Feb. 18, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of February 18th, 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. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the Commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with the roll call.

[00:03:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:03:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Here.

[00:03:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Pham.

[00:03:13] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:03:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Gutierrez. Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:03:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:03:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:03:27] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:03:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Nuñez.

[00:03:29] Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:03:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:03:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. We will proceed.

[00:03:41] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Oh, just a minute. And Commissioner Gutierrez, they are both absent.

[00:03:46] Chair Alex Nuñez: Perfect. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the minutes approval. There are none. So we will proceed to item number four, the 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. 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 *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone with a yellow speaker card for oral communications or on the Zoom list?

[00:04:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers online or in person.

[00:04:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Seeing none, we'll proceed to new business, starting with agenda item 5.1, the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element. First, we'll have a staff presentation followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the Commission will have the opportunity to ask questions, deliberate, and take any action. So let's begin with a staff presentation from Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul and Planning Manager Eric Anderson.

[00:05:11] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Madelyn Faul, Assistant Planner, and I'm joined today by Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager. We're here to present the 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report. At today's meeting, we'll provide a summary of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report, or APR. This is required by the state's Department of Housing and Community Development, and the APR form must be completed by April 1st. The report tracks all phases of development of housing units from application submittal and entitlement to building permit issuance and to certificate of occupancy. It also includes policy and program implementation for 2025. Recent legislation has impacted some of the future reporting for this cycle. This includes, one, reporting of historic resources. No new sites were added to historic inventories in 2025. Two, reporting at new income levels. The city does not have RHNA at these levels, but can voluntarily report units in acutely low and extremely low income categories. The units reported will apply to the very low income for this cycle. Three, reporting of new units in opportunity areas. Opportunity areas have different categories based on transit access, education, and other resources. This is independently tracked by HCD and does not impact the city's reporting responsibilities. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA for short, is a requirement by state law in which local jurisdictions must provide their share of new housing units through zoning of adequate land to build these units and to implement other housing element requirements to facilitate housing production across income levels. The table here shows the city of Mountain View's RHNA of 11,135 total units, which is a substantial increase from the 5th cycle's requirement of 2,926 units. This table shows the third year progress towards meeting the RHNA goal, with building permits issued from January 1st to December 31st of 2025. Projects receiving building permits between June 30, 2022 and January 31st, 2023 also contribute to the city's overall progress on the 6th cycle RHNA. The city's total units to date for the 6th cycle is 1,867 units. The housing element also includes several implementation programs to help promote more housing. The following programs listed here have been completed in 2025. These include Program 1.1.g, updates to the General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning to allow residential development in several areas throughout the city, consistent with densities and locations identified in the program. Program 2.5, ongoing outreach to tenants and property owners regarding tenant rights. Program 3.1, adoption of the Pathways to Housing Homeless Response Strategy Implementation and Expenditure Plan. This is a strategic plan to support those who are unhoused and prevent people from becoming unhoused. Program 3.2, amendments to the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance, or MHRSO, to lower the allowed annual rent increase. And Program 4.1.c, adoption of a new master fee schedule based on the development services fund fee study and continued implementation of the Matrix study, including the posting of interactive dashboards and other study recommendations. Additional housing element program successes in 2025 include the following items. The city continues to fund other agencies such as the Community Services Agency, or CSA, for homelessness prevention, housing problem solving, and referral and case management services. The city has also supported affordable housing developments by appropriating city funds to these projects and providing support during the application process for projects to receive several grants in 2025. In terms of next steps, the Housing Element Annual Progress Report will be presented as a consent item to the City Council. After it is presented, the APR will be forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation before April 1, 2026. Staff recommends that the EPC review and recommend that the City Council adopt the 2025 Housing Element APR. This concludes the presentation. Staff will be available for any questions.

[00:10:17] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. All right. Looks like we may actually be going to public comment. All right. 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 *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Mr. Clerk, are there anyone on the Zoom or having submitted a yellow speaker card?

[00:10:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers online or in person.

[00:10:54] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you. We'll take it to the Commission for any questions. Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:11:03] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Thank you. So in table three, it says that moderate provisional units drop by 161. And there's a threshold at 5%. So if it drops by another 22, then we're at the 5%. Right now it's at 6 point something. If that happens and it drops to 5%, what happens? We have to identify additional units. But what's kind of like the timeline to do that? Additional sites, I guess, not units.

[00:11:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Donahue. Eric Anderson, Planning Manager. So there is instructions in the housing element for how to use this table. For the moderate income units, we can actually take lower income units, if there's plenty of buffer for the lower income units, and convert them to moderate income units. Because all of the lower income units actually also qualify as moderate income units. It doesn't work vice versa. You can't necessarily take the moderate income units. They don't necessarily qualify as lower income units. But since we have plenty of buffer for the lower income units, our first step would be to just simply take our existing inventory, convert some units from lower to moderate, and we'd be done. There's really nothing else to do. We don't really need to report that to HCD because we're not identifying new sites. It's not a, you know, it's just a minor administrative process that we would report through this APR process. Now, if our lower income buffer runs gets down to 5%, at that point, you know, we would be this is the provisional buffer, so we would ideally have a certain heads up as far as the review of projects in the pipeline. Once your buffer runs out, the law says that if you approve a project that takes that reduces your inventory to below the RHNA, you have six months to rezone properties for to to refill your inventory to meet the RHNA. So all of this math is there to give us as much advanced notice as we possibly can so that we can come to council with a, hey, our buffers are getting kind of low. You know, maybe there are a couple of projects in the pipeline right now that might get us down below 5%. Here are some ideas for future rezonings that we could do council. Do you want to pursue any of these so that we can refill our inventory well below, well before that buffer runs out.

[00:14:00] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, great. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we're not going to be blindsided or like have to suddenly do something like very quickly. Okay. The other question I had is there's nine things in table four and five of them are behind schedule. So how does that go over with with HCD? Is that going to be a problem with them? And and furthermore, like what what's happening within the city to kind of make sure that that isn't you know, that things are done in a on time as they they should be.

[00:14:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's certainly not ideal. We have not heard from HCD or from anyone with concerns about missing these deadlines. We are making forward progress on all of these items. I will say that council has prioritized actions that are not in the housing element, like the R3 zoning district update, which is actually very good for our housing production. And so working on those projects may may give us some leverage with HCD about moving forward on projects that are very good for housing production, even though they may not be specifically what is in our housing element programs. Nonetheless, we are making forward progress on all of these items.

[00:15:44] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Yeah, forward progress is good. And making a good faith effort, I think, is is probably what they're mostly looking for. So. Okay, great. Thank you.

[00:15:54] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:15:58] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. So on table two in the notes that are below table two, there's the approved but no construction start, which I'm assuming means that the entitlements are done. But projects haven't proceeded to with their design and getting ready to start construction, which is when they go in for permits. On average, how much time are you seeing between projects that are entitled and sort of waiting to get to that permit stage, permit ready stage?

[00:16:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It really varies by developer, by a really considerable amount. Certainly, you might see developers who are not moving quickly at that stage and you see other developers that are moving very quickly at that stage. Since I'm not as much involved in current planning, maybe I'll ask Principal Planner Pancholi to give her experience.

[00:17:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, thank you for the question. I think the earliest we see is like eight to 12 months time frame within which, you know, developers have come in with the building permits and theyre ready to pull them. But yeah, that's not that frequent either in today's market conditions.

[00:17:26] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yeah, it's kind of leading into that, which is why, because looking at the table, certainly this is the second year of pretty low numbers in terms of our housing fulfillment. And obviously, we all are aware of market conditions and are able to point to that. But I was also going to ask if, you know, there's any incentives. I know last year there was some talk about within the housing department making sure that streamlining of NOFAs made it easier for affordable projects to proceed to construction. Are there other points that staff is noticing or noting and things that we should be considering as a commission to really sort of help projects advance to construction?

[00:18:19] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So I can speak for the NOFA projects a little bit because we are in the process, there are a couple of projects in the in the pipeline right now. And I can assure you there's significant amount of effort on the staff side to make sure that we can bring them, you know, beyond the building permit phase into the actual construction phase. Whether it's a very streamlined process for the review of the building permit, but also collecting all the staff resources that's possible and engaging more in coordination and meetings with the applicant to ensure that they can, you know, get the funding that they need and also get the building permits done quickly.

[00:19:02] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. So a year ago, around the same topic and a similar meeting, there was talk about performance metrics around streamlining. I know staff was asked to get something together and present to this commission. I was curious to see if there was any work done and if you had something to present to us around some of the streamlining efforts so we can understand what that's looking like. You're aware.

[00:19:37] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening, Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. So without recalling specifically what that particular statement was, we do report annually as part of the budget process with City Council our performance objectives and how we've satisfied those with respect to various types of building permits and other types of permits. And so that's probably the best source of the most current information when that comes out over the next couple of months during the budget process.

[00:20:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. One last question. In attachment one, table two, what does "completed" there signify?

[00:20:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Attachment one, table two... the tables are A, Table A, Table A2...

[00:20:42] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So it is the very first page of attachment one. And it's the second table. It starts with unit by structure type, entitled, permitted, completed. What is completed there?

[00:21:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Completed means received certificate of occupancy.

[00:21:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. And so this was for the planning year 2025. Those were the number of units that received a certificate of occupancy.

[00:21:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that's right.

[00:21:21] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

[00:21:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:21:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So just one question. I'm not surprised by the numbers, but I am worried about half of where you would think you might want to be at this point through the cycle. How does that compare to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area and across the state?

[00:21:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The APRs are not broadly publicly available until April 1st. So we wouldn't be able to give you that estimate until after April 1st when they're all submitted to the state. And then all of these numbers are calculated and compared.

[00:22:16] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[00:22:18] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just have one question. I had the same question as Commissioner Cranston, but I'll ask my second one. Attachment two with the AMI for Santa Clara County, how often are these numbers updated? And then what's the reasoning behind the other three counties that were chosen to be on the same page?

[00:22:38] Assistant Planner Madelyn Faul: Thank you for the question. Madelyn Faul, Assistant Planner. So attachment two is drawn from a broader document that's prepared every year by the state. So that's just the other counties in alphabetical order that are close to Santa Clara.

[00:22:57] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you for that clarification.

[00:23:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: No, no other questions? No. I mean, I don't really have questions myself. So I guess we'll take it to a deliberation or action. It looks like the staff recommendation is to accept the annual progress report. Do we have any thoughts, considerations? Commissioner Cranston.

[00:23:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I move that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the 2025 Annual Progress Report of the 2023 to 31 Housing Element, attachment one to the staff report.

[00:23:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: Do we have a second or any other deliberation?

[00:23:47] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I'll second.

[00:23:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Second. Okay. All right. I think we might be ready for an action. All right. Mr. Clerk, do we have an outcome?

[00:24:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes with five yes.

[00:24:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Awesome. Thank you very much. Having completed 5.1, we will proceed to 5.2, the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report. First we'll have a staff presentation followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the Commission will have an opportunity to ask questions, deliberate and take action. We'll begin with a presentation from Associate Planner Vinson Kwan and Planning Manager Mr. Eric Anderson. Thank you.

[00:26:09] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: Good evening, Commissioners. Vinson Kwan, Associate Planner, and I am joined by Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson. And tonight, we are presenting the annual progress report of the General Plan Action Plan. In 2012, City Council adopted the 2030 General Plan and the related General Plan Action Plan. The 2030 General Plan Action Plan is a list of action items that carry out the General Plan's goals and policies. These action items include programs, plans, studies, ordinance updates, and other measures. The EPC is responsible for the annual review of the General Plan Action Plan in the form of an Annual Progress Report or APR, and for monitoring the progress the city is making in implementing the General Plan. Staff has provided three tables of General Plan Action Items for the EPC's review. Table 1 includes items which have not started, are currently in progress, or were completed in 2025. Table 2 includes items which were completed prior to 2025. And Table 3 includes items which are achieved through day-to-day operations, practices, and policies. In addition, staff has also removed the prioritization column from Table 1 as Council priorities has changed since the adoption of the current General Plan in 2012. One item has been formally completed in 2025. Action Item INC 8.2.1, Trash Capture. In 2025, over 180 full trash capture devices were installed in the stormwater system at various locations in the city. The city has achieved the 100% trash reduction goal required by the Municipal Regional Permit by June 20, 2025 and is on track to maintain the 100% reduction level through June 2026. In addition to the completed items, there are ongoing efforts by staff to help implement action items. Some key efforts include, included are the Transportation Demand Management or TDM Ordinance and the R3 Zoning District updates. Staff is currently drafting language for the TDM ordinance and is tentatively scheduled to be presented to EPC and the Council Transportation Committee, CTC, in quarter two of 2026. City staff also has ongoing efforts to update R3 zoning development standards which include reviewing and updating standards related to parking, neighborhood transition, mix of uses, transit-oriented development and other actions in the Action Plan. The R3 zoning update is tentatively scheduled for adoption by City Council in later in 2026. Lastly, the city is reevaluating precise plan work and timelines for both the Downtown Precise Plan Comprehensive Update and the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan due to the state's recent passing of Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130, since both bills have impacts to the work being conducted for the precise plans. Following a recommendation from the EPC, the General Plan Annual Progress Report is scheduled to be presented to City Council on March 24th, 2026, and shortly thereafter forwarded to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, previously known as the Office of Planning and Research. In conclusion, staff recommends that the EPC review and recommend City Council accept the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for any questions.

[00:30:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. All right. Then 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 a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Mr. Clerk, any speakers with yellow cards submitted or on the Zoom list?

[00:30:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speaker online or in person.

[00:30:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right, we'll bring it to the commission for any questions. Commissioner Pham.

[00:30:44] Commissioner Tina Pham: Sorry. I did have a general question. I know that the general plan was completed in 2012, which is quite some time ago, and I hesitate to ask because I know it's such a huge lift and effort. Are there plans in the works to do an update at some point in the future?

[00:31:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, nothing's on the council work plan or, you know, staff's work plan. It is something that comes up in occasional discussions at the council level during say the work plan discussion, but no, nothing's been added to the work plan.

[00:31:21] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thanks for the context.

[00:31:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:31:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: In the list of projects under review, there is a builder's remedy project listed. I was curious about why it was on the list and if it was a project that entered kind of the inventory before the 6th housing cycle had started. Because since we're in compliance at the start of the housing cycle, why is there a builder's remedy project under review currently?

[00:32:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So not all the builder's remedy projects have been approved yet. There are some that are still under review from the point at which they submitted an application during the period when we were out of compliance with our housing element.

[00:32:20] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then moving on to other questions. Again, I think this might have been stated before in past years. This is a lot of information to digest and certainly hard to make nuts and bolts of, like, a very long ongoing list. Makes me really, really fearful of looking at staff's desk on these days, but could you help us maybe understand what are priorities beyond just the high level ongoing items. What is kind of the key areas of priorities, given that staff has spoken about the focus on passing R3 standards this year along with overall development standards and then really focusing on developing an alternative to the SP-79 plan and then getting to the Moffett Precise Plan and Downtown Precise Plan. What are some of the other, I don't know, pages of ongoing items and how do you prioritize them?

[00:33:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, let me clarify that the ongoing table is for things that don't really have a start or end date. Those are things that are mainly part of our day-to-day activities. So it might include things like criteria for projects that we look for during development review. Or making sure that we're maintaining, you know, adequate levels of service for utilities and police and all of those other ongoing day-to-day activities that we do. So in that sense, the ongoing projects are a little bit of a different animal than the other tables, which are discrete projects that have will, could potentially have specific beginning and end dates. Like we will do X and it will be done at some point. That's for things like updating the zoning ordinance to achieve some goal or policy in the general plan. So the table of ongoing actions, there's a lot of things there because there are a lot of things that staff does on an ongoing basis, just as a matter of our day-to-day obligations.

[00:34:41] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So maybe stated differently, in bringing these different tables to us, what if anything do you want commission to focus on so we understand what is priority for staff or how do we help you achieve those priorities?

[00:34:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think looking at individual action items, this is your opportunity to ask questions about the intent of the action items, maybe look for opportunities for synergy between action items and projects that we're currently working on. You can ask questions or direct staff to make comments or recommendations to the City Council about how items are prioritized or organized. I think in the last year, there were some suggestions that maybe council bring up this action plan and maybe direct staff to modify it in some way, to organize it or to remove items that are not likely to be done. And so that recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. They did not take it up. But, you know, it was forwarded to them and doubtless they reviewed that information.

[00:36:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for that clarification. I will be thinking about that beyond today and hoping to clarify some of that and providing recommendations to council. Thank you.

[00:36:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:36:26] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: So I have a I guess a follow-up to Commissioner Pham's question. So the 2030 and the 2030 general plan. Is there any... is that a deadline or in any way a requirement that we would have to have a new general plan at that time or?

[00:36:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No. No. The city is not obligated to have a new general plan after 2030. There are certainly drawbacks and challenges to having an older general plan. Certainly some of our analyses can be less efficient with understanding of what the kind of cumulative case of the city's build out might be. And so there are reasons to, you know, update that information, update, you know, the city's policies if the general plan is out of alignment with the city's current goals. But there is no legal requirement as far as I know to update the general plan any given number of time and given amount of time.

[00:37:44] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. It's just in 2012 it was seen as maybe it's an 18-year plan and it's always good to have up-to-date plans because I guess a lot's changed since 2012. So okay, thanks.

[00:38:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:38:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I would, it's not so much a question as a well, maybe it is a question for the director. As you're looking at the work needed to get AB 130 and all these other streamlining things, perhaps have you considered looking at this and saying, I'm... my frustration with this has been ongoing for eight years now. So I look at this and these were priorities in 2012. The things that haven't been prioritized yet aren't priorities anymore. So if you're looking for opportunities to get staff time to do something else, I would suggest that maybe you consider including getting all this stuff that's not been done for 14 years and probably isn't going to be on a priority anytime soon off the list so your people aren't spending time on it and it can be spent on things like 130 and other things. So I would, it's more of a request that you consider that because I quite frankly view the time that's spent on this would be better spent doing other things until we get to the point where it's working on the 2050 plan or whatever it is, but it's just this is not a I don't believe this is a good use of staff's time any longer. And unless something comes in that council wants to look at, the stuff on this list I don't know why it's there anymore. So use this as an opportunity to free your people's time would be my recommendation on this. But it's you're doing what you're supposed to do. This is a, reports the right thing, but man, I wish you didn't have to spend time on it.

[00:39:40] Chair Alex Nuñez: I guess I have a question. Isnt it, I guess I just want to follow up on that line of thought because my understanding is that it's a council, it's a municipal almost like a constitution of like development or land use. And so only council would therefore have the authority to actually take things off or move things around. Is that... is that...?

[00:40:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening. Honorable Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. So, it's indeed the case that the City Council is vested with the authority to amend the General Plan. I think it might be helpful to clarify that the action items that we're describing in this annual progress report are not actually specific work plan items, it's not directing staff's work. These are programmatic level activities that, at the time of adoption of the General Plan, were determined to be areas worth advancing at some point. And different items achieve different priority order and execution. For example, the city aggressively pursued precise plans for several of the general plan change areas. That was prioritized as one of many general plan action items as an example. Other items have fallen lower in the priority order. The council has a separate independent council work plan prioritization process. And so it's a complex landscape. It presents challenges for staff to prioritize, but it's in fact not the case that we're proactively pursuing these general plan action items in a way that detracts from staff capacity to pursue other work.

[00:41:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. And then to that extent, what if any consultative relationship does staff or yourself as representative of staff and or with our city manager have with regard to our city council in terms of the freshness of the plan, the staleness? Any kind of like nudge nudge hey, maybe we ought to consider... you know, because that was kind of my line of thinking as well independent of the initial round of commissioner questions is around the the closeness. I know that the name of 2030 is just like a standard name. But I think just from the actual fact that so much has changed since, especially the pandemic with movement, economy. Like, to what extent can you characterize staff's relationship with council around the suitability of a general plan?

[00:42:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So, in my career I've seen it both ways where the staff is agitating a council to say, a general plan needs to be updated. It's no longer effectively guiding staff's work. The community has changed so much that these policies, these programs, these land use designations no longer reflect the environment in which we operate. And that's a very concerning position to be in as staff because the general plan is supposed to be the guiding framework for city actions, city financial investments, infrastructure decisions, and the like. And so oftentimes you'll see staff saying, hey, the general plan is unhelpful and we need to fix it as soon as possible. In other cases, you'll see the community agitate for an update to the general plan because they perceive that the general plan is no longer meeting their needs as a community for one or several reasons. And so they apply pressure to the council to prioritize and update to a general plan. And sometimes there's elements of both, right? Because staff interests sometimes are different, maybe more technical in nature or legal in nature than values-based, for instance, for the community. I don't think we're at either of those turning points at this time, where the general plan is continuing to serve us reasonably well. Certainly our community has changed even in the 10 to 15 years since the adoption. We do I think have a duty as staff to look out on the horizon and begin to plan, begin to have the conversations, you know, turn the whispers into dialogue with the council and the community. Prioritizing a general plan update will be a massive effort and it will require the council to largely clear the decks for staff capacity and other work for a multiple number of years. Beyond just the community development department, and that's a big conversation to have even about undertaking a general plan update.

[00:44:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Right. So we won't be targeting that to run concurrently with the next housing element update is what I'm hearing. Okay, cool. Yeah, I don't have any other questions. I mean, I would be very happy to make a motion unless someone else wants to do that or have other deliberation on this as I'm assuming there's no more questions. No, no more questions. Mr. Cranston, our resident motion maker, would you like to...

[00:44:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I will move that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend to the council that they accept the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: ...progress report attachment one to the staff report.

[00:45:03] Commissioner Tina Pham: I second.

[00:45:06] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, Commissioner Subramanian makes a second on that. Thank you.

[00:45:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes with five yeses.

[00:45:50] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Alright, we will proceed to our public hearing. Item number 6.1 on the agenda, the Rowhouse Gatekeeper project at 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue. First we'll have a staff presentation and then questions by the EPC followed by public comments. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action. First we'll begin with a staff presentation from our Senior Planner Edgar Maravilla and Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro.

[00:47:51] Senior Planner Edgar Maravilla: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, members of the public. My name is Edgar Maravilla, I'm a Senior Planner with the City of Mountain View, and I'll be presenting the 922 through 950 San Leandro Rowhome Gatekeeper project. I'm joined at the dais by Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro. This project is located on an approximately 1.69 acre site comprised of two existing parcels on the west side of San Leandro Avenue between San Pablo Drive and Tarabella Avenue. The property is currently in the General Industrial MM zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial. The site is surrounded by industrial uses to the north, State Route 85 and Highway 101 to the east, single-family homes to the south, and a future city park to the west. The existing General Plan designation and zoning for the project site does not allow for residential uses. As such, the applicant is requesting a General Plan and Zoning Map amendment to allow redevelopment of the site. Additionally, the project includes a Planned Unit Development and Development Review Permit to construct a 38-unit rowhome project, including 10 below market rate units, utilizing State Density Bonus law. The application also includes a vesting tentative map to facilitate individual sale of the rowhome units. The State Density Bonus request includes one concession and four waivers discussed later in this presentation. If the General Plan Map amendment from General Industrial to Medium-Density Residential and the Zoning Map amendment from MM General Industrial to R3-1.5 Medium-Density Residential are approved, the proposed residential development would be allowed, consistent with the proposed General Plan and Zoning land use changes, which are subject to City discretion. More specifically, the R3 zoning district allows rowhome developments through the Planned Unit Development permit process, consistent with rowhome standards and guidelines referenced by the R3 standards. In summary, the project complies with the applicable standards of the proposed General Plan land use designation and zoning district. The 38 units would be constructed in four 3-story rowhome buildings, building A through D, shown here. Building A, 10 units, orient towards the San Leandro Avenue street frontage. Building B and C, 9 units each, front the project's main common open space area, and Building D, 10 units, will face the future city park. Pedestrian and vehicle access into the property is provided from San Leandro Avenue. The site also provides a 10-foot wide publicly accessible pathway along the southern property line, which will provide access to future city park and includes amenities such as benches, a row of California native trees, and a bicycle fix-it station. The vehicle drive provides access to 14 guest parking spaces and each garage, as well as city emergency and solid waste vehicle access. The buildings share a simple Craftsman bungalow inspired design with a mix of three primary exterior materials, including stucco, board and batten, and lap siding. The project design features hipped and intersecting gable roof forms. As proposed, each rowhouse unit will provide three bedrooms, a private balcony, and a small front yard with a porch, anchored by drought-tolerant landscaping. As noted earlier, the project will provide 10 below market rate units, equivalent to 25% of the project units. Three units for low-income households, five units for moderate-income households, and two units at above moderate income. All units in the development are three bedrooms, including the below market rate units. This proposal meets the City's BMR requirements with one concession and qualifies the project to utilize State Density Bonus law. Pursuant to State Density Bonus law, the project qualifies for a 16% density bonus, up to two concessions, one incentive, and unlimited waivers of development standards necessary to construct the project. The applicant is not requesting bonus density, but is requesting one concession and four waivers, as shown on the screen and discussed in more detail in the report and project findings. Denial of the waiver would physically preclude the construction of the project at the permitted density and denial of the concession would increase project costs, undermining overall financial feasibility and delivery of the project. The project proposal exceeds the objective design requirements for private and common open space, providing approximately 19,500 square feet of common open area and 10,100 square feet of private open space. 31 on-site trees are proposed for removal, five are heritage trees. Project will plant 94 new trees, roughly three times the number of trees to be removed, which will also provide three times the existing site canopy at maturity. Overall, the landscape plan complies with the City's Water Conservation and Landscape Regulations and includes a strong focus on California native species. The vesting tentative map would create 38 residential lots via a one lot subdivision, allowing individual sale of the units and common ownership of shared improvements. Staff reviewed the subdivision and has found the project is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, City Subdivision Standards, and the General Plan. A draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, ISMND, was prepared for the project, which found that with implementation of Mountain View City Code requirements, standard city conditions of approval, and mitigation measures disclosed in the ISMND and MMRP, Attachment 1 of the project material, the project would not result in any potential significant environmental impacts. The City did not receive comments on the ISMND during the 30-day public period comment. The applicant hosted two community meetings, outreach meetings, one prior to submittal. It is important to note at the December 2025 community meeting, all six attendees expressed appreciation for the design, including that the revised site plan created a larger buffer to adjacent homes to the south and that the applicant revised the project to address prior community feedback. As part of the City Collaborative Design Review Process, the applicant also attended one Design Review Consultation meeting. And we are now at the EPC recommendation meeting. After this meeting, the project is tentatively scheduled for a City Council public hearing on March 24th. In conclusion, City staff recommends that the EPC recommend City Council adopt the ISMND pursuant to applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the General Plan amendment, Zoning Map amendment, Planned Unit Development, and Development Review Permit utilizing State Density Bonus law, as well as the associated Vesting Tentative Map with the recommendations more specifically shown on screen and in the report. This concludes staff's presentation. City staff and the applicant team are available for questions. Please note the applicant also has a brief presentation for you tonight.

[00:55:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you.

[00:55:10] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: And I'll just add, sorry, one moment. Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro. Our City Attorney representative tonight will also have some remarks after this presentation.

[00:55:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you very much. Uh, looks like the applicant would come up then. Can we get the speaking time on the clock before they start, please? How many minutes?

[00:55:44] City Staff: I think it's 10.

[00:55:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: 10.

[00:56:12] Applicant Kian Malek: Oh. Will the presentation be on the screen? Oh, okay. Just double checking. Okay. Hello Planning Commissioners. Thank you so much for having me here tonight. My name is Kian Malek. I'm with City Ventures, and I'm honored to be here tonight to present to you the Arbor Square project on San Leandro Avenue. Next slide please. For those that are not familiar with City Ventures, we are an infill developer. So our focus is developing underutilized parcels in existing urban areas with the goal of meeting the large demand for naturally attainable housing. We love working in the City of Mountain View and this is our third project. Next slide please. So the slide you're seeing right now is not the site plan, we are... the final site plan we are proposing tonight. It's the initial site plan we shared with the community about five years ago, where we gathered really valuable feedback that you can see on the next slide. And I'll highlight really the main themes of this feedback was really to create an increased setback from the existing single family dwelling property owners to the south property line. And I'd be remiss not to mention the site plan drawn by one of the community members that was reorienting the buildings further north to have a further setback. But I'll go over how we achieved and implemented these comments on a later slide. Next slide please. So like I mentioned, this project has been in the works for a long time. It's been about five years and at the early stages of the project we spent a lot of time meeting with staff, meeting with council members, and the community to do our due diligence because it's a complicated site. There's two parcels, it's an assemblage, and multiple property owners. So after we had our first community meeting where we shared our initial site plan and got feedback, we had multiple site plans, multiple submittals submitted to the city and reviewed. I think we had about 15 to 20 site plan iterations. And once staff felt the project, once there was staff support for the project, we were then agendized for the DRC and the Airport Land Use Commission where we received unanimous recommendations of approval from both bodies. And then after those meetings we implemented the comments we heard from the DRC into our sixth submittal that we shared that was deemed complete, that we shared with the community this last December for our final community meeting. And that brings us here tonight to respectfully request your recommendation of approval to City Council. Next slide please. I wanted to restate that this is a 1.69 acre site that today is mostly a vacant industrial building, a surface parking lot, and a vacant dirt lot. So as you'll see on the next slide. This is a fantastic infill site and a great opportunity for more housing, more ownership housing in the City of Mountain View. Next slide please. So we are proposing 38 homes that will be marketed towards first-time homebuyers, small families, families looking to downsize, and below market rate buyers. And as you'll see on the next slide, 25% of the homes will be deed restricted to affordable buyers. And you know we heard through the grapevine that not many developers are implementing this or are able to achieve this. So we're really proud to be including 25% affordable in this project because we know how important it is to the city to have different income levels of ownership housing. On the next slide, you'll see that the goal of the design was really to create a strong street, pedestrian experience by orienting the front doors to face both public ways, on San Leandro Avenue, as well as the future park. And then on the next slide, you'll see the large separation between all the buildings and the south property line. We were able to achieve that by consolidating the project drive aisle, the public path for the public, as well as the canopy trees along the south property line all to consolidate along the south border there. Next slide please. So with all of those... through that iteration of the site plan, we had a fantastic December community meeting. Getting 'looks great' and 'good job' is awesome, but also getting the comment card on the top left and I'm going to read it. 'Unlike many other developers, City Ventures actually listened.' That means a lot. And we really appreciate that with all the work we put into this project. And I think it's because we implemented the feedback we heard from the community early on. Next slide please. The goal of the design for the public path was simple. We wanted to make sure everyone felt comfortable using the path. And so if you're looking to walk your dog or you're looking to go on a walk with your family or fix your bike at the fix-it station, there's a place to do that. Whether it's at night where there's lighting along the path or during the day on a hot summer day, there are canopy trees to shade the path there. Next slide please. And we're also very excited about the right-of-way improvements we're proposing along San Leandro Avenue. That includes a 5-foot right-of-way extension, a brand new 7-foot sidewalk, and an 8-foot landscape strip that will accommodate a double row of trees along the project frontage that not only softens the architecture, but also creates a overall better pedestrian experience along San Leandro Avenue. Next slide. Uh, last point is that we are proposing 94 new trees, where only 31 trees exist on site today. The majority of the trees are native species, and at full maturity about a quarter of the site will be under the tree canopy. So very green site and we're very excited about that. Next slide. We at City Ventures want to thank you for this opportunity to join the fabric of this community. And we're really excited about the... you know, well actually first of all we want to thank staff and I want to give a special thank you to project planner Edgar Maravilla who's been an absolute pleasure to work with throughout the five years of this project. Edgar and staff have really made this project the best it could be. So thank you Edgar, thank you staff and thank you Commissioners.

[01:03:34] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Miss Chen.

[01:03:38] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: And with that and maybe before we move on in the script for tonight I can turn our attention to Celena Chen, our Senior Assistant City Attorney for some remarks.

[01:03:47] Senior Assistant City Attorney Celena Chen: Good evening. Celena Chen, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Just wanted to give you a brief overview of the law that applies to this project. So there's two buckets of residential projects. There's those that are consistent with the general plan and zoning, um, at the time the the application was submitted. And there's another bucket of projects that are not necessarily consistent and require amendments to the general plan or the zoning to move forward. Under the first bucket, we have the Housing Accountability Act in play and that gives the city very limited discretion to disapprove any projects that are consistent with the general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time applications are deemed complete. The city's disapproval of those types of projects can only be made if they're supported with certain written findings. This project tonight is something that falls in the second bucket. It's being proposed on a site that does not currently allow residential uses and it requires both a general plan amendment and an amendment to the zoning map. So these types of projects have a different standard. The city has very broad discretion to approve or deny the general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment because they're discretionary legislative decisions. There is no obligation or requirement by the city to approve the general plan amendment or the zoning code zoning map amendment even when a housing development project is being proposed. And I guess I just wanted to let you know the city is not obligated to modify its laws to accommodate such a project and it really is... these types of actions are authorized when it is deemed to be in the public interest. So there is substantial discretion by both you as a recommending body and the city council as the decision maker.

[01:06:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much, Miss Chen. Okay. I looks like we'll take it to the public comment then. Or public comment right? Versus questions or...

[01:06:16] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: No, this is public hearing. So we will do EPC questions first.

[01:06:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Alright, sounds good. Thank you. Uh, Commissioners any, any questions? Vice Chair Donahue.

[01:06:31] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: The figure one of the staff report shows the layout of... it shows where these parcels are, where the site is. And it shows the park. And the park in that diagram looks like it's maybe three parcels. But the park in Attachment 1 looks like it's only two parcels. Is that... I found a few different disagreements on... between Attachment 1 and the staff report like the amount of open space on the development and like the diagram of the park. So I'm just... is the staff report the most up to date information?

[01:07:18] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro. The graphic in the staff report is the most current graphic and the city park layout includes three parcels. That was a late update in the staff report that did not apparently make its way into the attachment appropriately. Thank you for calling that to our attention and we'll make sure that's fixed.

[01:07:38] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, that's actually my only question.

[01:07:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Donahue. Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:07:50] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So it was mentioned that the adjacent... the commercial parcel was mostly vacant. So are there any existing tenants in there? And is there a requirement to relocate those tenants?

[01:08:09] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: I don't know if we have a commercial tenant relocation program. The city does not have a commercial tenant relocation program. Um, I'd have to turn that sort of question as to whether there are existing tenants to the the applicant to answer for the commercial property.

[01:08:37] Applicant Kian Malek: Thank you for that question. Um, the industrial building is 53% vacant. All of the existing tenants are on month-to-month leases. They have been notified about the close of escrow once the permits are achieved. And the property owner of 922 San Leandro has actively tried to lease the vacant spaces for the last 5 years without any results. And the existing tenants have also been introduced to an agent to find new spaces and none have left most likely and this is from the property owner, due to the low rates provided to the tenants because of an impending development project.

[01:09:24] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Glad to hear that there are efforts being made to reach out to them. Couple of other quick points about the project itself. Is there submetering to the units in terms of the utility metering?

[01:09:44] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: So the the development is a for sale project. So each unit is individually owned and should have its own meter.

[01:09:52] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then in terms of an EV provision for parking, is there an EV requirement for the guest parking spaces or... I don't know how the EV requirements for the parking itself work in this project.

[01:10:12] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Off the top of my head I cannot quote the green building code. They adopted the reach green building code for you tonight. Um, but if there is a requirement under the building code for this project then if approved the current building code would apply to it.

[01:10:30] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. And then under the density bonus letter which talks about the affordability plan, there is mention of an HOA reserve fund. How does that work? Is that a one-time fund that is put in place by the property developer and is that financed one-time or how does that work?

[01:10:54] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: My understanding and I believe our housing director Wayne Chen is available virtually tonight and we may want to turn to him for more detailed information, is that it's a one-time deposit and that the intent of that reserve fund is to try to cover the unknown kind of future increases in costs associated with being part of an HOA that has certain financial obligations to the development and that it's not necessarily serving to pay for like the standard monthly sort of HOA cost to the extent they exist, um, but that it is it is a one-time fund that's established for the the development to benefit of the the BMR unit owners.

[01:11:45] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Sort of like a backstop subsidy for the BMR units in terms of the HOA.

[01:11:48] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: That's my understanding.

[01:11:50] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. And then last question has to do with the trees along the northern edge of the property. So I see that the proposed development has a 5-foot setback from the northern edge and there is a row of existing trees which are probably in the neighboring property that are being identified as being preserved with the new development. Um, they seem to be fairly large trees. Will there be any sort of impairment to the trees with the new construction being so close to that northern edge? Will there be any sort of impact to those canopies which are pretty large?

[01:12:33] Senior Planner Edgar Maravilla: Thank you for that question. It's not envisioned that there will be impact to those trees. The arborist report does provide best practices and measures. There is also a condition of approval that will require a monthly update on the trees during construction that the applicant, if the project advances, would be required to adhere to.

[01:12:55] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. And does that also mean that there is a row of new trees proposed there which goes into the count for the project, that they won't be in any way obstructing the canopies of the existing trees?

[01:13:10] Senior Planner Edgar Maravilla: Correct. Those are a smaller growing trees. They were reviewed by the City Forestry Division, which are arborists, and they felt those trees were appropriate in those locations and could survive.

[01:13:24] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: And if I could just add, more often than not when we get to the construction phase of a development there's sort of fine tuning of the planting plan to really address field conditions and in a manner that's just easier to do in the field than in a plan even.

[01:13:40] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for the answers. Those are all my questions, Chair. Thank you.

[01:13:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:13:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So just one, do we have any ability to earmark the future park and loop fees towards this new future park?

[01:14:01] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So the question was, is there an opportunity to earmark the park-in-lieu fees for the future park adjacent to the project? Um, those decisions about the utilization of the park fees are are made outside of the land use planning process. And so perhaps the commission could consider making a suggestion as part of a recommendation to council, uh, but it's not something the APC could require.

[01:14:29] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Uh, Commissioner Pham.

[01:14:33] Commissioner Tina Pham: Sorry. Um, I had a question I think for city staff. Um, the applicant was deliberate about putting in the pathway on the south side of the property. I think in response to neighborhood comments. Is there a plan to continue that into the future park all the way to San Rafael Avenue?

[01:14:58] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: I think the best answer I can give at this time is that there is no current plan for the design of that future park. Um, and that the you know the design will be sometime off to the extent that this approval is still valid and or has been implemented by the time that design work for the park begins. The existence of this public path will absolutely be an existing condition that that I would imagine be would be factored into the design process for the future park.

[01:15:29] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, kind of a related question for the applicant. I saw on the plans that, um, on that corner of the future park in the southern end, there there's a note that says temporary fence on the west property line until park opens. I'm kind of interested in knowing when and or how much that temporary fence extends. Um, the note points to a blue line that goes all the way to the north part of the property as well and intersects with the retaining wall. So it's... I'm looking at page I think 45 of 53 of the project plans.

[01:16:22] Applicant Kian Malek: Um, I believe your question is about the... And thank you for this question. Um, if I could turn your attention to sheet L4, which is the landscape plan sheet. Um, the note is also there. And the the goal and this is this really came from the city and and we we agree with this, is once the future park is built, um, we we want to have that flexibility and that give that ability, uh, for our community to give access. If if we don't give it now, uh, it it may be harder to do. So we we wanted to give it up front. Um, there will... that entire stretch will be a a 6-foot tall, 6-foot tall perimeter fence along that western property line. Um, and there will be a gate just along the 10-foot wide path portion. So it is... I'm hoping that clarifies the question.

[01:17:25] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yeah, that clarifies. Um, I originally thought it, the gate would be right behind the trash enclosure, but it makes more sense what you described for the connectivity. Thank you.

[01:17:35] Applicant Kian Malek: Thanks.

[01:17:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Um, I have a quick question for staff. Um, I I would presume maybe no, given the current general plan designation, but, uh, did the housing element inventory opportunity sites, uh, touch on this on the site on the parcel on the land? Was was it considered?

[01:18:07] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: No, this particular property is not a housing element opportunity site.

[01:18:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um, if this were to go through, would it would it count anyway?

[01:18:21] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Sure, the units approved would count towards the city's satisfaction of its regional housing needs allocation or RHNA obligation.

[01:18:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you. Uh, those are all my questions. Um, I think we're ready to proceed to... up up.

[01:18:38] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just had one process question for staff. Um, if a motion were to be made, would the commissioner have to read the entire recommendation of all five points?

[01:18:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you for the clarification.

[01:18:52] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, and I just wanted to circle back on one of the questions from Commissioner Subramanian regarding, or maybe Commissioner Pham, I don't remember, on the EV parking requirement. So as per our new green building code, the city's green building code, it's a percentage of the total parking spaces that needs to be installed with the EV charging stations. And then at least one parking space per unit needs to be EV ready. So the guest parking will be involved in the total parking calculations.

[01:19:26] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you for that clarification.

[01:19:31] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other questions? No? Okay. Um, I think now we're ready for public comment. Uh, if anyone in attendance would like to provide comment 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 *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Mr. Clerk, do we have a tally of individuals either with yellow cards submitted or on the Zoom?

[01:20:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have one in-person speaker and one online.

[01:20:05] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, uh, can we get the speaker clock ready for them? Travis Boying.

[01:20:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, just a minute. Uh, the lectern microphone, please.

[01:20:30] Public Speaker: Are we good? Alright, I can't see the light from way up here. Anyway, uh, 45 years ago I built the property to the north of this project we're talking about, and actually that's been the last major property that's been constructed in this area in 45 years. So we're pretty excited about a new project, uh, particularly housing. Uh, the housing is so badly needed, particularly for first time homeowners. We think this is a tremendous opportunity for particularly young families. And with the city park, and I got confidence that that's going to be a really great park. Uh, young families with kids, I just can't... it's just a wonderful development and I think it'll serve the community well and I think the City of Mountain View should be commended for that park. I think City Ventures should be commended for this really great development. I'm not really looking forward to the construction phase, but the results are going to be well worth it. So, I'm really optimistic and happy about this, so thank you for doing everything you can do to make this happen.

[01:22:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. We'll proceed to the Zoom.

[01:22:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Next speaker is Albert Jeans.

[01:22:36] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, thank you.

[01:22:41] Public Speaker: Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Great. Um, yeah, this is Albert Jeans. I'm a long time resident of Sterling Estates, which is the housing development just to the south of this uh, new proposed development. And in general, yeah, this is a great project. Um, I really appreciate the care that the developer has gone to to make a sensitive transition to the, you know, generally single-story homes to the south of the project. I guess my only point here or prime objection is to the city itself. And once again, you know, staff is using this new formula for computing the parkland dedication. Even on this project, it seems like it's ideal and fits the letter of the law for the traditional parkland dedication ordinance of, you know, three acres per thousand people. Using this new formula, the Sterling Estates planning area will again suffer, and you know, we already have one of the lowest parkland ratios in the city, and this is not going to raise it at all. I mean, it will just keep it, I think essentially just keeps it at its low level. Um, fortunately, it's a small project, so the amount of land or the amount of money involved is not a lot. The developer has generously dedicated that pathway through the project to the new park, and so, you know, my... we're probably only, you know, being shorted maybe a couple million dollars here over what the parkland dedication ordinance would require. But going forward, I'm just wondering, you know, how is it that we're using this new way of computing this parkland dedication when the old ordinance is still on the books and has not been changed by the City Council. It seems kind of arbitrary and I'm just wondering going forward, you know, I think maybe Mr. Murdock may provide some comments on it's like coming forward with a new plan, but it seems like in the interim we're losing a lot of chances to get valuable... much needed park space or money to buy a new park space. Um, that's all I have to say. Yeah, I just hope that you guys think about that and hope the City Council will do the same. Thank you.

[01:24:59] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Jeans. Okay, uh, Mr. Clerk, any final comments lined up for us? Or...

[01:25:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: None.

[01:25:12] Chair Alex Nuñez: None? Okay. All right. Then we can take it back to the commission for comments, deliberation, action. Anyone would like to get on the queue? Commissioner Cranston.

[01:25:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I like the project. Um, I really would like to find... I mean this is an area as the speaker mentioned, this is an area that doesn't have a lot of parks and the getting that park next door funded to me... is it on? Oh but it's not... okay. Uh, so I like the project. Um, but it I'd like if there's a way to suggest it whoever the powers that be are, um, get that park next door funded through this that would be great. And so I'll be supporting this and enthusiastically seconding whoever has to read this really, really long motion, okay.

[01:26:21] Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, Vice Chair Donahue.

[01:26:25] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I actually appreciate that that we have some discretion in this in this in this matter. I think that's that's kind of refreshing. But uh, but I think that it's a good project. So I I'm, you know, not going to to vote against it or anything like that. Just even though, you know, it's like I said, it's refreshing to be able to. Um, the um... Yeah, I think this is a great project. Um, it's it meets housing needs. It's, you know, adjacent to residential area already. Um, it... you held voluntary meetings, which I, you know, some recent uh projects have not done that but and and you listen to the feedback and you you incorporated it. I think that's fantastic. Um, so the neighbors are happy, um, I'm happy. I think I think everybody's going to be happy with this. Um, the, uh... you know, I'm never super excited about concessions and waivers. Uh, I think that the the concession is is okay because the uh the BMR units are in a floor plan that is that there are market rate units that use the same floor plan. So it is a uh the type of unit that that that people would would want. Um, so I think that's fantastic. Um, and and things like, you know, FAR being 1.06 versus 1.05, you know, I think that's fine. Um, so I I love the the easement for the path to the park. Um, and I I am glad that we're getting... maybe not uh as much of the uh parkland fees as uh the ordinance would otherwise require, but we have to abide by the Supreme Court decision. Um, but there's a park right next door and I'm sure that the the Parks and Rec Commission will will recommend that the that those fun- uh fees be used to uh to develop that that park. So um, but of course that's in their that's in their domain. Um, so yeah overall I think it's it's great. Um, so let's let's move it forward.

[01:28:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Uh, Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:28:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you Chair. Um, I too will be the third voice sort of expressing appreciation for the plan. Um, I like the general goal of creating more consistency with the surrounding uses. Creating the many tiers of BMR to really serve our affordable housing plan and support that. Um, with regards to... and then I was going to say I very much appreciated uh your community engagement process and the feedback that you took. I would recommend you hire the community member who drew up the very smart plan and I think it is it has vastly improved the plan that you have today. So I commend you for that. Um, it's my comment on the four waivers required to me is really a comment to staff. And I think as we move towards more objective standards and...

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I hope we can get away from stipulating such fine demands within our standards which require a degree of variation to be considered as a waiver. And rather than spending all our time on that, I would recommend that we move towards more objective standards citywide and consider that as we implement the R3 standards so we can really speed up the process of review in these projects, and hopefully other developers find that useful as well. I appreciate the easement that you've provided although it's a path to nowhere on both sides, so I do hope that the earmarking of funds is something that can be recommended so the park that's proposed next door comes into being sooner because then it would really be of value to both this development and the neighborhood. And I think that's really a summary of all that I have to say. Thank you.

[01:31:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Pham.

[01:31:52] Commissioner Tina Pham: I'll also be supporting the project. I agree with a lot of what my fellow commissioners have mentioned. I also want to add, I liked that there are three-bedroom units. I know that that is, you know, part of what we need in the city, so I appreciate that. I also appreciate the pathway, and your community engagement and how you've listened to residents and they've come out to show support, which I appreciate as well. And I appreciate your collaborative nature, especially with City staff.

[01:32:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: No, no other comments? Well, I feel we all deserve congratulations. And I would like to just go ahead and make one comment which is, I used to work in that area and I used to go on a lot of walks with my coworkers and I think that area is definitely in need of the facelift that this is going to give it. And so I know I'm very happy that you guys were able to find that site and hopefully make it more of a resource to the city and our future residents. So to that end, I'd like to make a motion. And I think I have a packaged second in the wings. You're so far away, though. Okay, do I just read it as is? Okay. Then in that case, I will make a motion that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council one, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue residential project pursuant to section 15064(f)(3) and 15070 et seq., et sequida, what is, et seq., et seq. of the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment 1 to the EPC staff report. Two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting a general plan amendment to modify the general plan land use map to change the land use designation for the properties at 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031, from General Industrial to Medium-Density Residential as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment 2 to the EPC staff report. Three, adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View approving a zoning map amendment for the properties located at 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031, from the MM General Industrial zoning district to the R3-1.5 Multiple-Family Residential zoning district as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment 3 to the EPC staff report. Four, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a planned unit development permit and development review permit to construct a 38-unit rowhouse development and related site improvements, utilizing state density bonus law, replacing a multitenant industrial building and two single-family homes, and a heritage tree removal permit to remove five heritage trees on a 1.69-acre site located at 922-950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031, to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment 4 to the EPC staff report. Five, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a vesting tentative map for condominium purposes with one common lot on a 1.69-acre site located at 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031, to be read in title only, further reading, attachment, further reading waived, I guess I would say, attachment 5 to the EPC staff report. Um, and I think we can take it for the vote.

[01:35:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Can you say that again?

[01:35:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: That motion passes with five yes. Alright, further reading waived. Alright, um, I'm gonna fall asleep to that tonight. Um, we got, uh, moving forward to Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests, and Committee Reports.

[01:36:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: If nobody else has anything, Diana Pancholi, Staff Liaison to the EPC and Principal Planner. Our next EPC meeting will be March 4th. As scheduled. Thank you.

[01:36:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much, Ms. Pancholi. And in that case, we will go ahead and proceed to 8. Adjournment. This meeting is adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Thank you, everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →