February 4, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:40] Chair Alex Nuñez: Hello, good evening everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of February 4th, 2026. I will call the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to epc@mountainview.gov by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date.

[00:02:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer be having speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them in to the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for the public comment on the item you are speaking on.

[00:02:34] Chair Alex Nuñez: Instructions for addressing the Commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now I will ask the EPC clerk to please proceed with the roll call. Madam Clerk?

[00:02:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:02:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:02:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:02:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:02:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Gutierrez? Commissioner Pham?

[00:02:53] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:02:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:02:56] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Here.

[00:02:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Donahue?

[00:02:58] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:02:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Nuñez?

[00:03:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:03:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Six Commissioners are present. Um, Commissioner Gutierrez is absent.

[00:03:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much Madam Clerk. Okay. We will move on to, having completed Item Number 2, Roll Call, we're moving on to Item Number 3, the Minutes Approval. And agenda item 3.1, the Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 1st, 2025. Is there any EPC discussion on the meeting minutes of October 1st, 2025?

[00:03:33] Chair Alex Nuñez: No? Public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers either in person with a yellow speaker card or on the Zoom?

[00:03:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, no speakers in person or online.

[00:04:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, thank you very much. Would anyone like to make a motion to pass the minutes?

[00:04:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So moved.

[00:04:10] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I'll second.

[00:04:12] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. We've got a motion from Commissioner Dempsey and a second by Vice Chair Donahue. I think we're ready to take a vote on that.

[00:04:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Did we get all the votes?

[00:04:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Not mine.

[00:04:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Oh sorry. Should I take a manual roll?

[00:04:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, let's do that.

[00:04:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Commissioner Cranston?

[00:04:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[00:04:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:04:59] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[00:05:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Nuñez?

[00:05:02] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[00:05:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Donahue?

[00:05:05] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yes.

[00:05:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Pham?

[00:05:07] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[00:05:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:05:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Abstain.

[00:05:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes, five in favor, one absent, one abstain.

[00:05:18] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Thank you Commissioner Dempsey and Vice Chair Donahue. Okay. We will move on to Item Number 4, Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items.

[00:05:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: 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. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers having submitted yellow cards or on the Zoom?

[00:06:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers in person or online.

[00:06:07] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Then we will proceed to Agenda Item Number 5.1. Public Hearing on the Rowhouse Project at 515 to 545 North Whisman Road. We'll first 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. So we'll begin with a staff presentation from Senior Planner Sam Hughes and our Planning Manager Eric Anderson. Thank you.

[00:06:44] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: Good evening Chair Nuñez and Commissioners. My name is Sam Hughes, Senior Planner and Project Planner for this Rowhouse development proposal located at 515 and 545 North Whisman Road. I'm joined by Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager. Staff have prepared a brief presentation outlining the project and I'll begin by providing some context describing the project location.

[00:07:07] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The approximate 10-acre site is located in the East Whisman Precise Plan within the Mixed Use Low Intensity Sub-Area of the plan. It has a General Plan land use designation of East Whisman Mixed Use. The existing development includes two vacant office buildings, surface parking, and associated landscape and hardscape improvements. There is an existing 18-foot public access easement with an 8-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle trail running north to south along the eastern property line of the site.

[00:07:40] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: To the north of the site is a two-story, two-building office campus, the Google Fairchild campus. To the east of the site is a four-story office building site. To the south is a one-story commercial condominium with various commercial and light industrial service uses. And to the west, across Whisman Road, are one and two-story single-family and multi-family residences.

[00:07:59] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The project involves demolishing the existing office buildings, surface parking, and associated landscaping, and replacing that campus with a Rowhouse development that will have 195 units. This involves a request for the following entitlements: A Planned Community Permit, Development Review Permit, and Provisional Use Permit to allow the project as proposed. A Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 139 of the 151 heritage trees on the site. And a Vesting Tentative Map to create 30 residential lots containing 195 condominium units and 26 common lots.

[00:08:39] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The proposed design involves 30 rowhouse buildings, each three stories, containing a total of 195 dwelling units with individual rear-loaded garages. A 0.24-acre publicly accessible mini-park with game space and landscaped gathering amenities in the southeast corner of the property which would be accessible through the existing and proposed public access easements, as well as a total of 40,275 square feet of common open space, new streets and residential pathways, paseos and common open areas, as well as three new service streets and 11 alleys that provide garage access.

[00:09:18] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: Regrading and relandscaping of the project frontage to provide stormwater treatment as well as frontage improvements to meet the East Whisman Precise Plan street design standards for North Whisman Road. This project is consistent with the General Plan, East Whisman Precise Plan, and Rowhouse Guidelines. However, in order to comply with the processing timelines in AB 130, the project is coming before the EPC before a formal consistency determination as defined in AB 130.

[00:09:51] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The applicant has proposed a BMR program, or Below Market Rate housing program, that restricts 46 units to below market rate prices equal to 25% of the base number of units. 28 of these units are restricted to moderate incomes between 80 and 120% AMI, consistent with the city's BMR requirements. The remaining 18 units are proposed at 100% AMI average, which does not meet the city's BMR requirements for rowhomes, but the applicant is proposing an alternative mitigation plan under the city's BMR program.

[00:10:32] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: This alternative mitigation supports the city's goal of middle-income home ownership which were discussed at the December 16th, 2025 City Council meeting. By offering 28 units or 15% of the units for sale to moderate income households, the project is eligible for a 10% density bonus. It's also eligible for one concession and unlimited waivers. The project requests one concession for the dispersal of affordable units requirement. The affordable units would be located on the western side of the property where the units are slightly smaller by floor area. The project requests waivers from 20 development standards which are listed in the staff report.

[00:11:14] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The North Whisman project frontage includes four buildings with units facing the street. The buildings are separated from the right-of-way by a private sidewalk providing access to each building and a bioretention basin, which can be viewed in the images here. This area is currently on a berm that will need to be regraded and the existing heritage trees along this frontage cannot be retained for this reason. The buildings along the frontage use intersecting symmetrical gables as well as stone-clad front entry features, which are usually paired between two adjacent units, often as a two-story accent with a standing seam metal roof.

[00:11:58] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The building materials consist of stucco, fiber cement shingle siding, and stone veneer. And the buildings along the frontage use alternating color schemes to provide more variety in the building character. The image on the right shows the central paseo and its terminus, open recreational space and crosswalk across the planned A street. The central paseo will be the new publicly accessible pathway going from the north to the south of the site.

[00:12:29] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: And on the left you can see the bicycle and pedestrian path that runs along the east of the property and the interplay between the proposed units and the open area that's behind it. The project proposes three new publicly accessible paths to access the bicycle path from east to west. The project has a Vesting Tentative Map that would create 30 residential lots with 195 condominium units and 26 common parcels. The slide here shows the public access easement area as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. Those can be viewed here in the light green color.

[00:13:09] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The project would remove 139 of the 151 heritage trees at the site and remove all non-heritage trees. The project would replace the heritage trees at more than a 2 to 1 replacement ratio with 282 new trees and 158 additional accent trees for a total of 440 new trees. The canopy area at maturity would exceed the existing canopy area.

[00:13:35] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: This map shows the various hierarchy of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation at the site as well as street parking. The project is not subject to a minimum parking requirement and voluntarily provides 390 garage parking spaces and 30 guest parking spaces. The project also proposes 195 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 24 short-term bicycle parking spaces.

[00:14:07] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The project received feedback at one Design Review Consultation hearing meeting in November 5th of 2025 and made some changes to its design in response. The city received public comments about the project expressing concern about tree removals, traffic, crime, crowding, and the environmental review. In addition, there was a comment recommending that the below market rate units be dispersed throughout the development.

[00:14:36] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: The project is subject to the AB 130 streamlined process that creates a statutory infill urban infill exemption to CEQA. So the staff recommends that the Environmental Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project and its entitlements as well as the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval that are provided as a desk item. As well as adopting a resolution to the Vesting Tentative Map to create 30 new residential lots and the condominium units and the 26 common lots with the proposed modifications to Attachment 2, Exhibit A for the conditions of approval in the desk item before you.

[00:15:35] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: This concludes the staff presentation. Staff are available for questions including myself and Eric Anderson, Planning Manager, George Schroeder, Planning Manager and Wayne Chen, Housing Director, who is available on Zoom. And Renee Gunn, Senior Civil Engineer with Public Works and Quinn Byer also available in person from Public Works and Lauren Cody, Associate Engineer who is available via Zoom. Thank you.

[00:16:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Um, we will look to the commission for questions now. Well, we do have an applicant presentation? Sorry.

[00:16:23] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: Yes. Just a moment, I'll get that queued up here.

[00:16:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[00:16:48] Senior Planner Sam Hughes: Okay, should be showing now.

[00:16:50] Brian Griggs: Great. Um, good evening Chair Nuñez, uh, Vice Chair Donahue, and members of the EPC. My name is Brian Griggs, um, and I'm joined with Jonathan Borja, who is a Principal from KTGY Architects. I'd like to first acknowledge staff. Uh, we've worked hard over the last uh, 10 months. Um, both Sam Hughes and Eric Anderson from Community Development. As Sam mentioned, uh, Lauren Cody, Renee Gunn, and Quinn Byer are phenomenal when it comes to Public Works. There's a lot to do with a flat 10-acre site that uh, requires their involvement.

[00:17:22] Brian Griggs: And Housing Director Wayne Chen and Housing Specialist Anna Rehnoso, um, as we tried to work through the, and I'll discuss in a second, the challenges of a 25% affordability requirement and some of the challenges of AMI levels missing middle, um, that sort of thing. We're excited to bring this to you. Uh, we think it fulfills a part of the vision of the East Whisman Precise Plan which is transitional housing between the high density areas to the east next to us, um, where you're going to have densities of up to 100 units an acre, mid-rise product.

[00:17:56] Brian Griggs: We think with the major housing, uh, single family to the side of us, it was a really good vision of what was done, um, when the Precise Plan was adopted. And while, um, there were comments by various people within the community that we should be doing more on a square 10-acre site, we think it's a good transition for what ultimately will be built throughout the East Whisman Precise Plan area with a lot of respect to the neighbors. The, uh, the key issues I think in front of you tonight are really, you know, the affordability. I think as Jonathan will present in a minute, we've tried to address, um, a high density site which was zoned to 20 units the acre, we're coming just under that at 19 and a half units the acre, but also provide open space.

[00:18:38] Brian Griggs: As one of the slides you're going to see shows, we have about one and three quarters acres of open space both dedicated to the public and then private open space for the residents within the uh, community who will be living there. We are very proud and pleased to be able to present the 46, um, BMR units. Um, we are asking for some flexibility on some of the affordability levels and I'll explain that in just a second too. But um, this will be a little over a threefold increase in the 14 BMR units for ownership that currently exist within your city.

[00:19:07] Brian Griggs: Um, right now those 14 units represent one tenth of one percent of the roughly 14,000 owner occupied residents and we think there is a big need. The uh, city staff did provide us last week, there's about 4,000, little over 4,000 people right now waiting to purchase a BMR unit within the city. And we think this uh, project will really offer a variety of levels of AMI and really give a good, you know, mixed environment for both people who pay market rate, people who are at the lower income levels, and then people who are at the higher, the moderate income levels which is really the missing middle that everyone talks about.

[00:19:44] Brian Griggs: I think as far as um, the staff presentation, I think Sam, you know, covered everything pretty well. Um, regarding the neighborhood meeting and and perhaps why we didn't do that, we did spend a lot of time very early on with Rebecca Shapiro and some of the staff folks trying to get their input. Some of the changes that Jonathan will talk about reflected that. We did voluntarily bring it to the Design Review Commission, or Committee, excuse me, um, and got some really good feedback from them. I think the staff report may have included some of the uh, the input that we received to end up with the project in front of you tonight. So Jonathan, if you want to take over.

[00:20:21] Jonathan Borja: Good evening Commissioners. Uh, again thank you, I'm Jonathan Borja from KTGY, Project Architect. Um, I'll try to keep it brief and not redundant too much after staff's thorough presentation. So, maybe if you go to the next slide. Um, just want to talk about really some of the organizing principles, um, around the site and how we we got to what you see before you tonight. Again, existing commercial site, um, really two uh, two-story buildings surrounded by a parking field, right? And it's it's all about the East Whisman uh, Precise Plan and how you continue as a city to create pedestrian connectivity from existing single family and multi-family to the west across the site and across the Whisman neighborhood to the existing transportation to the east. Um, you can go to the next site, slide.

[00:21:09] Jonathan Borja: So, there's a hierarchy here. In purple what you're seeing are um, connectivity zones that have a public access easement over them. So those are truly public spaces along both sides of A Street moving west to east, um, and then running north south through that central paseo as well as on North Whisman. And to the east along that existing um, pedestrian and bicycle pathway. And then across the south, um, along what is now new B Street, um, we have another public access easement across there.

[00:21:48] Jonathan Borja: And then the next hierarchy down you see in red is really what we consider homeowner um, access and pedestrian access for the homeowners to front doors. And what we're trying to do is link all of those elements together um, to create, right, a good walkable grid that meets the East Whisman uh, specific plan. You can go to the next slide. Along those public access easements is where we begin to focus our common open spaces. So these two highlighted here, um, we kind of refer to as the picnic park along the uh, bike pedestrian access and then the public plaza park along the central paseo.

[00:22:28] Jonathan Borja: Um, what you're seeing in terms of renderings, these are a result, revisions to the project design as a result of our DRC hearing in November. Um, DRC felt that the existing layouts were a little rectilinear and lacked some focal points. So we've added curved landscape elements, seat walls, um, and then articulated the trellis elements more to soften it. They felt it was um, a little harsh, it was more of a larger frame. So bringing down more detail, more human scale elements as a response to DRC's feedback. Um, so those again serve as focal pieces. And really our approach, you'll see with the mini-park which was under the the guidelines for the 0.3 acre, but again as Brian mentioned, we felt in terms of neighborhood planning it was better to provide more common open space spread throughout the neighborhood as opposed to one specific area. You can go to the next slide.

[00:23:28] Jonathan Borja: So then on the southeast corner is the mini-park. Um, this is 0.24 of an acre. Um, however, if you add in the new public access walkway across the south and take that all the way to B Street, you are um, about 0.33 acres of space. So that again links with the bike pedestrian access, um, meets the, I would say the location, the high level location that shows up within the Precise Plan, um, and then links back to North Whisman and to the single family neighborhoods.

[00:24:06] Jonathan Borja: So all of these together, if you go to the next slide, um, equate to about one and three quarter acres of open space um, spread throughout the site. That's approximately 17% of the site. So that really becomes then how we create this balance as a neighborhood. Um, starting from there, the next thing we did is, right, North Whisman's frontage is considered a transitional zone. So you'll see some extra setback there, there's height restrictions there, um, as this transitions to that single family neighborhood. Um, there as well as connections to the north, there's a dog park, um, linear dog park along there. So again, creating multiple options for people to use these spaces in a variety of ways, um, was the goal. Next slide please.

[00:24:57] Jonathan Borja: Another comment that DRC had was uh, they wanted to see some more connectivity along North Whisman specifically getting over the bioswale that exists or that would be required along the frontage there. So working with landscape we've added two additional boardwalk spaces there, um, that's what the orange arrows are highlighting. DRC did have a comment to carry that connectivity between those buildings and across the alleyways, so between 2 and 3 and 6 and 7 and 10 and 11.

[00:25:28] Jonathan Borja: Um, we opted not to do that. It, in looking at how homeowners live in these neighborhoods, those narrower through connections that cross alleyways, it's it's a less safe version of connectivity through the site. So we prefer to rely on the bigger hierarchy of movement that we've uh, previously presented. Next slide please. And then just uh, touching on architecture briefly because I I think staff um, did not. Um, we've brought many projects before you all, we've been lucky to in Mountain View.

[00:26:03] Jonathan Borja: Um, this is looking to use some of the existing context and materiality that we see throughout Mountain View. Um, but bring it to a more contemporary approach. So we're not trying to recreate Craftsman or Mid-Century or some of the great styles that exist already and are done, you know, during those proper time periods within Mountain View. But board and batten siding, um, wood-look fiber cement siding, stone, stucco, and then adding some asymmetry at at the roof lines and how it turns the corner. So this is what we call Neighborhood One. This is a more shallow product, um, allows for some more density and gives us a variety of home sizes as we look at a site that has 195 units. We want to have that uh, variety and not just all be the same type of rowhouse that you're seeing. Um, next slide please.

[00:26:58] Jonathan Borja: And then this is what we call uh, Neighborhood Two or N2. Um, slightly more traditional but still with a contemporary approach. Um, brings in some standing seam uh, metal roof accents over the entries, carries up some of that stone um, to the second level. And then this highlights as well, there was a comment from DRC about articulation of the corner elements or the ends. Um, what you'll see on that bottom left is anywhere where a building end faces Street A or Street B, um, we have created a side entry and articulated that either with a balcony deck projection above or a frontage um, that faces that side. So we are engaging along those sides, um, something that we know this commission cares about. Um, and you'll see that as well in the layout throughout the site of it's not all short ends that face A and B. The grid does turn so that you you really get doors facing A, facing B, North Whisman, and the bike path to the east. Um, that is why the neighborhood grid switches up as you go across the site. Next slide please.

[00:28:02] Jonathan Borja: And then this is just a a final rendering of um, the entry uh, view along North Whisman. Again, showing that transition zone. We did work to break down some of the the fence massing um, as a result of DRC comments as well. Um, so I'll leave you with this. Again, uh, team is here to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you.

[00:28:27] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you for that. Um, really appreciate that. Yes. Now we will move forward with the questions from the commission. The queue is open. Preguntas? All right, we got one from a couple takers. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:29:00] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, usually I kind of like to let everybody else talk first but I can drop out and Paul if you want to go. Okay. So there was um, I guess I have a couple questions for staff and what I want to understand, I want to understand a little bit better this uh, letter that we received today from Hogan Lovells raising the question of the AB uh, 130 designation, whether or not that site is a Superfund site, whether or not it should have been on the Cortese list.

[00:29:32] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, that struck me as important. And so I would like to, if I could, ask staff to tell us what they know about this question of Superfund site status of the property, the Cortese list, and what efforts have been made to try to confirm with DTSC whether or not it is properly off the list or not and therefore whether or not the AB 130 uh, certification was properly uh, granted.

[00:29:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, yes. Thank you for the question Commissioner Dempsey. Uh, Eric Anderson, Planning Manager. Um, so yes, it is it is a known Superfund site. Uh, we have been working with EPA for a long time on these uh, sites in the MEW area. Uh, we certainly are fully aware of uh, the um, you know, the issues that exist at this site and the potential hazards that may exist for development at the site.

[00:30:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, we've uh, gone through this process a number of times with uh, developers uh, throughout the MEW area. Uh, we have strong safeguards in place. We have procedures in place with EPA to review projects according to the best standards uh, for uh, safety, both the construction process and for residents residing in the units. Uh, and so we've done this a number of times and and it is a um, an established process that we have.

[00:31:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are a couple of points that I want to make about the AB 130 process. First of all, AB 130 is highly prescriptive. It says exactly what list you must go to and it does not give you any leeway or discretion to go outside that list for determining whether a project is eligible. Uh, this question of um, verification with DTSC is in fact outside of that process. It is a prescriptive process. We are supposed to receive the list as is and uh, process permits uh, uh, the way the the statute intends.

[00:31:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And there is uh, reasoning behind this. The reasoning is to take these types of of uh, concerns and requirements and mitigations outside of the approval process and apply them to the building permit process. So it's it's not a function of the city's entitlement decision around the project. It is a function of how the project is designed when you start put putting up walls and digging in the dirt and everything like that. And our procedures, our conditions of approval, and um, and our relationship with EPA is really uh, focused on that building permit process.

[00:32:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so I would say that there is nothing necessarily new in this letter that um, calls into question our interpretation of AB 130 or our existing procedures and conditions of approval for compliance with EPA requirements.

[00:32:49] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Understood. The, let me ask a perhaps a theoretical question or a hypothetical question. If it were be, it it were be, it say we discover next week that DTSC hears about this and it's like, 'Oh crap, we better go check the list. Oh, that should have been on the Cortese list.' Assume that happens. What then happens then? If that changes, is there, would there be reconsideration of uh, I guess maybe let me put my question to you a different way.

[00:33:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: If there were no AB 130 designation here, how would the process going forward change?

[00:33:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If if there were no AB 130 process then yes, they would be subject to at least an initial study and mitigated neg negative declaration. Um, if, well, so the, actually let me let me rephrase that. We adopted a program level EIR with the East Whisman Precise Plan that theoretically clears projects under this potential significant impact with mitigations.

[00:34:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So this project could move forward if there aren't new potential impacts, which is a possibility, but unlikely, that we didn't study everything. But the um, this project would more than likely move forward under a consistency memo under the East Whisman Precise Plan program level EIR. Which is um, a um, not an exemption in the same way that AB 130 is an exemption, but it's a CEQA clearance that doesn't require the same level of review as say an initial study or a EIR.

[00:34:42] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. And it makes sense that you've you've worked with this property and adjoining properties, I understand that that Superfund site is pretty large and so you you've been here before. You've seen this before. So what I'm taking away and please correct me if I'm wrong is that even if this site were on the Cortese list, even if that were true, the presumption would be that that there is an alternative process that that this property would go through that's maybe a little bit longer but not substantially so and you've done that many times and you kind of know how that story ends. Uh, that that's not exactly a legal way to put it, but am I generally getting the gist right?

[00:35:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think that's a good summary, yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[00:35:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. That's it uh, Mr. Chair.

[00:35:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Donahue. Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:35:29] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, that was a good question and that that was something I was wondering about. Um, another thing I'm wondering about is that it says the applicant is required to dedicate one acre of land or pay a fee in lieu thereof to uh, to offset the burden the additional residents will place on the city's parks and recreational facilities. Fair mark, fair market land value is 9.5 million dollars and but then through some formula that involves the city's pre-existing parkland deficit and the population of the city, the applicant is being asked to pay about 4 and a quarter million dollars which at 9 and a half million dollars an acre buys less than half an acre.

[00:36:14] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Which is less than half of what I think is required um, under chapter 41 of the municipal code. The um, looking at 41.9, it just says uh, dwelling unit uh, acreage per dwelling unit times number of dwelling units times the fair market value of the land. I don't see anything about proportionality, so I'm kind of wondering where that whole calculation came from.

[00:36:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, I think our Public Works staff haven't, oh, sorry. Uh, our uh, senior assistant city attorney.

[00:36:47] Senior Assistant City Attorney Celena Chen: I can respond. Okay. Um, Celena Chen on behalf of the City Attorney's office. So the calculation of the parkland dedication in lieu fees um, needed to be adjusted in light of a recent Supreme Court decision, US Supreme Court decision, Sheetz versus County of El Dorado. Um, this was in 2024 and under this decision the fee has to satisfy nexus and rough proportionality standards. So in other words, the fees have to be roughly proportional to the specific impacts of the the additional residents in the that are generated by the development and the impacts that those new residents place on the city's parks and recreational facilities.

[00:37:33] Senior Assistant City Attorney Celena Chen: So the current calculation method does result in reduced fee amounts. Um, these fees are based on a complex mathematical calculation that involves factors such as the park planning area, the existing number of parks or acreage of the parks in that area, the current availability of open space in that area, the net new residential units, um, those sorts of things. So um, I think we mentioned in previous meetings that the city is conducting a nexus study um, to ensure that the city is compliant with state law and to better align the fees with state law requirements.

[00:38:11] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay, interesting. Yeah. Actually I I know that Supreme Court case about road fees and some unincorporated area of El Dorado County. Interesting. Okay. Um, uh, so uh, the there's 20 waivers being requested and I can understand how most of them would would cause reduced density and so they they need to be waived. I guess I'll ask this way. Um, so um, however, they're they're asking for a waiver on the the uh, ground level plate height requirement and uh, it says that that's explained in sheet A028 but that wasn't in the packet.

[00:39:01] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Um, so I I don't understand how having a taller ground floor would uh, affect the density of the the development. It just seems like the the development would be taller, it would be it would be more expensive, uh, but that that gets into concessions, not into waivers. So can you comment on that?

[00:39:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I think you're correct that it probably would be more expensive. Um, the waiver uh, has to do with whether the standard physically precludes uh, the project um, at the density proposed. So if there's a physical constraint, the physical constraint in the case made here is um, that there uh, having a higher first floor wall plate uh, would require um, a a taller second floor level um, which would require additional um, stair riser space and that would take away space that um, from from um, potential units.

[00:40:08] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, I didn't think about that. Yeah. Sure. Um, um, I have just a general question about uh, BMR ownership units. How does that work over time? Like somebody qualifies when they buy but if later they they're making more money and they don't qualify anymore, I assume that you know, it doesn't get taken away from them, what like what what would happen?

[00:40:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I'm going to let uh, Wayne Chen who is available here on Zoom tonight answer this.

[00:40:39] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, thanks so much. Good evening um, EPC uh, Commissioners. Uh, Wayne Chen, Housing Director. Uh, yes, so unlike BMR rental units that have ongoing um, annual income verifications, um, that just wouldn't work for an ownership situation. So once you qualify, um, regardless of how your income changes over time, you get to stay there for as long as you wish to stay for stay therefore. Um, if and when that BMR household wishes to sell, then they would have to sell at specified prices in order to uh, maintain the affordability of the unit and have an income qualified home buyer at that later point in time uh, qualify for the unit.

[00:41:22] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, that's not surprising. Okay, just wanted to to clarify because I'm unfamiliar with that. Thank you. Um, and that I think that's uh, my questions. Thank you.

[00:41:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Vice Chair. Uh, Commissioner Cranston.

[00:41:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Right, so uh, while we have Mr. Chen on the line, I'm, what is the assumption on what it takes for a person to buy a home? Uh, the moderate income going up to 160 and 200 percent AMI surprised me. It's, I don't know what AMI is and what to take to buy a home, but that still calling that moderate income seemed like, wow, okay.

[00:42:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, thank you Commissioner. That's uh, a great question and a large part of our um, analysis of the applicant's proposal was based on taking a look at the current economic conditions of being able to afford a home in Mountain View. Um, and it was also based in significant part on um, a study session that was held with Council at the end of December last year. Um, that study session was related to the Council priority to develop a low and middle income home ownership strategy.

[00:42:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And in that study session, uh, we had conducted some analysis of the sales prices um, relative to the income limits that are published by the state every year. And what we found um, based on uh, six months worth of transactions last year is that in order to um, afford a median priced home in Mountain View, either a condo or a townhome, we're really looking at AMI levels up up to 150 to 200 percent AMI to afford just the the um, median priced home. And of course there's a there's a range of of transactions.

[00:43:37] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And at the 120 percent AMI level, it was really not feasible to uh, purchase a home and there were no homes that were really sold within um, a price point that was affordable to someone at 120 percent and just barely at the 150 percent AMI. So in that study session with Council, we had articulated um, a recommendation to study a a middle income strategy that um, expanded the range that we would consider uh, moderate income.

[00:44:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So moderate income typically stops at 120 percent AMI based on industry standards, but based on the economic realities of home ownership, um, we will be studying and coming back to the City Council at the end of this year uh, to talk about a strategy that would include AMIs potentially as high as 200 percent AMI. Um, and so that was really informative for evaluating this particular project and really thinking about it through a middle income lens and uh, broadening what the um, the range could or should be simply based on how difficult it is to buy a home even at the 120 or at the 150 percent AMI level. Um, I can pull it up if you would like and I can do that concurrently, but I believe that the um, uh...

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Current price of a median—excuse me—a median home is about 3 million in Mountain View and is about 2.2, maybe 2.3 million for a townhome. And as we look through the down payment assumptions, that's where we're bumping up to the 200% AMI, which I believe translates into about $390,000 for a household of four. Just to give you some data points there.

[00:45:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Question for staff. I'm troubled by the removal of all the—many of the heritage trees are—I mean you show all these heritage trees along what is B Street, but they've all been decapitated because there's a power line that goes along that. The trees that are decent are the ones that are along Whisman.

[00:46:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Why is it necessary for the stormwater retention basin to be in an area where we could retain the trees? It just seemed a crime to me to lose all those trees along Whisman, and putting the stormwater retention basin there seemed like a reason to get rid of them, but not a good reason to me.

[00:46:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the project has designed it that way, and that is something that under State Density Bonus Law and under the various state laws we have little discretion to require modifications to design in order to address.

[00:46:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I can maybe look to the applicant to respond to the question about why the stormwater retention basin may be necessary or most efficient or best suited to the project in that location.

[00:47:13] Jonathan Borja: Jonathan Borja again. So there's a couple factors that are impacting that. One is the transition zone and the setback required along North Whisman results in deeper setback along that frontage already, as it's specified in the precise plan to give that transition to the single family. So we end up with more landscape and width there already required on site.

[00:47:44] Jonathan Borja: And then working with civil engineers, it is—it is easiest and that is the, of a flat site, that is the lower natural direction that water wants to flow across that site. So their preference in working with us, both to maintain density in the rest of the site, was to move bioretention along that frontage.

[00:48:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. This isn't so much a design question but a—maybe I've just never noticed this before. There's 30 different residential parcels. Is that common in a townhome development? It's like, why is it split up into so many little pieces?

[00:48:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's fairly common for condominium and townhome developments to have multiple lots and have kind of parcelization that maybe looks a little counterintuitive. I think the reason why there's 30 of them is just because it's such a large project site. Usually you see like two, three, four of them on smaller project sites. This is a 10-acre site, it's got 195 units, hence the 30 of them.

[00:49:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So I'm sure the Public Works and Fire people looked at it, but I look at the layout of the streets and I think, how the heck would a fire engine get to a house in some of these spots? This was reviewed closely by the City to make sure that trucks can get in here?

[00:49:27] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And there's spots where you'd think you could get through that have actually been cut off. There's a cutoff at, across A, at N Alley and K Alley, where you could potentially—seems like A is the street where you could get engines through most easily, and then you've cut it off from some of these areas.

[00:49:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And it just struck me as, if there's an emergency, how do the emergency responders get to the locations?

[00:49:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so the question was, has the Fire Department and the Building and Safety Departments, have they reviewed this and is the design safe? And the answer is that they have reviewed this and they have given their okay with the design.

[00:50:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Just a little bit generally speaking about what they're looking at is the width of the drive aisles and then the turning radii of those drive aisles and whether an engine can turn within those spaces, as well as the other thing they look at a lot is the ability for the trucks to turn around, to back out.

[00:50:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there's kind of standard templates for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and the Fire and Building Department, they have reviewed it and they've approved it at this entitlement level.

[00:50:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then the last question was, I thought it was interesting that the mockup that the architect provided showed a street that is—has that really horrible power line on it. Is that going to be removed as part of the project?

[00:51:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: All of the trees along the south side of the property are redwood trees that are decapitated because there's, I don't know, 10 huge power lines that go across the top of it. Are those going away as part of this? Are they burying any of the utilities?

[00:51:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This project—and Public Works is here, they can correct me if I'm wrong—it doesn't have any utility undergrounding.

[00:51:43] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thanks Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:51:49] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you Chair. To follow up on a couple of the previously stated questions, I just wanted to clarify a couple more points. So going back to the first question about the status of the site from an environmental perspective, and following the project EIR requirements, does that mean that this project just follows the testing and project EIR requirements, or is any further testing required based on the DTSC determination?

[00:52:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So first off, thank you for the question. Let me clarify that the DTSC, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, really only enters into this conversation in their role around listing sites for exemption or lack thereof through the AB 130 process. This site is actually managed by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

[00:53:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: They have very clear rules and procedures about what kinds of testing needs to be done for what kinds of new land uses that may be proposed on a site. And along with that, they have a very extensive ongoing testing and monitoring program, including wells, you know, groundwater wells throughout the area, and mitigation programs and pumping programs and all kinds of other programs that are ongoing and currently installed throughout this very large interconnected area of multiple Superfund sites called the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman or MEW study area.

[00:53:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there are established procedures. You know, we are not experts on those established procedures by any means, we defer to EPA on those established procedures, but we are in communication with them about when those procedures need to be carried out before key approval timelines.

[00:54:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So before they get their building permit, EPA needs to review their building permit plans to make sure that vapor barriers are as required, any active pumping of groundwater vapor is proposed to be installed as required. And then throughout the construction process, there is monitoring of newly constructed interior space. And then before entitlement, there is test—or before occupancy, there's testing of newly constructed units to make sure that there are no vapor intrusion pathways.

[00:54:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So this process is very well established. Again, I don't know all the details of the testing and monitoring and requirements and science behind it all, but we've done this a number of times for similar projects in this area.

[00:54:56] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. My next question was about just consistency with some of the design standards and objectives that were laid out in the East Whisman Precise Plan.

[00:55:12] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So the first question relates to, there was a street grid proposed, and I don't know to what extent that was sort of set in stone in a very grid fashion, but there seemed to be a street grid proposed with a street that was adjacent to this property on the eastern side.

[00:55:32] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And I think I remember reading a reference to the project opting not to perform or go through with that street improvement just because this allows them more density and more site area to put more units on. So my question relates to what the impact of not putting in that stretch of street is on the rest of the Precise Plan.

[00:55:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I believe our Public Works staff is prepared to answer that question.

[00:56:10] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: Good evening Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners. My name is Renee Gunn, I'm a Senior Civil Engineer in the Land Development Department. So you were correct in the fact that Street A is laid out in the Precise Plan to be halfway on this parcel, and this applicant has requested a waiver to not do that dedication.

[00:56:33] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: That is in particular for this project that they've asked for the waiver. As other projects come in, we will still be asking for dedications for part of Street A. Other projects may still have waivers to ask for.

[00:56:50] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: But as these projects come in, we'll continue to look at what Street A looks like in the future. It may not look exactly like it does right now—like what's in the Precise Plan, but we do have bike and ped access currently and we'll continue to have that. And that was the key portion of the Precise Plan that was needed to make sure we built a neighborhood that had porosity for bicyclists and pedestrians.

[00:57:20] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So to clarify, was Street A mostly intended to be a network for bike and pedestrians or also vehicular traffic?

[00:57:28] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: It was intended to have vehicular traffic on it also, but that vehicular traffic was intended to be deliveries, local traffic, trash truck, things like that. When we studied the traffic impacts as part of the larger Precise Plan, we did not include any of the new streets in the traffic model. We really expect the large-scale traffic to work on the existing streets and these are like little local commuter streets.

[00:58:02] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Understood. That was the main intent behind my question, so thanks for clarifying that.

[00:58:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: My next question perhaps is along the same lines, which is, thank you Commissioner Donahue for clarifying the park fee, the in-lieu fee. But I also wanted to ask, and maybe this is tied to more a development impact fee as it relates to the East Whisman Precise Plan, but given that the mini park, which was also a construct of the park design for the Precise Plan, is reduced compared to the size that the Precise Plan required.

[00:58:48] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So is there an impact fee that is being calculated as a result of the reduced neighborhood park and the offset of a portion of the proposed Street A?

[00:59:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, there's no fee based on the Precise Plan requirement. They are legitimately allowed a waiver from that requirement. However, they are also not entitled to a fee reduction to their parkland dedication fee based on the provision of that open space.

[00:59:27] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So the parkland dedication fee is the other calculation that was discussed earlier.

[00:59:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right. Yes.

[00:59:35] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. My next question has to do with the BMR units, particularly the moderate. As Director Chen pointed out, the AMI for Santa Clara County is 195,200, so a 200% AMI, that's 390,000. So for a family of four that computes to a home price of 2.3 million, which is right there in line with what he said was the median price of townhomes in Mountain View.

[01:00:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So I'm kind of struggling to understand why creating more units at that moderate band which is kind of hitting close to where the market is, is actually creating more BMR units that would not be available on the market.

[01:00:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I will defer to Wayne Chen on this question.

[01:00:30] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, thank you very much for the question. If you can give me a moment, I'm going to double check some of the assumed pricing that we've been working with the applicant about what the price ranges might be. So if you can give me a moment I can come back to provide a little bit more information based on the way that the BMR program would prescribe how these prices are calculated. So if you can bear with me, I'll let staff know that I'll have some information in a moment.

[01:01:04] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. One more question along those lines. I saw some mention about equity sharing agreement upon sale of the unit. Can you elaborate on that, what that structure is?

[01:01:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Let me also do this, I will pull up that resolution and just try to identify it and then when I have some more information about the sales prices as well I can let staff know.

[01:01:26] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay thank you. And last question. This is with regards to just circulation around the site. I noticed that there were some zones marked for loading drop-off and distribution. And so I wanted to understand what the intent and maybe the architect, this is a question better posed to the architect, what the intent was. Is that meant to be the only zone where move-ins and move-outs happen, or are there trucks kind of—I imagine they're just going around all the sites, all the streets as well as Amazon trucks are circulating on all the streets, but what is the intent of these loading zones?

[01:02:29] Jonathan Borja: Yeah, it's precisely to help alleviate what we see these days with delivery drivers, both food, Amazon, parcel delivery. We're finding more and more that if we can allow for designated zones within a community, right, that it leaves some of those fire lanes, emergency lanes, traffic lanes open. So trying to spread that out. And then centralized mail as well adjacent to that park plaza in the middle.

[01:03:05] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Pham.

[01:03:10] Commissioner Tina Pham: I only had one question regarding the neighborhood meetings. I was wondering why the applicant declined to conduct a neighborhood meeting for the project.

[01:03:24] Brian Griggs: The feedback we got from staff was really valuable. We didn't show you the earlier iterations, but as far as circulation. And then we elected to come to the design review commission—committee—to try and get feedback and kind of perfect it. KTGY and CBG who's the civil engineer, we asked them to not absolutely maximize the site, but we wanted to have a density that was commensurate with what was envisioned.

[01:03:54] Brian Griggs: The aesthetic aspects of colors, doors... the heights are all consistent at three stories. And I think in this instance we thought having 10 or 15 or 20 or 50 other people who might come across and have different opinions, we're confident with what we're delivering would be accepted in the marketplace. We think aesthetically it's good, there's flexibility and variety. And that's why we declined.

[01:04:27] Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm just going to follow up on that. Did staff actually recommend to a developer that that wasn't really necessary to have the community meeting? If I understood that correctly, did staff—I guess, yeah—can you elaborate on that? I just want to make sure I understood.

[01:05:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So what I believe is that the applicant is saying that the feedback they received from staff on design, not a recommendation on a community meeting.

[01:05:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Do you want to—please, yeah, just elaborate on that. I just want to make sure I understood.

[01:05:24] Brian Griggs: No, to be clear, staff encouraged us to have the neighborhood meeting. I'm sorry if I misspoke to the contrary.

[01:05:29] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I actually did have questions for you as well just based on, I actually appreciated Commissioner Pham's question because it kind of just set the table for the kind of questions I was going to have. Obviously with the, you know, AB 130 and a lot of the kind of like state law changes that are ongoing, there's a shifting dynamic between the discretion and control that municipal governments' processes have in terms of whether or not your projects can move forward. I'm presuming this isn't your first rodeo on this front, right?

[01:06:22] Chair Alex Nuñez: I guess like, I'm just kind of curious and you know, obviously can't put you under oath but to the extent we can be candid with each other. I guess I'm just kind of curious in your mindset or you as a person in this enterprise in this field, how does that kind of like shift your mindset in terms of how you engage with the recommendations, guidance, the staff members that you're working with from the city perspective across the state? Can you just elaborate on your approach and how this may or may have not, or in what ways has it kind of like shifted?

[01:07:19] Brian Griggs: That's a good question. Certainly the state housing laws give developers the opportunity in many ways to do what they want to do. And the success of a development is at the end, when a development is financed, it can be actually constructed. You know, if you look at Mountain View, you've had numbers of six to eight story buildings that can't be financed.

[01:07:47] Brian Griggs: Delivery of housing at the end of the day I think is why the state decided to give developers more flexibility and take out discretion. Has it swung a little bit to the other extreme? Sure. I mean do you have projects under Builder's Remedy or other projects that people are using waivers to suddenly say I want to go six stories even though the zoning says four? Do I want to build a building that looks like a Motel 6 with a bunch of punched windows?

[01:08:11] Brian Griggs: Or do we actually build something that you know you can be proud of, that you have a reputation of, you bring in good architects. And in this case, these need to be sold. And so we are trying to design a product with a density that ultimately will be sold. The first key and part of the reason staff's been so collaborative with us on the BMR, is we want to provide those 46 units. But if we provided those 46 units at what the inclusionary housing ordinance stipulates right now, this project could not be financed and it would not be constructed.

[01:08:46] Brian Griggs: So we're trying to find that fine medium of delivering something that is aesthetically pleasing, that perhaps does take a lot of the opinions. And I you know, respectfully didn't do the neighborhood meeting because I wasn't concerned about people's input. I think it was more just trying to, once you start a process, if that process can be completed as the City's been able to do in this case in a year, that helps make projects viable.

[01:09:11] Brian Griggs: Because when you own a piece of property and you don't know if it's going to take you a year, 18 months, 2 years, 3 years to get something done, that every month that goes on that you're carrying that property makes it that much more difficult to pencil. And in the financing that's available today, you're lucky to get a 60% loan. So you have to go raise money for the other 40%. That's very expensive because people can invest in the stock market, they can invest in all sorts of other things.

[01:09:35] Brian Griggs: And so investing in real estate, especially in Mountain View, you know, is attractive. But you also have to have something at the end of the day. You know as Eric already said, the EPA, we've got a lot of uncertainty. And we've already met with them several times, we have a lot of conditions of approval, and putting vapor barriers in, putting active, you know, systems in place. And so it's not everyone looks around and says well Mountain View is so desirable but if you look back at the last five or six years, nothing's really been built as far as this, where it's home ownership.

[01:10:09] Brian Griggs: And so having the ability to come and you know, try and respectfully say this is what we think is a great project, but take away that someone doesn't like a black window versus a white window, doesn't like a red door versus a green door. Those are the things that I think you know, you try and thread the needle so to speak.

[01:10:28] Brian Griggs: I mean I'm unfortunately for—I imagine in your guys' position—you're going to see some projects that you know feel like, hey this isn't what we really envisioned. And you know what we're trying to do is deliver a project that even if we had gone through another six months, even if we had had community meetings, even if we had gone through six or eight iterations of design, we're all going to be proud of. But at the end of the day, you know, we're going to have to find 195 buyers. And we're confident that the project in front of you will meet that.

[01:11:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, I appreciate that. And you know just between us we're, you know, I'm—I would imagine—far more on the pro, you know, development and growth side of you know maybe other kind of like you know, whether appointees or electeds that maybe you've worked with. And so for me I guess like the aesthetic element, the material, like all of that, you know, at the end of the day I think people need a place to live.

[01:11:31] Chair Alex Nuñez: But I also am just kind of curious about you know the safety element of where they're living as well, right? And there are matters of, you know, like I guess terms like environmental racism, etc., to whatever stock you put in that. It also you know could be smart business to not or have that risk kind of carry through and be found out later.

[01:11:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: So I guess I'm just curious, because we did get that letter that Commissioner Dempsey had touched on earlier. And I'm kind of curious, you know, if you could walk us back to some of the earlier stages when you were either identifying, scoping, or getting about thinking about this project. To what extent did the due diligence element either identify or account for some of the you know Superfund, contamination?

[01:12:29] Chair Alex Nuñez: At what stage was this something that you became aware would be some form of risk as far as this project goes and kind of like what controls or what actions did you take? Because what I'm trying to like get a sense of, is this letter a surprise? I can't imagine it would be but I'm hoping that you could kind of walk us through what that was like at the earlier stages of when you found out about this.

[01:12:53] Brian Griggs: Be happy to. May 28th of 2025 was our first meeting with the consultant for the responsible party. We've had two or three meetings with them. We've had a collaborative meeting with them with the EPA. They do have certain responsibilities because of the contamination. We've tried to work with them collectively on submittals to the EPA to make sure they're approving of it.

[01:13:18] Brian Griggs: We have discussed some sort of cost responsibilities that what we would incur, what they have incurred. Those discussions haven't gotten very far. For them to give you a 23 and a half hour letter the day of is very surprising, given that we had these meetings and went to them and said we want to collaborate. There's certainly issues here.

[01:13:42] Brian Griggs: And so as far as the process we're going to follow, the City, as Eric had said, has really protected both the future residents, the occupants, the children, the families, everyone else. Because if the EPA doesn't sign off on everything and they don't test and they don't approve it, this project will not be occupied. It will not start construction. And so as far as you know health and safety and issues, I think the belt and suspenders are in place.

[01:14:08] Brian Griggs: Do we know it's going to cost money? Yes. Do we have a dispute with the landowner and is that why they gave you a six page letter? Yes.

[01:14:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. And I guess within your own kind of like experience in this field, do you have experience developing on sites like this? Or any of your partners experienced in matters like this in terms of projects you've successfully completed in the past? Or what's your capability of engaging with issues like this?

[01:14:44] Brian Griggs: Personally not high. Do I have a lot of good consultants that I've worked with that I trust? Absolutely. Have there been development on Superfund sites? For sure. In this particular case I think it's 130 acres and we're 10 acres of it. And you can imagine the focus that this is getting by that responsible party who has 120 acres behind us that may be converted to residential.

[01:15:07] Brian Griggs: And so I think this is probably a little bit of a case where they're going to look at it and say, well, is the domino going to fall next door? Is it going to fall down the street? I think from the City's perspective, this was all analyzed. This party came forth during the Environmental Impact Report when the East Whisman Precise Plan was established. They knew exactly what the zoning of this was. And so to come now and protest residential when it was previously presented, reviewed, analyzed... the safeguards were put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure that health and safety was never going to be compromised... I think that's the issue at hand.

[01:15:47] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. And last question for you here. I guess in terms of the matter of the heritage trees, did you guys try to save it? Did you try?

[01:15:59] Brian Griggs: We did not. We could... it would have compromised density. And...

[01:16:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: Did you even think... was there a moment where you went, okay we're hearing this, let's at least see, let's put another variable in the Excel and see what comes out of that? Did you at least try that?

[01:16:18] Brian Griggs: Yes, we actually looked at whether certain trees could be relocated on site. There are some beautiful trees on that site, there's no question about it. But when you're trying to work around the ability to construct close to a tree without being too close to the tree and hope that tree is going to survive... it just became especially with the way that in order to get the density it was laid out rows, and you can tell by looking at the plan, trying to work around a tree was—any particular tree or ten trees.

[01:16:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. And I'm sure I can trust in your Excel skills. So then I guess to staff, I do have a few questions then around that desk item. Thank you for educating me on desk items last week, I really appreciate that, or I guess a couple weeks ago. Really quick question. Did you have an opportunity to kind of make those changes in collaboration with the applicant or did you not have time for that as part of the desk item?

[01:17:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, yeah, we have a process when we are putting together the conditions of approval where we allow the applicant to review them and see if they have any comments. So the desk item is a result of that kind of back and forth on the conditions of approval.

[01:17:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, perfect. And so then I noticed that there were a few changes in particular around some of these contamination matters. So like the vapor barrier if I'm understanding correctly. I think there was also one where it was like not a City standard, like the EPA... there shall be some EPA testing and... right? Like I think there were some particular modifications that would have seemed to almost kind of like, without knowing how the sausage is getting made, almost be like impelled by the letter that came from that legal firm. So I guess I'm just kind of curious like, it sounds like the applicant had a chance to review and be engaged on those. And I just want to make sure I'm checking with staff, those are enforceable? Like we're pretty good on those desk item changes as per addressing some of this contamination matter?

[01:18:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, we have confidence that our conditions are enforceable. They are related to life and safety, which is fully within our purview to enforce. And then I'll just also add that we did prepare this desk item before we received the letter. So as I said earlier, we didn't receive—we didn't see anything in the letter that would change any of our findings, and it did not prompt these edits to the conditions.

[01:19:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And so then that means that unless I'm super like making stuff up in my mind, Certificate of Occupancy sounds like a thing. Or something to that effect. If I'm reaching back in there.

[01:19:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: The City has discretion, right? Like so for example this like new state law regime highly constrains the ability for the City to get in the way of applications being approved and or construction permits getting issued. But my understanding is that there's not that same level of discretion that's been taken away from the City certifying safety of human occupancy.

[01:19:52] Chair Alex Nuñez: So I'm wondering like a, is that the case? And just in terms of assuring that you know if and when we have new housing stock that we are also ensuring that people are moving into a relatively safe setting. The City at that point, even though there are nice wonderful buildings and housing units ready to go, if the cleanup isn't sufficient to assure human safety then a Certificate of Occupancy won't be issued until it's safe for human habitation. Is that a lever that is still in existence or am I kind of like misguided here?

[01:20:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes. Throughout the process, whether it's prior to permit issuance or prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant is going to be required to coordinate and get approval from the EPA. And then there will be—the EPA has its own procedures for reviewing and monitoring to make sure that it's safe.

[01:21:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We also have our own inspections which are only building code life safety related. They don't have—we don't have the purview of the EPA, but the EPA does kind of the environmental and the vapor barriers and the site mitigations that are needed related to the MEW study area. And so prior to permit issuance we look to see that you know the EPA has taken the necessary steps that they're ready to issue the permit, as well as during construction. We have a strong working relationship with them.

[01:21:44] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And if I may add, the desk item shows the conditions of approval already, but our standard conditions already bake in those kind of requirements. Like the vapor barrier is required during building permit, remediation and the preliminary endangerment assessment is required before the first occupancy can be issued. So we have built that in already in the standard conditions.

[01:22:04] Chair Alex Nuñez: Perfect. So it sounds to me like the public can be resting assured that there are controls and mechanisms in place to enforce human safety and that the applicant has a lot of reasons and dollars why they would want to ensure that as well. Thank you very much.

[01:22:26] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other questions from anyone on the commission? No. We will proceed... Oh, if I may through the Chair, it looks like there were some unanswered questions from Mr. Wayne Chen for Commissioner questions. I believe he's now ready to answer those.

[01:22:49] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, thanks so much. So there were a couple of questions regarding the potential sales prices of the BMR units. And the ranges that we are calculating for the three-bedroom units would range from just under 1.3 million to about 1.6 million. So still below the average market sales prices.

[01:23:18] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The four-bedrooms of course are bigger so the prices would be a little bit higher, just under 1.4 million. And I'm referring to the 160% AMI level up to just under 1.8 million for the 200% AMI level. So still at a discount to the sales prices that we're seeing.

[01:23:38] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I also wanted to flag another benefit of the BMR units is that oftentimes to be competitive on the open market, you would have to bring say 50% of the down payment or even buy all cash and be involved with bidding wars. And so the BMR program assumes a 20% down payment for these levels and it wouldn't require someone—in fact it wouldn't even allow someone that can pay all cash to buy this because that would mean that they would have some means.

[01:24:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So those are at least two benefits for the BMR units: lower price points and a reasonable down payment amount.

[01:24:22] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The second question was regarding I believe a reference in the resolution related to equity sharing. And I was able to find that citation. And that citation is referencing a state code that is related to the calculation of the affordability prices and it says is subject to an equity sharing agreement.

[01:24:43] Housing Director Wayne Chen: As we implement it here in the City, we don't use an equity sharing agreement. So that part of the provision would apply if another city had an equity sharing component to the program, then that would likely apply in other cities. But not in the way we implement it here in Mountain View. Hopefully that answers your questions and happy to answer if you have any follow-up questions.

[01:25:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for the clarification Director Chen. Just a quick question on the last point you made. So if Mountain View doesn't have an equity sharing agreement, is it correct to—is my understanding correct that the homeowner then gets to take the whole upside? Should there be an increase in the value of the home at sale given the prevailing AMI?

[01:25:37] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, it would be based on these lower of the three threshold provisions. So it would be the lower of market price, the lower of a price that's adjusted by inflation, or the lower of whatever would be the affordable level that is at that same income level. That same income level over time is still going to get adjusted higher.

[01:26:07] Housing Director Wayne Chen: But our BMR program is essentially really set up to maintain the affordability of the unit even if it changes hands over time. Typically equity share programs as you may know are set up so that the unit can be sold at market, the equity share is captured but that affordability for that unit is gone. The equity share is invested in another unit.

[01:26:30] Housing Director Wayne Chen: But the approach that Mountain View has is a different one. It's to maintain and preserve the affordability of the housing stock. So that's why we don't have it structured that way under an equity share program.

[01:26:48] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Hopefully a quick question. These are affordable in perpetuity, not for some fixed period of time?

[01:26:56] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That's correct, in perpetuity.

[01:26:58] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, thank you.

[01:27:06] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other questions? No. Okay. All right. Let's proceed with public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. 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. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone having submitted yellow speaker cards or in the Zoom queue?

[01:27:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: I don't see anyone online. We do have one in-person speaker.

Segment 3

[01:30:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, oh it looks like we have one online so far.

[01:30:04] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right.

[01:30:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, so in-person speaker is Alex Andrade.

[01:30:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. I think can we get the clock for the three minutes on before we start. Thank you very much.

[01:30:19] Alex Andrade: As mentioned, my name is Alex Andrade. I am a resident of Mountain View since 2003 and I live on Devonshire, just down the street from the proposed project. And I'm really here under two hats. One is a resident and one as a economic development professional.

[01:30:38] Alex Andrade: So I want to make two points. Number one, thank you to the Planning Commissioner who talked and asked the question about the community engagement. That was one of my thoughts. The staff report clearly states that City staff recommends that the applicant host a community meeting. However, while not mandatory, the applicant opted to not have a community engagement meeting.

[01:31:04] Alex Andrade: So this is somewhat of a rhetorical question, but why would the applicant who wants to be a partner with the City and the community members that live nearby not provide an opportunity for the community to learn and ask questions about the project? And so before I get to my second question, I'll just pause and let you sit on this or with this: is this or is this not a public process?

[01:31:34] Alex Andrade: My second point here is, as I mentioned earlier, I'm kind of here at the intersection of being an housing advocate, specifically an affordable housing advocate, but also wearing my economic development hat as I've worked at various cities in Silicon Valley actually including this city, just to be fully transparent.

[01:31:58] Alex Andrade: With respect to the development team, I have recently started getting better informed about the residential project so I just want to say I may not have all the information about the process. And really I'm not here to say I'm supporting the project or I'm against the project, but I think it's really important, wearing my economic development hat, that every decision that you make on land use and zoning does have a fiscal component to it and a fiscal impact to the City.

[01:32:27] Alex Andrade: So we're looking at a site that at one point was a pretty vibrant employment and activity center. Today that's not the case. Since the pandemic, this area has likely been a depreciating asset and as the applicant indicated, it's a pretty simple formula. If it pencils out, the project moves forward; if it doesn't, then that's it.

[01:32:50] Alex Andrade: But if the project moves forward, there's a fiscal impact to the City. These new residents, and I don't know how many but I'm sure it's hundreds of residents, and I got to make this quick because I only have a few seconds, they're going to require public facilities, infrastructure, and that comes with a cost. So I would say to the City to make sure that you fully understand the fiscal impact of this project. If a fiscal impact analysis has not been done, maybe that's something you should take a look at so that the City is not left holding the bag.

[01:33:20] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you sir. Appreciate it. Thank you very much for your commentary. Madam Clerk, we have I believe...

[01:33:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes. One speaker online, Stephanie Chen. You should be able to talk now if you unmute.

[01:33:38] Stephanie Chen: Hi, um, I just wanted to say as a local neighbor to the area, I live basically on Whisman and Walker and my family and I oppose this project because we were just aware of it two months ago as we take our daily walks we saw the signs posted and it was just to our surprise.

[01:34:06] Stephanie Chen: And I guess we're just frustrated with the whole process knowing that this happened out of nowhere. Again, the neighbors were not notified of any of this. It's going to cause a lot of traffic to our neighborhood with all the high density housing and just getting rid of the heritage trees again that provide a lot of shade and they're beautiful trees.

[01:34:32] Stephanie Chen: Just getting rid of them is just kind of like what happens to, you know, the local wildlife and just maybe you could just not build as many houses. We've lived here for over 20 years and this is just a big disappointment to our area and I really wish that the community was more involved in this. I think that's pretty much what I wanted to voice to everyone there.

[01:35:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Do we have any other speakers?

[01:35:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No other speakers.

[01:35:13] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right, having no more speakers, we will proceed to EPC deliberation and then action. Would anyone on the Commission like to take a stab at sharing their initial commentary? Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:35:34] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you Chair. I will start off by commending the applicant for really trying to intensify the density on the site and fitting in as many housing units. As we always say, we need all the housing we can get so please bring it to Mountain View and we're grateful that we're able to build up as much density that's in accordance with the vision that was set out for the East Whisman Precise Plan. So I want to make a note of that.

[01:36:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: That said, I think you've heard it loud and clear, community engagement is always a good thing. I don't think it adds months, days, probably a few hours at best, but it is a good way to build goodwill with your neighbors, future neighbors, and to make sure that you have all the support even if it's not required under the newly mandated State process. So I highly encourage you to consider that on this project and going forward.

[01:36:46] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I also want to make a point about some of the things that were noted around heritage tree preservation. I think as Commissioner Cranston pointed out, there are the best heritage trees that are located closer to the sidewalk on Whisman. So if at all it is possible to rethink within the bioswale design a method for preserving the four or five trees that are in the best condition as noted in the arborist report, I think that would also go a long way in holding on to some of the best components of the site.

[01:37:27] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then my last point that I wanted to make is around the BMR units. Thank you to Director Chen for bringing back all that detail. But I do want to point out that it's an interesting problem that in the tone of creating the missing middle, the missing middle is not so much the middle in Mountain View. At 200% AMI and, you know, with the numbers that he provided at 1.8 million, essentially home ownership has been a tool for wealth creation. And if the idea long term is to turnover these units without too much upside for the occupant or the home owner to get in the long term, it's a pretty big lift I think to ask for even a 20% down payment on a $1.8 million townhome is $360,000, which is a lot of pocket change to put down to buy into this program.

[01:38:43] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So I think this is something that we as a City need to think about more in terms of whom we're extending the support to. So this may not be so specifically to the applicant but a general note for how we're thinking about developing middle income home ownership. And those were the comments I wanted to make.

[01:39:02] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Subramanian. Any other Commissioners would like to, yep, Commissioner Cranston.

[01:39:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: When we put together the East Whisman Precise Plan, this is kind of the thing we were hoping for was getting residential in this area. I think a lot of thought was put into the standards that were put in place at the time and the reasoning behind those.

[01:39:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And so while I'm in generally, the fact that these are three-bedroom and four-bedroom units, I'm all for that. My kind of general comment is for staff is, nothing more. Okay? A concession and 20 waivers is like, I was shocked, okay. They're not, none of them are like egregious but there's a lot. And the design of the precise plan had things thought in mind, how these would work, how things would fit into the area, and I know I can't change all these.

[01:40:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But I know other developers have come forward and said give me a 10-year development agreement. I would say tell Council at least one Commissioner says no, okay. They submit it, they get what they are the normal process and they need to live within that because they're already, in my mind, going well beyond what I would have expected on these things.

[01:40:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Like Commissioner Subramanian, I would love to see some of those trees along the front saved. A lot of the ones are listed as heritage trees, I drove around the property for a while and I was like that's a heritage tree? But the ones along East Whisman, they're heritage trees. So try to find some way to go after that. But in general, I mean it's in line with the precise plan. I understand why you did what you did and so I'll support the project but nothing past that is my, would be my message.

[01:41:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:41:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Chair. Something quick and then something hopefully a little bit quick. Given the discussion that we had tonight spurred clearly by this kind of very late hit Hogan letter, which by the way I recognize that letters come in super late, that's not always the best way to do things. What would have been really helpful is if there had been some discussion in the staff report about the Superfund nature of the site. The letter hit me the way that it did because I didn't actually grok that that was a Superfund site. So I think when it goes to Council, just please have some coverage in the staff report about that and I think you sort of inoculate people from being surprised.

[01:41:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So there's a comment I want to make and I say this recognizing, I don't really want to lay it at the door of the applicant. This is actually sort of a macro, something I've been struggling with for a while and it's sort of one of the perhaps unintended consequences of the Density Bonus Law. But I am, I guess I have an increasing discomfort with where BMR is headed. Like when I look at the way that, and again for the applicant, they're trying to optimize for what's permitted under the law, that's like their fiduciary duty, I have no criticism of that. But I will use this particular case to demonstrate something that's making me uncomfortable.

[01:42:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So when we look at the way the BMR is handled here, there was literally a special class of unit, that's like 20 to 25% smaller than the rest, specifically created for BMR. They made 40 and all 40 are going to BMR. And they're like 300 square feet smaller than the next smallest unit. And I understand the economics for that, I actually, and I don't criticize that.

[01:43:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: But my understanding was of the BMR program, the entire BMR program, is that we wanted inclusionary housing. We wanted, when we were going to do BMR, we want everybody mixed together so you could hardly tell. I remember years ago we would have conversations about where the BMR units would be in a development and we really wanted them scattered all over so you couldn't really tell. There wasn't like a specific building where all the, you know, the BMR kids lived.

[01:43:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Because that kind of terrifies me if I'm being honest. Like if anybody who grew up in the 70s and 80s, you might remember if you're in California that if you had subsidized lunch, you had a different colored lunch card. And all the other kids knew who had subsidized lunch. They knew. I know people now for whom that memory is burned in their brains 40 years later. That stigma is very, very real.

[01:44:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And so when I look at this, we have literally a separate class of unit for BMR. My understanding is, and I didn't see it on a map, I would be interested to see it at some point, that there is a pretty heavy clustering of the BMR units in I think it was Neighborhood 1. I don't know where this ends, that's my concern. Because density bonus means you can kind of, they can kind of just say, hey look that's how it pencils out, this is what we get.

[01:44:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And if we end up in a world where BMR means special extra small units all put in one little building off in a corner, I think we failed our community. But I don't see what is going to stop us sliding towards that because I keep seeing this in proposal after proposal after proposal that there is a Density Bonus Law application. And so again, thank you for the forbearance of me bringing this up, which is a, this is a systemic problem so it's not just the applicant, I don't mean to critique the applicant for it, but this is bothering me.

[01:45:07] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And to the, I don't have any power really as an EPC Commissioner let's be honest, right. All I can really do, the only thing left for me to do is try to speak for the people that I live with and I know in Mountain View. It's kind of all I got left. And so on their behalf, I would simply say we are falling away from the spirit of being inclusionary and that is concerning to me. And I hope we could find some way to kind of inch our way back towards being a little bit more inclusionary because I don't like where this is headed. Thank you for your forbearance my friends.

[01:45:43] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Vice Chair Donahue.

[01:45:46] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I feel the same way. And that um, yeah, that in, when I was reading the packet that was like my number one comment that I really wanted to make tonight. But you said it much better than I ever could. But that's the way the rules work and unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that.

[01:46:21] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Also, I mean I have other concerns about the parkland dedication, the in-lieu fees, that stuff, you know, unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that with the Supreme Court. The, I have concerns about the heritage trees. You know, I used to be on the Parks and Recreation Commission so I think about that so I'm into parks, I used to be on the Urban Forestry Board which is really the same body, and so the heritage trees are concerning to me, but there's kind of nothing we can do about that.

[01:47:05] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: One other thing that I'm concerned about, I guess I'm being very negative here but really I'm just sharing my concerns right now, I'll get to some good things in a minute. The Street A in the precise plan, not the Street A in the project, the fact that that's not going to be built on this property or there's no easement for that, no provision for that, really kind of breaks up and messes up in my mind the whole precise plan.

[01:47:47] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I grew up in this strange neighborhood where you could optionally have a sidewalk and so there were like, there was like a house that just had a sidewalk and then the next house didn't have a sidewalk. And we didn't have a sidewalk but our next door neighbors did so their sidewalk just went nowhere, it just went to the property line and just ended. It was like what's the point of this? So like having something like that just doesn't make any sense and I'm afraid that basically this is going to just kind of scuttle that whole street and that thing that was so carefully planned in the precise plan.

[01:48:27] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I do have also some concerns about the lack of the community meeting and as Commissioner Subramanian said, it's just goodwill. You know, there was a public speaker tonight who was talking about lack of a meeting and I think that that's, spend an evening, hear what people have to say, get some feedback, and then it doesn't reflect, you know, then the staff report doesn't say you didn't have a meeting, that's kind of, you know, seen as a negative that you didn't have a meeting.

[01:49:08] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: But on the other side, I think it's, it meets the, generally, the goal of this area of the precise plan. It's ownership units, BMR ownership units I think are great. I mean we only have 14, I think this is great. This will really add to that stock. I do have some concerns about the Superfund site of course as everybody has said and of course, you know, we have to trust in the EPA for that. And yeah, I think that overall I will be supporting the project because I think that it, while there are a lot of waivers, probably more than I would like to see, it generally is in the spirit of the precise plan and it will bring much needed housing to this area. Thank you.

[01:50:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other commentary? No? Okay, I will make my commentary. I'll also try to keep it brief. Yeah, the BMR thing kind of like kind of sucks, you know. I mean, like it's pretty obvious what you're doing. And as someone who I was going to say has grew up poor but I might still be poor actually, so I understand that purchasing power is a thing.

[01:50:53] Chair Alex Nuñez: And so that, you know, I think in terms of Commissioner Dempsey your commentary on this being a systemic thing I agree and I think the solution might be trying to plug in with our local legislators who have been very active in advancing housing law to maybe look at some of these less savory aspects of the laws that have recently passed and maybe, you know, at the State level try to require a general consistency in terms of distribution of size, quality, material, because like you knew what you were doing, right? Like you know what I mean?

[01:51:30] Chair Alex Nuñez: And so I mean it's almost like, you know, developers are just like economic creatures and they're just like going to, you know, default to the floor of what they need to do to, you know, get the pro forma to become reality. And so along those lines, yeah, the main thing I was concerned about was just having said that, you know, and acknowledging some of the BMR elements, the main thing that I was concerned about and I am concerned about is just the long-term habitation of the site. And it sounds like there are controls in place and safeguards and incentives that the public can at least have some assurance on that will drive some addressment of that matter.

[01:52:26] Chair Alex Nuñez: So to that end, I'm pretty you know, A) constrained by State law and also supportive of the State law and the ability for us to have more housing than less. So I think, I don't know to the extent there are or aren't other commentaries. I mean Commissioner Subramanian go for it.

[01:52:49] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Sorry I forgot one more point on the topic of trees. I also noted that given the amount of trees that are being taken away and the new ones that are due to be or proposed to be planted, that the canopy is pretty small at the start. And so my request would be for the applicant to consider some more mature grown trees to be planted in so there's at least a semblance of shade when the project takes shape.

[01:53:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other comments? Concerns? No. Um, yeah, to the extent that anyone would like to make a motion in that case or propose any other form of action? Now would be the time. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:53:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I will make a motion.

[01:53:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston would like to make a motion. Anyone make a second?

[01:53:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And I brought my glasses this time. What's in this, it's in the, the PowerPoint is what I should be reading, right?

[01:54:01] Chair Alex Nuñez: Here, you can read the blue thing.

[01:54:02] Chair Alex Nuñez: I will second it.

[01:54:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: All right. I move that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving a Planned Community Permit, Development Review Permit, Provisional Use Permit to construct a 195 three-story attached rowhouse utilizing State Density Bonus Law, a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 137 Heritage Trees on a 10-acre site at 515 and 545 North Whisman Road, APNs 160-54-002 and 160-54-003, and a determination that the project is statutorily compliant, exempt from CEQA under Section 21080.66 of the Public Resource Code, to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 1 of the staff report, with the staff proposed modifications to Attachment 1 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval 5, 14, 24, 34, 41, 47, 59, 103, 106, 118, 119, 135, 146, 157, 158 and 159; and Number 2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a Vesting Preliminary Parcel Map to create 30 residential lots with 195 condominium units and 26 common lots on a 10-acre lot of 515 and 545 North Whisman Road, APNs 160-54-002 and 160-54-003, for condominium purposes to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 2 of the EPC staff report with the staff proposed modifications to Attachment 2 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval 1 and 22.

[01:55:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Quick question. Does that capture the dais item?

[01:56:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah and just to clarify the, um, the staff report, the presentation did have a typo, it is supposed to be 139 heritage trees.

[01:56:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Say 139 heritage trees in item number one.

[01:56:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion carries 6 votes yes, one absent.

[01:56:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Wahoo. Uh, let's proceed. All right, it looks like we're skipping from item 5 to item 7.

[01:57:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: It should be 6.

[01:57:05] Chair Alex Nuñez: 6? Okay. Thank you. Commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Does anyone have announcements, updates, requests, or reports? Commissioner?

[01:57:24] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I have a question for the Director. I would, I think it would be helpful for us as a Commission to understand following the discussion at the last Council meeting on the recommendations that staff made regarding process around the AB 130 process and what it means for project reviews in the future and the role of the EPC.

[01:57:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, thank you. Commissioner, good evening Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. So as Commissioner Subramanian mentioned, the City Council on January 27th considered an item related to Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130, two important statutes that affect the City's land use regulations and development review process.

[01:58:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The City Council provided direction on January 27th to prepare an ordinance under Assembly Bill 130 that would create a ministerial review and approval process for projects eligible for the statutory exemption. So for example, the project tonight under the new ordinance would have gone through a staff level review only given the very limited discretion associated with State housing laws and the environmental review process. So we are working on an ordinance to carry out that direction from Council currently and are driving to have that in front of City Council before their summer recess given the need to continue to process projects throughout the year.

[01:58:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: One of the other elements of direction was to prepare their an ordinance under Senate Bill 79 to exempt historic resources that are on the local register as of January 1st 2025. It's one of the allowances under SB 79 where cities can exempt those properties from application of the high density floor area ratio standards and so forth. So we are going to work on an ordinance for that as well.

[01:59:22] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The Council also discussed preparing implementation standards under SB 79. That's something that we proposed and Council supported building off of the adopted R3 zoning standards when that process concludes later this year. So that's work that will carry into 2027. And so that's sort of the second phase if you will of direction from Council.

[01:59:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And then the sort of third category that Council talked about was preparing a transit-oriented development or TOD alternative plan under SB 79. Most of the discussion focused on applying that to the downtown area, specifically Area H of the Downtown Precise Plan, but there was some discussion and interest among Council members of perhaps preparing for a broader area of the downtown and potentially some other TOD zones that are affected by SB 79. We have five stations in Mountain View that range from San Antonio all the way to the border with Sunnyvale. So more to follow on that for City Council to consider at a later date, sort of the breadth and extent of such an alternative planning process.

[02:00:32] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for that report back Director. So in terms of developing the ordinance for the ministerial approval at the Zoning Administrator level, can you share any thoughts on how the EPC might still serve as an advisory role if at all? And for there to be a very clear way for the public to engage. I understand there is a public comment period with the Zoning Administrator, but is there a way where some of the visibility that happens with items that come to the EPC for discussion have a similar visibility in that process?

[02:01:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So we're still in the very early stages of developing a ministerial approval process under AB 130. What we did propose and Council supported was a courtesy notice. Typically ministerial processes do not have public noticing given there's no public hearing. But in this case given the unique nature of this process and the fact that some of these projects could be very large, under AB 130 project sites can be up to 20 acres in size and so some very sizable projects could be subject to that process.

[02:01:52] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So we anticipate that this would include a courtesy notice similar to public notices for hearings that would at least ensure that the community is aware of these projects being submitted and undergoing processing. We're trying to find the right point in the project review process to provide that notice. Earlier is better but it needs to be after the project's sufficiently complete in order to characterize the project accurately for the community.

[02:02:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We've also contemplated trying to provide a written comment opportunity given there will be no public hearing. There wouldn't be a live public comment opportunity like EPC hearings for example. So some sort of written comment opportunities so at least if we missed something or there's different ways to interpret a particular code, there's an opportunity for the public to identify that and for that to be considered before staff makes a final decision on the project.

[02:02:43] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: As it pertains to the ordinance itself, that is an ordinance that would require a recommendation from EPC so the EPC will see that ordinance before it goes to City Council given it would be a zoning ordinance that does require under state law that the EPC weigh in and offer a recommendation. Beyond that, there's a range of other projects that would continue to be subject to an EPC recommendation to City Council, primarily projects located in certain precise plan areas and you know other non-residential projects that would not be subject to AB 130.

[02:03:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Seeing no more questions, are we still on track for our next meeting in two weeks or just want to confirm that?

[02:03:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes. Our next EPC meeting is going to be on February 18th. On schedule.

[02:03:32] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you. Then in that case, this meeting is adjourned at 9:01.

• ← Previous
• Next →