, I think that there are um... yeah, I... I am concerned about uh about the loss of... of small businesses, but that's not limited to... to those parcels. Um, the... the medical offices that we talked about earlier uh, you know, could... we didn't really talk about trying to retain them, but... but you know, those... those kinds of things uh affect kind of everything that we do. And I think that having a uh more of a city-wide approach uh is impo... is important. And... and kind of spot zoning three uh parcels to... to try to to deal with three specific businesses is kind of not... not the right approach. We need to... we need to think more systematically. Um, so I will be supporting the uh staff recommendation.

[01:44:24] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin?

[01:44:26] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was just gonna say that in the staff report it says that those sites actually are not required for the housing element. That's just one point. It's okay. I mean, everyone can still have their, you know, opinions, that's not a big deal. And I do understand that it's just easier to plan. Um, I think, you know, I'm not necessarily fighting really hard for it. It's just still the internal struggle with the... the hatched area is that um one, what I just said, it's not required. And two, the other businesses in those addresses are in the housing element, you know? So that's why we're not discussing those or I'm not bringing it up. This is an opportunity. And I'm just putting it out there. Really it's for Council. It's up to them. Um, you know, I don't... I haven't seen that many people come forward saying 'we really want to keep those businesses.' I'm just going with what was in the precise plan um for that neighborhood. So I'm just putting it out there. Um, I understand it's just cleaner to go for it. I just wanted to discuss. Okay. Thank you.

[01:45:40] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Yin. But on... on that note, I'm just gonna quickly have to bring this up. Um, did anyone of those business owners write in and opine on what their feelings were to the proposal that we're discussing now?

[01:45:58] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: No, we did not receive any um comments from the businesses or concerns when we hand delivered the notices.

[01:46:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: And were the notices just in English or were they in English and Spanish or...?

[01:46:09] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: They were just in English. But um, the business owners I spoke with personally um were... spoke English.

[01:46:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Just checking, that's all. Great. Commissioner Cranston, thank you.

[01:46:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's inconsistent with my reading of one of the emails. One of the businesses that actually asked that the height density for the commercial be raised was the unit that's farthest... closest to um the 101. Okay. So that business and the hotel across the street, not the gentleman who was here, asked for the density of the area to be made for commercial equal to the density of the residential. And so I think their request was not to make it residential, but to allow them to build to the same density as the residential space. And it's the marketplace. And so there was a letter. It wasn't asking for it to be included, it was... it came across as 'I want to be able to build my business bigger, and by not changing the commercial areas you don't allow me to do that.' So there was a letter, but that... it was not... it was a purely commercial side. Which might actually be more supportive of Mr... Commissioner Yin's concern that they actually want to do something, but they need more... they need the ability to have more density to be able to do make it viable from a commercial standpoint.

[01:47:37] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thanks for bringing that up. Commissioner Yin?

[01:47:39] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, but they weren't in the hatched area, right?

[01:47:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: They are.

[01:47:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The hotel was... is not in the hatched area but the... Who put the map up, Krishna? It's the... It's the one that's on the corner. On the corner just north of the street. Okay? Um, yeah there's three... three properties. The one farthest to the north. Is the one that has the marketplace. No, I... no, it's on... on whatever that darn street is. Up. Up. Up. There you go right there. Right there, you just passed it. It's the marketplace. The market is the one right there. Yeah. They're the... they... It's a market and they... them along with a letter from the hotel across the street said, 'We would like you to make the density available for commercial equal to the density for residential.' The one that's in the hotel is in their... in our area, but the one that's... the other one is not. So they were... it indicated to me that they wanted actually the opportunity to develop their space on a commercial basis more densely than it is today.

[01:48:49] Chair José Gutiérrez: I think that might have been the second batch of emails that we received. I'm not sure but... It looks like... I am so sorry. What... What is your name next to Eric?

[01:49:02] Senior Planner Krisha Penollar: Krisha.

[01:49:02] Chair José Gutiérrez: Krisha. I... I think cause you were receiving all the emails, right? Um because they were addressing it to you. So, but I saw that you wanted to opine on something that Commissioner Cranston was talking about?

[01:49:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Well then as far as discussion goes, then it brings into what you were asking earlier about the balance of housing to commercial and whether or not it would sort of go against what the housing element was seeking if we were to... But wait a minute. This is just to allow for current, not for future. The discussion of leaving the hatched areas out is mainly... right?

[01:49:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I assume you're asking me?

[01:49:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So earlier you had asked about whether or not allowing for the commercial to increase would be going against the Housing Element's intent. Right? And Eric had answered... it's a hard one to answer, you know, it could be seen as, you know, subtle or... But the discussion of whether or not to include the hatched areas... Christian, you were saying that really we're not talking about increasing their ability to grow their business, it's about whether or not we retain what is there now.

[01:50:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, I think the issue as we've tried to frame it with this question of whether to include or exclude the cross-hatched parcels is the question of the impacts to the existing businesses. Um, you know, these sites likely would have a commercial component if they were to redevelop, but the issue is those existing businesses um maybe are less likely to actually return and be the businesses that are located there. So it's that small business retention, preservation question. And the issue is that these parcels are not required to be included to achieve the housing element requirement. Okay. So there's some discretion there to exclude if there's a perception that that would better preserve the existing small businesses, or include them if business generally or maximizing housing opportunities is the policy preference.

[01:51:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. All clear.

[01:51:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston?

[01:51:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, the... the reason for my question is the gentleman who spoke today... he owns I think the property that's all the way down... all the way to the left. One of the letters was for the hotel that's way over next to the Chevron station. Okay? And it was co-signed by the owner of the property that's in the hatched area. What they asked for in their letter and what he's essentially asking for is 'allow me to develop those areas as commercial at the same density as you're allowing the residential'. Okay? The proposal from staff is that we allow residential, but we don't change the... the commercial density at all. Okay? And when I said I didn't see any downside, in my mind I looked at it and said, okay, they're actually going to get more ability to have more density in the area. It's mixed use, so they may decide that they want to have a bigger retail space below and they want to have some apartments up below... above. So it actually gave them more flexibility than what they have today. It... it's entirely possible that they may say 'I don't want any commercial at all and it's just going to be all residential', right? But I... since our objective here was not to rezone to make the area denser in general, I was not necessarily supportive of the idea of changing the whatever it was, CO or whatever the heck it is, um to allow it to be equal to the 55 foot that's... that's proposed here. But by incorporating it all, it in my mind gave the... the... those three more options for their space because right now they're limited by what they have today, and this would allow something beyond that without us saying we're going to change the CO to... to 55 feet as well. So that was... I didn't articulate that before, but that was my when I said I didn't think there was any downside, actually thought there might be a little bit of upside. They would give them more options than they have as it's proposed today. We've not discussed the idea of trying to go back to Council and say change the CO to 55 feet as well because I don't think that's what we're here to do. Um, so that's very long answer to...

[01:53:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No, it's okay. No, it's very helpful. I'm just trying to put all the pieces together with all the questions for the discussion purposes. Thank you.

[01:54:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Let's move on for the... to the vote. Anyone else? If not, that would be a great time to entertain a motion.

[01:54:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So moved.

[01:54:07] Commissioner Tina Pham: Second.

[01:54:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So moved by Commissioner Cranston and seconded by Commissioner Pham. That we... and I believe we would like to have Commissioner Cranston read the language.

[01:54:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: He took the... he took the shorter one so uh I get the longer one. I can't read quite as fast as uh... as the Vice Chair.

[01:54:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Again, we have a... we have some special uh recommendation.

[01:54:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It's different than...?

[01:54:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh, um, yes, it's going to be different than... than what the content of those slides is. We'll bring it up on the screen real quick here.

[01:54:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just to exclude the Questa and Miramonte sites that uh Commissioner Dempsey can't vote on.

[01:54:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The uh... presentation copy has it? The presentation copy has the full titles, but they've already voted on the Questa and Miramonte sites, so the... we have the recommendation excluding those sites on... on the slide here.

[01:55:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Reading... reading... Okay. So I move that the Environmental Planning Commission number one recommend the City Council adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting a General Plan Amendment to update the Land Use and Design Element and modify the General Plan Land Use Map to change the Land Use Designation for the following properties to implement Housing Element Program 1.1(g): (1) 830, 835, 850, 859, 870, 889, 897 Leong Drive and 3, 55 Fairchild Drive from Neighborhood Commercial to General Mixed-Use; (3) 677-699 Calderon Avenue from Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Mixed-Use; (4) 1949 Grant Road from Low-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission; On January 24, 2023, the City Council Certified the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (Adopted by Resolution 18755). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, 15162 and 15163, None of the Circumstances Necessitating Further CEQA Review are Present. Number 2, recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Amending Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code to implement Subtask (g) of Housing Element Program 1.1, Requiring Avigation Easements Pursuant to the Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Exhibit 2 to the EPC Staff Report). Number 3. Recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Amending the P(32) Evandale Precise Plan to Implement Housing Element Program 1.1(g) and Make Other Clarifying Changes as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Exhibit 3 to the EPC Staff Report). Number 4, recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Amending the P(26) Grant-Martens Precise Plan to Implement the Housing Element Program 1.1(g) and Make Other Clarifying Changes as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission (Exhibit 4 to the EPC Staff Report). And 5, adopt... recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Amending the P(18) Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan to Implement the Housing Element Program 1.1(g) and Make Other Clarifying Changes as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission (Exhibit 5 to the EPC Staff Report). And I really need to remember to bring my glasses if I have to do these next time because it's hard to read. So.

[01:58:27] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Let's move on for the... to the vote.

[01:58:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The motion carries. Uh seven yes.

[01:58:49] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, team. Thank you, staff. Um, and thank you to everyone who showed up and spoke up and for everyone who called in and gave us their perspective of what... what they thought. Um, moving on to Point 6, Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests and Committee Reports.

[01:59:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Chair, uh if I may... we may just have to take the vote on Item 3.1, Minutes Approval, uh one more time. Um, I think Commissioner Pham might have uh accidentally uh voted on it, but she was not on the commission at that time. So just for the record we'll just have to...

[01:59:30] Commissioner Tina Pham: No, I apologize. I should have recused myself for that one. Abstained.

[01:59:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. Okay. So let's go back... before we go to Point 6, Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests and Committee Reports, we will then go back for the record to clarify Section 3 Minutes Approval, 3.1 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2025. EPC Clerk, can you please remind me who was the mover and who seconded?

[01:59:58] EPC Clerk: The mover was uh Bill Cranston and seconded by Hank Dempsey.

[02:00:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, and that was to approve the Environmental Planning Commission minutes of February 5, 2025. If we can re... redo the vote please. And if not, we can do this by hand and we'll make a note that... Sure, let's go by hand. Why not. Okay. So all... um...

[02:00:30] EPC Clerk: Uh, but just by hand? Uh, Commissioner Pham? Commissioner Donahue? Vice Chair Nuñez? Chair Gutiérrez? Commissioner Dempsey? Commissioner Yin? And Commissioner Cranston? The motion carries, six yea and one abstain.

[02:01:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Pham for that. That's all... that was awesome. Okay, now let's move on to Point 6, Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests and Committee Reports.

[02:01:13] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you. Uh Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner and EPC Liaison. So just a few quick announcements on um... the November 19th meeting uh will be canceled as there are no discussion items scheduled as of now. The next EPC meeting will be scheduled for December 3rd, uh 2025. And lastly just an update on the EPC um uh commission positions. City Council at the October 21st uh meeting recommended to uh... for two positions. One of them uh, you know, reinstating uh Commissioner Tina Pham for another term. And then um a new member Shweta Subramanian uh for uh another place uh since Commissioner Yin is gonna term out. Uh the final vote, Council will take the final vote on the appointment recommendations at the December 9th uh meeting. So yeah, just a short announcement. Thank you.

[02:02:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. And Commissioner Cranston?

[02:02:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, so I have uh a request for the future. Um, the Governor signed SB 799 a few weeks ago and um I'm... the... Mr. Murdock suggested that we don't have to do anything until after it becomes the law. And I am not comfortable with that. We have the downtown precise plan, we have the Moffat precise plan, and we have the historic district that all are touched on by this law. Um, I realize that staff likes the idea of being very certain and having everything i's dotted and t's crossed, but we also need to be able to react to things as they come up. And this is something that's coming, it's already been approved. And I don't believe that we should be waiting until later. The way the law is worded, it will affect... it absolutely will affect any evaluation I make of the Moffat precise plan, the downtown precise plan or anything further on the historic ordinance. And so I think... I don't believe it's necessarily a separate project. I think it's in the context of what we already have. Um, but I would like to request that staff come back with what you know today. I'm not expecting a perfect answer. Um HCD is probably still working on what it is. But we have now I guess two more meetings till the end of the year. I'd like... I would like to request that staff come back before the end of the year with your analysis of what we know today of what SB 799 does, what we know about what maybe some other jurisdictions are doing, and how it might tie into these three projects that are already underway. I don't think that we should wait until July 1st or 31st, not after. That's my request.

[02:05:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Yeah, I... I'll... I'll uh follow up with that. I think that's a great idea. I like that approach. I know we've had a chance here to be part of the team for a little bit of time now, and I think if we're looking at it from the perspective of being proactive to understand what it is that we can do to facilitate discussion prior to things becoming more of an issue, and then that way helping out not just the city team and the staff but also the commission itself, and subsequently then the City Council in general to look at it from that vantage point, I think that's what we're here for to try and do just that. So if we can get support for this... I know you have my support so... um I see also Commissioners Donahue and Yin. Um I'll cede the floor now to Commissioner Donahue.

[02:05:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, uh just want to clarify one point uh that Commissioner Cranston made. Um I didn't state that there's nothing to be done prior to July 1st of 2026. Uh I was stating earlier that the law takes effect at that time. Indeed there's a lot of work the City um needs to do between now and then to understand the implications of SB 799. Um and indeed that work has started. Um I'm not sure, you know, I can commit to uh providing an update as requested to the commission um prior to us having an opportunity to provide the same update to City Council. Um we're working hard on preparing that update at this time um including uh potential implications for the Moffat Boulevard precise plan and downtown precise plan work. And so um we're gearing up to have that uh update provided to Council and to receive direction on some of the key points that affect uh city process and uh work that's underway. And I think once we have the direction from Council, uh it's likely an opportune time for us to update the EPC on what that direction is and the work that we may be carrying out in response to that direction.

[02:07:21] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you, Mr. Murdock. So question for you. By when do you plan to have that be ready to be presented?

[02:07:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, we're working with the City Manager currently to identify a specific date. Um, sometime in the middle of Q1 2026 is what I'm anticipating at this time. Late January, early February time frame approximately.

[02:07:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, that'd be great because I know traditionally we... I mean you've noticed this, we tend to have meetings that are canceled during that period of time. Um, and so it'd be great to actually discuss that during that period of time so that we take advantage of the time that we do have for scheduled meetings. Uh let's see. Commissioner Donahue?

[02:07:57] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So, we had a public comment at the... at the beginning about SB 799 and and the downtown, and I'm I'm concerned... He said that the City of Palo Alto has already authorized having an alternative plan in place. Um, I... I mean I... I don't know if... if the timelines he gave were... were accurate. I think he said six months plus two weeks or something like that. Um, that uh... that might be kind of a worst-case scenario. I don't know. But um I am concerned that if it's the middle of Q1 uh that that we get started, then... then the law takes effect on July 1st, somebody decides to bulldoze the 100 block of Castro Street or something, uh then there's kind of nothing that the city can do. It's kind of like, you know, the builder's remedy type of... type of deal. Uh so it's better to get ahead of that. Um and in our uh capacity as advising the City Council, I... I would like to uh be able to discuss and and potentially formally recommend some action to the City Council. Um I... I know that there's that that we... we need to understand exactly what the law uh involves and exactly what... I mean we don't have to understand what the alternative plan would be obviously. Uh but... but I think uh being able to discuss and and and try to get that alternative plan process in motion earlier would be uh... would be the best move. So, thanks.

[02:09:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Donahue. Commissioner Yin?

[02:09:05] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, I'm in support of the idea that's been brought forward. Like um I think Livable Mountain View had sent slideshow PDF prior to the meeting. And in my understanding of SB 799, it's um... I think the deadlines we need to lock down and understand better. Um I think there are some maps that we need to know, like what the areas actually are affected. And I agree with uh Commissioner Donahue that very easily, you know, we have no control, have a builder's remedy situation in our historic downtown. And I think, you know, if SB 799 comes out, it's not like we get notices every, you know, area gets notices saying your property might be affected. And we... we saw today a little bit of what happens when the realization comes forward. I think that would be such a big loss that the city would really turn out and... but there's nothing that could be done at that point. So the sooner we act to prepare, the better. And if we need to uh make recommendations that if staff can't do it given some of the responsibilities, that we go ahead and hire consultants to help in order to get this done.

[02:09:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Yin. Commissioner Pham.

[02:09:29] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, I agree with a lot of what our fellow commissioners have mentioned and I would support having staff um looking into something sooner rather than later. Um I also, in my understanding of SB 799, is that it um may cover areas not just covered by downtown and Moffat plan. So um I urge staff when you're trying to prep to brief Council to also consider the other areas already identified and um, you know, weigh in whether that should be uh included in an alternative plan and also if an alternative plan is the way to go forward as well. Thank you.

[02:10:13] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Nuñez, or Vice Chair Nuñez?

[02:10:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I... I think this is not necessary at all. I think that if we want to get that that report, we could either go to that City Council meeting or we could inform ourselves, we could look it up, we could like... we're all very smart people. We got appointed to this for a reason. And I think staff works really hard. I don't always agree with them. I don't always think that they're like, you know, working toward the outcomes I want even though they're neutral and what have you. But they're like so strapped for time. I think we should just take the responsibility, go research it. If we have questions for an agenda item that is coming up, then we can ask that. I am loath to like put anything on like staff especially because it's the... the grunt people at the bottom who are doing this. And I think we can put our own time into this.

[02:11:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston?

[02:11:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is there a reason that we can't provide a recommendation at the time that you're presenting to Council? You're... you're taking the... the approach that EPC doesn't have an opportunity to weigh in to what you present to Council. I guess I view that we... that's part of our role.

[02:11:21] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, and I respect that perspective. I think the issue is the compressed time frame under which we have to do our work and then what the sequence of meetings would even be to get something to the EPC in time to provide an op... uh provide input and then prepare that for City Council in time for their meeting. And so I'm not able to commit to that opportunity at this point in time um on this particular item. I would very much imagine that whatever the Council's direction is flowing out of their presentation, that there would be an opportunity for EPC to have input on shaping what the response and next steps would be.

[02:12:13] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Mr. Murdock. Commissioner Donahue?

[02:12:14] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Uh... The... the main thing that I'm... the main thing I want to be able to do is to advise the City Council. So like having it on our agenda so that we can discuss things and and make a formal recommendation. Not that we um... I mean, yes, we... we can... we can learn about the... the details of... of SB 799 on our own, we can go to the City Council meeting. But if we go to the City Council meeting, we can't as a body advise the City Council about that. So uh I think, you know, I can go stand there just like all of us can, but uh obviously as a body um we have... we have more impact. And and and it also involves the public process, right? We... we get... we get input from the public, we uh gather all that, we synthesize it, and then we make a uh recommendation to the City Council. And that... that's kind of what I'm interested in having the ability to do.

[02:13:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Donahue. Vice Chair Nuñez?

[02:13:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I mean, that sounds like an agendized item. And which I mean... for... for like just understand... I um yeah, I... I'm just going to like uh strongly oppose this and you know, again if we want to get informed... if if everyone wants to vote yes on this, that's fine. But I think that staff is A, not able to commit to something. We're not able to provide, you know, clear scope on what the outcome is. It seems like putting out an agendized uh like official item for something that, you know, we can do and participate in as well as members of the public as well.

[02:14:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston?

[02:14:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I have a... request for the future... I'm not expecting staff to come back with a... a 'this is the answer to be all end all'. What I'm looking for is: what do we know right now? How might this affect these things that we're looking at so that we can then look at it and say, all right, can we... could we could have a discussion and whether to recommend to Council that it really be looked at in the context of these three plans before July 1st or 31st, not after. That's my request.

[02:14:52] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Yeah, I'll... I'll uh follow up with... I think that's a great idea. I like that approach. I know we've had a chance here to be part of the team for a little bit of time now, and I think if we're looking at it from the perspective of being proactive to understand what it is that we can do to facilitate discussion prior to things becoming more of an issue, and then that way helping out not just the city team and the staff but also the commission itself, and subsequently then the City Council in general to look at it from that vantage point, I think that's what we're here for to try and do just that. So if we can get support for this... I know you have my support so... um I see also Commissioners Donahue and Yin. Um I'll cede the floor now to Commissioner Donahue.

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: ability to have the ear of council as a whole or as individuals. Um, it just seems like uh like we talk about staff efficiency um and we're trying to introduce inefficiency and so I I don't understand the inconsistency.

[02:15:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin?

[02:15:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, well to my point if staff doesn't have the time then maybe we hire a consult- but I I agree I think even though we have the ability as individuals to make comments to City Council if it were to arise before them, I think as a body it is that much more effective.

[02:15:38] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And personally to me I think um it's such a big law and I understand its intention. Um I think that some of the fallout potential is great enough to warrant this being on the agenda for City Council to decide.

[02:16:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: You know, we make a recommendation, they have the power to say yes or no. And that this is just our way if, you know, the majority of us vote this way, that we feel like it's an important enough to put on their agenda. And so um I would be in favor of that um because it's it's more than the sum of our parts I think by by doing this. Um yeah.

[02:16:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Yin. Commissioner Dempsey?

[02:16:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Maybe I can bat cleanup here. This being item six which is just individual comments, not something that we're voting on, not something that was agendized. I will simply say I think you've probably got a good sense of how people here are feeling. Um I myself would probably ask just for a sort of a verbal update at the December 3rd you know, I probably would ask the Director that like, hey tell us what your latest thinking is and that would probably be sufficient for me.

[02:16:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um because I do think it's highly relevant but again I think I I don't want to create work unless that work is going to be impactful. And I think you now know that we think it's impactful and we t- you know, I myself trust you to come up with the most efficient way to help us be impactful on that. And that's it.

[02:17:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great so then that leads to Commissioner Yin. Oh, that's left over again? Oh, no worries. Okay. So so having said that that leads to my perspective on this as Chair. So question number one. How do we bring up something that we would like to be agendized? What is the protocol for that? That's the first question.

[02:17:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah I think the typical process is that the um Chair and the EPC liaison work on the format for uh the structure of upcoming meeting agendas. Um there is some judgment and input that may be needed from staff as to our ability to support particular requests.

[02:18:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think I've tried to make myself as clear as I could that I'm not sure that I can commit to providing the update of the sort that's been requested. And there's certainly not a a range of policy options or inputs to provide to the City Council at this time on this subject matter.

[02:18:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It's really a high-level significant policy-level discussion that the City Council needs to have to direct staff resources to weigh their own Council work plan priorities and other Housing Element obligations that the City Council is responsible for prioritizing and resourcing.

[02:18:39] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And so uh I think it's for those reasons I've tried to subtly indicate it but maybe I'm being a little more forthright at this point that um the message is clear, we will do what we can but I'm I'm not able to commit to us having a particular agenda item or update at this time given uh the myriad competing workload demands on staff uh that we're trying to accomplish between now and um you know Thanksgiving holiday period, Christmas, New Year holiday period and then gearing up for the City Council update uh in late January early February.

[02:19:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, thank you Mr. Murdock. So, I'm not going to go off on a speech. Uh just quick points. I think we understand right now Commissioner Cranston's perspective and the majority of the commissioners are in agreement of wanting to have some sort of update. I think we should look at this as a learning experience, right? Um tonight I was off my game and I tried to get back into it 'cause you know life happens.

[02:19:31] Chair José Gutiérrez: But let's try and think about these things as a team together to try and think ahead of the uh of the what ifs because right now we're looking at the future possibilities of what if this happens sooner rather than later. And if we have a competing city or well no if we have a neighboring city like Palo Alto already on it, we missed it. We we didn't have that vision to be able to bring that into play.

[02:19:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: And let's learn from it. So that we're not in this situation again come sometime in the future. Because we don't mean ill intent by that. You know, we understand the holidays are coming up.

[02:20:02] Chair José Gutiérrez: And I've had a a my life has been I've been privileged to work as a paralegal at major law firms. I Hank's a a JD I wish I would have gone to law school. It didn't happen for me but I do know this, I've missed a lot of Thanksgivings, I missed a lot of holidays, did a lot of overtime trying to get this done for high-priced clients so that we could win. So that we can inform them of what their options were so that we have better informed decisions in the end and best represent their needs.

[02:20:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: Not everyone can do that for whatever reason because we all have different paths and this city team's s- staff I trust your judgment and we just want to elevate the game. We want you to help us to get to that point where we don't have a missed opportunity because the last thing we need is to have something like that and then something comes in and before you know it we lost that chance to to be able to deliberate and be part of what we were appointed to do which is to get feedback to understand that feedback from the team that's who are experts and then to present recommendations to the City Council as an advisory body.

[02:21:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: And I I think we all can agree on that front. So having said that, let's adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Thank you everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →