October 7, 2026 Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Agenda

Speaker Summary

(32 speakers)
SpeakerWordsTime
Chair Alex Nuñez3,60627m
Vice Chair Paul Donahue2,27414m
Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian2,48620m
Commissioner Bill Cranston2,59616m
Commissioner José Gutiérrez1,1346m
Commissioner Hank Dempsey1,1196m
Commissioner Tina Pham5603m
City Clerk Heather Glaser77<1m
Planning Manager Eric Anderson6,32551m
Assistant Planner Tristan White2,95821m
Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen1,2917m
Community Development Director Christian Murdock1,5347m
City Staff2342m
John Scarbrough2771m
Staff Amber Blizinski2661m
Principal Planner Diana Pancholi1221m
Senior Assistant City Attorney Celena Chen59<1m
Public Speaker Daniel Holtz3843m
Public Speaker Katia Kamangar4232m
Public Speaker Ron Sackman4382m
Public Speaker Kevin Ma4252m
Public Speaker Amy Shelton4132m
Public Speaker David Watson3211m
Public Speaker Richard Wynne1941m
Public Speaker Francois Bleball3121m
Public Speaker Manuel Salazar3281m
Public Speaker Christina Pereira2531m
Public Speaker Ilya Gurin1771m
Public Speaker Alex Amoroso1781m
Public Speaker Elizabeth Conlin110<1m
Public Speaker Alex Brown92<1m
Public Speaker117<1m

Transcript

1. CALL TO ORDER

[00:01:46] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, good evening everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of October 7th, 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.

[00:02:17] Chair Alex Nuñez: Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up 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 public comment on the item you are wishing to speak on.

[00:02:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now, I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with our roll call. Ms. Clerk.

[00:02:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thanks. Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:03:02] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Here.

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

[00:03:05] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

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

[00:03:07] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Here.

[00:03:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:03:10] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:03:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:03:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:03:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:03:14] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:03:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Nuñez.

[00:03:16] Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:03:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All commissioners are present.

[00:03:20] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Ms. Clerk.

3.1 Approve the Environmental Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2026, and August 19, 2026

[00:03:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, having completed a roll call, we'll proceed to item number 3.1, the Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 17, 2026, and August 19, 2026. I'll open it up for any EPC discussion.

[00:03:44] City Staff: Well, just before we get into that, staff would like to just note two small corrections. This is for the June 17th meeting, under section one, roll call, we just corrected the time to say 7:00 PM instead of 4:00 PM.

[00:03:58] City Staff: And then under section 3.1, minutes of approval, we also added the vote. And a updated copy of the minutes have been placed on your desk as well. Thank you.

[00:04:10] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much, Ms. Panchali. Any public comment then? 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.

[00:04:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: 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.

[00:04:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: Ms. Clerk, do we have any speaker cards or anyone on the Zoom who has raised their hand?

[00:04:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers.

[00:04:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right, seeing no speakers, we can entertain a motion.

[00:04:53] Chair Alex Nuñez: Which looks like we have... all right. We have a motion from Vice Chair Donahue and a second from Commissioner Subramanian. Failing any discussion, we'll probably take that to a vote.

[00:05:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion passes, seven yes.

[00:05:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Having...

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

[00:05:29] Chair Alex Nuñez: concluded the minutes approval we'll move on to item number four, our 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.

[00:05:50] 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. Ms. Clerk, any speakers?

[00:06:11] City Staff: No speakers online or in person.

[00:06:16] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. With

5.1 All Electric Construction Zoning Program Amendments

[00:06:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: the no speakers we will proceed then to our public hearing on uh starting with item number 5.1 the all electric construction zoning program amendments first we'll have a staff presentation then questions by the pc followed by public comment at the closure of public comment the commission will then deliberate and take action so we will begin with a staff presentation from assistant planner Tristan White and deputy city manager Lindsay Hagen thank you

[00:06:50] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Good evening uh chair Nuñez and Commissioners uh I'm Tristan White assistant planner and I'm joined by assistant community development director Lindsey Hagen uh to present the proposed amendments to city code chapter 36 uh to allow for the exceptions to development standards for projects that voluntarily pursue all electric construction in the R1 and R2 zoning districts.

[00:07:13] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Every three years uh the California Building Standards Commission releases an update an updated California building standard code commonly referred to as the state building code that all municipal municipalities in California are responsible for enforcing. The state building code regulates the design, engineering, construction, green building and other related aspects of building occupancies in California.

[00:07:38] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Cities are allowed to propose local amendments to the state building code that are administrative or procedural in nature uh or that are more stringent than the state code due to uh unique local climate uh climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Mountain View has routinely uh adopted local amendments with every building code cycle update.

[00:08:03] Assistant Planner Tristan White: As part of the local amendments adopted by the city council, uh the city has regular regularly adopted reach codes. Uh reach codes are local standards that are stricter than the state building code focused on achieving environmental and sustainability goals as listed on your screen here. Uh the city has uh the city has been adopting reach codes since 2016.

[00:08:25] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Uh drivers for the city's adoption of reach codes has been to implement various sustainability goals including achieving a community-wide 2045 uh carbon neutrality goal adopted by Council in April 2020 and supported by the city's recent climate forward decarbonization plan. Uh implementing uh multiple sustainability action plans adopted and updated by Council from 2008 through 2022 and uh advancing energy efficiency measures for new development in the city's greenhouse gas reduction plan adopted by Council in 2012.

[00:09:03] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Over the last few years there have been major regulatory changes impacting the CBSC's and jurisdictions' ability to make updates or amendments to the state building code. Uh each of these regulatory changes uh required various actions by city staff to further uh citywide sustainability goals to the greatest extent uh feasible while remaining in legal compliance and have changed how cities will adopt uh these regulations moving forward.

[00:09:32] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In early 2024, the uh United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made a ruling regarding a 2019 lawsuit from the California Restaurant Association against the City of Berkeley that resulted in cities having to suspend all their uh their all-electric reach codes.

[00:09:49] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In response to the suspension, city staff developed a new electric pre-wiring uh requirements for any new construction or major renovation project where gas or propane appliances were installed. In 2025, uh Assembly Bill 130 was signed into law, which paused changes to the state building code related to residential construction for a period of six years with only a handful of allowable exceptions for making local amendments to the state building code.

[00:10:18] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In response, city staff accelerated the adoption of the 2025 State Building Code update to adopt a new reach code uh to adopt new reach code requirements prior to the established September 30, 2025 deadline.

[00:10:31] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Lastly, there are two bills, Assembly Bill 1238 and House Bill 3699, proposed by the state and federal legislatures that could impact the proposed all-electric construction zoning program if they get adopted. City staff has proceeded with preparing these zoning code amendments to advance the city's sustainability goals to go electric most efficiently even at the risk of of these potential laws. Staff will continue to monitor these bills and bring forward any necessary actions should either of these laws become effective.

[00:11:04] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In developing the all-electric construction program, uh city staff established program objectives, reviewed an existing similar program at the City of Sunnyvale, conducted outreach with uh construction professionals who are familiar with Mountain View, and reviewed existing building permits to evaluate common building projects and development parameters.

[00:11:29] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Uh city staff identified the following objectives for structuring an all-electric construction zoning program in in Mountain View. Achieve all-electric construction, uh target single-family and duplex properties, uh offer exceptions to development standards that are most desirable, do not require a planning or zoning permit, allow the program to be separate but additive to existing exceptions to development standards already allowed in the zoning code, and offer exceptions to development standards that are expected to be worth more than the cost of pursuing all-electric construction.

[00:12:05] Assistant Planner Tristan White: City staff looked to the City of Sunnyvale as a comparative example of a successful all-electric uh all-electric incentive program. Sunnyvale's green building program incentivizes projects to exceed green building requirements by offering an exception to development standards or a reduced permit review process. The City of Sunnyvale started their incentive program in 20 2010.

[00:12:29] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Uh their current program offers incentives to all development types and all construction activities even if they incorporate any of the following green building measures as listed on your screen. In exchange for pursuing greater green building improvements, a project can receive one exception to a development standard or permit or permit process such as increased lot coverage, greater floor area ratio, uh greater building height, greater density, or staff level review of their project when a council public hearing is otherwise required.

[00:13:02] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In discussions with Sunnyvale staff, the program has seen greatest success with single-family property owners who frequently pursue greater FAR allowance, uh while being less popular with non-residential and multi-family residential projects which have greater flexibility through the state uh density bonus law or other state housing laws.

[00:13:22] Assistant Planner Tristan White: City staff met with four contractors who regularly perform work in the city of Mountain View on single-family and duplex developments, including an all-electric modular home builder. Uh these contractors work with a variety of property owners in Mountain View and generally have have experience with a range of construction work uh from additions, remodels, and construction of new units.

[00:13:46] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Additionally, they have field expertise of what it means to go electric in Mountain View and have the greatest understanding of construction costs. Feedback staff received includes uh all contractors supported the city's pursuit of an all-electric construction zoning program. Uh greater floor area ratio and setback exceptions were the most attractive incentives.

[00:14:08] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Uh two con two contractors identified that the current 3-foot by 10-foot uh projection allowed uh allowed needs to be greater uh to accommodate a single room wall expansion and or the placement of new electrical equipment. Uh and contractors also mentioned that removing the gas meter uh is all that should be required to participate in the program instead of having to remove all gas piping throughout an existing home.

[00:14:35] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Based on feedback from uh received and Sunnyvale's program, uh staff has identified four new exceptions to be implemented in the zoning code. Uh one, an FAR allowance of up to 5% above the base allowable uh FAR, which translates to an additional floor area of approximately 112 to 200 square feet uh depending on typical lot sizes ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet.

[00:15:04] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Uh two, a greater uh building encroachment for the first and or second floor uh along the front, side, or rear of the building, which is in direct response to feedback staff uh received from contractors. Three, a rear a rear yard encroachment on the first floor for a new dwelling unit or an increased rear yard encroachment for a building addition to an existing dwelling unit where a previously permitted rear yard encroachment already exists.

[00:15:32] Assistant Planner Tristan White: And four, uh a new allowable first floor encroachment in the first uh in the front and or street side yard of a dwelling unit.

[00:15:42] Assistant Planner Tristan White: I will walk uh I will briefly walk through the four proposed new exceptions in a little more detail. Uh this FAR exception allows for greater FAR uh for new construction and building additions. It's important to note that staff has included language in the zoning code amendments that do not require someone to have extra FAR to uh participate in this program. Uh they could participate and use the other setback exceptions available without additional FAR. Additionally, uh this exception cannot be combined with the existing major FAR exception, but it can be combined with the existing minor FAR exception.

[00:16:20] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Staff is proposing a smaller projection of 3 feet by 20 feet that does not exceed 100 square feet. This exception is allowed on both the first and second stories and is allowed uh on any orientation of the building, the front, rear, or side.

[00:16:36] Assistant Planner Tristan White: staff proposes a rear yard setback projection of the first floor that can cover a maximum of 12.5% of the required rear yard for a new dwelling or an existing dwelling unit that does not currently have a rear yard encroachment and a 25% rear yard coverage for additions to existing dwellings that already have a pre-existing rear yard encroachment.

[00:17:03] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Because there are a lot of single-family homes that already have a permitted rear yard encroachment, staff did not want to preclude those homes from being able to go all-electric should they desire an addition to their home. The encroachment is required to be a minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line and must meet height limitations of the first floor as noted on your screen.

[00:17:22] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Staff proposes the introduction of front and street setback encroachments, which are similar to rear setback projections but in a different location on the property. With this exception, a front projection of up to 12.5% could be permitted in the front yard area and a 15% in the street side yard area for a corner lot.

[00:17:44] Assistant Planner Tristan White: A minimum distance of 14 feet is required from the front property line and 10 feet from the street side yard property line. Staff has also included language in the zoning code amendments that allow you to combine these two projections at a corner lot should a property owner want to project at the corner of the home.

[00:18:04] Assistant Planner Tristan White: To accommodate the proposed all-electric construction program, staff has included a series of code additions and cleanups including adding a definition of all-electric construction, updating internal code references, titles and section numbers, relocating text within the exceptions to development standards section,

[00:18:26] Assistant Planner Tristan White: removing the findings of approval for the current allowable rear yard setback projection as a planning permit is no longer required, updating the findings of approval for minor and major floor area ratio exceptions to be objective in nature and to be consistent with state law, and add a new subsection for the all-electric construction exceptions to development standards.

[00:18:55] Assistant Planner Tristan White: For additional reference for commissioners, staff provided this cost-value comparison chart that conservatively estimates costs to replace gas or propane equipment with gas, to remove the gas meter on-site and to build the additional square footage allowed with the FAR exception. It's summarized against property sales values in Mountain View.

[00:19:21] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Overall, at the time of project completion, staff estimates that the cost to go all-electric with a new dwelling unit or building addition will be less than the value added to the property sales price. And it's anticipated that property values will only increase over time after completion of all-electric construction projects.

[00:19:39] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In terms of next steps, staff will present EPC's recommendation on the proposed amendments to the City Council at a public hearing. Staff is also coordinating on the hearing date but we anticipate it to occur in December 2026 or January 2027, followed by a second reading the following month.

[00:20:01] Assistant Planner Tristan White: If Council approves the zoning code amendments then the program will be effective 30 days after the second reading.

[00:20:06] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Staff recommends the EPC recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance presented by staff tonight. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15061b3 known as the common sense exemption. That concludes staff's presentation, we are available for any questions.

[00:20:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. All right, then in that case having concluded Mr. White's presentation, we will bring it to the commission for questions. Anyone like to hop on the queue?

[00:20:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, we've got Commissioner Gutiérrez first.

[00:21:01] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Thank you Chair. I have a couple basic questions. One, how long did it take you to finalize the report?

[00:21:12] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, so typically it takes us about a month to prepare the report.

[00:21:18] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Took about a month then?

[00:21:20] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: To prepare it and have it go through the review process, yes.

[00:21:22] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: From when?

[00:21:24] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, about a month ago. Started.

[00:21:27] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay. Thank you.

[00:21:33] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. We'll go to our Vice Chair.

[00:21:40] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: The... this would allow a 3 ft projection into an existing setback. What's... what would the new setback be? Besides obviously just 3 ft less.

[00:21:57] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, so, a great question. The current... and I'm gonna answer it in two parts. So the current exception that we allow in our code for single family and duplex properties, it's a 3 by 10 projection that's allowed, and it's allowed on the side and rear of a property.

[00:22:17] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So the smallest setback you might see is a 5-foot side yard setback, so if you add the 3-foot projection it means there is a period in which there might be only a 2-foot setback from where that projection and the property line on the side would be. And that would be the narrowest point.

[00:22:32] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. And does that include like the... are there additional things that can protrude into that setback?

[00:22:42] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Great question. So the way it's written and the way it's implemented is that setback is all-inclusive of any roof eave or anything. So oftentimes what will happen is either people accommodate it in their design, some kind of roof eave, or they have a zero roof eave element right in that 10-foot length.

[00:22:58] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Thanks.

[00:23:04] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. We'll go to Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:23:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. Am I correct in my understanding that no permit was required for the switch to the all-electric, with the understanding that it's mostly just, you know, switching to appliances and equipment that are all-electric versus using gas?

[00:23:28] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, so if I'm understanding your question correctly, um, there...

[00:23:33] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So most of our exceptions that we allow today in our code do not require a planning permit. And so really what we're proposing as part of this new set of exceptions for all-electric construction is that if you go all-electric, you can pursue these exceptions, you still do not need a planning permit. You can go straight to a building permit. So we're trying to just mirror the permitting process that we have in place today for our existing code.

[00:23:56] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Sorry, my question was slightly different. I recognize this was around the planning process. Um, my question had more to do with the switch to all-electric. And if in older homes, particularly where it applies to existing conditions, if the existing electric load capacity can handle the switch to all-electric and if it requires any sort of permit to upgrade the panel or require like a permitted electrician to do the work?

[00:24:30] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yes, so now I understand your question. Um, so, uh, there are some electrical... um, the switch to going all-electric, um, some of these electric equipment that you can do, where, to your question, if it doesn't trigger other electrical upgrades to the home, switching out an appliance does not require a building permit. So, for example, switching to an all-electric dryer, if you have the electric outlet there and available, you wouldn't need a building permit.

[00:25:01] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: However, not everyone necessarily has that electric outlet that can accommodate that new electric dryer, so they would have to run a new electrical outlet, you know, for that dryer. So that does require a building permit to run a new electrical line. And that would be required today for anyone pursuing that type of improvement.

[00:25:21] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Uh, and a second question is, I... you had stated some feedback received from the contractor about uh, just removing the gas meter and leaving the gas piping intact, because obviously that requires a lot more cost. Uh, but my question is, I've understood that some of the changes to electric from gas in part... um, not only about the climate improvement piece of it, but in part is also because gas piping uh, poses a risk under earthquake circumstances.

[00:25:56] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And so my question was um, related to whether the gas meter removal also meant that any sort of residual gas in the piping is also purged in the same process, and therefore leaving piping intact doesn't pose any um, additional risk from an earthquake standpoint.

[00:26:18] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, that's a great question. So, um, removing a gas meter requires you to cap um, basically the gas pipe, um, in this case on either end, whether it's going towards the street or back to the home. Um, as well as if you were to do any kind of um, like let's say you took out your gas stove and you put in an electric one, you would have to cap the gas pipe as well um, where where that is in the wall.

[00:26:47] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, and so um, in terms of uh, sort of the safety of that, that is required by building code to cap. Um, in terms of whether there's like residual gas in the line, there's usually a way to to clear the line, if that's the best way to say that. Um, and I think in terms of some of the earthquake safety, you know, concerns that I've heard tend to be more about on a larger scale, the infrastructure you know that's in the street, um, sort of larger scale infrastructure where that that becomes a lot more problematic.

[00:27:17] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Those were my questions.

[00:27:22] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much, uh Commissioner Subramanian. We will go to Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:27:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, first off, this is a good memo. I really liked it, that you had the uh the cost analysis at the back. I thought that was a nice addition, that helped me understand what you were doing and why we were doing this a little bit better. So like bravo for good memo writing.

[00:27:43] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, first I have a series of kind of quick questions. My first one's actually for um, City Attorney's office. Just really quick, if I could get the 30-second version of why we're confident this doesn't run afoul of AB 130. And I think I already know, but I wanted to hear you say it.

[00:28:03] Senior Assistant City Attorney Celena Chen: So you're asking why this new standard, why developments that have their applications in would be subject to this?

[00:28:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Well I think my... my rough understanding of AB 130 was that there was supposed to be a bar on changes, and I understood the reason why was to facilitate rebuilding down south, right? So the, according to the spirit of the law, what we're doing has nothing to do with this, so we're we're good there.

[00:28:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, but to the extent that it, if I understood the law to say there's not supposed to be any changes to the building code for six years, uh, direct or indirect, I think is what it said, and then there's there's five exceptions. By the way the numbering says six exceptions but the bill says five. Just a nerdy point there. But um, I just want to make sure that I, and I think I already understand, but I wanted to have you tell me to make sure that I read it right, that this... that 130 and what we're doing here uh, never the twain shall meet and we're totally fine and the restaurant association wouldn't be angered by any of this and want to sue us.

[00:29:06] Senior Assistant City Attorney Celena Chen: Right, okay. So, and Lindsey you can jump in if um I don't capture everything, but um the city submitted its local building standards code in advance of the cutoff. Um, so that's, so we don't fall under that category.

[00:29:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Oh, okay. Alright. That's a good answer. Bravo.

[00:29:26] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: And I think I'll just add real quick, I think a huge distinction is that AB 130 is focused on the building code. This is in the zoning code. So we are not talking...

[00:29:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And it's an incentive rather than a burden, so.

[00:29:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Correct, it's a voluntary sort of option people can pursue. We're not forcing somebody to do this program.

[00:29:43] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you Celena.

[00:29:46] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So a couple of quick more questions. Um, how easy would it be for someone to put the meter back on and start the gas up, and would the city know?

[00:29:54] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, it's a good question. Um, so whether you remove a gas meter or install a new gas meter, um, where one didn't previously exist, or need to replace or upgrade your existing gas meter, all of that requires PG&E permits. PG&E requires approval from the city. So...

[00:30:11] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Perfect.

[00:30:12] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: In any situation, they are always, there's a requirement for um, city approval to be required, uh, as part of that, um, which often requires a some kind of building permit from the city to be produced.

[00:30:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, so there's no need to put anything on the deed because they'll always have to come back and check with the city in order to do this.

[00:30:29] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, in any, in any three of those scenarios, the city's approval has to be part of it.

[00:30:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Perfect. Um, last quick question, did we ever get a sense from Sunnyvale how many people availed themselves of this program so we could have a sense of how many people we think might actually use this?

[00:30:47] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: I might ask Amber to step up here. Amber Blizinski, our Assistant Community Development Director, she previously worked for the City of Sunnyvale, and may have a good idea.

[00:30:59] Staff Amber Blizinski: Hi, good evening. Um, so I, I, so I actually worked on this update in Sunnyvale. And um, I would say for the first year that it was in effect, um, we had a pretty big number of people who were interested in using this and were actually going through the, at least the planning entitlements. I don't have a number for you, but it was pretty popular um, in Sunnyvale. Yeah.

[00:31:25] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: And I will say just to add, um, I know four contractors may not seem like a lot, but we don't have a lot of repeat contractors in Mountain View. So that's why the number is not so high. We wanted to purposely utilize contractors that repeatedly do business in Mountain View.

[00:31:41] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: And um, in in communicating with them throughout the development of this program, um uh there's been a contractor who's definitely told us multiple uh of his clients today are interested in this program, which is another good sign. If we're so early on in the process um, so we we take that as a positive and we're pretty hopeful it might be a good program.

[00:32:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So we foresee reasonably good uptake of the program which means reasonably good progress towards the uh, the electrical goals that we set for our environmental plan.

[00:32:12] Staff Amber Blizinski: Yeah, and I think, you know, a lot of people are looking for uh either more floor area or some of these extensions so they can have, you know, make the right size room in their existing house, and so I think this flexibility is a really positive step and I think people are going to likely take advantage of that.

[00:32:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: It's a clever idea. Yeah. Okay. That was it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[00:32:32] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you Commissioner Dempsey. We'll go to Commissioner Pham.

[00:32:37] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, I had two questions. First one, um, in my understanding this seems to be the first time an incentive is used through the zoning code to incentivize removal of gas meters. What's the plan for tracking metrics and down the line if it is not as popular or too popular and we're giving up too much in terms of um, you know, the zoning code requirements, um, is there a plan to kind of tweak um the terms of what's written here?

[00:33:11] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, so a couple things. Um, so this program is identified in the decarbonization plan that um just went to the Council Sustainability Committee. So it is being tracked as part of that five-year plan. So at minimum that's out there.

[00:33:27] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, additionally in terms of how we track this uh when we have all-electric construction, it does get tracked through our building permits, so we will be able to have um at least a way to capture in terms of number of building permits we we issue with all-electric construction.

[00:33:45] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, and then in terms of, you know, future tweaks, I think like any program we'll have to kind of see how this goes, and I think there's definitely um, nothing at this point that would stop us from making further, you know, minor code amendments in the future if we needed to tweak the program or expand the program whatever it may be.

[00:34:04] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: I think we purposely sort of followed pretty closely with Sunnyvale's program because they also have 5% FAR bonus or um... and so we thought that was a good starting point for example um for this program.

[00:34:19] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, great. My next question is more of a general question. um there's a lot of talk about extensions um but my question has to do with ADUs, for example if someone has an existing one or is interested in building one, how would this program consider, you know, how how would someone in that situation consider this program?

[00:34:40] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, that's a good question as well. I think um, the way this program is structured right now, um, it's not written to apply to ADUs. Um, so it is focused on the primary house, and the, you know, the primary duplex units.

[00:34:56] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, I think what we've seen traditionally in the permitting so far is typically the ADU is being constructed in a similar fashion as to whatever the unit is on site. So if the unit is all-electric, the ADU tends to be all-electric as well. So I think our hope here is driving the primary units will will drive some of the secondary units.

[00:35:17] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[00:35:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you Commissioner Pham. We'll go to Commissioner Cranston.

[00:35:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So is there anything about this that would trigger the County of Santa Clara to do a more a broader reassessment of the land value and property value of the home um, if they if somebody does this, which could potentially mean a cost that's not articulated here?

[00:35:40] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So the county assessor um, technically gets uh information of all of our building permits, so they um, start sort of reassessing once somebody starts adding square footage or building a new home or unit.

[00:35:59] Chair Alex Nuñez: Good? Okay. We'll proceed with our Vice Chair Mr. Donahue.

[00:36:10] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I thought of another question. So does this apply to things that are already uh all-electric?

[00:36:20] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So we wouldn't like retroactively apply it, it would be only if somebody comes in with a new project. These rules would apply a new permit.

[00:36:28] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yeah, but I mean if if if somebody has a house that's already all-electric and they want to uh expand the house, it would it would...

[00:36:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Uh, they would have this option to pursue this program.

[00:36:39] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: They would have this option, okay. So it's not just an incentive for new people, but it's a reward for people who already did it as well.

[00:36:45] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Uh yeah, there wouldn't be... they would still comply with the definition so they would get to pursue this program.

[00:36:50] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Great, thanks.

[00:36:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other questions? All right. I don't have any. Um, so in that case why don't we proceed with our 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 9 on your phone.

[00:37:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. All right. Miss clerk, any commentary online or in person?

[00:37:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have two commenters in person and one online.

[00:37:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: Why don't we start with our online comment. Uh, did you want a time?

[00:37:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, I think three minutes is fine.

[00:37:45] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Online comment is Alex Brown. Alex you should be able to speak.

[00:37:56] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Hey friends. Uh, very excited that we're finally getting past the Supreme Court issue and trying to make progress on electrification. Uh, I do wish that we had more power to help mobile homes and mobile home parks. A lot of them are still supply constrained and the park owners don't really have the tools or incentives to like fix that so that the mobile home owners are able to electrify.

[00:38:25] Public Speaker Alex Brown: So a lot of us are stuck with using gas appliances for the foreseeable future. Anyway, I'm happy about this. Thanks.

[00:38:37] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Next we have um Alex Amoroso.

[00:38:56] Public Speaker Alex Amoroso: Where's the button? Oh, check one two. There it is. Hey everybody. So, I just want to thank the commission and the staff for actually working on this, because this is a remarkable, remarkable um step in the right direction when it comes to moving towards um the proper infrastructure for the uh the duration of this century, not let alone like, you know, the City of Mountain View.

[00:39:24] Public Speaker Alex Amoroso: So, one thing I will give the commission to at least contemplate, not plan for, because I did hear that there was uh plans for electrification when it came to uh, what is it, like you know uh electric um charging stations around uh single-family and multi-family homes.

[00:39:41] Public Speaker Alex Amoroso: What about considerations for condos or even like apartment complexes, and what would be the plans around that, especially since apartment complexes make up 60% of the residents in our community. I also would echo Alex Brown's point about mobile homes when it comes to not just the electrification of stoves, but also leading into the charging stations for the future.

[00:40:07] Public Speaker: of electric vehicles because that's still a standard from Sacramento that by 2035 it's gonna be all electric. So if there needs to be a plan, so all housing units are in a certain, uh, perimeter of charging stations, it's kind of like how folks are in the perimeter of gas stations, that needs to be the future consideration for this committee.

[00:40:30] Public Speaker: Just a thought, just so you guys can think about in the future and also having the staff to, uh, make that happen, 'cause again that all starts with labor. Um, whatever that needs to have have happen, that conversation needs to have happen as long as that's, uh, in you guys's mind. Appreciate ya.

[00:40:47] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[00:40:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, next we have John Scarsboro...

[00:40:55] John Scarbrough: Scarbrough, sorry.

[00:40:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No worries.

[00:40:59] John Scarbrough: Hi, I'm John Scarbrough, I'm a 24-year resident now. And I'm really happy about this, uh, change in the zoning code. And thank you for working on it.

[00:41:12] John Scarbrough: I like, I guess I will echo your comment, very nice memo, I like the way it was laid out. And I particularly liked the way that y'all laid out the hurdles that we've had as we've tried to make our city more sustainable and more resilient, how there have been different, you know, things that have come up in our way but yet we keep pushing forward.

[00:41:33] John Scarbrough: It reminded me back when I was working with Carbon Free Mountain View and staff and the cities around here to get, uh, Silicon Clean Energy set up. As we were doing that, there were bills in the legislature that would make what we were doing not possible, but we kept on pushing forward. So I'd encourage everyone to continue doing that. I mean, there's always going to be pushback, but we need to keep pushing forward to make our city more resilient.

[00:42:03] John Scarbrough: And on the incentives, I liked the incentives, and what I would also say is that it would be good to consider the rising cost of natural gas, because people who are able to electrify now are going to be insulating themselves from not just the cost of the gas, but also the cost of upkeeping the transmission and distribution systems, which are going to become more expensive per person as more people get off of gas. So, um, good work. I look forward to hearing the discussion and I hope everyone passes this. Thank you.

[00:42:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, no further speakers.

[00:42:43] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, thank you very much to our, uh, speakers. In that case, uh, we will now be proceeding to the EPC deliberation and action. I believe that we already have, uh, Mr. Donahue, our Vice Chair, on the queue, so we can start with him.

[00:43:02] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. I think that this is great. It's fantastic to incentivize people to make the green choice that is what we want to reach our 2045 goal.

[00:43:21] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Just in the last couple of months, there have been a number of things that I've noticed. There was a gas leak on Miramonte that, uh, people had to be evacuated. There was a fire behind 99 Ranch on some gas meters. There was a fire downtown with respect to a gas line.

[00:43:39] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Natural gas is combustible and, and, and dangerous. Not to mention health effects of, of burning gas inside a, a confined space. So I think incentivizing people through a method like this to get all electric is a fantastic way to go, and I will be supporting it.

[00:44:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: Excellent. Thank you, Mr., uh, Vice Chair. Any further speakers?

[00:44:13] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:44:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, I'll just say quickly, it's a clever idea and I commend the city not only for being innovative in your approach, but for being quick about it and getting it in under the deadline. So, just to the, to the city and to city staff, bravo, well done. And I'll be supporting this.

[00:44:30] Chair Alex Nuñez: Wahoo. Alright. Um, Commissioner Pham is next.

[00:44:36] Commissioner Tina Pham: I'll also be supporting this. Um, I'd also urge staff to track this carefully with incentive programs. You never really know how this will, um, be received, um, and I really hope that it meets our aims, but again, uh, being open to tracking and tweaking in future years, I think, will make us more likely to meet our 2045 goals. I'll be supporting it.

[00:45:02] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Uh, Commissioner Gutiérrez.

[00:45:05] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Chair. I liked the, um, presentation, I like the ideas, I like that you were able to synthesize everything ahead of time so that you can present it to us and to the community in a way where it's easily understandable. Um, and I asked about the timing because I think we've had issues about that in the past, which we don't have to rehash now. But it just goes to show you that when you have an incentive to be able to be proactive, take an issue that you care about, or that you have an interest in, or that's just there to do, that we can do something like this. That this comes from you, and that we can expect greater things to be done as well for other programs similar to this.

[00:45:38] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: The only thing I have to say about that though is that I wish it was more inclusive of other members of the community which are a part of our zoning jurisdictions, right. So, I know someone had mentioned earlier on the commission, 'oh yeah, there's these issues with gas pipelines and you know things happen here and there'. Well, if you look at the history in the last five years in Mountain View, the majority of those happened in my neck of the woods, within the apartment communities between Escuela and Rengstorff. We constantly have a lot of activities over there where the fire department will show up because there's units and complexes where there are real, real gas issues, because there's leaks, because of the pipes being outdated, and other issues that need to be fixed either through revamping, pitching in from the owner themselves, or a combo between them and then PG&E, um, for those types of issues.

[00:46:26] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: So that once we do start covering that type of community, then we can have more of a greater impact within our footprint as a whole. And once you take that to the next level, uh, if you're looking at it from a state perspective, I'm hoping whoever is there, whether in the legislature or as the governor, can take more of this as, 'hey, this can work, let's look at these models around the Bay Area for example,' just saying, um, so that maybe we can extend this to a greater part of the state. So that we can have a better effect of how we treat ourselves and how we're a part of nature and our responsibility to help each other out that way to just, you know, lessen the reduction of our footprint as a whole. So thank you for that, I appreciate it.

[00:47:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Uh, we'll go to Commissioner Cranston.

[00:47:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: As someone who's been tired of the heavy-handed nature of the state legislature doing things, I, the fact this is a carrot and not a stick, I will support it.

[00:47:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. And, uh, we will go to Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:47:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, I too second that this is a pretty ingenious way of both approaching our climate goals, as well as kind of, um, rolling it out in a way that it's voluntary, and I understand that there were some speakers who spoke about extending it to other product types and other housing types. And I understand that is inherently limited in a voluntary program, where you have much more control if it's your home and you can step up to do it and get the incentives on the zoning side to make the changes that you will. So, I think, um, all in all, it's a great step and I support it. Thank you.

[00:48:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, uh, Commissioner Subramanian. And I agree with that. In, uh, so far as a lot of the, uh, multifamily home, um, at least as far as future looking goes, um, the state is providing a a great amount of, of new incentives, and I think we all know about incentives in multifamily homes here on the commission and, um, how much of that, um, is state driven. So I'm comfortable with this and I'm excited to support it too.

[00:48:43] Chair Alex Nuñez: So it sounds like we have unanimity, if I, if I said that correctly. And we do have a motion from, uh, our Vice Chair and a second from Mr., uh, Commissioner Dempsey. So I think we could probably go to the clerk. I just want to make sure we go to our clerk first.

[00:49:03] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Do I have to read this?

[00:49:05] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yep.

[00:49:06] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay.

[00:49:07] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, so I, uh, make a motion that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View approving amendments to Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code to allow exceptions to development standards in the R1 and R2 zoning districts for single-family and duplex dwelling units that voluntarily pursue all-electric construction for new dwelling units and additions to existing dwelling units, to make other modifications, clarifications, and technical corrections to improve clarity or consistency of the code; and finding that these amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 1 to the staff report.

[00:49:51] Chair Alex Nuñez: Excellent.

[00:49:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, the motion carries, uh, seven in favor.

[00:50:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, uh, very much, Madam Clerk. Having completed that item, uh, we will proceed with item 5.2. The R3 Zoning District Update. Recommendation for adoption of R3 and R4 zoning amendments, precise plan amendments, general plan amendment, and other related actions.

[00:50:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, we'll first have a staff presentation followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then discuss one item requiring commissioner recusal due to conflict of interest, followed by EPC questions and then deliberation and action. So we'll begin with a staff presentation from Planning Manager Eric Anderson and Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski.

[00:51:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Alright, thank you very much Chair Nuñez. Thank you Vice Chair Donahue, and the commissioners. Uh, this item is the EPC public hearing for the recommendation on the R3 Zoning District Update. My name is Eric Anderson, I'm the Planning Manager, and I'm joined by Amber Blizinski, the Assistant Community Development Director.

[00:51:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This project started back in 2019. Since then it's gone through several rounds of outreach and study sessions. In addition, the project has been put on hold several times to address other city priorities, such as the Displacement Response Strategy and the Housing Element. Most recently, the council provided direction on the draft R3 development standards earlier this year.

[00:52:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This slide provides an overview of the project goals, including creating opportunities for diverse unit types, creating objective form-based standards, adding neighborhood-serving uses, improving consistency with state law and complying with Housing Element programs, increasing density in targeted areas, and encouraging parcel aggregation.

[00:52:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This slide summarizes the topics covered in this presentation. First, a summary of council direction from February, amendments to address state law, other code amendments, minor map amendments, precise plan amendments and repeal, environmental review, and conclusions.

[00:52:48] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Then, draft amendments to address State law. Third, other code amendments addressing topics that weren't covered earlier this year. Fourth, minor map amendments. Fifth, precise plan amendments and finally, the environmental review and conclusion.

[00:53:05] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Jumping in, here's the first topic. Back in February, Council directed staff to update the general plan designations to improve clarity and modify terminology. These updates can be found in Attachment 2.

[00:53:18] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In addition, to update nonconforming standards to provide additional opportunities for structural improvements and replacement, especially at sites currently developed at higher than the maximum density. And to prepare standards to address development adjacent to streams.

[00:53:36] Assistant Planner Tristan White: They also directed staff to provide... they also provided feedback on the draft R3 standards. In addition to expressing support for the key development standards presented, they also provided the additional direction shown here, which are provided in Attachment 3, as well as changes from the previous draft standards which are shown in Attachment 15.

[00:53:57] Assistant Planner Tristan White: These included consolidating the R3D and R4 standards using the R4 districts... using the R3D standards. Encouraging lot consolidation with a guideline. Preparing additional standards and guidelines for the treatment of front setback areas. Not requiring a minimum habitable space depth, but requiring a minimal length instead. This is illustrated on the slide.

[00:54:22] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Allowing height exceptions for both parks and heritage tree preservation. And allowing increased FAR for stacked units in R3-B and C.

[00:54:34] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Council had the following direction related to design. These are included in Attachments 3 and 15 as well. Providing additional options for massing transitions including color and material change, vertical landscaping, and architectural devices.

[00:54:48] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Eliminating stoops as an allowed entry type, allowing arcades and galleries.

[00:54:54] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Council direction regarding commercial uses... Council also provided direction regarding commercial uses including allowing live/work throughout the R3 and R4 zones, and allowing commercial throughout R4 as well as large sites, corners, and arterials in R3.

[00:55:11] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Council also authorized a reduction to minimum parking for all multi-family developments citywide to one stall for one-bedroom and smaller units and 1.5 stalls for two-bedroom and larger units.

[00:55:30] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Council directed staff to look at additional pedestrian connection opportunities. These are also included in Attachment 3. Pedestrian connections are now required between Del Medio and San Antonio Circle, between Bonita and Boranda connecting to Graham Middle School, connecting Leland and Ortega avenues, connecting Hackett and... connecting Hackett with North Rengstorff Avenue.

[00:55:55] Assistant Planner Tristan White: In addition, connecting Cypress Point and Central avenues, Easy Street and Ada Avenue with Vargas Elementary and North Whisman Road, as well as Latham Street, Rengstorff Avenue, and California Street to Rengstorff Park.

[00:56:12] Assistant Planner Tristan White: I apologize, that was the slide I was supposed to be showing.

[00:56:18] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The next major topic is regarding amendments that address State laws. First, the division of the city code dealing with accessory dwelling units has been completely rewritten to address inconsistencies with State law.

[00:56:31] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The new code now differentiates State exempt ADUs from local ADUs. State exempt ADUs are subject only to the standards of Government Code 66323, meanwhile local ADUs may be subject to other objective standards the city must allow both.

[00:56:47] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The new code now exempts minimum parking for all ADUs.

[00:56:52] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Short-term rentals are prohibited in new ADUs but continue to be allowed in ADUs constructed prior to the adoption of Government Code 66323. New balcony standards for local ADUs provide more options for outdoor spaces while preserving privacy and reducing noise impacts. And other State requirements are also addressed related to legalizing unpermitted ADUs, correcting non-conforming zoning conditions, and requiring separate utility connections.

[00:57:19] Assistant Planner Tristan White: A new section to implement the Starter Home Revitalization Act was added. This State law allows subdivisions up to 10 units on multi-family and vacant single-family sites. The law allows local jurisdictions some opportunity for custom standards.

[00:57:33] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The draft code allows ADUs, thereby allowing more than 10 units in some projects. It maintains the default minimum lot area, and it prohibits the sale of units prior to construction and prohibits developments that use the statute to further subdivide lots through urban lot splits.

[00:57:49] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Lastly, a section of the code was added to create procedures for projects that the State requires to be approved ministerially without discretion or public hearing.

[00:58:02] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The next major topic is regarding other amendments that address topics that were not discussed earlier this year. First, new transition area standards were developed requiring lower density on sites otherwise zoned R4 in areas abutting R1 and R2.

[00:58:18] Assistant Planner Tristan White: These transition areas include special height, floor area and other standards, as well as design standards intended to improve privacy and reduce massing impacts.

[00:58:29] Assistant Planner Tristan White: A new minimum lot size, width, depth and frontage standards were added to avoid the creation of small, undevelopable lots, and lots allowing for reduced standards and to avoid the proliferation of driveways.

[00:58:43] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Staff also developed additional standards for small sites. These include smaller setbacks, reduced minimum density in R4, reduced landscape buffers, and reduced driveway widths.

[00:58:58] Assistant Planner Tristan White: This slide summarizes other changes from the previous draft. They include more general standards for upper floor open spaces instead of just rooftop decks. Utility standards applicable in all residential zones. Modifications to exceptions.

[00:59:12] Assistant Planner Tristan White: Allowance for 1-story detached garages in setback areas. Allowing SB9 projects plus ADUs in R2. Clarifications for small lot single family, rowhouse and townhouse standards with the new R3 standards. Greater allowance for tandem parking. Sign standards for commercial in R3 and R4, and updated definitions.

[00:59:36] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The next topic is regarding minor map amendments, and this slide summarizes those locations throughout the city. They generally have to do with inconsistencies between the General Plan and Zoning, or with locations where the parcel lines do not align with the zoning boundary.

[00:59:54] Assistant Planner Tristan White: The project will also make very minor adjustments to the Zoning and General Plan maps for better alignment between the two. There is also a development project proposed at 924 to 940 San Rafael...

[01:00:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: which would rezone that site to the existing R3 zone. If the project is approved in early November, the site will be subsequently rezoned into the R3B district through this update.

[01:00:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next topic is regarding seven Precise Plans that must also be amended to align with the R3 zoning district update. The San Ramon Precise Plan will be updated to align with the R3B district. The Grant Martens Precise Plan will be updated to align with the R3C district, with some provisions regarding other uses consistent with the existing plan.

[01:00:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The Evandale Precise Plan will align Area B, which covers the residential areas east of the Ramada Hotel, with R3C, and remove outdated density and BMR provisions. It will also allow residential aligned with R3C at the office site on the corner of Fairchild and Evandale, consistent with the general plan. The South Whisman Precise Plan will be updated so that the development map is consistent with existing conditions. It will also improve references to the R4 development standards.

[01:01:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The Villa Mariposa Precise Plan will update the reference to R3B in Area B, the Avalon apartment complex. In Area C, which is covered by the Courtyards office complex, the precise plan would update the allowed uses to be consistent with the general plan, referencing the CO district, plus a range of light industrial and R&D uses currently allowed under the precise plan. A reference to R3 development standards will be removed, as well as requirement for a master development plan which was approved in the 1980s.

[01:01:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The El Camino Real Precise Plan will be updated to reference R4 in the area Council directed to be upzoned with this project, including sites along Latham and the Americana apartment complex. Other updated areas will be consistent with the general plan, including applying the medium intensity corridor standards to two condo sites on Clark and Marich. In addition, the TDM requirements will be updated to align with the new TDM ordinance.

[01:02:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Lastly the San Antonio Precise Plan will be updated to reference R4 in the area Council directed to be upzoned with the project, which is a condo complex at Ortega and Latham. TDM requirements will also be updated to align with the recent TDM ordinance.

[01:02:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Finally several Precise Plans are no longer necessary and are recommended for repeal. These include the 460 North Shoreline Boulevard, California Ortega, 2100 California Street, and Mora Ortega Precise Plans, which are built out. In addition California Ortega and Mora Ortega are included in areas that Council directed to upzone to R4. Also the R4 multifamily standards, which include standards and guidelines for the development of higher density multifamily housing, would no longer be consistent with the city code and are proposed for repeal.

[01:03:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The final major topic of this presentation is regarding environmental review. An environmental impact report was prepared for the R3 zoning district update project. The EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts and cumulatively considerable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Mitigations were developed that reduce several other impacts to less than significant levels. The City must certify the EIR and adopt a statement of overriding considerations prior to approving the project. These are included in attachment 1.

[01:03:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The project is scheduled to be heard at an upcoming Airport Land Use Commission meeting. Thereafter it's tentatively scheduled for the November 17th 2026 City Council meeting. If adopted it will become effective in January. This concludes staff's presentation. Here are the staff recommended ordinances and resolutions, and continued.

[01:04:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And staff has two minor recommended revisions to the draft ordinance that were identified after publishing. First, a minor internal reference change in section 36.04, which establishes the zoning districts. This just updates the internal reference to the R3 zoning district. And the second is an internal inconsistency, removal of the ADU minimum parking standard from the parking table in section 36.32.50C. And we're happy to answer any questions you have. Also in attendance are Cecelia Kim of Opticos Design and Gianna Meschi of Rincon Consultants. Thank you.

[01:04:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. We will then proceed onto the public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a 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 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. Ms. Clerk, do we have any speakers online to start?

[01:05:28] City Staff: We have two speakers online and there are five in person.

[01:05:32] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, why don't we start with our online speakers and maybe we do two and a half minutes.

[01:05:47] City Staff: Now we have four online speakers.

[01:05:51] Chair Alex Nuñez: That's perfectly fine.

[01:05:57] City Staff: The first online speaker will be Manuel Salazar. You should be able to speak now.

[01:06:06] Public Speaker Manuel Salazar: Hi, good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Manuel and I'm speaking on behalf of Silicon Valley at Home in strong support of the R3 zoning district update. So first I really want to thank City staff, commissioners, both present and previous, as well as the community members that have all worked to make this plan go into effect. You know we believe that the proposal really does a good job of balancing the needs for more housing with preserving existing homes and protecting residents from displacement.

[01:06:38] Public Speaker Manuel Salazar: We're especially encouraged by the changes made since the February draft, you know, the stuff like the increased densities and the proposed zoning changes, including the R4 zoning in the 14 different change areas and the R3 zoning for some of the R2 properties. Way too many R's. Not to mention the the whole thing with the R3B and sub... anyway. All that to say, staff's done a really intricate job of kind of balancing the needs for new development with other, you know, city and local priorities. So we just really want to give them a big round of applause for that.

[01:07:12] Public Speaker Manuel Salazar: I think these changes are particularly important right now because, you know, it's one thing to allow more housing on paper, but we also need to make sure that that housing can actually get built. So, you know, we're also glad to see clear design requirements and changes that make it easier for property owners to maintain and improve existing apartment buildings. And as the City moves forward, we really just encourage staff to keep an eye on how parking, setbacks, and other requirements are kind of working together to either allow for the feasibility of development to move forward or as in some cases could be a potential barrier. So, overall, we believe this is a strong step forward for Mountain View and we encourage the commission to recommend adoption to the City Council. Thank you.

[01:07:42] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:07:47] City Staff: Next speaker online is Katia Kamangar, followed by Amy Shelton. Katia, you should be able to speak now.

[01:07:57] Public Speaker Katia Kamangar: Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Katia Kamangar with Kamangar Consulting, and I've been following your process all along for the past six years. Excited to see it come to this point. I'm here this evening on behalf of my client, Del Medio Investors. They own a 3.1 acre property at 2747 Del Medio Court. And I'm here this evening to request that instead of the recommendation of staff of R3B, that his property be zoned R4, or at minimum R3C, because the currently recommended zoning designation would yield fewer housing units on his property than what exists there today.

[01:08:52] Public Speaker Katia Kamangar: So the existing use is 85 apartments that were built back in 1966. The owners had previously marketed their property for sale, but given the low density that was permitted under the current R3 zone, redevelopment really never materialized, and the owners decided to wait. And, you know, they were fully expecting that this zoning code update would result in a density that would support redevelopment of their 1966-era apartment buildings into something with more housing units, more modern-day condos or apartments.

[01:09:29] Public Speaker Katia Kamangar: So a few things I wanted to highlight for you this evening. The fact that the city has a no net loss policy, this was also later codified in several new state laws such as SB 330, and the R3B density designation that's proposed by staff is unfortunately at odds with these no net loss policies, since the yield with the R3B would be actually fewer housing units than what's on my client's property today. So with the staff proposal, 78 units would be allowed, versus he has 85 already.

[01:10:01] Public Speaker Katia Kamangar: I also want to point out that the properties immediately adjacent to the east and south of my client's parcels are proposed as R4, which we think makes it very logical that my client's property also be zoned R4, or at minimum R3C. And then I also just wanted to touch on the applicability of SB 79 in the sense that, you know, while this process has been ongoing, the state has also passed SB 79, which is recognition that these housing designations near transit really deliver numerous benefits, and this property is within quarter-mile of the San Antonio Caltrain Station. And so we just want to make sure that the new zoning designations that you choose and the city approves for my client's property allows for more, and not fewer, housing units, consistent with local and state policies. Thank you for your consideration, happy to answer any questions.

[01:10:40] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much for your comment. Your time is up. I think we will proceed to our next speaker.

[01:10:48] City Staff: The next speaker is Amy Shelton, followed by Daniel Holtz. Amy, you should be able to speak.

[01:11:02] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: Hello, can you hear me?

[01:11:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: You may speak, please.

[01:11:10] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: Hello, can you hear me?

[01:11:12] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[01:11:13] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: Okay, good, sorry. I wasn't sure if I did the star right. Okay, so I live on Mount Vernon Court across the street from the very busy Castro and Mistral schools on Escuela. When I moved in 10 years ago, this was a R3-1 moderate density zone neighborhood, similar to the surrounding and common throughout Mountain View and including a mix of housing, including houses, condos, apartments, businesses.

[01:11:39] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: It was a vibrant neighborhood, busy but manageable, with building heights between one to three stories. The corridor between El Camino, California Avenue, on Escuela is very busy, especially after the California Road diet and given the school and business traffic. The residential buildings and street parking are already at high capacity. What was originally designed, the neighborhood can't safely support higher density buildings safely.

[01:11:59] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: While some smaller townhouse and row house ideas suggested could be appropriate for the area and are interesting, now, according to the proposal and map, it looks like R4 high density zoning is now proposed for the area, including directly across from the school and the surrounding my property, which is much lower. The new extension of high density seems to be extending mostly to a limited number of areas in the city and seems to heavily focus on our neighborhood, which has already done its fair share to supply housing for Mountain View and California, including naturally affordable and low-income housing.

[01:12:32] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: While increased housing benefits all the city, it concerns me that it seems that the high density upzoning the city now plans to burden just a few neighborhoods, including ours, with supporting almost all of the city's needed growth and providing more than its fair share of the housing, the city's housing stock, using the neighborhood to satisfy Mountain View's requirements and commitments to the state. It doesn't seem acceptable to place this burden disproportionately on a few already busy neighborhoods and leaving many others unaffected.

[01:12:56] Public Speaker Amy Shelton: Most neighborhoods should share the responsibility for adding housing, rather than just those that have already done their part, even though we may have a fewer single family homes, multiple family homes, low income residents and seniors. We still deserve livable neighborhoods which aren't overcrowded beyond what already busy neighborhoods with limited utility and infrastructure can handle. If this passes, I hope that the commission and city council will consider the burdens on the area when approving new individual projects. Thank you.

[01:13:18] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:13:22] City Staff: Last speaker online is Daniel Holtz. You should be able to speak.

[01:13:37] Public Speaker Daniel Holtz: Okay. Can you hear me now?

[01:13:39] City Staff: Yes.

[01:13:40] Public Speaker Daniel Holtz: Okay, sorry, it works differently. So, yeah, I'm just calling in to say that I support the R3 zoning update. You know, it was a very long and public engagement process in this and I think we got a lot of people from around the community, including renters, to really weigh in on this and I think so I absolutely support this. I think it's a great change, you know, from this model of seeing people as pollution to just trying to build a city with a good built form.

[01:14:10] Public Speaker Daniel Holtz: I want to thank staff for making a lot of changes along the way that the community requested, including being able to use ornamentation as a quote-unquote massing break, as well as thinking a lot more about these pedestrian cut-throughs and where we can add them. I really just appreciate that because that was part of the group that asked for it, right, so very much in favor of this update.

[01:14:44] Public Speaker Daniel Holtz: I do also support the recommendations of the Mountain View YIMBY letter that was sent in. I think in particular these massing breaks that we've decided to put, or not massing breaks, but transition areas rather, are a little bit arcane and anti-human in the sense that they're going to block views and block just air from people who live in those apartments.

[01:15:14] Public Speaker Daniel Holtz: And so it seems kind of kind of weird to say, for example, that Americana, a lot area where you've got a significant transition south that, you know, these residents of Mountain View shouldn't have a view of the mountains, for example, I think that's kind of ironic. So I think we've got to loosen some of those restrictions so that people can have a little bit more of a livable apartment. So anyway, that is what I have to say about it. Absolutely support the R3 zoning update. Thanks for listening to my comment.

[01:16:07] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:16:11] City Staff: We do have two additional speakers online. Ilya Gurin, you should be able to speak now.

[01:16:21] Public Speaker Ilya Gurin: Hello, can you hear me?

[01:16:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds like we can.

[01:16:25] Public Speaker Ilya Gurin: Hi, I'm Ilya Gurin. I'm a member of Mountain View YIMBY and a 16-year Mountain View resident. I support everything that's in the Mountain View YIMBY letter. Appreciate all the work that's gone into this R3 project over the last seven years or so.

[01:16:55] Public Speaker Ilya Gurin: I just want to call out, kind of echoing what Daniel said, I really want to understand why, so I appreciate the changes that were done to the massing break requirement, but I really want to understand why we have massing breaks at all. Why any massing break requirement is retained. It may sound good sitting in a room to require massing breaks and material changes, but I think in practice it just leads to buildings that are tacky and ugly, and nobody likes them.

[01:17:25] Public Speaker Ilya Gurin: And a lot of the aesthetic opposition to development comes from this recognizable 21st century look that the requirement generates. So yeah, again, I agree with everything that was in the letter and I wanted to emphasize that point. I yield my time.

[01:17:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:17:44] City Staff: The next speaker is Elizabeth Conlin. Elizabeth, you should be able to speak now.

[01:17:53] Public Speaker Elizabeth Conlin: Hello, my name is Elizabeth Conlin. I am a Mountain View resident and renter. I also wanted to lend my support to the Mountain View YIMBY letter and strongly urge you to approve these R3 zoning update changes today. Since this issue was first brought up seven years ago, rents have increased, home prices have increased, interest rates have risen, which has made previously profitable projects now unable to pencil.

[01:18:26] Public Speaker Elizabeth Conlin: We cannot have this continue to be delayed anymore. I really encourage you all to vote yes to add the improvements outlined by Mountain View YIMBY and really appreciate your support for moving forward with the R3 updates. Thank you.

[01:18:45] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:18:48] City Staff: That was the last online speaker. So we'll move on to speakers in person. First up is Ken Van B, followed by Ron Sackman. Ken, do you want to come up here?

[01:19:07] City Staff: Ron Sackman will start.

[01:19:16] Public Speaker Ron Sackman: Good evening. I believe I handed out my presentation to you and I'm going to go through rather quickly and I'm just going to read off of this in this presentation. So when we were watching the presentation that Mr. Anderson provided, we did not see Star Way called out. I'm going to assume that it is someplace in there. It's a relatively small area, so Star Way is a quiet street just south of the intersection of Castro and Miramonte. Our understanding is that it's being considered for upzoning from R2 to R3.

[01:19:54] Public Speaker Ron Sackman: The neighbors of Star Way believe that this would cause tangible harm to our neighborhood without yielding any meaningful new housing. Some interactions with Gemini AI, and again I'm going to read this rather quickly. I had posed a question to Gemini AI: In the city of Mountain View since 2010, has any developer bought up properties from at least 10 separate owners and successfully built a high density housing project? The answer I got back was no, no developer has successfully built a high density housing project in Mountain View since 2010 by assembling properties from 10 or more separate owners.

[01:20:28] Public Speaker Ron Sackman: While the city has seen an unprecedented boom in high density development, it's a very complex thing to do getting all those properties sold. The most properties of independent owners that has been sold and used for development that I could find was Castro Commons, which was six separate parcels. The region between Miramonte and Star Way would require buying out 13 separate independent owners, which could take a very long time. For six owners, Castro Commons took 10 years.

[01:20:55] Public Speaker Ron Sackman: So our high level comments to you guys is, if this gets upzoned, I'm going to just summarize what's here just in the interest of time. This will have a negative impact on our housing valuations, potentially up to 10 percent. Building from what we can tell, purchasing out the owners of that area to build a credible number of high density houses, which would come to about 26 or 27, would not pencil out and would be impractical because you've got to deal with 13 separate property owners.

[01:21:21] Public Speaker Ron Sackman: So we see this as tangible harm to the community without any tangible benefit to the city or to Sacramento. So we ask that you guys not proceed with this for Star Way in particular. Again, we didn't see if Star Way was on the list, and so it may or may not be there, but we would like to ask you to consider that for our neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

[01:21:43] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:21:49] City Staff: The next speaker is Ken Van B, followed by Richard Wynne.

[01:21:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Next speaker is Richard Wynne. If you're next, please come up to the podium.

[01:22:02] Public Speaker Richard Wynne: Hi, thank you. I'm requesting to keep 41, 43, and 75 Star Way R2 as a compromise to not upzoning our area. So why Star? All the other R2 areas south of El Camino are on busy streets, some are also near high density housing already. Not Star Way. Kids still play on our street. The other areas already have home values impacted from busy streets and the high density housing they're near. This will be an added burden to Star Way. Our values are based upon being different in traffic and density.

[01:22:39] Public Speaker Richard Wynne: The oddly shaped parcels on Star are challenges for further development. However, as R2, with the new Urban Lot Split and Starter Home Act, they will have more housing development opportunities that are easier, faster, and cheaper. It's the difference between a full PUD process or a ministerial approval process. It's the difference between lip service for more housing or actually building more housing now. If kept R2, a transition is made between the R1 and R3 properties between Star and what's going to be R3 proposed on Miramonte. Staff has already used such transitions to protect the integrity of R1...

[01:23:42] Public Speaker Daniel Holtz: properties. Uh, to honor both the commitment to the neighborhood and housing, 41, 43, and 75 Star Way should not be rubber stamped into R3A. Um, these areas were former County and they're 90% single family homes that are there now. So, uh, it's a unique street. And I think I made it within time. Okay, thank you all.

[01:24:14] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Ken Van B followed by Kevin Ma. Ken, if you can... Okay. Uh, Kevin Ma, please.

[01:24:34] Public Speaker Kevin Ma: Evening, committee commissioners and staff. My name is Kevin. I'm... the first portion I'll be speaking as representative League of Women Voters of Los Altos and Mountain View. You have seen our letter, so I'll just be the physical representation of that letter. So, we support this construction of more housing, especially affordable housing, as well as policies that improve clarity and consistency 'cause we want a government that is following the law and a law that is clear. League is in general support of the changes presented by staff today. Mountain View does need a lot more housing, and these changes will allow these zones that have not been changed a long time to finally evolve with the times. And um... we thank the... staff that there have been targeted changes done for small lots so that we can unlock the potential and opportunity on every site. And we would recommend that the commission and staff review the proposal to make sure all portions of the 100 plus pages are reasonable, necessary, and easy to understand, because there's a lot of perhaps... vague wording that may be useful in a time where we depend on objective design standards. Speaking as now as an individual, I like to remind the commission why these changes are proposed. Back in 2019, it's because we had displacement from projects like 570 South Rengstorff, Rock Street, or on Middlefield. Because at the time on R3, the only thing that was financially feasible back in 2019 was townhomes that required the demolition of existing units at almost a one-to-one ratio. We have basically not created any new housing units in those areas, and, you know, while there's state law has come to increase displacement protections such as SB 330, we do need to recognize that we do need to build more units to address the housing needs of the city. It also is necessary for our other things like sustainability, because retrofits are incredibly expensive. We talked about fire safety. It's incredibly expensive to retrofit those buildings. Usually it's cheaper just to rebuild them scratch and put them to code now. And you know, we do need to recognize that, as mentioned, the city does need to evolve. These homes that used to be, you know, anyone could buy them, are now millions of dollars. And that would not change anytime soon. Interest rates are not going down anytime soon. I'm worried when I have to refinance my condo. So, I do believe that these changes are necessary. Thank you.

[01:26:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Uh, the next speaker is Christina Pereira... followed by Francois Ble- Bleral? Uh, Christina.

[01:27:11] Public Speaker Christina Pereira: Thank you, Christina Pereira. Um, I'm... here to talk specifically, well, I wanted to call out a couple things I love. One is the pedestrian cut-back, and the other is the um, prohibition on ADUs as short-term rentals. Um, I wanted to and I did also want to mention, one of the online callers mentioned fairness in that so much of the upzoning is being done in the R3 and R- the existing R3 and R4 zones, which, you know, leaves a lot of Mountain View still zoned very, very lightly while all the new housing units are crowded into that area, and I feel that should be addressed. But the thing I particularly wanted to talk about was, again, about short-term rentals, because we can build new housing, and we can squeeze it into our existing R3/R4 zones, and if they get turned into short-term rentals, we're right back where we started from. The short-term rentals are already deeply concentrated in the economically um, under- underprivileged areas of Mountain View, primarily in the existing R3/R4 zones, and I would like the commissioners and staff to consider ways that you can discourage these new units or the displacement of existing residents um, by short-term rentals. Um, I was... spent 27 years spent in that neighborhood, and I was recently forced out of the neighborhood by short-term rentals. It made the place completely unlivable, having transients in and out all the time. So, I'd like you to consider that. Thank you for your time.

[01:28:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Uh, next speaker is Francois Ble- Ble-Blebel? Bleral?

[01:28:53] Public Speaker Francois Bleball: Bleball. Hi. Um, yeah, I'm very happy to be here. My name is Francois Bleball. I've been living in Mountain View for the past 10 years, and I currently live on Boranda Avenue on one of the properties that's zoned R2B um, with the new R3 update. Um, I would be overjoyed to see more housing built near where I live. Um, I live in a very quiet but very well-connected neighborhood. I'm close to Castro Street, the schools, Cuesta Park, El Camino Hospital. All the places I've had the fortune or misfortune to visit by foot. Um, and I'm really looking forward to standardizing the rules uh, for building housing across the city, and I hope it will be... make it easier for us to build more housing. Um, one of the nice things about where I live is that I can actually cycle to work, right? Um, which is really great now, especially with the El Camino Real improvements, and by living nearby and cycling, I don't need more parking. I don't take the car, I don't use my car, I don't park in the street, and by actually... we have a couple of large and smaller employers in the city, and by letting more people live here, where they work, we'll actually be able to cut down on traffic and on car use, hopefully by doing the same as what I'm doing. Um, but you know, overall the most important thing is really to have a roof over your head, right? There are many needs that someone has, but this is really one of the most basic ones, and this is a small step in the, in the right direction. Let's keep going, and I'm really looking forward to um, adopting this resolution and eventually building more more homes. Thank you for rezoning. Please build, please build it here.

[01:30:33] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Uh, the final speaker in-person is David Watson.

[01:30:46] Public Speaker David Watson: Good evening. Uh, I'm David Watson, uh, I am a member of Mountain View YIMBY. Um, and yeah, I support Mountain View YIMBY's letter. Uh, I'm going to sort of, uh, rehash some parts of it. Uh, I wanted to uh, thank staff for uh, the hard work on this, um, and for also uh, integrating some of the suggestions that we had. Um, that's really great. Uh, we had... again, in our letter, some suggestions about making uh, small lot uh, R3 construction more um, more feasible, and I think those are, you know, uh, worth integrating. Um, I also uh, wanted to mention on the uh, the option for uh, uh, decoration as opposed to uh, massing breaks for uh, large buildings. Um, the the document calls for transitions in the decoration style over the length of the building, and um, when we proposed that, we actually meant it more in terms of uh, a unified um, uh, decorative style across the entire building, because again, we're we're... I'm not really sure about the idea of trying to make one building look like a bunch of separate buildings. You can have really beautiful buildings that have a single coherent uh, uh, style across the whole building. So, uh, I thought it might be good to have that uh, as a, as an option for how to implement that. Uh, you know, again, you can look up, you know, you can find pictures, there are plenty of large buildings uh, built even here in California uh, that have uh, you know, um, uh, you know, more classical style uh, uh, de- decoration, uh, but that, you know, are across the entire building. I- I think that could look really great. Um, and uh, and also, yeah, we had uh, some, some commentary about uh, transition area window restrictions uh, that also you might want to to look at. Thank you.

[01:32:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Okay, thank you to all of our speakers. Uh, however, we will now segment uh, the deliberation and action into two parts. The first part will focus on amendments to the San Antonio Precise Plan. Um, Commissioner Pham, do you have an announcement you would like to make? Oh, I have it. Okay.

[01:33:16] Commissioner Tina Pham: So I am recusing myself from any discussion concerning the P40 San Antonio Precise Plan due to the proximity of my personal residence to the San Antonio Precise Plan area.

[01:33:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Okay, we will now deliberate and vote on the San Antonio Precise Plan amendments. Please refrain from general deliberation and questions until the full commission is present. So, I think the staff recommendation, do you mind if we pull that one up, just to make it clear, we're speaking about the San Antonio Precise Plan only. Do we have any speakers or um commissioners with uh questions or deliberation commentary? I know personally I don't. Yep. I don't. No. Okay, I'm seeing a lot of no's. Um, we have the staff recommendation up. I will make a motion. All right. We do have a seconder. So, in that case... Yep. Okay. Yeah, we have Vice Chair Donahue.

[01:35:20] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: It's, it's just interesting, it's difficult for me to uh, discuss this without discussing kind of the whole thing overall. So, I'm okay. I don't know what to say.

[01:35:36] Chair Alex Nuñez: I hear you. I did, I mean, it seemed like, it was, I had a hard time finding the changes myself, so maybe at least in my opinion, it seems minimal in terms of any specificity. Yep. Vice Chair.

[01:36:01] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Can you summarize the changes?

[01:36:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, absolutely. Uh, so, uh, as uh, the chair said, most of the changes are terminology, uh, just aligning with the um, the the city code. Um, there are really uh, several changes to the San Antonio Precise Plan that that warrant kind of a a focus um, uh, comment uh, by me, which is one, uh, there's a one condo complex uh, located at the north uh, east corner, northwest corner of Latham and Ortega, uh, which is in the San Antonio Precise Plan. Currently in the San Antonio Precise Plan, it references the R3 district for standards. So that language just has to be changed because it's um, it it references outdated R3 standards. Um, in the updated language, it now references the R4 uh, standards, because Council directed that that be one of the sites that is upzoned uh, to the uh, 65 dwelling units per acre. Uh, so it's included in the change areas that um, that are are being proposed for increased density. And so now that property references the R4 zone, consistent with all of the other um, uh, upzoned areas that that Council directed. Uh, the other, uh, there's another minor change just about clarifying um, when frontage standards are incompati- inconsistent, frontage standards in the Precise Plan when they're inconsistent with the referenced zoning district, and that applies both to this property as well as to um, a commercial property on the corner of California Street and Showers Drive, because that property references the CN zone. And so there may be inconsistencies with how to deal with the frontage standards. Um, and then the last change that that warrants noticing is uh, re- uh, regarding the updates to the TDM language. So the transportation demand management, uh, the city recently adopted a TDM ordinance citywide that um, prevails over the precise plans, and so we're removing this this incompatible language is is just a clean up.

[01:38:21] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. Um, and thank you, uh, Mr. Anderson for clarifying the changes. I have a question regarding the Del Medio gardens that one of the speakers alluded to. I presume that that would be impacted by this or is it just outside this?

[01:38:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's outside the precise plan. So that can wait till the commissioner comes back.

[01:38:42] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you.

[01:38:47] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Uh, we do have a motion on the floor, unless there's other commentary, and a seconder. Um, I propose we take a vote and um, bring Commissioner Pham back for the... Okay, but I will go ahead and read it. Uh, I make a motion that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Amending the San Antonio Precise Plan, P(40), Consistent with the R3 Zoning District Update Project, as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission (Attachment 11 to the EPC Staff Report).

[01:39:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion carries. Five in favor, one against, and one commissioner recused. Thank you.

[01:39:45] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we will go ahead and then uh bring Commissioner Pham back. All right. Excellent. Thank you. Uh, we can go ahead and then uh proceed to full deliberation. Is that... just confirming with Miss... Pencholi. Are we good to go? For questions? Okay. I know, yeah, this is... EPC questions. There you go. It was... it was the very last little bullet point, so I missed it. All right, uh, EPC questions.

[01:41:07] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, I have a lot of questions, so, um, I mean, this is a big, a big thing. So, um, one thing that I noticed is that it says that this will increase uh, vehicles, vehicle miles traveled per capita, and I, I was a little confused by that, because I would assume that having more people living near where they work would uh, of course the overall vehicle miles traveled would be higher because there would be more people, but per capita, I didn't expect to increase. Why, why would that be?

[01:41:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So it's not a, a project, or a... yeah, a project impact to VMT. So we we don't expect the um, the project alone to to impact VMT. It's a cumulative impact to VMT, and that's a conservative uh, analysis that's based on the um, kind of with the timeline of the project, uh, the uncertainty around the distribution of growth, uh, the changes to surrounding land uses, um, and, and other um, uh, other aspects of the project. Uh, we did not feel that uh, given the, the scale and timeline of this project and the um, kind of lack of uh, um, uh comparable projects uh, and comparable uh density increases in in similar multifamily areas, that we could have a really good understanding of what the transportation outcomes of this project would be. Transportation is very complex. Um, and uh, and so the, the, the uh analysis is really based on um, kind of uncertainty about the, the phasing of um, kind of comparable transportation improvements, uh, and, and other changes to uh to the environment. So, it, it could very well reduce VMT per capita, uh, and we do expect it on a, on a, looking at it by itself, looking at the project by itself, to reduce VMT per capita because of the reasons that you identified. Um, it is a uh, a jobs-rich area that that has a lower VMT than the region uh, for, for new housing in general. Um, but the um, uh, and so for, for all of those reasons it should, the project itself should reduce VMT, but but given the uncertainty around the cumulative context in which the project happens, we felt it was more um, kind of...

[01:44:09] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Like a worst case scenario.

[01:44:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Worst case scenario but more um, a better uh legal foundation for the CEQA document to, to make that statement.

[01:44:19] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Right, okay, so CEQA should should give the worst case so that yeah, to cover all your bases. Okay, sure. That makes some sense. Okay. Speaking of transportation being complicated, one of the speakers mentioned California Street and the the pilot project that's there now with the lane reduction, if there's a significant increase to density there, what impact will that have on the demand for uh traffic on California? Presumably the bicycle lane would be more, more utilized, but the the car lane would also uh need to carry more traffic.

[01:45:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, similarly, we uh given the, the scale and kind of unprecedented nature of this, this um and, and long-term uh outcomes of this, uh and and the opportunity to do um kind of project-specific modeling and transportation impacts, uh we elected to uh not do a um uh a congestion impact analysis. We're not required to under state law or the or our local uh procedures, um and so uh this, that analysis will come as uh developments are are proposed.

[01:45:51] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. I'm kind of jumping all over here. So, one of the goals was to encourage lot consolidation, and the ordinance says, we encourage lot consolidation. It doesn't there's no real... And, and I had asked previously, I was confused about the the proposal for the lot consolidation and how that was that was working in some meeting a year ago or something. Um, but now it's, it's not clear to me that it actually meets that goal at all by just literally saying please consolidate lots, but with no kind of carrot or stick or anything. Um, what, what are your thoughts on that?

[01:46:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, that, that was in response to Council direction in February. So, we uh proposed a um an approach to lot consolidation that uh provided an incentive uh to to those who wanted to uh combine their lots. Um, from a different perspective, I think the EPC uh rightly identified that from another perspective it's it's a limitation that applies to smaller lots, and, and uh that wasn't the appropriate approach, and Council ultimately agreed with that. And instead Council directed us to use um guidelines, uh "should" statements, and aspirational language in order to uh encourage lot consolidation.

[01:47:24] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Um... The... I guess, let's talk about Star uh Way. The... what would the the density be if... currently, if it's zoned R2, you can do lot splits and if things were built out to the maximum density by doing lot splits and and then to the maximum density, what would that density be compared to uh the proposal if this goes forward?

[01:48:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so um, under the updated ordinance, uh properties in R2 would be allowed to do urban lot splits and do um actually uh three units on each of those urban lot splits. So that would be you know, theoretically on the on each of those three properties facing uh that that were highlighted by the speaker, that could be six units hypothetically on each of those three properties. Um, an apples to apples comparison under R3A would be acknowledging that ADUs could also be built under R3A. Uh, so those properties are about give or take 10,000 square feet or so, and so under R3A, uh with a maximum of 20 units per acre, that would be about five to six units allowed. And then um, the uh you would be allowed ADUs in addition to that. So typically with multifamily you're allowed two ADUs um on with proposed projects, and then you're allowed a number of ADUs um internally. So you would you know, I think up to half the number of units um, or you may be allowed ADUs up to the total number of units on a on a multifamily site. So you'd be allowed even more units on top of that. The six units, five to six units allowed under R3A.

[01:49:34] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Say that again. So so if if we if you did the lot split and then each lot got three, so that'd be three be six be 18 over the over the the three lots total. Uh and R3A would...

[01:49:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh if you include ADUs, let's just talk about the ADUs that you're allowed to build with projects. That would be um say seven or eight units per property.

[01:50:10] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. So so 24 versus 18. Okay. Um. And what are your thoughts about the the not including that, leaving at R2, in general?

[01:50:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's a, it's a policy question for the commission and ultimately the council to decide, weighing issues like neighborhood compatibility that the uh the speakers brought up, against the um the opportunities for uh additional housing units.

[01:50:51] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening, commissioners, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um, I'll add to what uh Planning Manager Anderson mentioned. Um, we did assess uh the proposed rezonings under this project and uh did find um, and we don't have any particular formulaic or objective way to assess this, but um at least anecdotally, uh it appears very much that this is a unique area where uh the transition from R3 to R1 would be very abrupt. Um many of the other areas have some combination or transition or mix of R2 zoned areas, for example, or have other um non-residential uh related zoning as well intermixed in in a much more um complex sort of arrangement of zoning and parcels. And so this stands alone um compared to some of the other similarly situated places uh in Mountain View, and so there is a way to distinguish this from some of those other locations if the balance of those policy factors weighed in the commission's mind away from including this uh in the rezoning.

[01:51:52] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, okay, then going on to other specific things. The 2747 Del Medio Court, is that... there's a list of things that were downzoned. It sounds from what the speaker said, it sounds like the density would be lowered, and was that actually one of the things that was scheduled to be downzoned or...

[01:52:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so this is an instance where the um the the General Plan designation allowed fewer units than what's there today. Um, I don't have a history of this particular site to know why it has more units today than the General Plan designation prescribes today. Um, the uh the action is um the the action is consistent with state law because as long as the the city also adopts the significant density increases elsewhere in the city that more than um uh accommodate these these tiny, tiny adjustments. But I would also say that um the the existing allowed density under the General Plan is not changing at this site, and this may be a situation where the property is non-conforming, and so the updated standards would not increase that non-conformance. They would preserve the non-conformance, but they would not increase the non-conformance. Um, and I will also mention that the um uh the updated non-conforming standards that we are adopting along with this provide additional opportunities to redevelop sites at the same density. Um, and per the letter, the difference between the allowed zoning uh or the allowed general plan designation and the um the number of units on the site is relatively small, and so using State Density Bonus they could build significantly more than that as well anyway. So, um again, it's a, it's a policy question, I do have to caution the commission that um identifying a significant number of other sites to increase density uh may impact the legitimacy of the CEQA analysis. Um, and so it's something that we have to be cautious about. Uh the other um uh the other thing is that, you know, as you saw in attachment 16 is a map of sites that are over existing density. Uh you know it appears that in the past there have been a lot of sites that have been built more than the allowed density in the general plan today. It may have been due to some assumptions that went into drafting general plan densities, you know, 20, 30, 40 years ago, who knows, right? Um, and applying them to sites. Uh, so um it we don't want it to be an arbitrary decision about which sites are upzoned around um this non-conformance. And so that may require some additional analysis by staff uh and additional uh kind of review of these case by case scenarios.

[01:55:34] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, I'm not necessarily proposing anything for specific sites. I'm just asking the questions to kind of get get the information out there. Uh one of the speakers mentioned the Americana and that the South view would um be that there's kind of a transition area to the south, on the south side of the Americana, but I thought that the proposal was the Americana's R4 but also the other side of Continental Circle uh between 85 and Continental Circle and Dale, the little triangle there would be R4 as well. So, would it... I didn't think there would be any transition required there.

[01:56:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so there um I'll, I'll bring up a map to show um possibly what they're talking about, although we, we made one minor change to the Americana site specifically um because of the, the kind of characteristics of the adjacent um Cuernavaca development. Uh so let me share my screen here... Uh so this is the General Plan map. Um I think I can zoom in a little bit here. So uh the Americana apartment complex is this one that um has the 110 written on it, and then there are a few other apartment complexes south of Continental, between um Highway 85 and uh towards Highway 85. The Americana complex doesn't actually have a transition zone on it. They, they, they are not affected by the transition zone. However, the um the characteristics of the Cuernavaca development down here do bring some of the single family homes closer to these um these properties here, but the 100-foot setback doesn't, only covers about 30 or 40 feet on the, these properties. Uh so they have a couple of options. One is to do a a three-story kind of front facade with just an upper floor step back, and then they wouldn't have to comply with any of these design standards um that limit windows or or anything else. Or they could just pull the whole building back, you know, an extra 10 or 20 feet um on the, on the setback, on the front setback. Uh so there are options under these transition zone standards uh that would preserve all these opportunities for um windows and views um you know, at least in this case towards the southeast.

[01:58:27] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, yeah, when I heard Americana, I was thinking of the actual Americana apartment complex, which is where the 110 is, but yeah, maybe the speaker was talking about the, I think it's Greendale and uh I don't remember what the next one is. But um, okay. Um, yeah, I lived at the Americana for years, so I'm familiar with the area. Um... just since I'm walking around in specific sites, the the Walker Drive uh between Wake Forest and Walker Drive, there were some concerns that uh some people had, and why is that proposed to be R3C instead of R3B, because a lot of other R1 adjacent things are R3B, and and currently because it has the the one-story uh maximum, the R3B seems a little bit closer to that, a litt- you know, not the same, but closer anyway.

[01:59:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh sure, yeah. Um the uh direction that we were given was to to use the General Plan designations to guide out outside of these these change areas, to use the General Plan designations to guide the future zoning districts. So, this is an area where the allowed density is 35 units per acre today, under the General Plan, uh and so preserving that maximum density, uh one of our prerogatives under the housing element was to prepare standards that um allow for development at those densities. Uh so that would increase heights in these on these particular properties. A one-story overlay is not uh realistic to achieve 35 dwelling units per acre. Uh so um ultimately then it's a policy question about whether or not uh these sites um should be downzoned in that um or the the number of allowed units reduced uh to be based on that one-story overlay.

[02:00:36] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: How is it ever 35 units per acre and one story? I mean that I guess that's from history, you may not even know.

[02:00:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are a couple of properties that do have 35 units per acre in that one-story overlay.

[02:00:47] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Oh, really?

[02:00:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, they they they use a couple of uh strategies. One is to have a larger setback um and to to really limit the amount of building area that's in those areas. Uh there are a couple of other properties that just have really, really, really small units, like you know very, very very tiny units.

[02:01:07] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, okay, so getting more uh nerding out here, so recently a couple of bills were just signed into law, so SB 1116 uh updates the Starter Home Revitalization Act and AB 1751 is the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act. Are there any additional changes to this ordinance that would be required to to implement those things? Because one of the goals is to to bring us into compliance with state law.

[02:01:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, we, we have a process for um studying these statutes uh once theyre signed and and really understanding all of the uh changes that have to be made to our code to to align with them. These have were signed in the last two weeks, um, and that process has started, but it is not complete. Uh so given that I, I we're um you know, it it's we can't say right now what might need to be changed based on these statutes.

[02:02:17] Staff Amber Blizinski: Sure, yeah. Amber Buzinski, Assistant Community Development Director. I think, um, you know, we're we we will be ready to um you know take in applications or consider applications that come in under these bills on January 1st, um, but you know often the code changes if any are not adopted that quickly because we have to have time to actually analyze the bill and and see what it would do in, you know, throughout the municipal code and what changes have to be made, and so um, you know, what we're bringing tonight um includes updates to the code for some previously passed bills, and you, you will likely see some updates to the code for these newer bills, but it's just too soon for us to do that and too quick.

[02:03:05] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. You, you have a difficult job because things in Sacramento keep changing, so. Um, how about um, so should the ordinance implement AB 956 which allows a second ADU by right?

[02:03:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, again I, I don't have a response to that um just given how uh how recently it was it was adopted.

[02:03:39] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, let's see. That's good for now, thanks.

[02:03:52] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Uh, Commissioner Cranston.

[02:03:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So I'm going to give a little context here, so people understand, can you hear me? Understand why I'm asking these questions. Um, in the seven and a half years...

[02:04:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I've been looking at all these maps. The almost random nature of the zoning in many cases has always bothered me. It's one of the things that I've why I have liked precise plans because it allows you to go through and erase all of I'm going to use the term orphan orphans where you have a zoning that's like, why the hell is this there in the middle of something like maybe he's talking about.

[02:04:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: What I don't want to do, well, we've talked a lot about of the the things in the other pieces of paper, we haven't talked as much about the maps. And so I'm my questions are going to be largely about things on the map that feel to me like they're either preserving orphans or creating orphans, okay?

[02:04:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, and as part of that thought process is, if you've ever been to Houston, you drive through an area and all of a sudden there's a 50-story building in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and I'm not a big fan of that. And if you ever watch the movie Up, you see the guy in his little house buried by those kind of things. I don't like tall orphans or short orphans, okay?

[02:05:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the questions I have in here are going to be related to, do we can we get rid of some of these orphans? There's no way to get rid of them all, but my questions are that things that appear to be inconsistent to me. And I guess to start, the map at the end of Attachment 2, the numbers that are in there, is that what it will be or is that today what the General Plan designation is?

[02:05:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's what it will be, what it's proposed.

[02:05:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: What it will be. Okay. So it's not what do you have what's there today?

[02:05:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I can bring that up.

[02:05:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So what I'm mainly going to refer to is in the next attachment, which is the map changes. Um, on page six is the one to zoom in on the Del Medio area, okay? Could you pull that up for folks so they know what the heck I'm talking about?

[02:06:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, sorry, you're looking for the zoning map?

[02:06:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It's the on pages 6 through 12 of the, what's, I guess the fourth attachment, but it's called Attachment 3 or something like that. It's the one that amends all the maps.

[02:06:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay, the zoning maps. You want to go to the Del Medio area?

[02:06:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, page 6.

[02:06:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay.

[02:06:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, so my issue is not the one that was spoken about by somebody else. Unlike the City of Palo Alto, I am going to be sensitive to other neighborhoods and the fact that all of Palo Alto in that area is single family homes. I'm going to pay attention to that fact. What I am, was troubled by is council said we're going to make this area more dense. So why was the orange area on Miller Drive, why did you choose not to include the area from Del Medio on Miller Drive that's in orange, okay, in that block of R4 that goes all the way down to Del Medio. It feels like, if we're going to do that in the area, why isn't that entire wall along the San Antonio Precise Plan all R4? Why was that not included?

[02:07:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So when we uh, conducted this analysis for the recommended change areas, we uh, looked for areas that were predominantly of a certain minimum lot size. The whole idea was uh, based on the the goals that that Council put on this project was to find large developable parcels to upzone. Uh, so the area that uh, is um, shown on the south uh, actually the already is uh, allows up to 80 units per acre in the in the General Plan. And so that was a a natural fit. Uh, and the area in the north uh, had enough uh, large parcels to to meet the the criteria of the analysis that we we did.

[02:08:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, in addition, Council uh, directed staff to include some adjacent condominium and row house areas. And so there is that um, uh, row house complex where you see it's got Montelena Court there. That was added by Council direction uh, to include some adjacent condominium and row house areas. That, those properties along Miller Avenue are both small parcels and not condominium row houses.

[02:08:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So the, but the one, but at Del Medio and Miller, you did not include because of small lot sizes?

[02:09:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The the properties along Del Medio and Miller, yes, we did not include because of small lot sizes.

[02:09:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Next question. Um, page seven. Okay. So similar kind of a question. Um, we have all the R4s along California Street and then you've got an R4 sitting on Castanya and in between is an R3C. Why? It seems like we've got this whole big block of R4 and we're dropping an R3C in between two R4s, an R4 above it along Central and R4 is below. Why would, did, why did you either choose to increase the one along Castanya to R4 or not keep it at R3C? It seems like we're creating another orphan.

[02:09:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so that area I believe uh, didn't meet the criteria for um, uh, R1 and R2 uh, adjacency in terms of um, kind of how it was integrated with that R1 R2 neighborhood along Villa Street.

[02:10:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So that's why you kept the R3C area?

[02:10:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[02:10:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So an alternative would be to do the R4 but do the boundary like you have further over along College Drive on the very same map, the R3.

[02:10:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the, the transition areas only work when you have a property that's more than um, 80% or so R4. Otherwise the transition area concept just doesn't make sense. Um, so that's why, uh, so you'll notice the the one property along California Street just east of uh, Ortega, that's R3C-2. That's actually all one property. Um, it's different APNs, but from um, Ortega all the way to the the um, College Park neighborhood uh, is really all just all one property on the north side of California Street there.

[02:11:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So those are examples of um, the where we've um, kind of identified these large parcels but said, if Council wants to upzone these large parcels that may have an R1 or R2 adjacency, you can do so following the transition uh, goals of the project if this small part of that parcel is uh, has this transition zone.

[02:11:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the transitions apply across streets? Because the, there's, the R3C and the R4 are across the street from the R1 and R2. There's not a, they're not directly abutting them. I didn't think we did any transitions across the street.

[02:11:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I believe there were, there, I'm going to have to go back to the, the Council report from, you know, two years ago, but the the criteria did include um, kind of properties that were integral to R1, R2 neighborhoods.

[02:12:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I hear your answer. Um, page eight. Okay. So at the corner of El Camino and Miramonte, there's this tiny little R1, R3A, and then an R3B and R3C. Why aren't we just, why didn't you just make that one thing? Okay? Why, why split it into three different zones? Can't we collapse that, make those three children one shot, one child?

[02:12:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sorry, you're talking about on Miramonte and what cross street? And Park?

[02:12:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Uh, where, you know where it goes like across from McKelvey Park.

[02:12:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh across from McKelvey Park, yeah. Uh, so that's the R3B area and R3C area, those are the, those were the previous existing General Plan designations.

[02:12:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay.

[02:13:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, the R3A area was previously R2, and so that area met the criteria for upzoning from R2 to R3A.

[02:13:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So you never actually considered making that whole three-zone thing one thing?

[02:13:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, no, we we had separate criteria for each of these actions, and so that's, that's how it ended up with the the that particular configuration.

[02:13:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Uh, a little further down the street, there's an R3B orphan hiding between the El Camino Precise Plan and an R3C.

[02:13:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, again, that comes from the General Plan designations. Um, in some cases uh, the General Plan designation was defined by the uh, project that um, built it. And so that may be an instance where the project requested a General Plan amendment many, many, many years ago, and so it created that that orphan.

[02:14:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So it could be combined with the R3C, potentially.

[02:14:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, again, I mean, the the these are policy questions that we could evaluate. Um, that change is maybe unlikely to have CEQA impacts on this scale. It's a very, very small change, but it's something that we'd have to look into.

[02:14:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Do you think that consolidating those three up above would have a CEQA impact?

[02:14:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, again, unlikely at the scale of this project, but again we'd have to look at those properties specifically.

[02:14:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, I guess we've already talked about that one there. Um, map number nine. The R4 on Crestview, why was that? Why isn't that R3C? It's across from single family homes and all like that.

[02:15:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so that's an example of where there's a, it was a large site that met the large site criteria. And so uh, we were able to include it in the change areas because uh, with the addition of the transition zone along the Cuernavaca property.

[02:15:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So your default was to add it, sounds like.

[02:15:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Our our default was to add it if the property was large enough and deep enough that it could accommodate a transition zone within less than 20% of the property.

[02:15:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So if you go to map 10, how does the tiny little R4 next to San Vernon Park meet that criteria?

[02:15:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The tiny little... upper corner. Yeah, again, it's a it's a large parcel. Uh, per the criteria that we had for for parcel size, it's a large parcel and it met the the criteria that we had for for large parcels. Um, it, if uh, the commission does not want to upzone that for neighborhood consistency reasons or avoiding um, uh avoiding orphans, as you say, then then that's something that you can recommend to the council.

[02:16:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And the PF, that's the, the, the army site, right?

[02:16:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The PF site? Right next to it? Yeah, that's the, the Shenandoah Square uh, Army housing, yeah.

[02:16:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the fact that it's all one-story, two-story things wasn't taken into consideration?

[02:16:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We only considered the zoning, the R1 and R2 zoning.

[02:16:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So no, not, no transitions are required for non-Mountain View property.

[02:17:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, I don't recall if we considered that for um, the um, the the property in question that we had the the public comment on, which is adjacent to Palo Alto, single family homes in Palo Alto. I don't I don't recall the uh, how, whether that was a criterion for not being included in the upzoned areas.

[02:17:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then map 12, okay? The R4 on Middlefield, is that because it's a big, a big parcel?

[02:17:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so at the R4 properties that we identified um, were um, I believe only about half of that block uh, as as meeting the large parcel criteria. Uh, and then Council added the other half of the block uh, as um, adjacent row homes and condominiums.

[02:18:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Council specifically added that site?

[02:18:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[02:18:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Interesting. Okay. So in overall context of what I've gone through, if, if the Del Medio-Miller was raised to R4, the R3C at at rank star part, where those were increased, would that offset um, this tiny little orphan on at the San Vernon Park and the the one on Middlefield? Do those counts come out somewhat similar or do you have to redo the entire CEQA thing?

[02:18:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, yeah, no, there's, there's no, we can't answer that during this meeting. Um, and I think the, you know, the environmental review uh, would need, we'd need to um, look at the the environmental impact report that we've done, all of the mitigation measures that we've done, uh drafted, and just to ensure that they um appropriately accommodate those changes.

[02:19:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: How much of a change, I think you've got what 14,000 to accommodate. How much of a change is enough to require another CEQA review?

[02:19:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It depends on the analysis in the EIR. I I mean, it's just not, it's not an answer that I can give you know, without without looking at the uh, without having some time to review the environmental impact report.

[02:19:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. All right. Thank you.

[02:20:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Subramanian.

[02:20:03] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. Um, I hope my list of questions is reduced thanks to my colleagues who went before. Um, so I'll just start off and I'm trying to keep with the order of the ordinance. So I'm gonna reference specific sections, so hopefully that makes it easier to tie to. Um, so just to clarify with the uh, the attachment 4/14 map which showed the non-conformance, um, is it correct that you said it would be hard to change the conformance because it requires a study of the CEQA impacts and it's easier to deal with the standards in the non-conformance section to deal with those sites? Or did I misunderstand that?

[02:20:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, I I think I was just saying what the steps would have to be. Uh, and it's not just the CEQA steps. It's also the um, analyzing what what is actually on each of those properties. So, you know, caveat around that map is that that's some general data that we have. Uh, we'd need to vet that data by looking at the properties, doing some research on the property specifically.

[02:21:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We also don't know exactly the lot sizes, so there may be varying levels of of over density uh, based on the actual lot sizes. Um, and uh, the the other challenges is really around um, you know, if if the council uh wants to do a wholesale upzoning you know, without this um, you know we we've done this analysis and this public process for the areas that were upzoning with this process.

[02:21:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So uh, you know, upzoning on these particular sites um, might benefit from a similar process of looking exactly at what the context is. Um, you know, who are the surrounding stakeholders? What would the ultimate density be? Um, and and other detailed questions on a case-by-case basis.

[02:22:24] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So all the sites that were identified with different color bands, with some of which seem more precise than others, all require the study and a proper analysis of those sites before you can proceed? So the map itself designated some as blue areas, some as the R1 and R2 sites. Um, and then the other ones which were, you know, not analyzed and left in a different color.

[02:22:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the blue areas on the map are are are being upzoned.

[02:23:01] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: They are being upzoned.

[02:23:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, uh, I believe that was what what the map showed. Um, I can bring up the map now.

[02:23:12] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Because it denotes it as density increase with R3 update. It wasn't clear to me if that is being upzoned to a particular R3 zone.

[02:23:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so those are identified for R4 or other um, probably for R4 uh, to to increase the density of those sites.

[02:23:33] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. And then the R1 and R2 areas which I guess carry more density than what the underlying zoning is, are those candidates to be upzoned to an R3 or does that designation mean something else?

[02:23:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the R1 and R2 areas, um again, it's a it's a a policy question. You know, we haven't been directed by Council to increase densities in the R1 and R2 areas other than the specific areas that we identified for R2 to upzone to R3A. Um, and so that would be new direction that could impact neighborhoods that uh, weren't otherwise involved in this update.

[02:24:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And if I may add, please confirm if I have the correct understanding, but um the modifications to the non-conforming zoning regulations would provide greater ability to continue with those higher densities than the R1 or R2 zoning would allow, but wouldn't obligate someone redeveloping the site to construct at the higher densities if they wished to retain a single-family residence, for example. Whereas rezoning to R3 might put in place minimum densities that preclude single-family development. And so that was the policy balance we were trying to strike with the regulations. Did I capture them correctly?

[02:24:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, thank you.

[02:25:00] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay, um next question around the land use and permit requirements by residential district in section 36.16. I think it's a table. Um, why aren't both the row house and townhouses noted as permitted as R3, when I think further down in the text it's indicated as permitted under R3?

[02:25:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so I it may be a little hard to see, uh, but for rowhouse and townhouse, the strikethrough doesn't actually go through the P.

[02:25:45] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Meaning that it is...

[02:25:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's it's going from PUD to P.

[02:25:50] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. Okay. Um next uh section 36.11.5 E...

[02:26:00] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, this is with regards to parking. And I wanted to clarify, is surface parking being allowed in the front setback of small sites which are under the 70 foot width?

[02:26:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, surface parking is not allowed in the front setback of small sites. What is allowed within the front parking setback is uh, parking that's integrated into the building behind uh, the the habitable frontage or next to the habitable frontage as long as the habitable frontage meets the the minimum width.

[02:26:43] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: In other words, it has to be covered parking?

[02:26:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes. Not surface parking, right.

[02:26:53] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. So in terms of the side and rear building setbacks from lot line in R3B, C, and R4, um, section 36 1105D, setbacks, there's the catchall note that implies that it is a 5 foot setback for all sites which are under the 70 foot width. Is that then an override for the setbacks that are noted within the individual tables for the R3 and R4 sections?

[02:27:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sorry, can you tell me what page you're on?

[02:27:31] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay, this is...

[02:27:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh, I'm sorry then, can you just read the section number again?

[02:27:46] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So it was 36.1105D.

[02:27:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh, okay. Page 25, yes. Okay.

[02:27:58] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So it's a catchall note which suggests that it's a 5 foot setback for all sites that are under 70 foot width. So I want to confirm that this applies as an override to the setbacks that are noted in the individual tables?

[02:28:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, for uh, for two structures, two-story structures, yes.

[02:28:22] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: For two-story structures on small sites.

[02:28:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[02:28:26] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So if the structure has exceeded two stories but were on small sites, then they would still have to adhere to the 7 foot setback?

[02:28:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right.

[02:28:39] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Got it. Section 36 1255 on other accessory structures and uses, tennis and other courts, is there a contemplation of restricting hours of usage?

[02:29:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, that is not uh, something that we've have currently in the code. Um, the there are uh, general nuisance um, requirements and, and noise ordinances um, that may come into play, you know, like if somebody's having a party at 4:00 AM, you know, you can call the police on them.

[02:29:30] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. Uh, Section 36 1290, concerning Junior ADUs, uh, B, why require that JADUs with shared sanitation be owner occupied? Could you explain that?

[02:29:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Is this a...

[02:29:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: If you can give us a minute we'll uh, look into that.

[02:30:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay.

[02:30:07] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Next uh, question on Section 36 1705, uh, this generally talks about change in materials, color, ornamentation, et cetera. And there's a note which suggests that they have to align with bay boundaries.

[02:30:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's okay. I'm almost there. Go ahead. Yeah.

[02:30:38] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Uh, so this is the paragraph that talks about change in materials, color, ornamentation.

[02:30:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Mhm.

[02:30:45] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Why is there a requirement that to align those with bay boundaries? Meaning there have to be sort of massing bays and these change in materials, colors have to sort of accompany change in massing.

[02:31:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, a bay boundary is set um, either at corners or at um, kind of the midpoint between windows. And so that creates these um, uh, kind of legible um, groups of windows or, um, uh, or, uh, other kind of visible elements of the building within which the windows are kind of centered and, and um, uh, clearly um, kind of have a logic within that, that space of that material piece. I think it's, if the the image um, of the the transitions I think is, is really helps visualize what the intent is here. So let me share my screen.

[02:32:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So this massing transitions really shows when you have these different um, modules of the building, those are where the bays are. And if you imagine that this was all just one flat building, instead of, you know, a um, a tower element with the number one on it or recessed element with the number two on it, just imagine those as areas of different material or design.

[02:32:49] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So to dig further into that, that was going to be my next question. Um, taking the same image and this example, um, how do the massing uh, transition features get applied? So if a building is more than 200 feet, what does it mean to apply three features? Does it mean that within that call it a 250 foot facade, um, does it mean that there's got to be three features that get applied or is it three versions of color and material changes or three versions of ornamentation? Um, how does one pick and choose between these, the palette of choices?

[02:33:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are, there are three transitions that are required. So that's, um, let's see, it says...

[02:33:56] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So taking that last uh, note in um, the building length where it's greater than 200 feet.

[02:34:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Mhm.

[02:34:04] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And it says three minimum transitions required.

[02:34:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right.

[02:34:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So they have to be three distinct from that palette of choices.

[02:34:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right. Well not, not distinct, they don't have to be different choices. Like you can have three different colors. Or you can have three different um, tower elements. They can be the same, um, the same, um, design feature for all three.

[02:34:41] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: In which case, does it make sense going back to the previous paragraph to state that change in material, colors, or ornamentation have to align with bay boundaries?

[02:34:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: What's the, um, I, can you explain?

[02:34:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So you previously described bay boundaries as being from a corner to kind of a midline between windows. I'm still unclear about what that means for um, reviewing that as a bay. So if we were to only pick, if, if say a developer was to only pick change in material and color choices to achieve the transitions required, um, how would you describe the application of that where it has to meet these bay boundaries?

[02:35:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So one, one transition would be one uh, set of colors for at least three bays, and then another set of colors for the next three bays, and then another set of colors for at least the next three bays.

[02:35:50] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So each bay is counted between windows?

[02:35:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Each bay is counted, each each bay is uh, across a single window.

[02:36:03] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. I think it would be helpful to have a visual description added to the bay definition just to clarify how that's being thought of there.

[02:36:21] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Can I respond to the JDU question? So the changes that are being proposed related to the owner occupancy in line related to the sanitation facilities is to address the Assembly Bill 1154, which became effective January 1st, 2026.

[02:36:41] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And could you explain what that requires?

[02:36:43] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Sure. So it eliminates the owner occupancy requirement for JDUs as long as the unit has its own private independent sanitation facility, and the property owners only need to live on site if the JDU shares a bathroom with the main home.

[02:36:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay, thank you. Um, next question, Section 36 2050 parking by land use. Um, under DUO, dual uh, urban opportunity housing, I think the table should state one per primary unit instead of one per unit. Is that correct?

[02:37:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, that would be, yes, that's, that's true except the DUO development standards are really defined around the, those primary units. So an ADU isn't a DUO unit.

[02:37:57] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So in effect it's saying the same thing.

[02:37:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's saying the same thing.

[02:38:01] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Gotcha. Uh, Section 36 4410 reviewing authority, the chart of the tables. So if planned community permits come to the EPC for review, um, wouldn't development agreements kind of be similar in that sense and wouldn't it make sense to also route them through the EPC for review? Or is there any other streamlining act that sort of limits this process?

[02:38:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so these changes are really intended to be uh, targeted to um, state law compliance. So we are uh, bringing forward uh, changes that um, that are really mandated by state law. So that's where the ministerial review requirements come from. It's, it's the state law requirement that they'd be ministerial reviewed. Um, that is a kind of a larger policy question around the role of the EPC, um, and so I think it would be uh, somewhat outside the scope of these amendments. Um, but yeah, there's a lot that goes into uh, kind of the decision around who makes recommendations for um, for particular actions uh, to the City Council.

[02:39:33] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Was it ever reviewed by the EPC in the past and was that changed or is it...

[02:39:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: DAs were never reviewed by the EPC.

[02:39:40] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Gotcha.

[02:39:42] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I think if I'm reading the table correctly, it's showing two different scenarios in fact. One where the EPC would recommend and Council would decide, and one where the zoning administrator would recommend and Council would decide. And I believe that's reflective perhaps of precise plan requirements that may delineate different procedures for development review, and not necessarily a suggestion of alignment with development agreement recommendation and, and approval.

[02:40:05] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay, thank you. And last question, on the R2 standards, has there been enough analysis to confirm that the standards allow for a higher density uh, which is higher than R1 with an SB9 application?

[02:40:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, yes. Uh, one of the things that you get with the SB9 with the, um, with the, the direction that the housing element prescribes is that it's essentially SB9 DUO plus ADU. So with the removal of the parking requirement, uh, that actually gives a lot of flexibility to a development uh, with say 5 units on an R2 site. Uh, the DUO standards also have small setbacks, uh, ADUs also default to um, uh, being exempt from FAR as long as they're less than 800 square feet. Uh, that's all required under state law. Uh, and so a lot of the constraining standards uh, just don't apply, things like parking and FAR. Uh, so it's really um, not uh, difficult to fit 5 units within a two-story building on uh, on an R2 lot in those circumstances.

[02:41:29] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And has your study of the smaller lots which you did for R3 have application to R2 as well, was that considered?

[02:41:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's a little different. First of all the um, the direction in the housing element says for typical R2 lots, so it's not the same um, mandate for the kind of range of lot sizes that weren't, we, we studied for the R3 zoning. Um, the, uh, and so really just looking at the uh, you know, typical 60 foot wide, 7,000 square foot um, R2 lot, that's what we looked at.

[02:42:14] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And those were all my questions. Thank you.

[02:42:18] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Pham.

[02:42:20] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just have two questions. A lot of my questions were asked by my colleagues here first. Um, first one's a simple one, I think. Um, building entry design, um, why move, remove stoops and add arcades and galleries?

[02:42:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, that was Council direction, specifically.

[02:42:38] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Interesting. Um, any uh, context on their guidance?

[02:42:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, during the meeting some of the comments that were made during that part of the deliberation were things like um, you know, in their experience stoops don't provide that effective activation of the street, it doesn't provide any space for that um, kind of public private interaction. Um, they um, commented that uh, other projects that they've seen with stoops have not had the kind of this intended design outcome. Um, and then for arcades and galleries it's really about creating a a sheltered kind of extension of the sidewalk to create um, more of that um, uh, transition space between public and private that that can be used for commercial activity or um, amenity space for the residential.

[02:44:28] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thanks. Um, my next question relates to development standards related to riparian corridors. Um, that caught me off guard a little bit, um, because I don't remember uh, this project including that last year when this came forth. So just trying to understand context on generally where this may be in Mountain View and how did this get looped into this effort?

[02:44:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, that was also Council direction at the the last Council meeting to look at the there's there's some existing um, guidelines that are published by the water district for review of properties adjacent to streams. Uh, and so the direction from Council was to codify those guidelines uh, to the extent that we can as objective standards. Um, so where does this uh, happen in Mountain View? We have uh, Permanente Creek, which is has a lot of properties that go right up to it. Uh, Stevens Creek also has a number of properties that go right up to it, but maybe not quite as much because there's a lot of um, the freeway and the trail and a lot of public lands that go along Stevens Creek. Um, but there's also other creeks, uh, Hale Creek, um, there's a um, Permanente Creek um, flood connector, um, for flood overflow. Uh, and um, a way over on the uh, west side of the city is Adobe Creek. So it does affect a few properties across the city.

[02:46:23] Commissioner Tina Pham: Good context. Um, it may be beneficial to include a map in future discussions of this.

[02:46:33] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[02:46:36] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And mindful that we're nearing up to three hours in, I'm going to try to speed run this. Um, first just a quick comment. The page numbers in the staff report are messed up. So, just check 'em and fix 'em, yeah, before it goes to the council. So, uh, question number one, the pedestrian connections that are being created, do they already exist and we're just zoning for them or are we actually going to build new pathways that don't exist now?

[02:46:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, we are uh, identifying new path opportunities. So these would be if the property redevelops, they would provide those paths.

[02:47:11] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And follow up to that, I assume the property owners next to it, they know about this?

[02:47:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, this is uh, something that we've had to include in the um, you know, in the the last few months of this process. Uh, we haven't done a specific noticing regarding it. Um, we have designed the standards to be um, as minimally invasive invasive as possible to the setbacks that are already required on the site. Um, and it's uh, in many ways an an extension of um, kind of other um, uh, uh, public infrastructure requirements that may exist for development.

[02:48:03] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Well just noting that, you know, middle school pathways can be, you know, joyful and rambunctious. Um, my hope would be that there would be conversations with the property owners at some point, you know, they'll care very much about this. So, just make sure you talk to them earlier rather than later. Um, the second question, this is this is a very broad one. I noticed in the staff report there was discussion of a few communications from other agencies. So SFPUC, Palo Alto, and I think at least one other city, I don't remember who. Um, expressing concern about you know, either things being done right next to them or things for SFPUC on top of them. Um, I kind of, I'm, I'm, I am interested to know how do we go about being good neighbors to them while we are saying, well we heard you but we're not going to do that. Uh, maybe that's a maybe that's a political question. I just, I'm I'm curious about how do you manage that relationship in a way where we are blowing them off because I don't want to blow them off. I don't think that that's the right way to do it and I'm sure that's not what you're doing, but what are you doing?

[02:49:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so we do have uh, good relationships with our uh, adjacent cities. We did receive comment letters from Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. Um, you know, we have uh, in general when we do development review, um, you know, and we we do our um, MTA analyses, you know, that look at the congestion and things like that, that we do look at these adjacent cities, we look for opportunities to um, share costs in terms of any physical improvements that might need to be done to to improve those properties. And there's also a larger uh, regional congestion management program that we're uh, you know, we're an active part of. Um, so uh, you know, they they certainly express some concern about the long-term impacts, uh, you know, transportation impacts in their letters. Um, but again, this is an ongoing process where as development comes in, we continue to analyze and look for opportunities to collaborate. Um, with uh, SFPUC, you know, they have some very strict rules about how their property can be used with good reason. Uh, you know, it's it is an important utility corridor for the whole region. Um, and uh, the the the discussions we had with them was were really around the nature of the um, uh, this change. And these this does not um, overrule or or prevail over their rights as property owners in any way. And so uh, that was something that we had to communicate to them directly to to allay any concerns that they had. Um, they may still have concerns about development immediately adjacent to their property, um, and uh, that is also something, you know, we have a very good relationship with them to to review development projects adjacent to uh, SFPUC property um, and uh, uh, require, you know, meet their their requirements.

[02:52:54] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay.

[02:52:56] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Alright. Last last question. This is essentially a sort of like a staff report request, something I think that would be helpful in the staff report. And it has to do with, I guess, orphans is the bill's term and I'll I'll borrow that here. You know, we still see in the letters we get and the testimony that we heard today, there's still a lot of push and pull about how certain areas get rezoned, especially where we're in areas where we're talking like an R3 next to an R1, those sorts of things. And there's people who want to be upzoned who aren't... they do want to be upzoned. And I think, you know, for it's not sure that it's useful for us to get into trying to do the horse trading because we've been doing this horse, you've been doing this horse trading for years now. Trying to get that balance exactly right. And so I don't know that here is the place to do any more trade, any more horses. But what I do think would be useful, um, and I and I think that, uh, Director Murdock mentioned this, there was some limited number of places where you essentially kind of had to make a values call or you had to make sort of your own policy decision like that's just a weird parcel, it kind of makes sense to upzone that. Even though it's, you know, it's starway and it's in its own little, its its its own little orphan spot. This would this would be my ask. My ask would be for all of those examples where staff made really kind of a value decision, if you could just call them out and put them in one place. Just make a table. Just make a table that's like, here's the weird ones, here's the orphan list, right? And if you could offer up some sort of merit based way of thinking about who, you know, who really should be upzoned, whether they like it or not, and who shouldn't. So that it feels less just sort of pulled out of a pocket and a little bit more, uh, that has a rubric with it that feels more fair. So even if I get my property upzoned and I didn't want it, I want to feel like the process was fair so I can be like, yeah, alright, I, you know, I see the rubric. That's fair. The other the other parcels, they had a better case than I did. I think that's actually really key and so if there was a way for you to do that in the staff report when you when it goes to Council, if nothing else, it will help organize in their minds the people that will be coming to them and saying please yes, please no, please don't, all that kind of stuff. Make it orderly with a rubric and I think it'll be easier to sort out which cases are the most meritorious. And with that, thank you.

[02:54:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Chair, if I may.

[02:54:36] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much uh, Commissioner Dempsey, for that feedback. I think it's important for our process to be transparent and to have a rational basis. Um, not necessarily that everyone will agree, but to know that there's thoughtfulness in the work that we do and that sometimes we have to make tough calls and our recommendations to the decision makers. Um, I do want to call out um, a portion of the report beginning on the bottom of page 15. Um, this goes some way I think to what you're you're describing and just to give an example, um, these are issues where we came across particular challenges in the course of implementing the broader guidance uh, for the R3 zoning project and had to make tough calls in some of these locations in precise plans to resolve policies one way or the other, or split zoned properties that needed to resolve one way or the other. So, um, just to assure the community we are thoughtful in our work and we here in this case are explaining how we got to where our recommendation ended up. And so, uh, we'll certainly take that feedback and think if there are other opportunities where we hit those, those pain points or those tough calls to just provide that transparency and then allow you in your recommendation and the Council in their decision uh, to resolve uh, finally on those issues.

[02:56:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:56:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think I know the answer to my first part. If there's a bunch of small areas that are all slightly different zoned, we can them together, we can't take the average of those and say that that applies across each individual property. So like I mean I only mention two of them, but if there's others where there's like a 20 20 density, 25, 35 all right next to each other, we couldn't say okay, we're gonna call that 35 across that and apply one zoning, right? You have to look at every individual property.

[02:56:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: You'd you'd create non-conformances if you did that, um, on the properties that are currently higher zoned.

[02:56:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So you'd have to almost pick, you'd have to pick the highest one to make it work.

[02:57:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If you're trying to avoid non-conformances, yeah.

[02:57:40] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. And the second question, um, it's a small thing. In the discussion of R3 and the ability for retail space, I was curious that it said that it has to be on a corner. Um, so if somebody put in a a retail space at a corner and they wanted two units, one would be in the corner and one would be next to it, but that one that's next to it wouldn't be on the corner, would they be in violation? Is it only, is it one and only one unit exactly at the corner or is it if they have a space that is big enough to have more than one unit, can they have one at the corner and one next to it? So they've got a coffee shop and a dry cleaner next to each other in the same thing.

[02:57:45] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah. Um, so let me just look at the section.

[02:58:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That was a that was an unexpected thing that I encountered as we went through it, so.

[02:58:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: The intent is that it would apply to the site, and not um, or to the to the building, yeah, and not not necessarily to the um, the commercial unit itself. Um, plus there are a lot of uh um corner properties that are on arterials, and so it would qualify under that or corner properties that are 20,000 square feet, so it would qualify under that. But let me, I'm sorry, I'm just looking for the actual language.

[02:59:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I was, I just wanted to just make sure that that's not, that it doesn't preclude, you know, a, you know, a space in the corner and one next to it kind of a thing. So, okay.

[02:59:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thanks.

[03:00:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I'm done.

[03:00:27] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. Then I might as well seeing no more questions. Um, I have a question. Um, when it comes to how uh, if at the end of like all these deliberations or what have you, um, if there's recommendations or suggestions made, how would Council uh, receive those? Would it be, I don't know, let's just imagine there was like a map suggestion or something, and then um, would what's this current proposal um, be shown and then like, and here's what the Commission thought about, or um, would it just be like one thing that gets shown to them? Like can you elaborate on that? And not just maps, but like, you know, text, all of it.

[03:01:18] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yeah, we, we would have uh, specific language that would implement the EPC's or maps that would implement the EPC's recommendation. Um, possibly in the staff report, possibly as an as an attachment.

[03:01:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. So it would be like um, just one, so this kind of like um, this will directly result in the map that gets shown to Council is what I'm hearing. As like the thing to be implemented.

[03:02:03] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Well, I'd say most often uh, we don't automatically revise the ordinance language, for example. We summarize the EPC's recommendation so that Council if they want to incorporate it has the option to do that in their direction uh, that they take uh, at the meeting. So in this case, if there's a map amendment, we would very likely create a small figure that shows the parcel or parcels uh, that the EPC identified and describe what the recommended change was, for example.

[03:02:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Alright. Uh, cool. Um, one more uh, kind of question then, um, when it comes to the parking, um, that 1.5 um, you know, kind of like requirement for the two and above. Um, did that number I I I'm certain there was a methodology to it. Um, I guess A, um, can you just like at a very high level um, kind of summarize what that was? And then B, was there any kind of like future looking um, projections included in that around kind of like changes in mobility, right? Things like Waymo or things like you know electrification of like scooters, things of that nature, was that part of it?

[03:03:13] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Not directly. Um, so uh, it it came from a number of sources. One is uh, those are the default parking parking ratios under State Density Bonus, so anybody asking for State Density Bonus would be entitled to those parking ratios. Uh, secondly, um, we have parking maxima in the East Whisman Precise Plan, North Bayshore Precise Plan, um, and we've eliminated parking minimums in a few other precise plans. And so we've had the opportunity to see for projects that are not subject to parking minimums, especially in areas where there's very limited street parking available, like in the East Whisman Precise Plan, there's very, very limited street parking available, these property owners know they've done the research, these developers know how much parking they need to build for their residents. And this uh, this number is what we are seeing in these developments, 1 per unit, 1.5 per large, two-bedroom and larger unit. Um, there are some exceptions, you know, certainly some of the builder's remedy projects and um, and other projects have have come in with with fewer uh, parking uh, numbers. Um, but in general this is what we're seeing among the the developers that uh, are um, are are building in areas where we don't have minimum parking. And so this is a uh, this is our recommendation based on what the development community sees as the parking that's needed for their tenants.

[03:03:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Okay. Thank you. Um, and then last question for me, um, yeah, I, I know uh, Commissioner Cranston has brought up like the discussion of like orphans and such, and so I guess I'm, um, I'm curious as to kind of like your guy's experience and or interpretation of that. I think um, there was also some um, commentary from um, Mr. Murdock, but um, when it comes to the, I guess like iterative nature of this work, right? In the seven years I think um, in terms of time that has gone into this, several rounds of like, you know, study sessions, um, not just from Council but then also from like, um, this commission, not to mention public input uh, along the way. Um, it would seem to me uh, that the that those successive rounds of input feedback direction would have yielded very specific criteria around the parcel changes. And so I guess like to the extent possible if there's some commentary you might be able to offer as to like, even if things might seem random or orphaned, you know, notwithstanding any like mistakes, right, nothing's perfect, I don't think anyone's claiming to be here perfect, but like, you know, can you kind of just maybe elaborate a little bit on the work that the staff did to ensure that those specific criteria and guidances that were handed to staff over the years in this iterative process has actually been implemented in the map, regardless of like what might seem random or not?

[03:04:34] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Sure. Thank you for the opportunity. Um, so uh, as uh, I said in responding to Commissioner Cranston's questions, uh, you know, there were criteria related to property size, and um, numbers of uh, properties, well of, of property size and then um, uh, some adjacent condominium and and rowhouse sites. Uh, for the R2 upzoning, the criteria were very specific. It was uh, property south of El Camino surrounding downtown, uh, and then um, on the north side of the Caltrain tracks immediately on the north side of the Caltrain tracks, um, and not immediately abutting R1 properties. And so this Star Way example is one where it's across the street so it wasn't immediately abutting. Um, and so that it, it, it met the criteria uh, but maybe in a way that because there were so many places that we had to look at, maybe in a way that uh, was um, as, as Director Murdock said earlier, maybe in a way that's kind of unique, you know, across the, across the city. Um, so the, um, those are a couple of examples of the criteria that we used and followed in this process. Uh, also relying on existing regulations, a lot of times you have to do that no matter how messy the existing regulations are. Um, and uh, that's uh, those were um, that's the, as you said, the, the process that we've been going through.

[03:04:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. Um, Vice Chair.

[03:05:06] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. So, yeah, I have, I want to, for sake of completeness, there are three alternatives in the in the EIR. Can you briefly speak about the the other options?

[03:05:21] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, so the the first alternative is the no project alternative. That's if the project doesn't proceed at all, we don't upzone these areas. Um, the second alternative is uh, an approach that would not include the rowhomes and condominiums in the upzoning. Um, and the third alternative is an approach that wouldn't increase densities all the way up to 110 units per acre, it would only increase densities up to 65 units per acre.

[03:05:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: The, the second alternative, those are already developed sites though, and and they're if they're condominium or if they're rowhouses, they're unlikely to be developed anyway. So is there any practical difference with that? I mean...

[03:11:00] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: would really promote walkable environments and improved streetscapes. Including multiple options for building design standards improves the feasibility of construction. And clean and clear clarifications allow for streamlined application for not only the property owners but also for reviewing staff. So all in, I think it's a huge achievement.

[03:11:25] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: With that, I have a handful of recommendations I want to make to specific sections. So with respect to parking on small lots, in section 36 32 50 C, I recommend reducing parking minimums to one per unit and not being stipulated by bedroom count. And this is specifically for small lots.

[03:11:51] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I think given the challenge of fitting parking on sites, if we lower the floor, it will achieve feasibility and owners will always have the option of adding more parking where site-specific conditions allow for that. But I think specifically for small lots this would be tremendously helpful towards improving feasibility. Also allowing parking and front setbacks.

[03:12:18] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: This will reduce both driveway length and make more efficient use of the overall site by allowing more room in the rear for common open space between dwelling units. And that provision of allowing parking and front setbacks can be maybe mitigated by allowing for permeable paving and other softer landscape treatments so it's not just like asphalt covering.

[03:12:46] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: The second point I want to make is around addressing transition areas. So in section 36 11 40, I recommend removing the limits on upper floor windows which are now restricted to 10% and the requirement that 50% of the wall in transition areas facing R1 and R2 be green walls or green facade.

[03:13:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: This will greatly impact the efficiency of the building on the larger site that is facing the R1 and R2 zones and many of the current units which are in those zones may be non-compliant. So instead I would recommend utilizing the requirement that is already suggested of incorporating mature trees and additional landscape and screening features on the ground to serve as effective buffers and potentially allowing for architectural solutions where windows don't directly face neighboring sites.

[03:13:44] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Three, on large sites, figure 36 11 45 1 step 4, while not allowing parking between principal buildings and adjacent public street or public open space, I recommend that we allow for layby areas for delivery vehicles and short term drop offs and pick up areas.

[03:14:06] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: This is a condition that we saw in one of the previous projects in the East Wisman plan where without the adequate areas for vehicle drop offs, there's really not enough place within parcels for all that to be accommodated. Next one in section 36 17 03, the private frontage design, this is a small recommendation to allow lighting along with other features to be utilized for the live work units. I think this was the frontage in those areas.

[03:14:44] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Next comment, section 36 17 15 bay composition. Instead of limiting blank walls to 10 feet, can we tie that in with the previous section 36 17 03 D, where non-habitable frontages that allow treatment of the facade longer than 10 feet with vertical landscaping measures.

[03:15:04] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So this way you don't just restrict blank walls but give them the option of utilizing other design techniques to address them. Section 36 17 25 with massing transitions, I applaud that we included all these other options to address massing transitions, but within the option to use color or material change,

[03:15:29] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: the color change is required to be accompanied by a plane change of 4 inches, which I think defeats the purpose of being able to simplify the facades and have them be modularly constructed. Unnecessarily, that just adds a lot of cost to modular and it's a very fussy detailing which may not be finely achieved. And it's also such a small relief on a plane that may not be really

[03:16:04] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: observed from a distance. So, I would I would recommend that we do away with the plane change where there's a color change that's not in an inside corner or a bay.

[03:16:20] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then lastly, with regards to our our two standards, I recommend removing the owner occupancy restrictions as stated in 36-13.75 and allowing for more junior ADUs and ADUs to allow R2 designations to reach a higher density. And this would be really critical to impacting the housing elements 1.3A and 1.3H.

[03:16:45] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: That's it for me. Thank you.

[03:16:47] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey.

[03:16:50] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll quickly begin by echoing what my my colleague, um, Commissioner Subramanian said, which is thank you to staff. You've been working on this the whole time I've been on the Planning Commission.

[03:17:10] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, and I know how many times we've brought this back. I can only imagine how many hours you spent on this. Um, so not only profoundly but genuinely, like, thank you. Thank you for putting so much into this. And I recognize this is probably the last time we're ever going to see this or vote on this. So, yay!

[03:17:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Uh, I consider this sort of operationalizing and cleaning up. Um, so I'm supporting this tonight. I don't love everything in it, but, uh, you know, there's some things that I still worry about. But, but, but, but, I we all, I think, have to acknowledge that this proposal reflects rigorous, detailed, literally years of deliberation and years of effort.

[03:17:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, there's nobody that could say this was not, uh, you know, a fulsome process, right? And I think it reaches a very reasonable compromise for something that's quite hard. Um, and because it reaches a, yeah, it reaches a reasonable compromise, there's great demand to make progress on housing, this will do that. This will do this, this will do that well.

[03:18:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Um, and make sure that we stay compliant with our good friend the housing element, that's a really damn good reason to support this. So, I will be supporting it today and I support it with my gratitude to the staff and to the city, um, for doing something that was really a pretty heavy lift.

[03:18:38] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey. Uh, Commissioner Cranston.

[03:18:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Not to be a broken record, but, uh, as I went through the staff report I'm like, oh that's good, that's good, that's good, that's good, that's good, that's good. We did this.

[03:18:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, a lot of the things that, you know, I was on the EPC when we started this and that were concerns that I had at the time or as to why we supported it to start with, you guys have nailed. Okay.

6. COMMISSION/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

[03:19:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: There's compromises that were reached that are like, okay, I can live with that. There's, there was nothing in as I went through this that was like, oh my god, why did you do that. Um, I'm the... so I'm, I'm going to support this overall.

[03:19:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, and I'm really, you know, I would agree there's things on here that, okay, I might do a little differently, um, but, you know

6. COMMISSION/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

[03:19:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If I have minor, um, any more, I guess, kind of guidance to council would be I don't like the gap in Del Medio. I don't understand why the lot that's next to the retirement center isn't also R4, okay.

[03:19:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And I don't like the, the Mount Vernon Park addition. So I would, if I were doing the map, I'd make it R4, R4, back to R3, and I would not include the Starkway thing in here.

[03:20:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, I'm the most of the, of the noise is along El Camino. I talked about two of them, but there's two other clusters where it's like 20, 30, 40, all randomly. So, and maybe this is a question for council, is there... I mean, it just, it's messy along El Camino.

[03:20:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And other parts of the city aren't as bad, but there's these little clusters of things, and maybe they want to consider just saying, okay, we're just going to make it R3C. Okay. Um, because it's just, it doesn't make sense to me to have all this little randomness in there. Um, outside of that, I don't know.

7. ADJOURNMENT

[03:20:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: know that I would necessarily say we're gonna, we have to vote to change it, but I think it's, you you went from their guidance on these things.

[03:20:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I would, again I would probably up those two, down and down the other two, and then ask them do you want us to clean up

[03:20:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: the noise along El Camino because it's, it's just, it doesn't make sense to me. But outside of

Additional Content 1

[03:21:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, you know, there's again there's things that I like and things that I probably wouldn't have gone that far. I will I will support the idea of that we should have something whatever in your internal parking shouldn't say no to no to Amazon vehicles and and delivery vehicles. So if it if it doesn't allow that right now, then we should at least we should go back and look at that piece because it is an issue. Um, but other design elements there as many people who have voiced concern about the reduction of the design elements that we have in here and maybe they're not as vocal here at the end, but they were vocal all the way through the process. So I think you've you've come you've struck a balance that I think works and uh I'm I was like man, these guys kicked ass. So I'm I really appreciate the work that went into it and I would be I'll be proud to support it and hopefully council will will as well. Okay.

[03:21:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Vice Chair Donahue.

[03:22:04] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yeah, this has been a seven year uh let's see, I think right it started in October of 2019. I echo the uh comments that this is not perfect. I definitely you know, if if I just sat down and came up with a plan, I think it would probably not be exactly this. Uh but uh you know, I'm not the emperor. So which is which is a good thing. Um anyway, um I yeah overall I I I do have some concerns as I kind of alluded to in some of my questions about um traffic impacts, about um you know, impacts on on other infrastructure, about uh parks, about um just just some of the you know water and sewer and all all these kinds of things which um uh I guess you know, as projects are built that that kind of stuff would get uh would get addressed. Uh but but as far as the actual traffic the streets are not the right of way isn't uh isn't growing. So there are limitations with respect to that. Um I yeah, there are various you know, as Commissioner Cranston said, there are certain why was this done this way, why was that done that way, why was Star Way done that way, um Walker Drive, um some other things. Uh but yeah, I think that uh perfect is the enemy of good and um so, yeah.

[03:24:16] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[03:24:18] Commissioner Tina Pham: So I'll be brief because I share a lot of thoughts of everyone else. Um I appreciate all the work that was done by staff, the public outreach, the work over six seven years. All the discussions that were facilitated with the public and at EPC and Council. Um the final work product here is quite beastly and robust and clearly took a lot of thought. Um one thing that still bothers me is uh incentivizing consolidation of lots. I know staff did propose a previous incentive that wasn't the right approach. I'm not sure what the right approach would be, but that's one of the examples where I feel like um it's not perfect. Uh but I'm not sure I would hold that up um from supporting this here. Um but it's one thing where I wish that we could have done just a little bit more to get that in. All right.

[03:25:15] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Uh Commissioner Gutierrez.

[03:25:20] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay, so I'm not on board. I represent a certain segment of the community that doesn't have that much voice here. So I will speak on their behalf. And I will also share my quick experience on the school board where I would suggest to the council to proceed with caution. That's not to say that what you presented here is not worth the time. It's the exact opposite. You did as much as you can and you could throughout this whole period of time trying to have different parties buy in to a vision. The problem that I have that I will speak to is we're giving too much up I think because members here already have expressed some sort of reservation to something that they may not understand or not like. I'm a little more skeptical because in the best of times, developers did not build to help with affordable housing, the middle middle class, the working class, the lower class. They built market rate units tailored to a certain workforce that's in tech or just in the Bay Area as a whole. I don't see that changing. I see that we're giving away more and more opportunities for them, more and more tradeoffs for them with this one stop shopping approach of being able to promote that exact approach in different parts of our city. That's a concern. Once you give an opportunity for someone to say I'm selling, that affordable housing that may not be under rent control or that is under rent control, there's certain protections that will protect residents for a certain period of time, but that doesn't mean that that's actually going to work. So I would proceed with caution. That's my recommendation to City Council. Because at one point they even said and people in the city said, rent control is bad. We don't want that. But yet we want to promote a socio economic diverse member of the community here in Mountain View because we value that. Well, a lot of these areas are mostly where that diversity lives will be affected by it. And if we didn't have that, the small community that we still have now wouldn't be there. We wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here. My neighbors wouldn't be here. So those are my suggestions for City Council to proceed with caution because in the end, in the best of times again, developers did not develop the housing that we needed. Affordable housing in San Jose, those projects five years ago, people were all, let's do this. You compare the numbers of what's been developed actually since then to now, it's nowhere near where it should be. And sometimes you have to push back to state mandates. Sometimes you have to take a stand. Housing element or not, the reality is at this point in time because of what happened on that side of the 101 with a certain sweetheart deal that Google got, there's no way we're going to reach our housing element goals. So we should proceed with caution. Let's not give everything away because we took six years to try and figure this out. This is the best plan that we have. No. We need to be more careful. Thank you.

[03:29:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Um yes. I um having been a participant in this process um over the last seven years and um kind of starting from um just like face-to-face interactions with a lot of the people who were uh actually displaced by uh the development uh that yielded in in a lot of cases um unit loss kind of like on 555 Middlefield. Um you know, senior citizens, um parents single parents with like children with like very severe mental um disability and you know like cancer. Um like seeing it kind of come to an actual policy um text and maps and all of it, it's a very interesting experience. Um yeah, like a lot of my colleagues have said, in terms of like perfect, I mean if I was half as smart at planning as staff, um is this the the plan I would have come with? Uh probably not. Um but it's the plan we have and I think that it it definitely um yeah, I mean I think it it honors a a quite a lot of people who have had to leave um the city or who were uh very much harmed by the fact that our housing costs are uh extraordinarily high. This won't fix that. Um but at least it is gonna show people that we um have chosen to do something about it. So I I will be supporting it. Um there are a few areas of of agreement that I have with um Commissioner Subramanian on some of the recommendations that she put forward and so I'll kind of like voice my support for those right now. Um in particular the removal of the massing transition restrictions, I'm hoping I can word that correctly. Um you know, on the color and material changes especially as regards to modular, I think that could be um a little bit of a defeating the purpose of modular there. So I'm I'm just kind of concerned about putting too many fingers in that uh in that pot, I don't know if that's the right analogy. Um I do support removing the requirements on the R1 that the green wall kind of thingamajiggy. Uh also uh support um striking those as a recommendation and I also support removing the parking restrictions um you know, from 1.5 down to one. Um or or maybe just removing them overall. And so I guess in terms of if I'm looking at the I'm sorry, what was that? And small lots. On small lots in general. Um I I think in general. Um yeah, so if I'm looking at like where we have where we have the most consensus so far, it's um yeah, at least based on stated um affirmativeness, uh myself and Commissioner Subramanian on the removal of the green wall, um the removal of the material change restrictions, um the reduction of the parking minimum. Um and then also I would probably lump support into the um consideration for delivery drop-offs. So um that would be three then um in terms of I think Commissioner Cranston also had some support for that idea is that just just a drop off.

[03:33:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just the drop offs. Not the Amazon stuff.

[03:33:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um then I might yeah whatever I can get. If if it's drop offs then I'll do drop offs. So I mean those are the kinds of things right now that we have on the table for potential further deliberation to the extent other commissioners want to chime in on this.

[03:34:01] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yeah, the drop-off thing actually is something that on the Middlefield project, that was something that we agreed to recommend to the council to to have the drop-off rather than having the parking lot in the back and people theoretically having to walk around the building uh to to do the drop-off. And then I went to the council meeting, the council was on the fence about whether to uh to incorporate that EPC recommendation and I spoke and they ultimately did because I think it's important to have a place. It's 2026, people are getting DoorDash, people are getting Amazon deliveries, people are getting picked up by Ubers and I think it's important to have a place for them to uh to do that without impeding a bike lane, a traffic lane, other things like that.

[03:34:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um thank you very much. I mean I I know I would support that and that would come like make four unless I misinterpreted Commissioner Cranston's support.

[03:35:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess to me they're not different things. It's a place for somebody to park for short term to either drop off a person, drop off a pizza, or or an Amazon guy to drop off his thing. They're not I view them as the same thing. I don't view them as two different things. So you're what you described it to me sounded like two different things. So I'm if it's one thing, I'm I'm that makes sense to me. Um if it's two different things then I'm confused.

[03:35:30] Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm cool with one thing. Yeah. Yeah. I mean um uh Mr. Anderson, does that sound at least for that one item like workable recommendation with staff's input from

[03:35:43] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, I'll add first that um with respect to the uh East Middlefield uh Wisman project rather, um Public Works Department is working on preparing a new standard plan and detail for that type of delivery area as part of a broader effort to update the city's standard plans and details for the public right of way. So it's not necessarily the case that the commission needs to figure that out tonight in its R3 recommendation, um but it's fine if you make mention of it, just realizing more than likely that'll be resolved uh separate from this process.

[03:36:14] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, by us making that mention of um at least like agreement, would it at least help add some credence of urgency to the work that

[03:36:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think it's a it's a fine recommendation. It recognizes how um those are important provisions right for this type of multifamily development. Higher uh frequency of deliveries with more dense development. It makes sense. Uh likely we would just recognize in our summary of that for council that public works is already going to be working on that and we need not necessarily create a separate standard as part of the R3 zoning and see what the council decides.

[03:36:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sure. Yeah. The more it's on the radar and the less it kind of falls through the cracks. I don't think there's a a problem with that. And thank you for um contextualizing that. Okay. Um so uh other um ones on the table had to do with the removal of the green wall requirement. Um Commissioner Subramanian is that can you kind of

[03:37:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yeah, I can clarify what that um detail was. So there were two instances where I had reference to so one had to do with a section which talks about bay composition and talks about limiting blank walls to 10 feet. And there was a previous section which talks about talks about using the approach of adding green walls or vertical landscaping to non habitable frontages that are greater than 10 feet. So my recommendation was just to tie those two together because I think they can essentially achieve the same.

[03:37:53] Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm I'm happy to support that.

[03:37:58] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um I I do have a question for staff in terms of these recommendations both mine as well as um what um other commissioners have brought up. Um I I also want to recognize Commissioner Dempsey's suggestions on sort of giving criteria around the maps and creating a table. Um do you actually require us to provide the specific language to take to council or are you just using the the discussions to share with council as a way of sharing our recommendations?

[03:38:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh for for the purpose of kind of providing additional information, we can we can do that in the staff report. Um it's not really a policy direction. Right. It's just providing a little more background about where we've been in this process. Uh and we can look at the staff report and and see what additional opportunities to provide that clarity and storytelling. Um I think that's that's uh good advice and something that we will um uh look at the staff report and and try to incorporate.

[03:39:08] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. So I I think uh Chair uh Nuñez, it we don't have to necessarily go through the list of items and it could just be incorporated in the staff report as takeaways from our deliberations.

[03:39:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um to the extent there is um an expression of interest from four more commissioners on those ideas, I think it's worth exploring that unless you feel like you want to drop that.

[03:39:47] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I'm fine with if more commissioners want to uh provide more guidance specifically or or alter any of the language that I had suggested.

[03:39:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um we do have um Commissioner Gutierrez.

[03:40:02] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: And at worst case scenario if you don't have enough of the numbers Commissioner um Subramanian, uh obviously send him an email. Do what Paul did, show up, talk to him in person or email list out all those bullet points and say this is why. And then you can't say that you didn't try because sometimes when you see the synopsis that our team gives you, it it covers a lot but not much detail is almost in that. It's generalizations up to a point as best as they can because there's seven of us, right. So if you want those specific and the nitty gritty, just get in there.

[03:40:36] Chair Alex Nuñez: Then in that case um the one that I would like to um straw poll is the reduction in parking minimum. I know that there's like a state bonus um consideration if I understood correctly that that's just kind of like the state gives anyway. So even if in practice um we see 1.5 being the uh the parking minimum um you know as far as our own local standard, I think you know, making you know, offering up the option to you know developers to have um one uh for the two bedroom and above, um would just increase amount of options and flexibility, maybe increase feasibility of development. So um my uh recommendation is um yeah like to reduce that and wondering if there's um additional support on the commission for that.

[03:41:32] Chair Alex Nuñez: Who's going with me? Who's going No. All right, cool. Like Jerry Maguire. I couldn't finish that movie. It made me real sad. Um all right cool. So then I guess it sounds like um there is at least uh enough support for um moving forward with the recommendation and um just an additional note uh around the drop-off uh infrastructure is what I'm hearing. Yeah. Okay. Then we have a motion. Would you like to

[03:42:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, I'll just for clarity in the record, the recommended motion is rather extensive. It might be helpful to take it in reverse order. So an addition to the upcoming staff recommended motion, the EPC adds the following so it's clear up front and then we get into this, you know, telephone book reading exercise that we have to get through the 11 or 12 recommended actions here.

[03:42:38] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. Then I think Commissioner Cranston can

[03:42:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So in addition to the recommended the staff recommendation EPC would like to advise council that to consideration of delivery slash drop off locations needs to be considered if not incorporated into this at least through the other processes under way within the city. And then the EPC recommends to city council 1, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View viewing the final EIR report and adopting a findings of fact mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations for the R3 zoning district update attachment 1 to the EPC staff report. 2, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View adopting general plan amendments to modify the residential general plan designations and the general plan land use map consistent with the R3 zoning district update as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 2 of the EPC staff report. Number 3, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the city of Mountain View to update the R3 and R4 zoning districts and related sections updated non-conforming standards and streamline review standards and standards implementing state laws and make other clean up amendments as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 3 to the staff report. 4, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View proving the zoning map amendment to apply to the R4 zoning district in 14 change areas nearby housing nearby housing row house and common condominium sites gonna get dry mouth here. And the R3A zoning district in high opportunity and transit-oriented areas previously zoned as R2. R3B zoning district in areas consistent with the previous medium density residential general plan designations and R3C zoning district in areas consistent with the previous medium-high density residential general plan designations and other modifications consistent with the R3 zoning district update and general plan amendments as recommended in environmental standing planning commission attachment 4 to the staff report. 5, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending the San Ramon precise plan P6 consistent with the R3 zoning district plan update as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 5 to the EPC staff report. 6, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending the Villa Mariposa area precise plan P17 consistent with the R3 zoning district update as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 6 to the EPC staff report. 7, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending the Grant Martins precise plan P26 consistent with the R3 zoning district update project as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 7 to the staff staff report. 8, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending the Evandale precise plan P32 consistent with the R3 zoning district plan update as recommended by environmental planning commission attachment 8 to the EPC staff report. 9, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending the South Whisman precise plan P37 consistent with the R3 zoning district plan district update project as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 9 to the staff report. 10, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending the El Camino real precise plan P38 consistent with the R3 zoning district plan update as recommended by the environmental planning commission report. And I'm gonna make the next one number 11, adopt the resolution of the city council um uh city city council Mountain View appealing repealing the 460 North Shoreline Boulevard precise plan the P5. Ortega precise California Ortega precise plan P13. The 2100 California Street precise plan P14. The Mora Ortega precise plan P31. And the R4 multi-family standards as recommended by the planning by the environmental planning commission attachment 12 to the staff report.

[03:46:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh there was one uh other item based on the the changes that I showed on the last two slides.

[03:46:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Oh, with the additions and then 12, with the additional amendments of section 36.04 to approve internal references and section 36.32.50 to clarify that no minimum parking would be required for ADUs.

[03:47:11] Chair Alex Nuñez: Miss Clerk, is that it?

[03:47:33] Chair Alex Nuñez: The motion carries uh six votes in favor, one against. Thank you very much. Okay. Having concluded that we will proceed to item number six, commission staff announcements, updates and committee reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the commission at this time. Staff commissioners anyone?

[03:47:58] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you. Diana Pancholi, principal planner. Just wanted to say council is uh tentatively scheduled to review the EPC uh applicants on October 20th. And then the second thing is um the next EPC meeting is going to be October 21st.

[03:48:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you.

[03:48:25] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, if I may I'll just add an announcement as well. Uh given that many on the commission as well as many who may be watching or watching in the future uh know assistant community development director Lindsey Hagen who was here earlier this evening. Um exciting news, the city manager has appointed her to position of deputy city manager. She'll be beginning that role starting next Monday. So a great loss for the community development department and support to the EPC directly uh in her prior capacity but a great win for the city uh in having Lindsey perform this new role which will involve a lot of special projects, interdepartmental and interagency uh coordination and project management. So very exciting uh for Lindsey and uh couldn't be happier for her. So I wanted to share that with the commission.

[03:49:06] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much and thank you to um Miss Hagen and uh all the best in your new role. I'm sure we'll uh bear the fruit of your work as well. So then having no other uh announcements, uh we'll proceed to adjournment and the meeting is adjourned at 10:47 PM. Thank you.