Video
Transcript
Segment 1
[00:00:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: State law prohibits the Commission from acting on non-agenda items. 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. Mr. Clerk, any speakers submit yellow cards or on the Zoom list?
[00:00:29] EPC Clerk: None in person and none online.
[00:00:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. So looks like we have no takers then we will proceed to our public hearing for agenda item 5.1, the Small Business Streamlining and Other Minor Zoning Code Updates. We'll first hand it to staff for a presentation, then we'll have questions from the EPC and followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the Commission will then deliberate and then take action. So I think we can proceed with the staff presentation from our Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul and Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen.
[00:01:49] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Thank you. And good evening Chair Nuñez and Commissioners. I'm Madelyn Faul, Assistant Planner, and I'm joined by Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen to present proposed code amendments to City Code Chapter 36, known as the Zoning Code, related to streamlining permit procedures for certain small businesses and other minor code revisions and cleanup.
[00:02:18] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: The package of proposed zoning code amendments will implement various actions from the city's Economic Vitality Strategy (EVS) with the purpose of eliminating certain zoning barriers experienced by businesses. To implement actions 1.B.7 and 4.A.6 and strategy 5.D, the proposed amendments remove two of the largest barriers to small businesses in Mountain View by streamlining permit procedures and reducing parking requirements. Specifically, the amendments remove change-of-use permits, which disproportionately impact small businesses, and include reductions in required parking standards for retail and personal service uses. For certain small-footprint land uses, the amendments waive requirements for a conditional use permit and from new or additional parking. Identifying and addressing these issues will support businesses that offer goods and services that Mountain View residents value and encourage those businesses to locate in Mountain View, activating commercial corridors and centers.
[00:04:04] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: In addition to the Economic Vitality Strategy, staff has initiated the proposed amendments to: one, implement the Council Work Plan item of completing city code cleanups. The proposed amendments update inconsistent language and modify or add land uses and definitions to reflect modern land use terms and advance a more user-friendly zoning code. And two, staff routinely prepares minor zoning code amendments to align with state and federal laws, improve consistency and transparency, and update procedures.
[00:05:19] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: A major element of the proposed amendments are new streamlining provisions for small-footprint businesses. These provisions were developed by staff through review of planning use permits approved by the city between 2020 and 2025. These approvals were evaluated to find common patterns that could inform staff on the specific land uses to consider for streamlining, the maximum tenant space size to consider, and appropriate operational standards. Our review found that 37% of the permits (35 permits) were for retail, restaurants, personal services, and indoor recreation and fitness centers. Staff has also consistently heard interest in these types of uses during community outreach for recent precise plans and at the public counter. Also, staff found that the majority of these permits, or 86% of the 35 permits for active commercial uses, were in tenant spaces at or under 4,000 square feet. After conducting this review and based on our conversations with small business owners, commercial brokers, and property owners at the public counter through the permit process and through outreach, staff felt that these four listed uses were a good baseline for the streamlining effort. And staff is specifically referring to these as "small-footprint land uses" because the term small business can have many connotations.
[00:08:12] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Staff is proposing to geographically focus the streamlining provisions for small-footprint land uses within the city's existing commercial zones as shown on the map on your screen and in Attachment 2 to the EPC report. It's important to note that the package of amendments before the EPC tonight does not include any changes to precise plan areas. The changes we are discussing would only impact a precise plan area if the specific precise plan currently refers to the commercial zoning land use table. The qualifying land uses include the active commercial uses discussed on the previous slide and listed here. In the commercial districts where the four uses are currently allowed land uses, either permitted or conditionally permitted, staff is proposing these uses be permitted if they meet a list of operational standards which I will describe in a moment. Provided a business complies with these criteria, the new provisions would allow the use to be exempt from use permits and from providing new or additional parking beyond what already exists on the site. This streamlining would allow the applicant to submit directly for a building permit, which could save up to six months of time and $10,000 or more in permit fees and operating costs on the unoccupied leased space.
[00:10:10] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: This slide shows a list of the proposed operational standards for small-footprint land uses. These standards were developed through review of the conditions of approval placed on past permits as well as applicable city code requirements. The standards include the maximum tenant space size, compliance with other applicable codes and laws, and basic objective requirements for loading, solid waste, outdoor activities, noise, and any change in ownership.
[00:10:41] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Here's an example of how the small-footprint streamlining provisions are captured in the amendments to the commercial land use table. A new row is added with revised permit requirements for restaurants that are 4,000 square feet or less, and the existing land use would be updated to clarify that current standards continue to apply for businesses that are over 4,000 square feet. Additionally, staff is proposing to add language to the operational standards that if a business violates any of these provisions, the city will utilize existing enforcement actions should violation occur.
[00:11:57] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: To further implement the Economic Vitality Strategy, the proposed amendments also include the following changes. First, to stay competitive in the retail market regionally, staff recommends updating the minimum parking standards for retail and personal services to one parking space for 250 square feet. This is based on a survey of 10 cities in our region which was summarized in the staff report. Through staff's research, Mountain View was identified to have the highest parking requirement in the region. There's no need for the city to have such a high requirement compared to the other cities surveyed. Second, staff recommends removing requirements entirely from the zoning code for change-of-use permits, which is a use permit approved at the staff level. This permit can be a burden for businesses and a confusing step for applicants that are proposing a change of use from one permitted use to another permitted use. It can also take what should be a ministerial review and make it discretionary where conditions can be placed on the permit. If approved, both changes would have impacts in all commercial and industrial zoning districts and not just for small-footprint land uses. The changes to parking standards would impact precise plan areas only if the precise plan specifically refers to the zoning code.
[00:13:55] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: In addition to implementing the Economic Vitality Strategy, the package of proposed zoning code amendments includes a comprehensive set of minor cleanups which have been drafted to improve consistency and usability and add new land uses or update existing land uses with modern business types and definitions. The proposed cleanups can generally be categorized in the areas that are shown on the slide, which I will touch on briefly in the following slides. The majority of the amendments include broad updates to the residential, commercial, and industrial land use tables and the parking standards table to align land use category names throughout the code, to use similar formatting, grammar, and capitalization, and to incorporate appropriate references to sections where definitions and applicable requirements can be found.
[00:15:27] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: To add greater clarity to the zoning code, and in some cases to consolidate land uses, staff has proposed: one, adding new land uses. One example is public recreation, which will distinguish recreational facilities managed by a public agency from privately operated facilities. Two, combining similar land uses under an existing or renamed land use category to be consistent. And three, renaming an existing land use category to reflect a modern, more inclusive reference and to further improve the clarity of the land use.
[00:16:42] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: In addition to changes throughout the code, staff is proposing specific changes to the industrial land use table. These changes include: one, recategorize existing uses to align with land use terms used throughout the code; two, reflect allowable land uses not currently listed; three, add new land uses to meet current business conditions including adding outdoor retail as conditionally permitted in districts where retail can be located, and adding a shopping center, warehouse retail use to reflect existing warehouse retail centers in the MM zone; four, update permit requirements. Allow "office, research and development" to be permitted in MM zone, where currently requires a CUP; and five, rename existing land use for clarity. "Storage, accessory" renamed from storage to match the existing definition and to further distinguish the use from personal storage and warehousing which are already listed elsewhere in the zoning table.
[00:18:32] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Staff proposes the following changes to the required parking standards table: one, update land use category name to align with the land use tables; two, consolidate parking standards under land use name as some have multiple parking standards; and three, add parking standards for listed land uses including separately listing parking standard for each land use and removing combined references. And if no parking standard currently exists, then add requirement listed elsewhere in the zoning code, a parking study, or the applicable parking standard used historically.
[00:19:17] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Staff proposes to modify zoning code definitions to add new or update existing definition for new, combined, or renamed land use categories as previously discussed. In addition, staff proposes to add definitions for existing land use such as data centers or outdoor storage, and update existing definitions to reflect new business trends or to increase clarity.
[00:20:22] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Due to the combining of various existing land uses, there are certain land uses where the proposed updates have altered the zoning district in which a current land use is allowed or conditionally allowed. These are summarized on your screen; a summary table is also found in Attachment 4 to the EPC report. Most of these changes expand where land use is conditionally permitted with a CUP or expands where land use is allowed as permitted use. There is one use that would go from permitted to requiring a conditional use permit, which is plant nursery. The change would align the plant nursery with all other outdoor retail uses in the city and it does not impact any current businesses in the city. Overall, staff feels these alterations in permit requirements are appropriate based on the current businesses within the city and given the overarching effort to streamline and modernize land uses in the zoning code.
[00:21:57] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: In terms of community outreach, city staff discussed the proposed amendments with various members of the business community to verify they would result in meaningful improvements, including one-on-one meetings with brokers, property owners, and land use consultants, and meeting at the city's developer meeting and the Chamber of Commerce's business group. Staff received unanimous feedback that the proposed amendments are a positive improvement to support the retail and service business community. In addition, the business community expressed interest in expanding the streamlining provisions to certain precise plan areas like Downtown, San Antonio, and El Camino Real.
[00:22:30] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Moving forward, staff will present the EPC's recommendation on the proposed amendments to the City Council at a public hearing tentatively scheduled for February 24, 2026, followed by a second reading in early March. If approved, the estimated effective date is April 9, 2026. Additionally, these changes, if adopted, may precipitate corresponding precise plan updates to ensure consistency with the zoning code. Staff will undertake this effort as resources and workload allow. Also, staff will be evaluating expanding the ExpressPermitsMV building permit program to incorporate the four small-footprint land uses. For any Commissioners not familiar, this program allows for a more condensed review for building permit and it includes a scheduled Zoom meeting with city staff reviewers and the applicant's project team over a three-week time window.
[00:24:08] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: In conclusion, staff recommends that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the city council adopt an ordinance amending city code Chapter 36 and find that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Thank you for your time. Staff is available to answer any questions. Also here tonight is Amanda Rotella, Economic Vitality Manager, to assist with any questions. Thanks.
[00:25:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Ms. Faul. We will proceed to the questions portion from the Commission. Are there any questions that the Commissioners would like to field at this time? Commissioner Subramanian.
[00:25:32] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair, and thank you staff for your presentation. I had a couple of questions to clarify some of the points that were noted. In the staff report under parking and permit exemptions, number three, there was reference to the qualifying small footprint land use being exempt from meeting the minimum number of parking spaces, but I think elsewhere it speaks about exempting it from providing any new or additional spaces. So could you clarify what is intended there?
[00:26:51] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Thank you, Commissioner, for the question. So the intent is to essentially not require the business to provide any additional or new parking. So whatever parking standard is set in the parking standards table in the code would not apply. So whatever parking's available on the property would be sufficient. The caveat that is noted in the report that I'll just highlight now is the building code requirements about certain electric vehicle parking and accessibility or ADA parking would still apply.
[00:27:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for the clarification. So the idea is that the code would be updated to the new standards and therefore the businesses don't have to provide anything in addition to the new standard. Is that right?
[00:28:23] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, so there's two different points. In terms of the new parking standards, it really is the retail component and the personal service component that we are updating that parking standard in this package of amendments sort of across the board that would apply to any of those uses in the city. In terms of the small business footprint, it's only those four listed uses if they comply with sort of the framework we've established, then they won't be subject to adding any new or additional parking for what the stat standard set.
[00:29:01] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you.
[00:29:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.
[00:29:07] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Help me understand the reasoning behind running this analysis for all the commercial spaces but not for any of the kind of heavy retail precise plan areas.
[00:30:03] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: That's a great question. I think part of our effort here was to look at where we're seeing a lot of these permits getting triggered and what are those land uses. And so really we started from what we know, what the history, you know, tells us. And so for us, that was really a starting point. And so a lot of that is focused in the commercial areas. I will say the list of uses, I'm sorry, the permits history we did look at does include some of the provisional use permits that are in the precise plan areas. This effort, if you can't tell by the size of these attachments, is quite large. And so I think we wanted to focus on what we felt was achievable in this first pass. But as we mentioned towards the end of the presentation, you know, there is an effort of carrying some of these cleanups and other effort into the precise plan areas. I will highlight a number of the existing precise plans already allow for some of this streamlining. So the effort really is to look at where do we need to make further tweaks.
[00:31:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Does that include any of the big three: the San Antonio, El Camino and downtown?
[00:31:54] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, so a number of them, the way those provisions are set up in those precise plans already allowed for some of the streamlining that our current commercial zones don't allow. So some of it's already being achieved. I think part of the effort and the additional work we need to do is to see where are those where are there still differences that we may need to tweak.
[00:32:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: The this probably not data that you have right now, but I think this might be a useful data point for when the Council sees it. If you could give me a sense of how many of the small footprint retail businesses in Mountain View are going to be covered by this change and how many are left out of it, I would be very interested to know that. So if you could tell me you're going to get 80% of the small footprint small businesses in Mountain View by doing what we're doing here, I'd say right on. If it ended up being like 60, 50, I'd be concerned because actually I so support this isn't comment time, so let me just say, I think the work done here appears to be really good work and I would love to see it applied more broadly if we can do that with relative ease. So anyway, I think that data point would be useful for further iteration.
Segment 2
[00:33:41] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Yeah, and what I would add to that, and I appreciate the comment, is essentially based on the surveyed history we see the four uses we're talking about is 37% of the use permits we see. So it was the majority by far in terms of packaging uses, you know, of a similar kind that are having an impact. So we'll see what data we can pull, but I hear what you're saying in terms of it would be helpful information. And I do think just the fact that the Chamber raised it as an important next step is another piece of data that suggests probably going to be some value to it.
Segment 1
[00:34:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[00:35:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Excellent. And we are in the question phase, appreciate the commentary just in the vein of kind of keeping this rolling here. Questions, Commissioner Pham.
[00:35:15] Commissioner Tina Pham: One of my questions was already asked by Commissioner Dempsey, so thank you for that. Another question I had was just more general context around the motivation for this work. I know some of it came from Council and Council priorities, but was there any motivation or influence regionally or statewide for some of these amendments?
[00:35:39] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Appreciate the question, Commissioner. I think, you know, a lot of and what we sort of tried to identify in the beginning of the staff report, it is a common practice for us here in the city of Mountain View every couple years to come forward with kind of a package of minor code amendments and cleanups, so it's not unusual for us to be doing that. I think a lot of the focus here was on implementing the Economic Vitality Strategy and sort of the small business focus. I'd say a lot of the cleanup effort, quite honestly, sometimes when you introduce new staff, new regulations, new state law, you start realizing there's things we could clean up and present better in our code and I think that's really all the effort a lot of the effort here is is a lot of that. And I think also just hearing a lot of the feedback and in implementing the code and hearing the feedback we hear from the the business or property owner community helps also kind of drive some of the list of of amendments we do and making it, a lot of the effort in this package of amendments is really to make it easier for someone to track their use across the different aspects of our code, which is really challenging for someone to do today. So a lot of this is to try and build a better user interface with our zoning code both from a public perspective and business perspective and also from a staff implementation perspective. So I'd say, you know, it's a lot of those things wrapped up into this package of cleanups.
[00:38:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And Chair if you'll allow, good evening, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. All of the reasons that the assistant director mentioned are important and relevant. I'll say another driving force from my perspective in giving direction and guidance on this work is vacancy elimination. Vacancies are problematic when they occur in our community and eliminating barriers for small businesses to open, particularly low-hanging fruit where we can resolve parking issues proactively that we know even after going through the process don't surface as ongoing operational issues, is important. The time and the cost associated with obtaining these discretionary permits is significant for small businesses and it leads to them failing because they consumed so many resources early in that process or looking for some other community to locate in and not resolving a vacancy in Mountain View. And so to the extent we can speed up the time that those vacancies are are resolved and occupied by businesses that want to locate and thrive in our community, that's important work and that's a driving force for this as well.
[00:40:19] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any further question? No? All right. Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Cranston.
[00:40:29] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Wait long enough? Okay. For people that are wondering, I've been told that they can't hear me on the things, so they gave me a microphone. Um, so several questions. The 37% that were in these categories, can you characterize what the other 63% was?
[00:40:53] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, so a number of them, I think examples were listed in the staff report, but essentially there wasn't a lot of consistency across the board on what some of those other uses were but they range from things like office, research and development, we've done school CUPs, childcare-related CUPs. I think that's what's coming to mind.
[00:41:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then of the 86% that were under 4,000, were all of those in this category or were some of these retail, restaurant, personal service, indoor larger than the 4,000?
[00:42:14] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: I apologize, Commissioner, you're asking of all the 95 permits?
[00:42:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So on slide four, you say that 86% of the 35 permits were for tenant spaces under 4,000 square feet. Okay. So that was limited to these four categories?
[00:42:33] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Correct.
[00:42:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, all right. Of those, how many of those were located, so when you look at the map, there are areas that are I tend to think of as retailish, you know, a shopping center of some kind, a plaza of some kind, but there's also three the three largest blocks are not. Okay. The area along Middlefield, the area along Moffett, and the area that's kind of tucked between 237 and 85. How many of those permits were into those in those large areas rather than in the other areas that were included?
[00:43:52] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, I appreciate the question, Commissioner. I don't have necessarily a specific breakdown, but I can say that we do get a frequent amount of CUPs in the CS zone along Old Middlefield Way. And we do get a handful in the CN or the commercial neighborhood zones, which are the primarily the shopping centers. And then we would get a smaller portion of them in the CRA zone, which is along Moffett. And we get very few if any in the CO, the commercial office.
Segment 2
[00:45:00] Peter Katz: economic vitality study have unfortunately become barriers to our ability to attract the kinds of businesses that residents want and need in Mountain View. The zoning code needs updating to reflect modern business trends and to support the vitality of our commercial areas and retail centers, many of which have struggled to fill vacancies over the years. The proposed changes will proactively remove zoning barriers and encourage a number of popular businesses to locate in our shopping centers and commercial areas, such as personal services businesses, indoor recreation studios, and fitness centers.
Segment 1
[00:45:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Do you have any way of assessing who what we're not seeing when given the current what we have here today, what are we not getting? Because I am I'm it's one of the things I'm struggling with is this is a I'm generally like the idea but I'm a little worried that this is narrower than it should be. So how do you do you have any way of getting a feel for what's missing at all? I mean, have you as you talk to brokers that said they just won't bring something even into Mountain View simply because it's just not something that's feasible? That's what I'm trying to get a some sense of.
Segment 2
[00:45:36] Peter Katz: In particular, the streamlined process for small format uses less than 4,000 square feet will significantly reduce the timeline, cost, and risk for small businesses wanting to open up in Mountain View. We often hear from our members that Mountain View has a reputation for being a tough town to do business in and that many desirable businesses are choosing to locate elsewhere. These zoning changes will make Mountain View more competitive, help us attract the kinds of businesses Mountain View residents want and need, and they will go a long way towards demonstrating that Mountain View is a business-friendly city.
Segment 1
[00:45:51] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, I'll be honest, Commissioner, it's a hard question to answer in the sense that we had to start this exercise somewhere and so I think for us it was starting with what we know historically and what we've heard consistently. I think sort of what I'm hearing you ask is almost like a larger study of of what sort of retail marketplace, you know, we could attract or services we could attract that we don't currently have, which wasn't necessarily part of this scope or effort. But I think for us, this was really an exercise of starting somewhere. And I think starting where we hear and interact with customers the most, which is really at this ground floor sort of as the director highlighted, sort of low-lying fruit that we know is uses trying to locate here and so improving that existing process. But in terms of a broader study, that would take a much different effort to undertake.
Segment 2
[00:46:04] Peter Katz: Let's keep it going. We hope the city will extend these changes to many of our precise plan areas where we've seen similar changes. Again, we thank staff for responding to input from the business community and property owners and for working collaboratively with us and for all your hard work on this. We are very excited to see this move forward to the City Council for approval. Thank you.
[00:46:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Katz. Mr. Clerk, any other speakers?
[00:46:37] EPC Clerk: No more.
[00:46:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Then in that case, we will proceed to deliberation from the Commission and then take action. Any commentary or input from the commissioners? Chair Gutiérrez?
[00:47:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yep. I like the changes. I like that there was an initiative there to engage with the community, especially the business community in general, but just overall to also find out what's going on around us so that you can make the best decision possible to present to the EPC and then move forward with suggested changes to the zoning codes. One way or another, when you have that type of initiative and proactive perspective, things do get done. So I thank you for being able to look into that and to bring us something here that we can all agree on will help move the needle.
Segment 1
[00:47:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, the decision to extend the rules for these into the other areas that aren't included in this, why was that decision made?
Segment 2
[00:47:31] Chair José Gutiérrez: And that you're also thinking about the future perspective of how to incorporate this within other precise plans accordingly, right? Based on workload and opportunity. We don't know what that may look like for you all because you all know your schedule better than we do. But anytime you have the chance to do something like that at that level, that would also be appreciated. And just a friendly reminder to members of the community, like with the Chamber of Commerce or other business owners in general that are interested in future potential sites, if you see and encounter issues with the City of Mountain View and any step of the process you have when you interact with us to open up a potential business and you see an opportunity to give us constructive criticism, we're here.
[00:48:10] Chair José Gutiérrez: You can talk to us, you can email us, us or the team or City Council. It's not like it's a one-way conversation, right? It's not just always initiated by the city. Sometimes big changes also happen when we get that type of feedback along the way. So we appreciate your time and patience with all that. Thank you, team.
Segment 1
[00:48:24] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, so I think in terms of why we didn't go beyond the commercial districts, we have a number of precise plans, I think again trying to take this effort and have a starting point this was something we felt like we could achieve and bring forward and see its impact. I think in terms of the effort of undertaking our the review of the numerous precise plans we have would be a larger undertaking that we just didn't think we could do in combination with this effort at the same time.
Segment 2
[00:48:27] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Chair Gutiérrez. Commissioner Pham.
[00:48:30] Commissioner Tina Pham: I want to thank staff for all the work here. It was a lot of work based on our read, and it's great to have a lot of community support for this. And you explained the motivations very well, so it was, you know, easy to understand and easy to get around. One, one thing I would ask that you consider, potentially for the council audience, is some sort of language to explain your guys's plan to expand this to the precise plan. I know that you mentioned it may be impacted by workload or other priorities, but just some general paragraphs or thought about how it could work out and what it may look like in schedule would be helpful for that council audience. That's all.
Segment 1
[00:48:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That wasn't actually my question. Let me ask it a different way. Um, things like the parking standards are being extended to areas that are not part of what you're calling a small-footprint land use streamlining. Those parking standards affect businesses that don't fit into these categories. Why were something like the parking standards extended to other things in the in the standards that don't meet the same kind of characteristics as these kind of businesses are?
Segment 2
[00:49:21] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Paul Donahue.
[00:49:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I also think this is great. I think that it's clear that this is not something you just did last week, that it's taken a lot of effort to get here. So thank you for that. I think it really, well hopefully will help the small businesses. You know, that's, we'll see, but that's the goal and I think that's a worthy goal. I think that the parking standard, I mean Mountain View is a special city, but I don't think it's special in how much parking is necessary for certain uses. So I think that aligning with some of our kind of peer cities makes a lot of sense.
[00:50:10] Commissioner Paul Donahue: And other miscellaneous changes I think are also important. I like one thing that stood out to me was replacing churches with religious institutions. I mean we have the Buddhist Temple here, right? That, that I think being more inclusive in that way is, is great. And many of the other language changes I think are great. So generally I'm supportive and good work.
Segment 1
[00:50:11] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, so I think in terms of the and we'll use the example of the parking standards for retail and personal service, when we did the survey seeing that we had the highest standard for us was sort of a red flag of why we're not potentially one of the issues of why we're not attracting retail. And so for us, it seemed like a very straightforward thing we could take an action on and propose for consideration in terms of trying to alleviate any of the zoning barriers we might have for that type of use, especially since we hear about it so much at community meetings and other outreach efforts as an inter-, you know, a use that is of interest. And you're correct, it does go beyond the small-footprint business framework we're talking about, but it is still centralized on the commercial and industrial zones and a handful of the precise plans that reference the parking standards. But I think for us that was a that was one way to additionally address the Economic Vitality Strategy action item related to parking barriers.
Segment 2
[00:50:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Donahue. Commissioner Dempsey.
[00:50:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Vice Chair Nuñez. Let me be stunningly unoriginal and say I also like this, and I really want to commend staff for putting so much good work into, you know, into code hygiene, which doesn't get the respect that it deserves. It's like actually really important to do cleanup. So, so I love what you're doing here. I think the only, I wouldn't even call it a criticism, the only request I would make is I want more of this. I think it's valuable when you do this and I would love to see it expanded to the precise plans. In fact, you know, I'd love to see some, just as Commissioner Pham said, some conversation about when this might, you might be able to do that, because here's what I worry. My worry is there's so many other things that the city has to do, that when will the window open to do this again? A year from now? I think that's potentially a pretty significant loss.
[00:51:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Especially for the precise plan areas where we, we talk a lot about vacancy and we worry about those vacancies. If this is going to be useful, if it's going to be helpful, like let's, let's take a good idea and have more of it. So anyway, bravo for that. The only part that made me worry was the reduction in parking requirements. I always worry about that. A lot of times there's nothing we can do about it. I do want to commend staff, you did an excellent job of explaining precisely why it needed to be reduced and why that was a reasonable choice. That was probably the best explanation of why, why we're going to do what we're going to do. Um, so I thought that was fantastic and I just, I want to praise you for that as well. So good work. More of it please. Thank you.
Segment 1
[00:51:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I think that's anything else I have would be more in the discussion section, so I'll hold.
[00:52:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Paul Donahue.
Segment 2
[00:52:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Cranston.
[00:52:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm going to say first I like the direction here. I will, but I need to, so I'm going to come across as a little bit negative, but I need to give some context, okay? So I am a small business owner with 3,000 square feet of space. Um, when I looked at this, I did not immediately when I saw small footprint land use streamlining, I thought, oh this is me. This is not me. Okay? It is not me at all. This labeling this as small footprint is for consumer small consumer-facing small footprint. And so let me walk through my concerns here, because so I'm, I agree with Commissioner Dempsey this needs to be extended, but there's some things in here that I don't believe we should be doing because they would actually hurt some place like me.
Segment 1
[00:52:16] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So I just have one remaining question and and it relates to something I think that Commissioner Dempsey was talking about. So you said that this doesn't apply to the precise plan areas I understand that unless the precise plan specifically refers to the standards of a commercial zoning district. So do you have any sense of, I don't think that you answered this, but do you have any sense of which precise plans or how much of the precise plan areas do that?
Segment 2
[00:53:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: My business is, I'm a, I'm a small printer, okay? I think of myself as more of a commercial printer. It's not a copy shop. I'm not a, you know, FedEx Office. Um, but I do business with consumers. People want, I got a call today, somebody wants to do their wedding invitations. Somebody's, you know, son got killed, they need a poster for the funeral. Um, they need business cards. The churches. But I also do stuff for events. And I do stuff for, I do graphics for business windows, okay? So these kind of places that you're talking about here want to put something on the window that says, hey we're open from 9 to 5, so I'll make the graphics for them. So it's not, I'm not consumer-facing, I'm more the business services piece.
Segment 1
[00:53:20] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, we actually have a slide as a backup because we thought this might come up. Um, there's five precise plans explicitly that reference the zoning either the zoning land use table or specifically reference the parking standards in the zoning code or specifically reference what I'll call the exempt or certain uses or scenarios that are exempt from a planning permit, which is where we put language related to the small-footprint business exemption. So these five have some element of these amendments where it would relate back to them. And so I'll just take for example the downtown parking or the downtown precise plan currently has references to the parking standards of other listed land uses in that precise plan. If it doesn't have the standard in it today, it refers you back to the zoning table. And so there are scenarios where adopting this package of amendments would effectively make change in some of these areas.
Segment 2
[00:53:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And as I looked through this, I had, actually I went back to the beginning, I'm like did I miss something? And I realized yeah, this isn't me. Um, this is very focused on the things that are consumer-facing. And some of the things in particular would actually make it harder, in particular the parking standards, okay? The extension of the parking standards. You're saying it's too, it's getting too low. It's the, it's way too high. Okay? I have 3,000 square feet of space. About 40% of my space today is equipment and inventory. I'm trying to add another piece of equipment that'll take me to over 50% of my space being equipment. That means out of the 3,000 square feet, I need to have 12 parking spaces and I have four employees.
[00:55:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: There's a similar business in Sunnyvale that's double my size, 6,000 square feet, and he's got eight employees and he lives with 10 parking spaces. Saying that I need to, we need 250 square feet per, for these other areas. And in I don't, I don't have the, the delivery van and the, and the, and the trailer that he has, but he would actually have to have 26 parking spaces for something where he needs 10. So the extension, I'm, what I'm concerned about, I like the changes for the customer-facing pieces. I'm really concerned that the, extending these into areas that were not part of what you looked at is going to actually make it harder for somebody to actually move into the city.
Segment 1
[00:55:20] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Yeah, great, that's very helpful. Thank you.
[00:55:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right, I have a question then. It regards to the recency of the parking analysis. So in the presentation, I think you guys mentioned that we're currently the, you know, that 180 number is the highest amongst our kind of like neighboring cities. Um, was any accounting done for the recency? So for example that 250 number that would bring us on par with Sunnyvale, for example. Was that a standard that just got revised to get to that 250, or is it like some number from the 1980s? Or how do we know that, you know, they're not looking at their own parking situation and going, "oh, right, I guess," are we modernizing how do we know we're not modernizing to something that's going to be unmodern in, you know, five years or something like that?
Segment 2
[00:55:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: There used to be a business like mine in San Fran in, in, in this, in this area, okay? And it went out of business during COVID, it hasn't come back. A lot of printers went away. But I could never, with, with these requirements, I could never afford to have 12 parking spaces in addition my 3,000 square feet, okay? The definitions in here today, the changes that are being made. Printers today, I have large format printers, I do window graphics. I don't just, I don't do, I do quick copy. I do posters, I do banners, you know. Grand opening for my new restaurant. Yay. Okay? That's what I print, okay? Menus, I print those. Business cards for the people, I print those. I'm not, I'm not the consumer, but I'm serving, I'm one of those business services pieces.
[00:56:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And the definition that's been in here for I started looking for things, okay what's, I, I would not meet the criteria for what a printing business does. I drove past a, a place that does, um, the stuff you put on window, um, like in cars, um, privacy, you know, where they want to tint their windows. There's nowhere in this definitions that would cover that kind of a business. I drove past one that does vehicle wraps. Is that a consumer-facing? It's most, most of the time vehicle wraps are being done for businesses. They wouldn't fall in here either. So I'm, I'm concerned that, so for the areas that this is focused on, which is the consumer-facing pieces, I'm in, okay? I'm really worried that the areas that weren't part of focus has have not had sufficient attention to be actually to be incorporated into the changes we're recommending to council.
Segment 1
[00:57:03] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, great question. In terms of the surveying done, it was based on all the existing zoning parking standards that these cities have available. So I'll be honest, I don't know the timing of all of them, but again for us it was a very evident sort of concern that we were the highest when we surveyed these cities. And these cities are ones that have popular downtowns and popular commercial centers and corridors. And so for us, it seemed like a very straightforward move. I do know at least some of the handful of cities have more recently looked at their parking standards. I know a portion of City of San Mateo did, I know a portion of Sunnyvale as well. And so there are certain cities where they've definitely done some more recent updates, but I don't have specific dates or timeframes for that.
Segment 2
[00:57:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And I think we need to go back and look at those before we make those, make the changes that go that far. I'd be happy to give you my thoughts on the commercial printing business and, and the things that kind of touch that, but I don't know somebody who does, you know, um, you know, engine modifications or, you know, a lot of other things. A lot of this stuff, the reason I asked about Middlefield and the area over by, um, the 237/85. Those are not primarily consumer-facing streets, okay? Yeah, people can go in there get their car repaired, um, but there's a lot of other businesses in there that are doing other things. There's a, I can think of a camera repair place, there's, you know, there's I mean there are some high-end vehicle repair locations, but there's a fair number that wouldn't fit in this.
Segment 1
[00:58:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Subramanian.
Segment 2
[00:58:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And that's part of my reason for asking about the, these strip things because if somebody wanted to add another, you know, a landlord wanted to add a business to fill up one of those spaces and had to add, you know, 20 parking spaces for business that doesn't exist, you know they would never be able to rent that space. So I don't know how, I don't know how to fold that into this discussion because for the focus of the what I when I went back to the beginning and read, okay this is the consumer-facing stuff, I like it. I'm really not in favor, I'm not on board with the extension of these things into areas that aren't consumer-facing. And because they're, they would actually make it, I could not move into Mountain View to do this. The business that went out of business during COVID could not move back into the city under these rules as the way they are today as a business services. So that's my... like I said, I like the consumer-facing piece. I'm in. How do we amputate the business piece or call it phase two, um, for a follow-on to address these other areas? That's what I'm, that's what I'm worried about and I will let staff tell me how we would do something like that. But I don't know that I could support this as is without finding some way to amputate that portion for small footprint land use phase two, okay? Thank you.
Segment 1
[00:58:40] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. I have a quick a follow-up question. Recognizing that the revised parking standards will probably be applicable to any new businesses that are coming in, how do you see the impact of this being applied to existing businesses given that a lot of legacy retail has the larger parking? Is there a process in which some of this can be applied at a different stage to them as well?
Segment 2
[00:59:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes, staff, any commentary on kind of in what ways business services were accounted for in the plan or any kind of amelioration or resolution to Commissioner Cranston's concerns there?
Segment 1
[00:59:14] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Um, great question. I think in terms of how these new parking standards if they go, you know, get adopted and go into effect would impact existing sites, it's really going to get triggered only if they have a turnover in tenancy in which case if they are already parked at today's standard they'd have no problem meeting the new standard, which to some extent may be a benefit for those properties because they might be able to have a different mix of uses on the site that were maybe more challenging to meet under the current parking standard. So there are benefits in that regard, but it really only gets triggered when there's some sort of permit request coming in.
Segment 2
[00:59:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I'll just start by saying, um, we're not here telling you that we're done. Our code needs a lot of work, our precise plans need a lot of work as well. As the Assistant Director mentioned, um, you know, speed was important, right? In the ability of what we could put together and bring timely to respond to identified, um, business community needs was important to us. And so we didn't want to stop and try to do the omnibus, you know, code modernization process and be done in three years and have a bunch of businesses fail or vacancies remain and persist. And so this is what we could do efficiently, effectively, and quickly, and that's why we've brought it. Um, receiving this feedback about what, you know, priority next step items would be is very helpful to us, and so we'll take that feedback and put that into our, our work planning to the extent that we can.
[01:00:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Murdock. Yeah, Chair Gutiérrez.
[01:00:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right, cool. Um, so I have a quick question now that Commissioner Cranston brought this up. Christian and team in general, the way that Commissioner Cranston described his business, would that under our terms and understanding for the definitions you gave us as consumer-facing businesses, would his business fall under that auspice or is it something else?
Segment 1
[01:00:37] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you.
[01:00:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Gutiérrez.
[01:00:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Chair. I have a couple quick basic questions. So when you looked at the comparisons with other cities regarding the parking space allotment, were you able to also figure out or determine if there was a positive impact with those spaces that might have been not rented out or leased out to then have a business opportunity show up? Because it would be nice to be able to see that correlation and say well, in Sunnyvale they did this or in the other surrounding cities when they did this they had a certain percentage of vacancy and then afterwards the percentage of vacancy decreased. And if you brought that up earlier in the report forgive me I I missed it because I came in late, so.
Segment 2
[01:00:41] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Um, well I guess part of the question would be, um, so we have two different categories he could potentially fall under for that type of business. It could either be printing and publishing, which is a use in our code. We also have a use called business support services today. Um, and so there is some photocopying type uses that are in that, and that's typically more of a business-to-business type of sales. Um, and so, um, you know, those would be the two different uses that we would consider for, for the description he gave for his business.
[01:01:17] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you.
[01:01:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Then I will make commentary. Um, I, I do like it, um, as well. Um, you know, I, I in particular am very, um, receptive to the idea of making sure we can do something now, um, rather than, um, yeah, um, not being as nimble as, as we could be in the moment. Um, one thing I'm trying to, uh, glom onto as well, Director Murdock, you said that there was an opportunity to, you know, kind of, um, move forward by also, uh, I think as you mentioned in that vein of not being done yet, right? And us having an opportunity to kind of give affirmative feedback on what's the next kind of priority area we would like to have the Council, um, look at or consider. Um, is that kind of business service orientation, um, something that we could, for example, um, you know, move this forward with an additional kind of, you know, guidance from the Commission that, you know, business service distinguish- or differentiated is, is a priority item that we'd like the Council to consider as well? Is that is that something that would be able to, to do as part of this action?
Segment 1
[01:02:29] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you and and I'd appreciate that. I'm thinking a couple members of City Council might be interested in that that's why I also brought that up just because it's always good to have some sort of exemplar like you had the which was awesome I like it when you anticipate some of the questions that we may ask and all of a sudden you have a slide just in case, right? That's awesome. And then the other basic question is for the city attorney. Good to see you again. When you look at when I look at the findings that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. I've always wanted to ask this and I and it triggered my curiosity even more when I saw the article earlier today on the Mountain View Voice where Los Altos is having some sort of lawsuit over a CEQA quote-unquote violation. How do you all check that to make sure that it's not covered by CEQA? Do does the team check with the city attorney office and do they in turn check with the state agencies somehow somewhere or how does that process work where you can say exactly what you just said which is finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act?
Segment 2
[01:02:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I don't think we'll be able to add that work in, you know, to catch up to the Council process as part of this. I think hearing from the individual commissioners as we have about other areas they wish could have been a part of this is as much as we need I think at this point in time to think about um, how we might prioritize the next stage of work. Um, there's already the need to prioritize the precise plans for this work, and so again you can see how this work can easily um, agglomerate into a significant effort. And so, um, we take these type of feedback and prioritization from commissioners and try to factor them into how we, we lay out and prioritize our work.
[01:03:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Right. Because I also heard from Commissioner Pham and Dempsey some desire around some kind of just directional input to Council on hey, we also want to understand a little bit more around how this is going to expand in precise plans. Um, and so, you know, I want to make sure that um, you know, we if there is that majority sentiment on that, not necessarily imparting it as like, um, hey this is what the party ought to be, but more like guidance from the Commission on um, what we think, you know, Council should explore as that kind of next prioritization item. Um, more along those lines because I, I am hearing, um, majority support here for this as is, but also want to make sure that I um, capture, um, if there's majority sentiment as Commissioner Pham and Dempsey are kind of, um, indicating, which I, you know, I wouldn't think is a bad idea as well and and obviously understanding you have your own work cadence and and you know structure that you need to um, be mindful of, um, just trying to thread that needle there. Is is that something that's possible in terms of because I know for sure I would agree, you know, I'd like to see some differentiation, you know, in the vein of not being done here, right? Um, in terms of facilitating business services, facilitating um, you know, a future with regard to how we're looking at the precise plans around this without slowing this down. Um, how does that land for you in terms of just like um, just possibility there?
Segment 1
[01:03:25] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Appreciate the question. I think, you know, did we specifically talk to city staff in those cities and ask them that question, I'll be honest, no, but it is definitely something we can follow up with some of the the cities that we know have more recent, you know, done more recent updates. I will caveat to say parking is often not the only thing that will bring in a tenant or business, but it is a major factor. So there's often a combination of things that cities do to try and streamline.
[01:04:08] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: So staff typically takes a look at what the action is and applies whatever categorical or statutory exemption if one applies and we work together closely on all the CEQA exemptions. In this case, we've identified two bases for CEQA compliance each as a separate and independent basis. But we do work together.
Segment 2
[01:04:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. So from my perspective it's about hearing what's important from the commissioners and then taking that back and figuring out how we can try to work that into other processes, other work that we have to do. What I'm not able to do is commit to you that what you provide feedback on tonight will become the priority. There's too many, um, too many other things I need to balance in that regard, of course.
[01:05:07] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Of course. Perfect. Good thing that's not the ask. Um, then in that case, um, I am seeing majority support for this. Um, you know, in terms of, I, I also share that concern, um, from Commissioner Cranston. Um, I'm also very amenable to Commissioner Pham and Commissioner Dempsey's view on kind of expanding this to the precise plan, just having some kind of understanding on that. Um, Commissioner Cranston, I will go to you in a second, I just want to make sure. Commissioner Subramanian, did you have any commentary on this before we...
Segment 1
[01:05:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thank you. And I'm sure I should have asked that before, but thanks for the response. I appreciate that. Those are all my questions.
[01:05:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.
[01:05:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Wait long enough? Okay. Um, for people that are wondering, I've been told that they can't hear me on the thing so they gave me a microphone. Um, so a follow-up to Commissioner at the end, I'm sorry I can't pronounce your last name very well, so Subramanian. Um, so I'm I'm trying to put this in in my head. I'm thinking of one of the places my favorite place for breakfast, it's on Middlefield, it's the it's a little restaurant kind of faces Middlefield, but it's in one of these a lot of the buildings along Middlefield are these kind of low almost like an office strip mall kind of a thing and they go back and there's like six units beyond it. If the tenant if they wanted to rent the space next to the restaurant would they have to meet the parking standard even though the building doesn't have anywhere near enough space to allow these kind of standards in anything except the one that's facing the street? Or is it because the building already exists they could do it anyway or is it simply they they could not even think to apply in those areas?
Segment 2
[01:05:40] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. I'm generally in support of what is being proposed here.
[01:05:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Cranston.
[01:05:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm going to make a motion. Um, is it possible for staff to pull up the exhibit on the ordinance itself and go to page 39?
[01:06:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Do we have a second?
[01:06:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Looks like Commissioner Gutiérrez is seconding. So we have a motion from Commissioner Cranston, seconded by Commissioner Gutiérrez.
[01:06:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Let me let me make the motion first. Okay, just letting staff know. Okay. So what I'm going to do is the is move that the addition and edit to the processing and production section be removed from the proposal in its entirety and reviewed at a future date. The biggest concern I have is in these kind of things all the business services fall under these kind of things and these are the ones that to me the change in the parking requirements makes them infeasible in the city in its entirety. So I believe these were, I believe these were added um, without it wasn't bad intention, okay? But I think the addition of these is actually making it more difficult for businesses to come into the city and stay than than they could otherwise and there wasn't sufficient diligence done on these things to adequately to see whether or not this is a positive or a negative. So my motion is the section starts processing production and ends on the next page at public safety facilities, that that section be removed from the proposed draft going to Council.
Segment 1
[01:07:12] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: If I'm understanding the question I'll start here. In terms of how parking standards are applied to multi-tenant sites, it's really when each use comes in we verify the parking is met. On some sites, and I'll use the example as a shopping center, they have one parking standard applied to the whole center so the independent uses it's not triggered as much because as long as they, you know, meet the five or six uses listed in a shopping center definition then we don't have to keep looking at parking over and over. For the multi-tenant sites, I know a number of them on Old Middlefield Way in particular, we do have to kind of look at it case by case. I will say the benefit of what we're trying to present here with the small footprint businesses is if you are one of those four uses we're not saying you have to add any parking or do any additional parking, we're basically saying you have to meet the basic accessible parking on the on the site which a number of these sites might already meet even if you have a new use go in and you would also need to meet the electric vehicle charging requirements under the building code.
Segment 2
[01:07:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah, so I wasn't aware that he was going to make that modification, so I withdraw my request to second.
[01:07:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Sounds good.
[01:07:51] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, could I ask a clarification of the question Commissioner Cranston posed? So without the addition of these parking requirements, what does the current code require?
[01:08:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I appreciate the question, the clarifying question. Um, currently, um, most of these uses would have no independently listed parking standard for the use listed, but what generally and historically has been applied is the if you look on page 37, it's the manufacturing and industrial general parking standard, which is the same parking standard as what has been delineated in that section. So the intent um, of these amendments was to simply match in this case what historically has applied to what the listed land use was. Um, and so in our zoning code, just for further clarification, in our zoning code if there isn't a listed sort of parking standard at all, um, it does defer to the zoning administrator to essentially make an interpretation on the parking and often, um, if it's not a listed parking that's a similar sort of use that may apply, it would be a parking study that would be required.
Segment 1
[01:08:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thank you.
[01:09:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, looks like that's all the questions. We'll move on to public comment for this item. 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. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, 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. Mr. Clerk, how many speakers do we have either in aggregate I guess in person and online?
Segment 2
[01:09:06] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. And so said another way, um, this was not intended to change the parking standard, it was intended to add clarity and connect the dots between uses and parking standards. Our code had a lot of gaps and inconsistencies and so this makes it clear that if you're one of those types of uses you're very clearly associated with a particular parking standard. There's less guesswork, there's less chance for mistake, misapplication of some other standard, or triggering a parking study that is a, you know, complex and costly endeavor.
[01:09:36] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yeah, thank you for the clarification.
[01:09:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.
[01:09:43] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah, and this is to staff and maybe you did just answer the question I'm about to ask and I'm being repetitive. I just want to understand the practical implication of the change to the motion that Commissioner Cranston had proposed. If you could just put it into plain English for me, what it would mean to do what he said.
[01:10:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. I think it would result in those uses from the zoning land use side reverting to what's in the code currently, which is a more generalized description of those kinds of uses without very explicitly saying it's those uses from the use side. So when you go from the use to the parking side, it's best to have a direct line from use to parking use and thus parking standard. Currently we do not have that for those uses, and so the line is squiggly, right? Or fuzzy and it's not clear where you draw that to in terms of a parking standard. You know, we try through training and common practice to be consistent but um, there's a potential for misapplication because it's not explicit that use A goes to parking standard for use A.
Segment 1
[01:10:14] EPC Clerk: We have one speaker in person and one online.
[01:10:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, can we do two and a half minutes?
[01:10:26] EPC Clerk: Sure. First speaker is Tim Vega.
[01:10:40] Tim Vega: All right, so my name is Tim Vega and I am president of the Nicholson Company and we are general partner of the Rengstorff Center up at 101 and Rengstorff Avenue. So just wanted to come in and kind of vocalize my support for the these amendments that are being made to the zoning. Streamlining the the codes is very important for us. I mean of course having vacant spaces is is deadly to us we want to be able to get our spaces filled as soon as we can. And kind of what drove this in 2025 is that we had possible tenant that she was a resident of of Mountain View and she wanted to open up a Pilates studio in our center and it just wasn't zoned correctly for that and so, you know, she had to start going through the CUP process, found it burdensome and decided to, you know, move on to a space in Sunnyvale that, you know, apparently was easier and quicker for for her to open it. So, you know, they've come to us for outreach and we've given them our feedback and, you know, so we just really appreciate the efforts that have been made to improve this situation. And that's all I wanted to say.
Segment 2
[01:10:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. So there'd be some net increase in applicant confusion about what exactly the rule would be.
[01:11:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think that's our sense that this increases clarity and reduces the chance for confusion or ambiguity.
[01:11:11] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston, I'm not seeing a second for the motion.
[01:11:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess just a how does it make it worse than what it is today? It just it what I'm suggesting is don't change it for now.
[01:11:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh, it wouldn't be worse than what it is today, um, but what it is today is not helpful or clear from the staff's perspective and this as is proposed by staff would at least improve clarity, um, while we, you know, endeavor to find a time in the future to do the work that you've described about finding what's the appropriate parking standard that doesn't disincentivize these businesses and enables them to function optimally.
[01:11:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm going to presume that that motion will not have a second. Anyone else would like to make a motion or further the discussion? Thank you. Chair Gutiérrez.
[01:12:08] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Chair. Uh, I move that we accept the recommendation by staff for the small business streamlining and other minor minor zoning code amendments as presented.
[01:12:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Do we have a second?
[01:12:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I'll second.
[01:12:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Donahue. All right. I think we can put that on the screen and Commissioner Gutiérrez, if you would like to read a motion at the right appropriate time, I think staff is ready.
[01:12:48] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. Uh, I move that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 Zoning of the Mountain View City Code to implement the economic vitality strategy by streamlining permanent processes for certain active small footprint land uses, remove change of use permit requirements, and reduce minimum parking standards for retail and personal service uses, to make other modifications, clarifications, and technical corrections throughout the chapter to align land uses in the residential, commercial, and industrial zones with parking standards and definitions to improve consistency and clarity, and to modernize definitions and land uses to align with current business trends, and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, in parenthesis attachment 1 to the staff report end parenthesis.
Segment 1
[01:13:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much for your comment. Mr. Clerk, we'll proceed with the Zoom comment.
[01:13:36] EPC Clerk: The next speaker is Peter Katz. Peter you should be able to unmute yourself.
[01:13:43] Peter Katz: Can you hear me okay?
[01:13:44] EPC Clerk: Yes.
[01:13:45] Peter Katz: Great. Thank you speaker and esteemed Commissioners. I'm Peter Katz, president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. I first want to say that the Chamber really applauds staff and their efforts and urges the EPC to recommend approval of these important changes to Council. As was said earlier, the Chamber has been consulted a number of times and overall we see a lot of this code cleanup as being overdue, necessary, and very beneficial, especially to our small businesses. Tim just gave one example I can give you many many more. As noted, some of the longstanding issues in the zoning code that are addressed here and raised in the Economic Vitality Strategy are significant barriers for businesses to locate and thrive in Mountain View. Reducing the complexity of the code and the costs associated with new tenancy will hopefully stimulate the marketplace and help reduce commercial vacancies. We especially like the removal of the Staff-level change of use permit as it will move us closer to a ministerial permit process for those types of tenant turnovers. And finally, the Chamber strongly believes that extending these streamlining provisions and cleanliness updates to our precise plan areas will only further help stimulate commercial activity across the city as those areas already contain a significant amount of our local business activity. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Segment 2
[01:14:04] EPC Clerk: The motion carries. Six yay and one no.
[01:14:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Having completed that item, we will now move on to item 5.2, Mixed-Use Residential Project at 490 East Middlefield Road. First we'll have a staff presentation, then questions by the EPC, followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the Commission will then deliberate and take action. We'll begin with a staff presentation from Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura and Principal Planner Diana Pancholi.
[01:15:03] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Real quick, we're just going to make a quick announcement. This is just to let you know we have a desk item um, for EPC related to this project. It is modifying the conditions of approval, which is attachment 1, exhibit A, um, for the proposed project. Uh, the changes have been shown in red line.
[01:16:03] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Tsumura, senior planner. Joined by Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. Item in front of you tonight is a mixed-use residential project at 490 East Middlefield Road. Okay, the project is on an approximately 2.86-acre site, is located on the northwest corner of East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street. The site is currently developed with a two-story commercial office building. The general plan designation is East Whisman Mixed-Use and zoning is within the P41 East Whisman Precise Plan. The surrounding uses include office buildings of varying height ranging from one to four-story buildings.
[01:16:52] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project is requesting a planned community permit and development review permit to construct an eight-story mixed-use building with 460 apartment units and ground-floor commercial. The project is approximately 391,775 square feet in size and includes a one-level at-grade parking garage with 442 stalls. Additionally, the project is utilizing state density bonus law for a 27 and a half percent density bonus above base units. The project requests a heritage tree removal permit for the removal of 29 heritage trees with a proposed replacement of 173 trees.
[01:17:38] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project also includes a request for a development agreement between the applicant and the city to utilize both the East Whisman Precise Plan residential bonus FAR program and state density bonus law to develop the additional floor area. As required under section 36.54.15 of the city code, the zoning administrator will separately consider and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed development agreement. So to clarify, the development agreement itself is not before the EPC tonight. It's going to be subject to a recommendation by the ZA and would be considered separately by City Council.
[01:18:05] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: As the project is providing approximately 15% affordable units, the project is eligible for a 27.5% state density bonus, so up to 100 bonus units from the 361 base units. The applicant is proposing 99 bonus units for a total of 460 units. The project is also eligible for up to one concession and unlimited waivers of development standards. The applicant is requesting one concession that the applicant has indicated would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs pursuant to state density bonus law, to provide the BMR units as the smaller unit type offering otherwise required to be of comparable size to the market-rate units per city code.
[01:19:00] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The applicant is requesting six waivers or reductions in development standards that would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the project at the density permitted. This includes relief from the East Whisman Precise Plan minimum six-foot paseo requirements, minimum private open area dimensions, minimum bicycle parking, minimum common open space, minimum ground floor height, and full PUE dedication along the project frontage. Staff has determined that the project could not be constructed without these concessions and development standard waivers as full code compliance would generally require a reduction in density bonus area.
[01:20:10] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project includes 55 affordable units at or below 80% of the area median income or AMI, and split between two income levels. This exceeds the city's 15% BMR requirement and provides for a wider variety of lower income units. Pursuant to city's BMR ordinance, the affordable units shall remain affordable in perpetuity. Aside from the unit size proportionality requested under the concession, the project complies with other requirements otherwise applicable under the BMR ordinance, including distribution of affordable units throughout the development and bedroom count proportionate to the market-rate units.
[01:20:50] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The site is comprised primarily of the proposed mixed-use building with ground-floor commercial uses along East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street. Surface parking and vehicle access is located along East Middlefield Road at the southwest corner and Ellis Street at the northeast corner, and a secured ground-level parking garage entrance is also located near Ellis Street. The primary residential lobby is along East Middlefield Road, which provides a mail and package room, leasing offices, access to the parking garage, a secured bike room, and residential upper-level floors, which include shared outdoor amenities and interior common spaces.
[01:21:35] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project features a contemporary design that is organized around a second-floor courtyard with upper-level roof decks that help break up the building mass. The building frames East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street and emphasizes the key corner with active ground-floor uses, public artwork, and vertical articulation to support a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Massing is stepped and articulated with balconies and decks to reduce perceived scale, and a lighter plaster palette with dark metal accents further softens the building's height and bulk.
[01:22:21] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The site contains a total of 112 existing trees: 25 heritage trees, 77 non-heritage trees, 5 heritage street trees, and 5 non-heritage street trees. The existing tree inventory is largely composed of mature parking lot and perimeter trees, many of which are in poor to fair condition due to constrained planting areas, proximity to the building, and long-term conflicts with overhead utility lines. The project will require the removal of a total of 107 trees including 29 heritage trees, four of those of which are heritage street trees, and 78 non-heritage trees, two of which are street trees.
[01:23:20] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Due to the poor health and growing conditions of the trees, as well as the comprehensive redevelopment proposed on the site to accommodate the building, as well as site and frontage improvements, the tree removals are necessary for project feasibility. There are very limited locations where existing trees do not directly conflict with the construction or the long-term building operations. However, four tulip trees and one coast redwood are proposed to be preserved in place along the Ellis Street side where project conflicts are not anticipated.
[01:23:57] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The applicant proposes a total of 173 new replacement trees with a minimum box size of 24 inches and proposed at a nearly six-to-one replacement ratio, which exceeds the city standard practice for a two-to-one replacement ratio for heritage trees. The new replacement trees are anticipated to create on-site canopy coverage of 44.5% at full maturity based on the project site open space area compared to 35.6% of existing canopy coverage.
[01:24:45] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project provides approximately 34,400 square feet of common and private open space, including a second-floor podium courtyard, roof decks on the fourth and seventh floors, and landscape areas throughout the site. Streetscape improvements include new detached sidewalks, landscape strips, and street trees along East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street with additional planting within the parking areas. While a waiver from the East Whisman Precise Plan open space requirements is requested, the landscape design meets the intent of the precise plan by enhancing usability, greenery, and pedestrian comfort.
[01:25:41] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project is within one-half of a mile of a major transit stop and is therefore not required to provide any parking per section 36.32.50 of the city code, as well as the East Whisman Precise Plan. The project is voluntarily proposing a ground-floor parking garage with 442 assigned residential spaces utilizing a stacker system with additional standard and accessible stalls and a dedicated moving truck loading space. Additionally, surface parking accessible from Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road is located along the north and west sides of the proposed building, with 20 spaces dedicated to residential use and 34 commercial parking spaces, as well as three loading spaces. The project will meet all required electric vehicle and accessible parking stalls per the city code.
[01:27:00] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Per the precise plan, projects with at least 100 units are required to provide a transportation demand management plan or TDM plan, with measures such as maximum parking and carshare requirements, bicycle parking, and membership in the Mountain View Transportation Management Association. The applicant has provided a TDM plan and meets all the East Whisman Precise Plan requirements for residential TDM measures except for the minimum bike parking requirements, which the applicant has requested a waiver for. The proposed TDM measures would result in a 14% peak hour reduction from all trips for the site and aligns with the precise plan goals of reducing vehicle trips and promoting alternative modes of transport. In addition, the project complies with the East Whisman Precise Plan streetscape design standards as the project is proposing an 8-foot-wide detached sidewalk as well as a 6-foot planter strip along East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street. Additionally, new curb ramps and repainted crosswalks will be provided.
[01:29:05] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: The project is determined to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. Standard conditions of approval have also been incorporated in the project resolution for additional site testing and a preliminary endangerment assessment to mitigate any potential hazardous materials to acceptable levels for future occupants. Per the VMT policy, the project is statutorily exempt and VMT is considered not to be an impact pursuant to CEQA PRC section 21080.66.
Segment 3
[01:30:00] Peter Katz: I think you've really got some talent between Jeff and Diana, and then the Public Works folks, Susanna and Quinn, have been just phenomenal along with Christian and Amber. So I commend you on the folks you've got, and you should be really appreciated, appreciate what you have because we work in a lot of different communities together. But Andrew's going to talk about the project. We're both going to be able to answer questions, whether it's about affordability or other aspects. We've kind of worked on it collaboratively. But why don't you take over?
[01:30:28] Applicant Andrew: Thank you very much, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. Really exciting to present this project. I think the first image here kind of gives you the context of where the opportunity lied for us. We knew we wanted to provide housing, we knew we wanted to provide high density housing. There's an amazing East Whisman Precise Plan and there's realities on the ground today which you can see is mostly commercial. So what we took upon ourselves was we need to create a vibrant project here. And we actually kind of started at the ground floor and really started with how do we create an area and a project that will invite people into the retail? And as you know, retail is very important for residential, the future of the precise plan, the future of the neighborhood, an amenity to the commercial now, and most importantly, an amenity to the residential.
Segment 2
[01:30:40] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: During the review process, the project was reviewed at a design review consultation meeting on September 3, 2025. Those recommendations focused on enhancing the streetscape, ground-floor activation, landscaping, and improvements to the building's articulation to alleviate building mass, accent colors, and materials. Subsequently, the applicant implemented changes in paint color and stucco texture, incorporated additional landscaping to the retail courtyards, and additional shading elements throughout the residential floors to enhance the residential character of the building.
Segment 3
[01:31:54] Applicant Andrew: So if you go to the next slide. What you can see is at the ground floor we provided as much ground floor retail as possible. And it will be our goal to bring in great retailers that are going to bring people from all over and hopefully bring other developers to develop residential around here. I know it is typical to do as little retail as possible because it's hard to make it work. In our view, it's worth the fight. One of our strategies for this project was also to pull people out of their units. So as you'll see, the units are on the smaller side. What that creates is a naturally affordable unit type, and it creates a new typology for what's probably more typical in Mountain View, which is bigger units, people stay in their units, we look around, everybody is staring at their phones and their computers all day. This is a building that's meant for community. We want people out of their units, we want people collaborating, hanging out at the pool, hanging out at the amenities, hanging out at the retail.
Segment 2
[01:31:55] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Typically staff recommends that applicants host a neighborhood meeting for projects of a project of this scale to gather community input during the project review phase. The meeting is not mandatory, but the project planner typically would attend the meeting if it is held. The applicant had declined to conduct a neighborhood meeting for this project. The project is tentatively scheduled for an administrative zoning hearing on February 11, 2026, for review and recommendation of the development agreement, and City Council for consideration of the EPC and ZA recommendation on March 10, 2026.
[01:32:11] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Also want to note that after the agenda for this hearing was published, staff identified some necessary modifications to attachment 1 and exhibit A, those are the project conditions, to modify some of those conditions based on applicant discussion. This includes modifications to conditions 5, 25, 33, 34, 45, 50, 67, 81, 84, 85, 127, 136, 138, 150, and 155. A list of the recommended revised conditions have been provided to the EPC as a desk item for consideration tonight and posted online for reference.
Segment 3
[01:32:28] Applicant Andrew: This is an image of the retail and how it actually coordinates with the gym and co-working space above. So you can see what we try to do is bring all those amenities to Middlefield as much as possible. So when you drive by, you feel a sense of vibrancy as opposed to privacy where a lot of buildings are very insulated, the amenities are in the middle, you don't really know who's inside. We really wanted to draw people out so when you drive by Middlefield, you want to stop and go here.
Segment 2
[01:32:31] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: In conclusion, the project is found to be consistent with the applicable development standards, achieves general plan and housing element goals by increasing affordable housing opportunities in the city and helps meet the city's regional housing needs allocation. Therefore, staff recommends that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution conditionally approving the planned community permit, development review permit, and heritage tree removal permit pursuant to the conditions of approval for the project attached to the council report, along with the modifications to the conditions of approval as described earlier. Staff received one public comment on the item, which has been provided to the EPC prior to this meeting via email and is also available on Legistar. And this concludes staff's presentation. Staff, Community Development Director Christian Murdock, and Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski is here tonight available to answer any questions you have. Um, the applicant is also here and they will be making a presentation. Thank you.
Segment 3
[01:33:03] Applicant Andrew: Next slide. Here's a shot at night. You know, the corner is where we're going to be working on some public art. We have some work to do there, but we think that corner is going to be very important, not only for the project, but for the neighborhood. And you can see we did try to break up the massing in terms of the retail, the residential, and how we finish it at the top.
[01:33:28] Applicant Andrew: So here's a floor plan of how the... this would be the top of the podium so how the pool, dog park, gym, co-working space actually flows throughout the project and how the units will have direct access to them. You'll see we have quite a bit of storage so we had to think a lot of what are the repercussions of going with smaller units? Well, one of them is storage. So you see there's a healthy amount of storage, a very healthy amount of amenity. Our hope, and if we're actually successful in this, those amenities are where people will be, they'll go to their units to sleep at night but we want to drive them out as much as possible.
Segment 2
[01:33:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Quick question around the precedence of that is our EPC questions. I guess is there a desired time frame for the presentation from the project, from the developer?
Segment 3
[01:34:10] Applicant Andrew: This is level three, there are some double height spaces so trying to break up those floor plates as well so you feel more grand in some of the areas and it's not... doesn't feel like a big box. And then level four will have a lot of outdoor space on top of the podium and gym deck and more in places to invite people to get out of their units. And then on the seventh floor you'll see a lot of different areas that are a little bit more private, you can book, you know, if you want to have a party with friends or people hopefully in the community, you can bring them in, you can book space and they're all outdoors and again the same theme of trying to bring it all off Middlefield. So as people are driving down they get a sense of vibrancy. That's it, minute and a half to spare. Thank you very much.
Segment 2
[01:34:12] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Our typical practice is to provide them seven minutes.
[01:34:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sure. Is that, are you ready, yeah?
[01:34:28] Public Speaker Brian Griggs: Andrew, take one. Vice Chair Nuñez, members of the Environmental Planning Commission, my name is Brian Griggs and I'm with my colleague Andrew Jacobson. Andrew's going to take the lead really on presenting our project and some of the motivation behind it and why we're really excited to bring this before you tonight. I'm going to take a quick moment to thank your staff, which has been really collaborative to work with. We've been able to process this fairly...
Segment 3
[01:35:03] Peter Katz: Thank you.
[01:35:10] Chair José Gutiérrez: Alright, then in that case we'll proceed to questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Gutiérrez.
[01:35:15] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Yeah, I have a question for the team. When I look at the EPC desk item, I need your help for clarification to conditions being modified, the first one which is five. We'll look at community benefits package down in C. Five units, three studios at 80% AMI and two one-bedroom units at 100% AMI in addition to the 15% 55 affordable units that are being provided at a weighted average of 65% AMI to meet the city's below market rate affordable housing requirement. These five units will be restricted to an affordability term of 10 or 15 years pursuant to terms in the development agreement. I need your help to understand that last sentence in plain English. What does that mean?
[01:36:47] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. What this is describing is an additional element of affordable housing proposed by the applicant. Specific to the last sentence that you asked about, Commissioner Gutiérrez, there are two potential terms for those units. The base term that would come along with the project is the 10 year term. There are other affordability provisions contained in the development agreement that's being contemplated that if those, the option for those is triggered by the city, then the affordability term would extend from 10 years to 15 years to align more effectively with those additional affordability provisions that are contemplated in the development agreement.
[01:36:50] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Oh great, thank you, I appreciate that. And then I have two questions for the developer. Can you please stay at the podium?
[01:37:08] Applicant Andrew: Good, how are you doing?
[01:37:10] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Good, good. So I have a quick question. So why did you decline to conduct outreach within the neighborhood and community?
[01:37:18] Applicant Andrew: So we've did a lot of iterations on the design, a lot of work towards this. We went to design review, we made a lot of changes from that. And given the vicinity is mostly office, we just felt we've got, we've done a lot of work, we've iterated a lot and we felt we landed in a really good spot from a lot of feedback from staff. So it wasn't we don't want to hear anymore, it was we've spent a lot of work on this and we really want to move this forward.
[01:37:48] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay great, and thank you for clarifying that. And then my other question is... I understand you wanting to have a certain type of community and you have a vision and you share that in a very professional way and I appreciate that so we can further understand the vision behind the community. My concern is you're focusing a lot with studio and one bedrooms. And ideally I would have liked to see what we don't have already which is more low income two bedroom units and very low income two bedroom units. Why the decision to go with zero for low income in 80%?
[01:38:22] Applicant Andrew: Sorry so why to go to...
[01:38:24] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Yeah why don't you offer two or three units at two bedrooms for low income in 80%. Right here you have zero. Am I understanding this incorrectly?
[01:38:33] Applicant Andrew: Is that page three to the staff presentation? We have zero at...
[01:38:58] Applicant Andrew: In the chart where you had the breakdown of percentages for types of affordable units, you'll note that there's a zero there for two bedrooms for low income and 80%.
[01:39:09] Applicant Andrew: For the low income? Because we put them into the very low income. Yeah. So why...
[01:39:14] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: So why not offer it in both columns? So go one and one, or two and two?
[01:39:19] Applicant Andrew: Go two and two? I mean these are... we spent quite a bit of work moving this around.
[01:39:28] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Right so I would expect an answer then if you've done a lot of work moving things around.
[01:39:34] Peter Katz: So you're saying two and two meaning four total? Well we only have 6% of the whole building is two bedrooms. So proportionately it would be 6% of the units and we've done it as 4%.
[01:39:48] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: So you're looking at it more from an economic perspective and not a community benefit.
[01:39:52] Peter Katz: Correct. I mean you can...
[01:39:55] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: That's all I need to know. That's all I need to know. Can you repeat what you just said please?
[01:40:01] Peter Katz: We have 6% of them are two bedroom units in the project. We're proposing 4% for this and having the other ones be studios.
[01:40:12] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay, so that's where the issue for me. When you propose community as a whole, I don't just look at it as an economic perspective. I understand your perspective and I hope that developers will understand more of our city perspective. For me I would think at minimum, especially when you're going to have profitability one way or another within this community because of the retail and the types of other people that you're trying to lure in there, two at minimum for low income in 80% I think is a reasonable number along with two at very low income 50%. And why do I bring that up? Because I'm concerned. I am not in your position nor do I claim to know what your position's all about. But knowing that Meta laid off 15,000 workers and in the last two years this area has had a strong number of unemployment numbers come in that affect the very same people you're trying to target, studio and one bedroom folks, people coming out of universities either with a masters or PhD or just joining the workforce. Man I wish you luck. Whereas I know if you were to have a little bit more two bedrooms in general I think you would have attracted families which is what we want and what we need because we've had this type of perspective in general years past. So that's why I ask the question. Thank you very much.
[01:41:21] Applicant Andrew: Appreciate that.
[01:41:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um and yeah I'm super presumptive that the applicants will be here for commentary as well so to extent that we are able to keep this to questions for now. Commissioner Subramanian.
[01:41:43] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you Chair. While we have the developers the podium, could I ask a couple of questions of you and then I'll turn to my questions to staff? Thank you for your presentation. Could you please share a little bit of the retail market study you conducted as well as the residential market studies you conducted? And a little bit about the retail, the type of retailers you expect to attract to the spaces you're planning, as well as the residential market study that determined your unit mix?
[01:42:22] Applicant Andrew: Yeah, great question. Reality is on the market study the retail, if we had gone off the market study the retail we would have said don't do retail. I mean that's just the reality today. What we need to do in this project is create a project within a project and we need to create a project that can house retail and can lure retail in that will actually thrive. And how you have to do that is lots of unit, lots of density and lots of vibrancy and people that tend to frequent retail shops. What we imagine in this are cafes, food and beverage first and foremost. You know we'd love to have small type market if possible. It's a very tough business right now. Hopefully that will change. But first and foremost we'll be focused on food and beverage and cafes and light bites and things like that. And you'll see in the retail we did actually flow that to the outdoors. And so we do want to bring people outside not just indoor retail. Our hope is they grab a coffee, grab food and then come and actually hang out outside the project.
[01:43:31] Applicant Andrew: In terms of why we went with this unit mix, we did cater this for single people and couples. Like at... I completely agree on this is not geared towards families, this is not geared towards people who want to be insular and stay inside their home. We're really looking for a specific tenant who actually wants to thrive in community which we feel in Silicon Valley is lacking and that's where we see the opportunity to be completely honest.
[01:44:06] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Next question. Could you talk a little bit about your decision around the building aesthetics and the choices you made with regards to materials and color composition?
[01:44:22] Applicant Andrew: Yeah, I mean I think if you look at the design when we first started to where we landed, it was a little bit more plain, a little bit simplified. When we went to design review we got a lot of great feedback. Where we went with that was a little bit more warmer colors. I think one of the biggest moves we made was actually adding quite a bit of balconies. Same idea of you know bringing people towards the outside of the building. So when you drive by it looks like a community that people live in. And then adding that double height space at the top we thought really broke up the massing.
[01:45:04] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Did you conduct a study of the surrounding neighborhoods and the new buildings that have come up in Mountain View and consider their palettes?
[01:45:15] Applicant Andrew: We considered the area directly around it. You know our view on this to be honest was come with something completely different and something new that isn't typically seen in Mountain View. This is probably a bit more of an urban typology than I think exists in Mountain View which is more everything kind of gets brought to the ground, there's walk-up townhomes and units on the ground floor, less retail. So I'd say to some extent we did but a lot of our thinking was how do we bring something new to the city.
[01:45:51] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. I have a few more questions for staff. So in your presentation, Jeff, I think you noted that the current mix as proposed provides 15.23% of affordable units. But when I run a quick number of 60 over 460 I get 13%. So could you clarify that?
[01:46:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Staff will confirm but I think that's based off of the base density, not the bonus density for the project.
[01:46:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, thanks for your question and thanks for clarifying. That is based off the base units on the project which is 361 units.
[01:46:40] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay so the base was considered on the 360 without the density bonus being added to it and so the 28% was all of the 55 without the five additional units?
[01:46:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the 27 and a half percent bonus is what brought the project up to 460 units total. So that's the additional 99 units.
[01:47:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Got it. I did not see specific mentions to what alternate was being proposed. There was some mention of no public utility easement being provided. So could you speak a little bit to the overhead line and what's being recommended for the utilities?
[01:47:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I think a representative from Public Works is able to assist with that question.
[01:47:51] Renee Ganz (Senior Civil Engineer): Good evening Commissioners, again my name is Renee Ganz with the public works department. So typically for this project we would ask for a 10 foot wide public utility easement along the frontage of the project. And that's to put in PG&E transformers, other things of that sort. In this case they provided us with a, excuse me, a detailed plan that shows exactly how much space they need and then we're carving out the easement to follow the space that they actually need. This is a common exception that we allow.
[01:48:35] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for the clarification. Those were all the questions I had. Thank you Chair.
[01:48:42] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. Commissioner Cranston.
[01:48:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, a few questions. The commercial parking is in the back of the building but the retail spaces are on the front. So there's no none of the spaces for people going to the retail are inside the building or are right in close proximity. Looks like there's stackers directly behind all of the retail spaces.
[01:49:09] Applicant Andrew: Correct. So there if you look at the ground floor in the garage itself there wouldn't be access for somebody going into the retail to go through the building. So you can think of that garage as a secure access for the residential. The at grade around the building is for the retail. So if you were to go into the garage and you don't have a key to actually fob into the building, you'd actually have to go out of the garage, around and so it's actually be further to be in the garage than outside the building. So all the retail has access from outside the building.
[01:50:27] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And right now there is no space that's allowed for delivery vehicles.
[01:50:32] Applicant Andrew: Yeah, there's delivery vehicle, there's space. There's a space for for moving and moving out but the lobby and the mailroom are in the front and there's no parking anywhere near that for Amazon or UPS or FedEx or whatever.
[01:50:49] Applicant Andrew: We have... where would that be? There's handicap parking and bike parking directly behind the the mailroom and the package room as shown on on the plans.
[01:51:08] Applicant Andrew: Yeah, in the top left it wouldn't be designated solely for the retail. I mean there would be some coordination on that but it's you know most retail deliveries are done in the early mornings. Or are you talking about like for DoorDash or Ubers? Is that what you mean? Or are you talking about delivery to the retail?
[01:51:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Deliveries to the retail, deliveries to the mailroom. It looks to me like all deliveries would have to be from Ellis or from Middlefield.
[01:51:40] Applicant Andrew: Yeah, so we could designate one inside for the mail but in terms of delivery for the retail, yeah there's a loading zone in the back there back left, right?
[01:51:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So it's located if you'll look if you're looking at the site plan right here there is a cross-hatched parking space coming you know where it says garage access from the from the rear. There is a loading space right there.
[01:52:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So in retail space A they're going to have to have the delivery truck park way down to that end of the building and walk all the way around and deliver their stuff?
[01:52:14] Applicant Andrew: Yeah.
[01:52:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: What's the height of the of the parking in that first floor?
[01:52:23] Applicant Andrew: 14 feet.
[01:52:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: How tall are UPS trucks and FedEx trucks staff? Do you know what that is? Could they could they come into that space?
[01:52:39] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yes, we can check on that.
[01:53:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Question for staff. The I thought that all new projects had to be electrical today. Is that not the case?
[01:53:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Commissioner, I can't make out your comments if you could repeat that please.
[01:53:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I thought the city required all new developments to be 100% electric today.
[01:53:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So that's not a requirement that the city is able to enforce anymore pursuant to a federal court decision from a few years ago. What we have contemplated in the development agreement context, which again is not within the purview of the discussion tonight but for context, is to seek to design the building with as much all electric as many all electric systems as possible save for some of the common area like fire pits, pool, spa heaters and so forth that really don't function like that as well as the retail space cooking appliances that might be needed for a restaurant with with gas fuel. So a strong intent from the applicant to maximize all electric design for the building.
[01:55:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So a question before I go onto the next question then. So aren't we supposed to consider this in its entirety including the community benefits component?
[01:55:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so it's a great question. The terminology here matters. So the community benefits are a component of the East Whisman Precise Plan that are a requirement for the bonus floor area ratio. The public benefits are additional benefits for the community but they're not community benefits per se based on the definitions and terminology. So the public benefits are in the development agreement context and within the purview of the zoning administrator to recommend to city council. Community benefits for East Whisman Precise Plan bonus FAR are prescribed and we've summarized how the applicant's proposed to satisfy those requirements.
[01:56:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay so the East Whisman Precise Plan includes something that says that individual unit metering can be part of the community benefits of the East Whisman Precise Plan?
[01:57:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so those are requirements for the bonus FAR, it's one of the components related to sustainability and what have you.
[01:57:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So is the ZA going to look at review the stuff that's in this proposed list and then decide whether or not it meets the criteria and so if we want to talk about that we have to go to the ZA meeting? Is that correct?
[01:57:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so what's shown here for example in the desk item condition number five is not per se part of the development agreement public benefits. There is some overlap like in 5C is an example where this meets certain requirements of the East Whisman Precise Plan community benefits but are not required minimally and so they exceed the community benefits requirement and therefore are also considered a public benefit in the development agreement context. There's nothing that the commission will discuss tonight that will necessarily need to be a part of the zoning administrator's review of the development agreement. It's an independent consideration of that item.
[01:58:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is the letter from the applicant outlining the community benefits is not something for us to discuss?
[01:58:53] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So maybe I can chime in. I think Commissioner Cranston you're asking about attachment seven to the staff report which is the community benefit contribution letter. That does respond to what the applicant is proposing in exchange for getting additional FAR under the East Whisman Precise Plan and you can comment on that.
[02:00:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: A question for the applicant. How did you come up with this $1.2 million tenant improvement fee contribution?
[02:00:13] Applicant Andrew: It's calculation on what it will probably cost to get it to a space where we can actually lure great tenants in. You know if you build this as is, open it up as cold shell, you're probably not going to get a lot of interest. So our intention is actually build it out a lot further than what most retail would normally build it out so that we can lure tenants in, they can make it financially feasible, they'll either have a lot of runway so they can say okay I'll come in and as this building fills up you know I'll be able to ramp up. Or they could put more money into the space to you know thrive. So that was the intent for it.
[02:00:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Question for staff. Can the ZA say that there's a time limit on these things or how does that work? It just says $1.2 million. The building that I'm in has retail space, I just moved into a space that was vacant for eight years. And so I'm just wondering how could this money sit there for eight years?
[02:01:55] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, I'll start by talking a little more about what this item is as well in the East Whisman Precise Plan context. So there is discussion of alternatives to fee payment which can include support for small businesses. So as part of the negotiations for the development agreement, the applicant and the city worked through this contribution to support business operation. And the applicant is also proposing to pay the per square foot fee that the council's adopted for the community benefits. So the small business contribution is additive to the per square foot bonus floor area ratio fee payment as well that the applicant will be providing. Related to your specific question, yes the zoning administrator can consider particular terms and time limits associated with this contribution as part of the recommendation to city council.
[02:03:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then this optional master lease. Where the heck did that come from? What is that? I haven't seen that before in anything. This option to lease 60 additional units was like what? Where'd that what's that?
[02:03:43] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so that's a purely development agreement term. So not subject to the commission's recommendation tonight. But for context, that is a negotiated component of the development agreement as a public benefit related to affordable housing. There are terms that will be provided in the development agreement that contemplate a stand-alone agreement being prepared if that option is triggered that would allow for more of those units, the block that's being negotiated, to be provided at affordable income levels and potentially for the city to provide a rent guarantee so that if for whatever reason the rents are below what's negotiated, the city will make the developer whole at that affordable housing income level. But in the event that the city chooses to lease them in different configurations that could deepen the affordability, the city may be able to actually subsidize those units by renting some of those block units at market rate for example. So provides a lot of flexibility for the city to really target affordable units at income levels where they're needed.
[02:05:34] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah it's a challenging discussion to try to figure out the valuation of that that block lease. That's why we have not ironed out all of the terms of what that agreement would look like at this point in time. There's just not enough time in the project entitlements phase of this to iron all of that out. We have you know in our working on the the contours of that to get key provisions identified, but knowing all the details would need to be worked out in that subsequent agreement if the city triggers the option.
[02:06:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then a question for staff. On the front of the building, can pull that plan back up. The the size of the grass area on the between the street and the sidewalk on Middlefield. What is that distance? Kind of where that pedestrian access arrow is. What's the distance of that between the curb and the sidewalk?
[02:07:21] Applicant Andrew: The plan I'm seeing the landscape area looks to be six feet wide. Talking about the green strip or yeah six six feet on the plans that I'm seeing. Sheet A4.6.
[02:07:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if the commission wanted to put a delivery space in that that would be a specific deviation from the East Whisman Precise Plan? In other words to cut out the grass and put a place for delivery vehicles? Like UPS trucks and Amazon trucks?
[02:07:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah perhaps public works staff can talk about how that might work in relation to right of way management.
[02:08:11] Renee Ganz (Senior Civil Engineer): Good evening again Commissioners, again my name is Renee Ganz with the public works department. So we did actually look at that as part of this design process. There are also plans for Middlefield Road to put in some new bike lanes which are needed along the way there. And so when you start putting in duck-outs there you start introducing conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians and the vehicles. Vehicles and the and the bicyclist. And that's why we push for any of that delivery activity to happen on site on their at grade parking and those delivery areas because through a CIP we're working on that will all be turned into a buffered bike lane.
[02:09:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So but EPC could say we get it but we want it anyway. My question is specifically at the last meeting Mr. Anderson raised the issue that the city is seeing on Evelyn in front of the Froller Market project. The issue that I see every week in front of the Dean. Okay which is it doesn't matter whether it's not supposed to be parking there, it says no parking, but the delivery vehicles are parking in the bike lane on on Evelyn and on on San Antonio. So if we said we wanted to do it anyway would you say me is that are we allowed to say that?
[02:09:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right I think I need to remind the commission that as frustrating as it may be and as much as we've heard it on recent projects, we don't have an objective standard for this type of loading zone or delivery zone. And so this would need to be something the applicant would propose as part of the project and it's not currently part of the project. And so I'd caution the commission against imposing some requirement on this project that's not an objective standard and that's not something proposed by the applicant.
[02:10:16] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And if I may just add to what Director Murdock just said, the six foot landscaping requirement is the direct requirement in the precise plan streetscape plan for Middlefield Road. So that will be a deviation from the adopted streetscape plan that we have in the precise plan.
[02:10:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's what I thought. Thank you.
[02:10:44] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: My first question is how does stacked parking work? Like I haven't I haven't come across this before so I'm just curious.
[02:11:01] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah I can start and then maybe if the applicant can can support further. Thank you for the question. Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner. We have stackers in couple of projects in Mountain View. There are different configurations of how stackers can work you know different type of puzzles that can work in moving the the cars which are just stacked and you know one of the space will be empty. So while people are moving the cars around you know you can it can go down, it can go up. Um they have proposed a particular type of stacker at this point of time but I think the final details of what kind of stacker actually goes in is decided later on during the construction detailing in order to understand the feasibility, the cost associated with it. But there are different types of stacker systems that and that exist that can be used.
[02:12:24] Peter Katz: No problem. We've got them in two projects now and generally it's it's much as what Diana said we're actually doing a puzzle system that goes down so there'll be a pit where if you come in your main garage level you'll you'll pull into a stall and that stall will either go up mechanically and then the bottom one will lift and there could be a car in that or it could go down. Um they range in size between 24 and 32 in a in a pod and you always have one vacant so you can always program your car in and if you're in stall you know four down here you put a certain code in and it mechanically it'll come down. What it enables you to do is not raise the height of the building by having to do a second level of garage parking. And it also because we have 14 feet it actually fits you go down about seven or eight feet and you go up to the 14 feet. Um and so I think you'll it's not cutting edge by any means it's being used pretty commonly now especially in in-fill close to transit. Um it does allow us to get the number of parking stalls which we are able to provide.
[02:13:46] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay and so it can accommodate like a seven foot vehicle?
[02:13:50] Peter Katz: Yes, different size yeah. Suburbans usually are tough. Um we're not doing 100% stackers by any means but um it'll probably get about 80 85% of the cars.
[02:14:01] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: But yeah it's not just sedans, it'll fit like kind of average size SUVs?
[02:14:05] Peter Katz: Yeah, many SUVs are SUVs, yeah not full size SUVs.
[02:14:10] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Cool. Okay. And and that all meets our parking standards and it's legit?
[02:14:11] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So this project is not required to provide any parking. They are providing voluntary parking so they will be subject to build it to our parking standards. That is a condition of approval and the applicant will have to abide by that.
[02:14:23] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Innovative ways of doing things, that's great. Um, okay, the other question I had was that came up while I was reading it and then we actually got the public comment on the same thing. Um, people who live in apartments don't have backyards so their backyard is is the public parks. Um, and so that's why the Quimby Act allows us to have a you know park parkland dedication ordinance and we do. Um, but it doesn't appear as though they're subject to that or talk to me about the park in-lieu fees or dedication.
Segment 4
[02:15:00] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: on the second floor, you could make them all small and unfortunately, you know, you could get away with it. But that's just to my partners and I, that's not what we want to do.
Segment 3
[02:15:05] City Attorney representative Sylina Chen: Sylina Chen on behalf of the City Attorney's office. So the city's current parkland dedication fee is authorized under the Quimby Act. Um it's codified in chapter 41 of the city code. And it was the city's authority to require the dedication of parkland or the in-lieu fees is legally limited to residential subdivision projects. Um so if there's a tentative map or a parcel map approval that's required at this point we can impose a parkland dedication requirement. This project does not have a residential subdivision so there is no parkland dedication requirement that applies to this project.
Segment 4
[02:15:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: No, understood, and thank you for again indulging my theoretical wanderings.
[02:15:17] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: It's a complicated issue, we spend a tremendous amount of time with Wayne Chen in the housing department getting to this. Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair.
[02:15:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Pham?
[02:15:27] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just had a few questions. A lot of my questions were already asked by other commissioners. First question for staff, more of a general question. With all the conditions of approval and the items in the development agreement, how do staff track them? It seems like some of these, you know, come into play at different parts or different points in the project or even after.
Segment 3
[02:15:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I'll just add that's something the city's working very hard to um correct or to um update and supplement. And so just today actually the Council Finance Committee um considered a nexus study that would impose a Mitigation Fee Act fee that would allow the city to impose park fee requirements on rental housing projects and potentially non-residential land use types as well. So that work is ongoing and at some point in the near future I would expect the city would have a fee in place um to address residential development projects as well. Rental residential projects I should specify.
Segment 4
[02:15:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you for the question, Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. So community benefits, if you look at the conditions of approval for every kind of community benefit, there is a set timing of when that community benefit will be delivered to the city. Similarly, when we have the terms figured out in the development agreement, they also have, you know, the delivery timing for each of the public benefits. Community benefits usually, you know, we have like, you know, within this much time frame of the project approval, the applicant shall provide this or within this much time of the building permit. So the project planner will be tracking that for the community benefit parts.
Segment 3
[02:16:00] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Right so like condominiums would have if these were condos, the exact same project condos they'd have to pay?
[02:16:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct.
[02:16:18] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Huh okay. Um interesting. Well I guess that's the way it is. Thanks.
Segment 4
[02:17:11] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: For the public benefit and a DA, we do have an annual reporting of the DA, you know, when you have a multiple year DA, you need to send us a letter and say, you know, what you have done, what has not been done, where you are. So we keep a track of that. Of course, the project planner is going to be tracking that as well, but so we have record in the conditions of approval, in the development agreement terms itself, and then we have the annual reporting as well.
[02:17:38] Commissioner Tina Pham: Alright, thank you. Another quick question I had was related to the tree removal. I think it was page four of the slides. The figure looks I think worse than it is, especially since there's a lot of tree replacements which is a good thing. My question maybe for the record is of the trees removed, what percentage is either like poor or critical versus like good in terms of the condition of the tree?
[02:18:29] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Thank you for your question. I don't think we have an exact percentage handy, but per the arborist's report the majority of the trees were in poor fair to poor condition. And again, that's just based on the site constraints. A lot of narrow planters, a lot of trees that were grown or planted too close to each other and then issues with proximity to the building.
[02:18:55] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. How were the 173 trees slated for replacement? What determined the mix of trees that were going to be used?
[02:19:08] Senior Planner Jeffrey Tsumura: Well, it's a selection based on, you know, it's applicant proposed. We always have the preference that they be California native, which a majority of them are. And to meet the qualifications of a heritage tree replacement, we ask that they be minimum 24-inch box, which they are. So they have those 173 trees have met the requirements of heritage tree replacement.
[02:19:37] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: In addition to that, we also have street tree list for street trees that need to be, you know, planted when you are coming in with a new project. So that's what we confirm that, you know, what is being proposed is going to match the street tree list as well.
[02:19:52] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Last question. This was based on one of the last bullets in the community benefit contribution letter, I think it was attachment seven. Spoke about wayfinding between the project and Pyramid Park, which I think is great. Is there any thoughts about wayfinding to some of the VTA stations nearby?
[02:20:17] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, well that particular component was contemplated in relation to applicant contributions related to parkland specifically. And so there's a nexus there for purposes of the negotiation to guiding people to Pyramid Park to utilize that park space. The negotiations have not contemplated similar wayfinding or contributions to install wayfinding to transit.
[02:20:46] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thanks.
[02:20:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, I'll ask some questions. I guess mostly for staff. I can't remember, this might have happened while I was on the commission or in my, I don't, like it just seems like I can't remember the last time a desk item situation came up. Maybe I'm like just like unmeritoriously weirded out about it, but it just seems a little I don't know, I guess I'll ask a broad question. Like what are desk items, what's the governance around them, how and why and what can be done with them vis-a-vis the Brown Act and what can't be done?
[02:21:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, thank you Chair. I think to start, I'll just remind the commission and the community about the challenging timelines under which the city is obligated to process housing development projects. Specifically under Assembly Bill 130, a very stringent timeline to take final action within 30 days of certain processing triggers is now in effect. Fortunately, we've been able to work with the applicant to extend some of those timelines, but nevertheless, it's an aggressive schedule combined with the additional work of negotiating a development agreement.
[02:22:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And so what this desk item reflects is an ongoing effort to collaborate with the applicant to find conditions of approval that meet mutual needs of the city and the applicant and the project. What happened here is subsequent to sharing conditions, the applicant had comments. We weren't able to address those prior to publication. There are a whole host of conditions we were able to address, which you'll never know about because we got them into the draft resolution and conditions that you see. But this reflects the ongoing work and collaboration to try to get the project as close to a place that there's no disagreement ideally between the city and the applicant.
[02:23:28] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: In terms of governance, you know, we publish these on the website, we've made copies available for the public concurrent with the distribution to the commission, and so they're in the record, they're fair game to be discussed. And so, you know, feel confident in the approach that we have in front of you. It's not ideal, but it's just a reflection of the challenging circumstances.
[02:23:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: So like, thank you, I appreciate that. I guess like I'm trying to understand in just like plain terms like what's kosher, what's not, right? And if we are now subject to this law around, you know, the 30-day time frame, it stands to reason that we might be seeing more desk item situations in the future. And so if that's the case, I think it's just good to get a brief kind of a sense of like... for example, is it okay to say that theoretically, right, I know this is not, I know we have requirements for this but just you know in a vacuum here, like oh, the project is going to offer you know I don't know 30% below market rate units and then here's a desk item, the project will offer zero. Like I'm not saying that's what's happening here but I'm just trying to understand like what's allowable, what's not, what's best practice, what's not best practice, can you just help me understand that?
[02:25:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, so maybe to tackle the hypothetical you know worst case scenario, you know this is not an intention to bait and switch and put something really favorable in the published version and then reel it back at the last minute in a way that's maybe less visible to some members of the community. What this reflects is ongoing collaboration, desires to clarify things that maybe are unclear, to maybe correct errors that sometimes occur given the volume and of the work and the time that staff has to do it. People make mistakes and so we correct mistakes. Sometimes applicants bring to light, you know, legal opinions that we need to contemplate as well to manage risk for the city.
[02:26:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: All of those are examples of things that need to be addressed in a desk item of this sort. It's not ideally intended to make major changes to key project components and so we do our best to avoid that. But you know any range of issues could come up in this in this type of context.
[02:27:13] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate the intent to collaborate. I guess I'm looking for clear-cut examples like and again not necessarily focusing on this specifically as my question, I'm trying to understand in clear terms like where's the line that we should be looking at for as commissioners or you know if people in here go on to whatever, like what's the line in terms of like where a desk item goes into like just something that's like a non-noticed thing if that makes sense? Because for example right here if I want to use this example like if I was someone who cared way more about birds, which I like whatever birds are fine but like no, I'm not trying to like you know it says here like hey a qualified biologist will come in to conduct a survey of the project site and then in the original version it said and surrounding 500 feet for active nests. And now we're striking that out. And in the prior version it said if active nests were observed either on the project site or the surrounding area. Like I'm not a bird expert, but like what if that's a critical radius and and that seems to me like a substantive strikeout to be making. Again, I'm not the bird champion, but how can I... why should I be okay with like that? And I'm looking for comfort here, right? Like why should I be okay with that?
[02:28:59] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Maybe I can give you a little bit of background of what happens when this kind of a desk item is prepared. When we publish the conditions of approval, a lot of the conditions of approval have been based on historical knowledge and experience working on different projects. But you know as of last few years we have been challenged consistently to figure out you know under the Housing Accountability Act we are really subject to only objective development standards in our code. If we have a standard condition which doesn't have the objective standards, we don't have a legal ground to require that. And the example that you're using for the pre-construction nesting bird survey, we don't have an objective standard for 500 feet.
[02:30:28] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: At some point of time we worked on a project which you know the applicant agreed, there were some environmental conditions and we had the purview under CEQA to require that. Unfortunately in this particular project, this is an example where we don't because our code doesn't say that an applicant will be required to do this, we don't have the authority to do that. So the cleanup items that are here, you will see in a lot of places staff has just referenced the actual code section to say applicant will be subject to this so there is no ambiguity in what is discretionarily you know put into the condition from staff or the city's enforcing it.
[02:31:46] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. So it sounds like it's objective standard driven. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't have any other questions. I forgot it was chair. So therefore, we will move on to the public comment section. Cool. If anyone in participation would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, 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. Mr. Clerk, do we have any speakers either in public having submitted yellow cards or on the Zoom line?
[02:32:28] EPC Clerk: There are no requests to speak in person or online.
[02:32:32] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, perfect. Then in that case we will proceed to EPC deliberation and action. We have the staff recommendation and I'm now looking for commenters. Commissioner Gutiérrez.
[02:33:04] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay, great. Thank you Chair Nuñez. This is Commissioner José Gutiérrez speaking. So, I like the design. I like that the community perspective on what this could look like will hopefully influence the type of community you want to build. And when I've looked at design projects in general that have come in in the last couple of years, they seem to be the same old same old, right? It's just it's just it's a modified version of what I see in housing in certain other parts of the world where it's just the square and some amenities to the square on top of the square. And so this doesn't have that feel at all, which is great because then I think that's going to help your cause for trying to get those units filled, right? With the community that you're pursuing, right? So from the design perspective I appreciate that.
[02:34:18] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: I know there's debate around well is there loading spaces available for UPS or Amazon. Some places have them some don't. In my neck of the woods between California and Rengstorff, we've got a test pilot project where you've got bike lanes on both sides, they've eliminated driving lanes to just have one going this way and one going that way and the middle is a turn lane. And there are spots designated for loading and unloading which are not being used by Amazon or UPS or FedEx or DoorDash or whomever you have stopping by to drop stuff off for you. And I'd like to see enforcement on that, but that I'm not City Council, right? But for you not to have as much of that that's on you. That it was brought up, hopefully you'll factor that in because for this larger type of a community you're going to have that as an issue one way or another. So if it's still in the early development phase where you can factor some of that in and work with the city to try and find a possible solution I'd I'd jump all over that so that you don't have the issues that we're having with the tightness of space, especially when there's been a reduction of parking spaces within that stretch, right? You would think that they would use those spaces but they don't. So in this case since you have a limited amount of space, I might look into that, right?
[02:37:05] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: And I want to thank staff for the EPC desk item and this is more like a redline project which is great because you get to see the difference between the before and the after and then you look at what's highlighted in red to see what was modified. And when these things come up, I always feel comforted by that because I'm used to that with what I've done in my past as a paralegal and looking at briefs and all this and proposals and arbitrations and you see the the it's like the terms and conditions to a mutual understanding of what the contract or settlement in the end will be, which is great, which tells me that the you working with the developer, the developer's working with you, basic norms of governance are applicable and then you also have staff working with the City Attorney I would think to try and figure these things out as to what is kosher and what's not. So when this comes into play I I know we're doing everything we can to make this process transparent, right?
[02:38:04] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: And I'm just of course I would be remiss not to bring up the two bedroom issue just in general just because you have to, right? It's it's part of what I deem as a concern and as a benefit for the community. The majority of the folks here for the most part we all get along well, which is great. But these two people here, Alex and me, our numbers are going smaller and smaller in the city because of affordability, right? Whether you have a degree or not doesn't matter anymore. It's it's always an issue of cost. And when you're in that type of situation when you have this chance to bring those issues up you will, right? You're not the first you're not the last that I bring those questions to so don't take it personal. I'm just trying to figure this out and that's why I asked those questions to also then give you the chance to then explain the why, the vision, the perspective. So then that way if anyone's looking and I hope someone's watching they'll know that we're doing our best to try and bring these issues to light just like Commissioner Cranston did with the issue of is there a space for deliveries, then I will also pursue those types of questions for affordability. So outside of that, yeah those are my comments and and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
[02:38:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Gutiérrez. Commissioner Subramanian.