October 21, 2026, Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:46] Chair Alex Nunez: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of October 21st, 2026. I will call the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 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 PM on the meeting date. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak, and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now, I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with roll call.

[00:02:46] EPC Clerk: Thanks. Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:02:55] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Here.

[00:02:56] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham?

[00:02:57] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:02:58] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Gutierrez?

[00:03:02] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: Here.

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

[00:03:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:03:05] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:03:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:03:08] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue?

[00:03:09] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:03:10] EPC Clerk: Chair Nunez?

[00:03:11] Chair Alex Nunez: Here.

[00:03:13] EPC Clerk: All commissioners are present.

[00:03:16] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. We will now proceed to Item 3, the minutes approval, of which there are none. So, we will now proceed to Item No. 4, the oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Mr. Clerk, looking to you if there's any speakers.

[00:03:59] EPC Clerk: No speakers online or in person.

[00:04:03] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Having no speakers, we will proceed to our public hearing. Hearing Item No. 5, starting with 5.1, the Rowhouse Gatekeeper Project at 924-940 San Rafael Avenue will first have a staff presentation, then questions by EPC, followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action. So, let's begin with the staff presentation from our associate planner, Vinson Kwan, and planning manager, George Schroeder. Thank you.

[00:04:37] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair, commissioners, and members of the public. My name is Vinson Kwan, associate planner, and I'll be presenting the 924-940 San Rafael Avenue Rowhouse Gatekeeper Project. I'm joined on the dais by planning manager, George Schroeder.

[00:04:56] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The project is located on an approximately 1.80-acre site comprised of two existing parcels on the west side of San Rafael Avenue, between San Pablo Drive and Terra Bella Avenue. The property is currently in the General Industrial zoning district and has a general plan land use designation of General Industrial. The current site conditions consist primarily of a surface parking lot and two industrial buildings. The site is surrounded by industrial uses, single-family homes, and a future city park.

[00:05:24] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The existing general plan and zoning designation for the project site does not allow for residential uses. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a general plan and zoning map amendment to allow for redevelopment of the site. Additionally, the project includes a planned unit development and development review permits to construct a 36-unit rowhouse project, which includes nine BMR units and utilizes state density bonus law. The density bonus request includes six waivers, which will be discussed later in this presentation. The application also includes a vesting tentative map to facilitate individual sale of the rowhouse units.

[00:06:01] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: If the general plan amendment from General Industrial to Medium Density Residential and zoning map amendment from MM to R3-2 are approved, the proposed residential development would be allowed consistent with the proposed general plan and zoning land use changes, which are subject to the city's discretion. More specifically, the R3 zoning district allows rowhouse developments through a PUD permit process consistent with the rowhouse standards and guidelines referenced in the R3 standards. In summary, the project complies with the applicable standards of the proposed general plan land use designation and zoning district.

[00:06:36] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: It should be noted the city is currently undergoing code updates to the R3 zoning district. This project proposed to be presented to City Council on November 10th ahead of the R3 zoning updates. And should the R3 updates be approved, the general plan land use will be changed to Medium Density Residential-25 and zoning district will be updated to R3-B respectively.

[00:07:01] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The project consists of five buildings which are comprised of six to eight units. Each unit includes a two-car garage and a private entry along the paseo. Pedestrian and vehicle access into the property is provided from San Rafael Avenue. The site also provides a mid-block crossing located at the common space along the northern property line. The crossing provides pedestrian access from San Rafael Avenue to the future city park. The vehicle drive also provides access to the project site, which includes nine guest parking spaces, two temporary parking spaces, unit garages, as well as for city emergency and solid waste vehicles.

[00:07:39] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The building share a simple craftsman/bungalow inspired design with a mix of three primary exterior materials, including stucco, board and batten siding, and fiber cement siding. The project design includes front and side facing gable roofs with decorative gable ends, which is typical of craftsman architecture. As proposed, the rowhouse units vary between three and four bedrooms with private balconies, a small front yard, weather-protective front porches with native landscaping.

[00:08:07] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: As noted earlier, the project will provide nine BMR units, which is equivalent to 25% of the project units, which is required for rowhouse development projects. Two units for low-income households, five units for moderate-income households, and two units at above-moderate income. The BMR units will be divided between three-bedroom and four-bedroom units, with three three-bedroom units and six four-bedroom units. Additionally, the five moderate-income units qualifies the project for state density bonus, and this proposal meets the city's BMR requirements and qualifies the project to utilize state density bonus.

[00:08:48] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: Pursuant to state density bonus, the project qualifies for an 8% density bonus, up to one concession and unlimited waivers of development standards necessary to construct the project. The applicant is not requesting bonus density or a concession, but is requesting six waivers as shown on screen and discussed in more detail in the report and project findings. Denial of waivers would physically preclude the construction of the project at the permitted density. The waivers that are being requested are for site coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped open area, front setback, side setback, and rear setback.

[00:09:24] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The project requests a waiver to provide 31.4% landscape area rather than the required 35%. Denial of this waiver would require reducing the unit count and prevent development at the proposed density. The project also proposes to remove 18 trees, including two heritage trees, and is replanting 48 new trees providing nearly four times the number of existing trees and existing canopy at maturity. The landscape plan complies with the city's water conservation and landscape regulations and emphasizes California native plants.

[00:09:58] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The vesting tentative map would create five lots for condominium purposes and one common lot, allowing for the sale of units and common ownership of the shared improvements. Staff reviewed the subdivision and has found the project is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, city subdivision standards, and the general plan.

[00:10:16] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: A draft IS/MND was prepared for the project, which found that with the implementation of Mountain View City Code requirements, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures disclosed in the IS/MND and the MMRP, the project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. The city did not receive any comments on the IS/MND during the 20-day public comment period.

[00:10:40] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: The applicant hosted a community outreach meeting on August 25th, 2026, to discuss the project details and also attended one design review consultation meeting and incorporated feedback to help further refine the project's overall design. The project was presented to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission and was determined to be consistent with the Moffett Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We are now at the EPC recommendation meeting and after this meeting, the project is tentatively scheduled for a City Council hearing on November 10th.

[00:11:10] Associate Planner Vinson Kwan: In conclusion, city staff recommends that the EPC recommend City Council to adopt the recommendations for the resolutions and the IS/MND, which includes the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, general plan amendment, project vesting tentative map, and the ordinance for the zoning map amendment as detailed on the screen and in the report. This concludes staff's presentation. City staff and the applicant team are available for any questions and please note the applicant also has a brief presentation for you tonight.

[00:11:38] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you. Um, can we get a timer for that? Eight minutes work for you guys?

[00:11:43] Unidentified Speaker: Yeah, cool.

[00:11:44] Chair Alex Nunez: Yeah.

[00:11:55] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Hello? All right. Good evening, Chairperson Nunez, Vice Chair Donahue, and members of the commission. My name is Mike DaCoti and I'm here tonight representing Prometheus Real Estate Group. I'm joined this evening by Don Peterson, our Senior Vice President of Development, as well as Justin Doll, project architect, Marco Lee, landscape architect, and Isaac Barachi is attending virtually, he's our civil engineer.

[00:12:21] Applicant Mike DaCoti: We are excited to present our application for 924 through 940 San Rafael Avenue tonight. I would like to thank staff for the preparation of the comprehensive report and for working closely with our team to get us here tonight.

[00:12:36] Applicant Mike DaCoti: As you review our proposal, it is worth noting the City Ventures project located on San Leandro Avenue, approximately half a block away, was recently approved by EPC and City Council. Our team tracked that project closely and worked to include similar design standards, which were well received by both the neighbors and staff. We are confident with approval of our project, it will be a step toward cleaning up the immediate area, in addition to complementing the adjacent neighborhood and future city park directly across the street.

[00:13:07] Applicant Mike DaCoti: To take you through the design details and the overall project vision, I'd like to introduce our project architect, Justin Doll with Doll and Architecture, who will guide you through the presentation. Thank you. And we will be available to answer any questions that you have.

[00:13:25] Applicant Justin Doll: Thanks, Mike. Um, thank you staff, commissioners. Nice to see you again.

[00:13:30] Applicant Justin Doll: Um, we can go to the next slide here. I'll keep it pretty brief, um, just to give kind of an overall sort of what our vision was for the project. This is the, as you know, the Terra Bella Vision Plan area, although it was not adopted, it gave us the direction from the beginning that this is a in a transitional density location. And so we've designed this project around serving as a transitional use and density between the industrial to the north and the single-family, um, homes to the south. Next slide.

[00:13:56] Applicant Justin Doll: Um, this puts the project in the context of, um, its relationship to the City Ventures project and how that, um, interfaces with that future city park. I think this actually does a nice job of, um, showing how we've kind of worked to reflect that condition and what will be a, um, I think a really nice public space in that park in the future. Uh, you know, we worked also to get front doors that orient toward the street and then also, uh, with a three-story row home, provide eyes on the street overlooking that, that city park, um, also complementing the way City Ventures has designed their project.

[00:14:28] Applicant Justin Doll: Um, site plan, just in general, I won't, I won't repeat, um, anything that Vinson has already gone over, um, but this does serve to highlight the location of that, um, enhanced pedestrian crossing. Um, we felt this aligned, um, both best with our common open space and creates that connection from that to the park across the street. Um, its location at that northern end of our site also serves to approximately locate it at the mid-block point, um, of our whole block, providing, um, with a, a speed table, raised crosswalk and, um, activated flashers a, a, a nice traffic calming element in the middle of what is a straight run, uh, right in front of the city park.

[00:15:07] Applicant Justin Doll: Uh, a little enhanced detail of that area, um, just shows some of the, um, uh, there's some seating areas, some children's play areas, some sensory, um, play. And we worked, um, with staff to actually help, um, sort of define what these elements were and to appeal to what we felt was going to be, uh, the potential future residents of this project.

[00:15:31] Applicant Justin Doll: Uh, just a few views that, that were in there, but to speak to the style and a bit of the site layout, we also organized the site with a circulation to the south. This holds our three-story units approximately 40 feet from that southern property line and from the single-family homes along that edge, as opposed to the, flipping the whole site over, which would have brought them, um, much closer to those, those rear yards. So that helps with our daylight plane, it helps with separation and privacy to those neighbors to the south.

[00:15:59] Applicant Justin Doll: Uh, here's a, a street-facing view as seen from across the park. Um, we refined these color palettes, the materials, the massing, by working really closely with staff in a, in a couple of rounds. Each time we felt we really improved the project. So we were very grateful for that, um, that back and forth and the collaboration we were able to have. Um, dealing with elements like how we would screen, um, views along our entry drive, um, location and orientation of the open space, and, um, generally how we could best comply with the row house guidelines.

[00:16:29] Applicant Justin Doll: A view here at ground level, um, from approximately the location of the raised crosswalk. Um, shows the long view down the right side of this image of our common open space and how that orient, orient and relates to the park. Also from this angle, you're able to see a little bit more of the articulation of porch elements, trellises, um, the rhythm of the individual units and the accentuation of those individual entries of individual units, um, per row house guidelines.

[00:16:56] Applicant Justin Doll: And I think we have maybe one more, which is an internal paseo. It's a second elevation style and color scheme. Although it's compatible with the first, it provides a little bit of variety, um, also down these, um, longer and straighter paseos, we like to work to really articulate both vertically and internally unit to unit, um, so that you don't get a, a wall of units that run down those. We really want to try to articulate those as best we can, um, with second floor balconies and, um, front porch, uh, uh, courtyard type entries.

[00:17:28] Applicant Justin Doll: Um, I don't know Marco if you want to speak to the planting palette at all. I think this is our last slide. This just describes, um, the landscape and, uh, open space character.

[00:17:38] Applicant Marco Lee: Sure, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Marco Lee with Guzardo Partnership. I'm the landscape architect for the project.

[00:17:46] Applicant Marco Lee: Um, just to speak a little bit about the plant palette. Uh, we've used a majority of, uh, California native, low water use planting that's suitable for the Mountain View area. Um, and we've also worked with planning staff, uh, during DRC, um, to make some, uh, changes to the tree species to better align with, uh, what the city is looking for, um, as well as increasing the amount of, uh, native planting, tree planting for the site. Um, and then the materials that you can see, we're having a, uh, combination of concrete, uh, decorative pavers. And then, you know, at the common spaces, we have the sensory, uh, play structure features, safety surfacing, picnic tables, um, you know, climbing structures and stuff like that.

[00:18:26] Applicant Marco Lee: Um, and also not shown on this slide, you guys probably, uh, would be interested in, we are also, uh, with the amount of trees that we're planting, we're increasing the canopy for the site, uh, at maturity to about 40%. So that starts from, uh, existing 9% to about 40% when the trees are at full maturity. All right. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

[00:18:49] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you very much. We appreciate the presentation. All right. Uh, we will take it to the EPC for questions. So if any commissioners would like to hop on the queue... All right. Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:19:11] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, three questions. One sort of a scope question that I would direct to staff. Um, given the impact of the, you know, how density bonus law plays out in this particular issue, there's other, uh, new state laws as well. What is within scope for our discussion? Like, what is actually discretionary that we could and should be talking about, and what is just stuff that we really can't touch? And, and if I may add a little nuance to that, what is staff sort of most curious to actually get our input on? I think that would be really helpful guidance for all of us.

[00:19:46] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Okay, thank you. Yeah, Amber Buzinski, Assistant Community Development Director. Um, so I think, uh, in this particular case, you know, the, the applicants are requesting legislative changes, so the rezoning and the general plan amendment. Um, and that does open, you know, the project up to, to your discretion. I think the important thing to remember when you're making this decision on whether this is the right, uh, project for the, the area is to really concentrate on whether the commission thinks that these rezonings are good for this area. So the two discretionary pieces of this, uh, project are the rezoning and the general plan map amendment. So, um, do, does the EPC feel that this is an appropriate area or site for, um, Medium Density Residential? Um, and then, you know, consider the project kind of after you've really thought through, you know, that rezoning.

[00:20:47] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Because it's important to remember that, you know, this particular project is coming along and making this gatekeeper request for these rezonings and general plan amendment, however, if, if this project did not get built and you rezoned the property and did the general plan amendment, another project that still met the, you know, that the same allowances of the new zoning and new general plan, um, designation, you know, would also be allowed. So I think it's, it's more critical to think about, is this site a good location for Medium Density Residential first.

[00:21:23] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Um, this project, you know, had it, it was, if it were, uh, if it were proposed on a Medium Density Residential site, you, you know, you really would have, uh, a hard time, um, you know, not allowing waivers or a concession if it was proposed, right? Um, I think, you know, there's a little, a little, I guess, discretion here because you would have to approve the rezoning and general plan amendment to allow the project at all. Um, however, I think, you know, the critical thing is to, to really consider if the use, you think the use belongs there. Because you really want to then have a project that's buildable, right?

[00:22:04] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: And sometimes, and, and you, you all have seen this in, in a lot of, um, you know, state density bonus projects, there are, there are multiple waiver requests, that's a very common, right? And that's in order for the applicant to feel like they have a project that they can build on the site. Um, and so that's, you know, that's what we're asking the EPC to consider tonight is the rezoning and general plan amendment. And then the project also as it relates to those two, um, those two decisions. And I don't know, Celina, if you had anything you wanted to add or if you...

[00:22:42] Unidentified Speaker: I think you've covered it.

[00:22:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Wonderful. That's very helpful. Thank you. Um, much appreciated. So second question, are these sites on the housing element, uh, inventory?

[00:23:00] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Uh, no. They're not.

[00:23:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay, so this is like bonus development. Okay, that's, that's actually really important. Um, the third question is a little bit more detailed and I guess I would direct this to the, uh, to the applicants. I just want to understand because the setbacks, the changes in the setbacks are pretty significant, right? The, there's, uh, if I understand it, uh, one of the waivers is, uh, we're crunching some of the setbacks down to like two, three feet, I think for a, uh, I think it's a garbage, uh, a little garbage shed or something to that effect. If you can help me understand the what that structure is that you're kind of putting into that, into that, uh, southwest corner I believe it is, because there's houses there, and since you're going to be right on the boundary of a residential, uh, R1 housing, I really want to understand sort of what you're putting there and what you're doing to make sure that that's not going to be sort of unduly disruptive for the people right just on the other side of the fence.

[00:23:48] Applicant Justin Doll: It's a, it's a trash enclosure. It's it's specifically to shield and enclose and cover, um, trash, gar, garbage, um, um, dumpsters. Um, and it's a, it's a single-story building, CMU walls with a roof. It's only the secondary structure, the, all the principal structures are more like 40 feet back. So it's just, and it's, it's a, a, a compact, small, single structure. There's one in the northwest corner, and there's one sort of in that, the, the nook of that. Um, it's, they're, they're both actually, kind of, I guess that one in particular is fairly well screened by some existing trees at that unit to the south. Um, and pretty far from actual any, any actual structures on that property. Um, so we don't see it being particularly disruptive, and it's a, it's a, a limited stretch of that frontage.

[00:24:35] Applicant Mike DaCoti: If I could add, there's, there's also a, a good neighbor fence that's going in that's going to be at least six feet tall, right? That's blocking it from the adjacent neighbor. Along with vegetation as well.

[00:24:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Vegetation. And is this secured from the top? The reason I ask is, are there going to be issues with like folks climbing in and pulling stuff out, or animals, or, you know, I don't know. Uh, I'm, what I'm interested in is just, tell me what you can, for somebody who does not know much about trash enclosures, sort of, what you're doing to make sure that that area is also a good neighbor for the folks that you're right next to.

[00:25:08] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Sure, I'll defer to staff a little bit because there are prescriptive requirements for the trash enclosures that we go through through public works and their trash division. But it does have a top because you have to have a top, you have to have a roof on it. And the dumpsters themselves and the bins themselves have lids on them, right? That are closed. So, could an animal get in there? Sure. But it's there's some safeguards against that as well.

[00:25:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Staff, has anything else they want to enlighten me with about trash enclosures?

[00:25:35] Planning Manager George Schroeder: Uh, no, I think that covers it. Yeah.

[00:25:39] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. No more questions.

[00:25:44] Chair Alex Nunez: All right, we'll go to our vice chair.

[00:25:51] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Um, okay, I have a few questions. So, on the tree report, it says that trees 42 and 52 are dead, but the recommendation is to retain them. Uh, that seemed kind of strange to me. Um, do you have any comments on that? On attachment 9, page, uh, what is that? Page, um, like 5 and 6 I guess. There's an ash tree and a plum tree. Sorry, what number, what number was it again? Yeah, 42 and 52. It says health 0% dead, proposed status retain, which just I don't know, seems obviously strange. Sorry, number 40. We're looking at 42. Sorry, 42 and 0% dead. Oh, I wonder if he means... Yeah, I think that might be a typo. Yeah, I think, I think it's a typo. It should be, the dead tree is not gonna be there. Okay, okay, good. Yeah, we're not retaining dead trees, that sounds good. No, no. We would. Okay, good. Yeah, same as 52, I believe that's your other question. Okay. Um, great, thanks. Um, and then, okay, that, I think that's all I have for that, on that topic. Um, and Attachment 4 says that there, so with respect to the, um, the park in-lieu fees, Attachment 4 says there will be approximately 58 new residents and that's how the park in-lieu fees were calculated. Um, in 29 units, 58 new residents, that's obviously two residents per unit. And these are all three and four bedroom. So how did we come up with two residents in a four-bedroom unit?

[00:27:52] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: So we do have our public works, um, staff here who will be answering that. Uh, they're present virtually.

[00:28:01] Principal Civil Engineer Quinn Byer: Thank you. Um, good evening, commissioners, chair, and vice chair. Thank you, um, for this question. So I'm Quinn Byer, Principal Civil Engineer with the Public Works Department. So the density formula that is there is derived directly from chapter 41 of the city's, uh, Muni Code. Um, specifically section 41.6 includes a table that identifies the density formula based on the general plan. And so for this project, um, it's with 36 units on, I believe, 1.8-acre site, it would be classified as Medium Density. And so in accordance with Table 41.6 of the Muni Code section, the density assumption is, we would follow that, and it states that it would be two persons per dwelling unit. And so then applying that um to the 29 eligible um units that are um not exempted from the park fee, that's how we end up with the 58 um persons.

[00:29:05] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, so it's not actually based on the number of bedrooms or anything like that, it's really just solely based on the the density that that's allowed there. Okay. Uh, that's interesting. Um, good to know. Um, okay, I, I have another question.

[00:29:25] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: The, there's this parcel to the southeast that's kind of a notch. And that is not proposed to be rezoned. So that will remain industrial. Does that seem kind of like a potential, like now there will be an island of industrial where there's, there's, um, uh, residential all around it? Does that, that, is that a potential problem for maybe from, I think this is maybe more of a staff question. Okay. Oh. Context, that we own that home. It's a single-family home. Oh, okay. And it was built uh back in the 60s, 50s and as as a non-conforming use on the industrial, I agree with you, it probably would make sense for it to be included in the R3 zoning. Um, if, if it's not too late, but I I just wanted to give some context about. Okay, yeah. And we, we refurbished it and we're, yeah, we we may rent it or or sell it. And you didn't decide to include it in this, this project to increase the kind of the size of the project. We want we want to keep it under 2 acres per the gatekeeper. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Um, does staff have any thoughts about having this this island of...

[00:30:41] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: I think, I'll take that on. Um, you know, I think it's, you know, currently being used as residential. I don't, I don't think that it poses a major issue, but again, it's one of the considerations to take, you know, into account when you're deciding on is this the right site for the rezoning. Okay. Yeah. And, and I know, I mean, obviously, we're not tonight going to decide to rezone that, that parcel or anything like that. But I'm, I'm just bringing it up as a, uh, an anomaly. Um, okay, that's all my questions. Thanks.

[00:31:20] Chair Alex Nunez: All right. We'll go to Commissioner Cranston.

[00:31:27] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So actually, the two commissioners answers asked the questions that I had and I visited the site and the for sale sign there was like, oh, why doesn't Prometheus buy it? But I guess they own it. So um, so uh I will withdraw my name from... go on the next ones.

[00:31:49] Chair Alex Nunez: All right. Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:31:51] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, thank you. A couple of questions about the criteria for gatekeeper projects. Um, I thought an additional uh requirement was posed about including community facilities that advance the council priority. How is that being addressed in this project?

[00:32:13] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: So this project doesn't fall under the new gatekeeper policy. It was submitted um several a couple years ago, and it falls under the old streamlined gatekeeper uh policy. So um it it's a site that's uh less than two acres in size, it is industrial to residential, and it is adjacent to at least one other residential property. And those are the qualifiers for those uh proper these projects under that old gatekeeper policy. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

[00:32:48] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, a few additional questions about the setbacks and the open space. So, um, maybe this is best directed to the architect and the landscape architect. Uh, but the setbacks on the northern side, which I believe are the space where the public path is located and being proposed, I want to clarify the dimensions of that public path and um the connections that it will provide now, particularly if the proposed future public park is not due to be put in place anytime soon. Then the question is really around what is the path connecting, and would it be um fenced off in any way, or is it going to be open 24/7, and does it allow people to get into the site, or are there other security measures?

[00:33:50] Applicant Justin Doll: Uh, there are no specific security measures designed around the space, it is, it is open. It's not designed necessarily as a thoroughfare, a pedestrian thoroughfare of any kind, it's, it's, it's common open space for the residents of this project. Um, but it functions like a, like a parklet or a small pocket park for uh for these residents. It's um, at its narrowest, it's about 20 feet wide, and its wider part, it's about 35 feet wide. So it's um, it's an ample dimension, I think, to have some activated space for kids to go out and play if they need to get outside for, you know, residents of a townhome, uh, row home style.

[00:34:25] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So just to clarify, it's not actually connecting through to both sides of the neighborhood.

[00:34:33] Applicant Justin Doll: Correct.

[00:34:34] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yes. Um, yeah. Thank you for that.

[00:34:43] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And in the vesting tentative map, there is a notation of the public utilities easement. And I understand that's the easement that's running north-south along San Rafael, um, you know, just beyond the setback. But the drawings also indicated in the access roads through the site. So is that correct that that's going to be a public utility easement as well, or is that a private service easement?

[00:35:14] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Well, typically when you have like PG&E or the water coming in, they require a public utility easement to maintain their lines coming into the property. Okay. So that is intended to be... It will, it's typical to have a PUE on a private property for the public utilities. Thank you.

[00:35:36] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then lastly, the school impact fee. Um, I'm guessing that's something that's not yet been calculated and assigned to the project. But will that be based on the calculation which in the report suggested some net new population of school kids that are figured out? Is that how the impact fees will be arrived at?

[00:36:00] Planning Manager George Schroeder: Yes. Hi, uh, George Schroeder, planning manager. So those fees are charged directly by the school district, and they have their own formulas for um, for charging the school fees. Generally based on the, I believe, the square footage or units uh, of the project. But um, essentially the applicant will pay them directly to the school district, um, and we'll uh, make sure that they do as part of a condition of approval. That's it. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

[00:36:27] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, we'll go to Commissioner Pham.

[00:36:30] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just have two questions. Um, first one is about the mid-block crossing. Um, I think it's a great idea to have visible pathway to the new park. Um, is San Rafael, that's part of that work, also going to be repaved as part of the construction project?

[00:36:49] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: I'm sorry, could you, could you repeat that question? Do we um, do we want to see if Quinn maybe knows the answer?

[00:37:00] Principal Civil Engineer Quinn Byer: Um, I believe there's a condition of approval, um, requiring a half-street um grind and overlay as part of the project.

[00:37:12] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Um, had a different question. Um, I was looking in the packet for the previous meeting regarding R3, and was looking for this parcel in the zoning map, and noticed that the parcel was um, shown as R3-B, with a tiny note saying, this site tentatively included based on concurrent applicant, PL-7685, which may be approved prior to this action. So, just a hypothetical question. Um, if we were not to approve this project tonight, would the parcel be rezoned anyways, based on our recommendations during the last meeting related to R3, pending council approval regarding R3?

[00:37:54] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: It would not. So, um, the reason that we have all of these notes and details for you all is because you are seeing these two items in opposite order that the council is going to see them. So, you saw R3 before the project, and but council will see the project before R3. And so, um, we've built in mechanisms where we would remove the rezoning from the R3, uh, recommendations if, um, the project, if the rezoning does not get approved. And the, the same with the general plan. Okay. Thanks for that inside baseball answer. Thank you.

[00:38:40] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Great. Thank you, Chair Nunez. I have one question. For the trash enclosure, uh...

[00:38:51] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: I'm sorry, did you guys say that it had, it was housing, uh, what, the bins, the large bins? So the only noise that's going to happen is when the trash truck comes in and picks up the stuff, and any chance you know what time that's going to happen?

[00:39:07] Applicant Mike DaCoti: I don't know the particular schedule for this area, but it would be similar to any other property for their schedule. Right. The truck comes through, picks up, and drives out. Okay. Right. Thanks.

[00:39:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Just a a macro question for staff that's sort of housing element related. Because this parcel wasn't on the inventory, is there a way in which having sort of, you know, bonus units being built that were not in the inventory, um, helps the city on another project or in another area where we have to be very careful about, um, taking, taking additional units away? So this is a super ignorant question, but, you know, I'm thinking about some of the, the conversations that have been had about the downtown and whether or not there should be historic resources that are protected from, protected from development, whether there's an alternative plan. Just in the macro, is having additional units that were not planned for, in what way, if any, does that benefit the city on a completely unrelated issue?

[00:40:15] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: That is like an Eric Anderson dream question. Um, I'm going to give you the less, the less Eric Anderson answer and say that it's, it's not going to hurt us. It's, it's not, it's nice to have additional units. Um, I think it's all dependent on the area where those units are and where you would be decreasing, um, and so I don't have the extreme housing element super smart answer for you, but it's not hurting us in any way. It's, it's probably a positive, it's just going to depend on that particular area and where we would lose, like lose units elsewhere. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

[00:40:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: One last question for staff. Now that you have two development projects on either side of this proposed public park, um, is there any sense of the timing of when the park itself will come into place?

[00:41:20] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Quinn, do you have any time frames for that? I, I will have to follow up on that. I, I am not aware of the time frame.

[00:41:34] Planning Manager George Schroeder: Yeah, let me, um, just looking online, um, to what's posted publicly for public works and parks, um, they're anticipating the project to be completed in the summer of 2030 at this time. Um, they're currently in the pre-design phase.

[00:41:52] Applicant Mike DaCoti: If I could just add in, and we have a couple years before the building permit would be issued. Um, and then build the project. So that's really good timing actually. Same for City Ventures.

[00:42:04] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Commissioner Pham.

[00:42:33] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just had one quick question. Not sure if it's for the applicant or for staff. But I noticed that 83 parking spaces were included in the project, um, and 79 was required. Can, um, maybe the applicant think or describe the process that you guys went through to determine the number you guys wanted to include in?

[00:43:08] Chair Alex Nunez: (Nods to applicant)

[00:43:09] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Yeah. Uh, we, you know, practically speaking, there was a minimum that we used, um, density bonus parking requirements to make sure that we hit as a, as a minimum, beyond that there's a practical use of guest parking and people coming as visitors to the site, and we pretty much fit as many as we could, honestly, there wasn't space for, for more, we, we just looked for the spaces we could to have a, a functional project and we, we included as many as we could.

[00:44:11] Chair Alex Nunez: Alright. (Looks around)

[00:44:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Anybody who lived in an, in a HOA that had, visitor had visitor parking that was abused by residents, is there anything in the documents that this city would create that would ensure that the CC&Rs actually make sure that there's some enforcement process to make sure the visitor parking is in fact visitor parking and not overflow residential parking?

[00:44:40] Applicant Mike DaCoti: There will be, there will be in the bylaws and the CC&Rs, there will be rules and regulations regarding the guest parking, who can park there, how long you can park there, and the ability to tow if you, if need be by the HOA.

[00:44:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, so it would be the, the applicant would do that, not something that's included in our conditions of approval.

[00:45:00] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Correct.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Thanks.

[00:45:08] Chair Alex Nunez: I'd like to ask you wonder if you actually like your HOA.

[00:45:11] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Oh, I have another question.

[00:45:12] Chair Alex Nunez: Yeah, go for it.

[00:45:16] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Speaking of parking, I just came up with another question. The temporary parking spaces are for the tandem garage and people needing to shuffle cars around. Is that just kind of like a five-minute parking space that's limited in that way or like can DoorDash park there or something like that, just in a temporary way or would they use guest parking or like what's the full usage of the of the temporary parking spaces? I think there's two of them.

[00:45:53] Applicant Justin Doll: The requirement for those spaces is based around, like you said, the number of, 1 per 10, 1 per 20, whatever the ratio is per number of tandem parking spaces. Um, I'm not sure within that element of the city code if that's there's any enforcement or regulation for that, but it would be a temporary space. I don't know if we would paint the curb green or put a sign in or how that would be actually, um, indicated, but it would logically it would have a broader use if it was a DoorDash or a Amazon driver or something like that, I would think.

[00:47:24] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I'm just wondering could it also would it functionally end up being used as a guest parking space where somebody's just there for like six hours?

[00:47:31] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Probably. For I thought you were gonna say DoorDash. For DoorDash or something, you know, we can't necessarily control where they're gonna park. There's street parking as well. I think we'll we'll have to put thought into and rely on our consultants who who live and breathe CC&Rs and how HOAs work to determine how we should treat those two temporary spots. But off the top of my head I would think that if you're in a tandem spot, those need to be available so that you can park a car and get another car out and then get it back in. So I would think there's going to be some kind of rules around, you know, who can park there and how long you can park there and who can't park there.

[00:48:46] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Just thinking ahead. Okay. Thanks.

[00:48:53] Chair Alex Nunez: Did you have another? No? Okay. I actually kind of had a interesting question. I don't know if it's, I might make it as a question or I might just as a general comment to staff and such. I did notice in the project plan that um, if I'm reading the legend correctly, if I am, it seems like there are two of those trash enclosures, am I actually, and and then it seems like the BMR units are next to all the trash enclosures. So that seems a little...

[00:49:27] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Just to be clear our BMR are throughout the buildings equitably.

[00:49:31] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Yeah, because it was going to be just like a, cause it seems...

[00:49:34] Applicant Mike DaCoti: So there's there's market rate units next to next to the trash enclosures as well.

[00:49:36] Chair Alex Nunez: It seems, yeah, yeah, I was just cur... I might be misreading it. And yeah, to be clear it was more a question around like our own regulations if um, if that is part of in terms of our zoning is placement to things like trash enclosures or um, things of that nature, does that get considered in terms of our like equitable distribution policies? Is that... I'm not sure if it was considered at the time, but...

[00:50:08] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Yeah, I mean, you know, housing looks to make sure that the units are dispersed throughout the the project. So they're just as equally close to the trash enclosures as regular as as non-BMR units as well. Um, and so it's inevitable that someone's going to be near there. Um, but I don't think there's not like a concentration of of the BMR units there.

[00:50:29] Chair Alex Nunez: Perfect. Yeah. And I might have been misreading the yeah, the yellow diamonds there saying Plan A or whatever, but um I appreciate the response. It was more curiosity about our own policies than anything.

[00:50:43] Applicant Mike DaCoti: It's the blue asterisk.

[00:50:45] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. And to be clear, it was, I appreciate that, that's very helpful. Um, and to be clear, that was more a question for our own, my own awareness of our own policies. So I appreciate your uh rising to the occasion. Okay, uh, Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:51:01] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I have an exceedingly dumb question about trash enclosures. Um, I think I've been reading this map wrong. Please help me understand precisely where the trash enclosures will be, like what properties are they going to be next to because I'm looking at these, yeah. Because what I I think... I was thinking about it wrong. And I just want to make sure I'm thinking about it right.

[00:51:38] Applicant Mike DaCoti: Sure. I just want to get a site plan so we it'll be easy once it. Okay, so if you see in the back corner where the cursor is, that's one.

[00:51:45] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Right. But there's no residential up there. That's still industrial.

[00:51:48] Applicant Mike DaCoti: That's industrial on the back side. Yes. And then come to the come to the right there is the second one. And then that's, and then there's the single-family homes on the other side, but that's set back a good 20 feet or more.

[00:51:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Is that the one you own?

[00:51:59] Applicant Mike DaCoti: The one we own is right there. Yeah. It's it's more than 20 feet from the fence, the bottom of...

[00:52:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, I just would note then for the record that uh my concern level has dropped significantly.

[00:52:18] Chair Alex Nunez: It's page A10 in the project plan.

[00:52:22] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Cool.

[00:52:28] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. In pursuit of not starving, I'm shoving peanuts down my mouth, so this is gonna suck to read this now. Um, all right. Public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide 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. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. Mr. Clerk, do we have any speakers lined up?

[00:53:21] EPC Clerk: No speaker online or in person.

[00:53:24] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Seeing none, then we will proceed to the EPC deliberation and action. We have the staff recommendation. We can now entertain discussion from the Commission.

[00:53:32] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Could I um make one mention? Um, so because the trees were inaccurately labeled on um the in the arborist report, they were uh in the condition of approval they were then list not listed as being removal like for removal. So um we have some language we'd like when if you are ready to make a motion um to just read in this language and then we'll amend the condition before we go to Council.

[00:54:00] Chair Alex Nunez: So would you pro be providing that to us before we... okay.

[00:54:03] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Yes. We have a slide.

[00:54:05] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey, are you in the queue or was that...

[00:54:12] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I did not mean to but I'm happy to make my comment.

[00:54:15] Chair Alex Nunez: All right. You may proceed.

[00:54:16] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Sure. I I'm definitely going to be supporting this tonight and I think to the extent that our our mandate really is to talk about the zoning part, not necessarily the the specifics of the building, however much I love trash enclosures. Um, I guess I would say I uh it's pretty hard not to like this because it's, you know, if we're gonna be redeveloping underutilized industrial space, that's a pretty good plot of land to put housing on. Especially dense housing, right? Um, it's hard not to like that. I like that it's got a bunch of three and four-bedroom units, because we don't see enough large family, uh, style units coming up, and I I wish there weren't I wish the bulk of it wasn't so market rate, but, you know, family space is family space. And so I'm really glad, actually, um, and I applaud the applicants for putting together, uh, you know, putting together a plan that's got a lot of big units so people with kids can come in and have a place to live. Like that that's awesome and Mountain View needs that. So I love that. Um, furthermore, I appreciate how close it is to the freeway. That's, you know, the area where you that where you're gonna put this, and again it's because you're kind of pushing into the pushing into the um into the industrial area, but you're close to the freeway. It's close to amenities. The parking is not going to be as dense, one of the things I worry a lot about when we're talking about densifying already dense areas like along California, it's gonna just get harder and harder for the people that live there. If you're pushing into industrial, it's not as densely packed already. So it's going to be easier to park on the street. You're not going to have traffic jams at 8:30 in the morning getting to school. And that's that I kind of like that. So anyway, for for what it's worth, I'll be supporting it tonight and those are some of the features that I think stick out for me about what's good about this proposal and why it would make sense I think to to pursue the rezoning, in addition to uh giving us a little bit more buffer with the housing element.

[00:55:10] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:55:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Great kind of development, infill development. Okay? Um, and I was ready for the owner of the property next door to complain about the trash enclosure, but you've probably talked to the owner of the the property next door, so he's not gonna be here to object. So um I thought the distribution of the BMR units was, you know, was good, it distribution across the the mix seemed good. I there was... my only real concern was the was the whether there's a roof on the enclosure. I don't like just fences and people climbing in and critters climbing in, so I'm glad to hear that those are enclosed. So, I think this is a great project and I'll be supporting it.

[00:55:53] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Pham.

[00:55:57] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, I'll be supporting the project as well. I also like the BMR units and I like that there are different sizes, including three and four-bedroom units. Um, I like that they're scattered throughout the site, which is nice, and a lot of my colleagues have mentioned that as well. Um, I like that the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting, that's great. Um, we want to see that. Um, and I'm glad that staff noted that in the report. Um, I like that there are parking spaces and bike parking spaces, which is great. Um, and I appreciate that there's space between the building and the single-family homes on the south side, and the mid-block crossing to the new park, that will be cool too. All right. That's all.

[00:56:34] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:56:38] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I also will be supporting the project. I really I think several of the other commissioners have already said the the things that I that I agree with, the the three and four bedrooms for families, uh the 25% inclusionary that that is scattered throughout the the project, which is great. Uh the yes, I did notice the optional meeting because not every applicant has this optional meeting and but you're making a good faith effort to to engage the community and I I appreciate that. Uh, I also like the increased tree canopy. In the end, even actually on initial planting, I think it's it's more than what's there today, and it's just going to get bigger, so that's fantastic. Uh, so overall, I think this looks great, and it's right across the street from from a future park, and that's going to be great. It's um very accessible and and the perfect place for for residential.

[00:57:37] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: Um, first, I have a request. If I want to vote, I think I'd be I need to be signed in, and I'm not signed in, so I don't have that option to vote, right? So if someone can help me sign in, that'd be great. Um, the other thing is I'd like the the aggressiveness. I mean, I don't know if you guys thought about this ahead of time, oh, there's going to be a park there. Let's let's go, let's go for it, let's do a development. But regardless of that, I like that there's an opportunity there to build and when you look at the flow, it makes sense, right? It's a great opportunity. So if I'm looking to buy, that's where I would go, right? Someplace like that. Because you have you thought about it well enough to think about the surrounding properties that are both commercial and non-commercial, the opportunity for bigger homes that will have more of a footprint, but yet they'll have the opportunity to also share that footprint at the park, which will be close by. And that's huge because like Hank was saying before, if you drive around Mountain View, there's not too many options like that in our city. So I don't know how you envisioned it or how you jumped on it or how long it took you to get to that spot, but thanks for thinking about that because I think in the end those are the types of projects that actually help grow in a way where we think we're making a difference and that makes an impact. So I'll vote for it as well. Thanks.

[00:58:58] Chair Alex Nunez: And I will also support it, as I'm sure that all of your projects are as non-controversial as this one. And I am very pleased to just uh give you my support. So if anyone would like to entertain a motion, I'd be happy to...

[00:59:13] Unidentified Speaker: Second that.

[00:59:17] Chair Alex Nunez: Vice Chair Donahue got it, so uh, oh, I'm misreading it. So we got uh Commissioner Subramanian uh making the motion and a second by Commissioner, Vice Chair Donahue, and we still need to have a way, we... can we just do a voice call?

[00:59:35] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: It, at the end.

[00:59:37] Chair Alex Nunez: Can we can we just do a uh voice vote since Commissioner Gutierrez isn't logged in? Okay. And then...

[00:59:43] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: You can read the motion and somebody can...

[00:59:46] Chair Alex Nunez: And sorry, could I just say um, when you read into the motion, can you just read the, not the actual modified condition, because we just need to look and make sure there aren't other conditions that are affiliated, so just if you can just say with a direction to staff to modify the relevant conditions related to the tree removal, but not read the whole condition. If that's okay. Thanks. You good? All right.

[01:00:09] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: That the Environmental Planning Commission recommend to City Council, one, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting an initial study mitigated negative declaration for the 924-940 San Rafael Avenue residential rowhouse project, pursuant to sections 15064f3 and 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 1 to the EPC staff report. Number two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting a general plan amendment to modify the general plan land use map to change the land use designation for the properties at 924-940 San Rafael Avenue, APNs 153-17-044 and 153-17-045, from general industrial to medium density residential, as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 2 to the EPC staff report. Number three, adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View approving a zoning map amendment for the properties located at 924-940 San Rafael Avenue, APNs 153-17-044 and 153-17-045, from the MM General Industrial Zoning District to the R3-2 Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District, as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 3 to the EPC staff report. Number four, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a planned unit development permit and development review permit to construct a 36-unit residential rowhouse development and related site improvements, utilizing state density bonus law, replacing two industrial buildings and a heritage tree removal permit to remove two heritage trees on a 1.80-acre site located at 924-940 San Rafael Avenue, APNs 153-17-044 and 153-17-045, to be read in title only, further reading waived...

[01:01:31] Chair Alex Nunez: Commissioner Subramanian, uh, then you can read this before you go to the fifth one.

[01:01:36] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Attachment 4 to the EPC staff report, with a direction to staff to modify the relevant conditions of approval related to tree removal and replacement. Number five, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a vesting tentative map for the condominium purposes with one common lot on a 1.80-acre site located at 924-940 San Rafael Avenue, APNs 153-17-044 and 153-17-045, to be read in title only, further reading waived, Attachment 5 to the EPC staff report.

[01:02:14] Chair Alex Nunez: All good? Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we do a voice call for the vote?

[01:02:19] EPC Clerk: Okay. Commissioner Subramanian?

[01:02:26] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yes.

[01:02:27] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham?

[01:02:28] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[01:02:30] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Gutierrez?

[01:02:31] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: Yes.

[01:02:33] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey?

[01:02:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes.

[01:02:35] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston?

[01:02:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes.

[01:02:38] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue?

[01:02:39] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yes.

[01:02:40] EPC Clerk: Chair Nunez?

[01:02:41] Chair Alex Nunez: Yes.

[01:02:44] EPC Clerk: The motion passes with 7 yesses.

[01:02:48] Chair Alex Nunez: Congrats to everybody. All right. With that being done, we will now proceed to Item Number 6, New Business, starting with 6.1, the 2027 Environmental Planning Commission meeting schedule. We'll have a staff presentation from our Principal Planner, Diana Pancholi. Ms. Pancholi.

[01:03:08] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you, Commission. So there are really no slides, it's just uh the EPC um meeting schedule for 2027. We have followed the same methods, you know, looking at what are the some of the holidays um that we can't schedule a meeting if there's a conflict. And the other thing is um the staff memo that was uh posted does note the League of California Cities conference for the planning commissioners, and that's going to be March 10th to March 12th, uh 2027. But yeah, otherwise, these are the dates that we are proposing, if there are any concerns, let us know.

[01:03:48] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? All right. Seeing none, we will take it to public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. 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. Mr. Clerk, are there any speakers in the queue or in person?

[01:04:18] EPC Clerk: No speaker online or in person.

[01:04:21] Chair Alex Nunez: All right. Thank you. We can now take it to the EPC deliberation and action. The staff recommendation is as follows, to approve the EPC public meeting calendar for 2027. Anyone would like to deliberate? Nope? I know we have a motion already, but, be great to deliberate. I might deliberate just to can't make these these preliminary motions, stamp these things out. All right. In light of a motion from our Vice Chair and a second from Commissioner Pham, um, Mr. Clerk, can we do another voice call for the vote?

[01:04:58] EPC Clerk: Okay. Commissioner Subramanian?

[01:05:02] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yes.

[01:05:03] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham?

[01:05:04] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[01:05:06] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Gutierrez?

[01:05:07] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: No.

[01:05:13] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey?

[01:05:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes.

[01:05:18] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue?

[01:05:20] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: What about him?

[01:05:22] EPC Clerk: Ah, Commissioner Cranston?

[01:05:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I thought I might vote no, but I'll just abstain.

[01:05:27] Chair Alex Nunez: You're gonna abstain. Okay. Okay. Oh man, I'm on the fence.

[01:05:36] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue?

[01:05:38] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I'll say yes.

[01:05:42] EPC Clerk: Chair Nunez?

[01:05:43] Chair Alex Nunez: Uh, yes. Thank you, yes. All right, thank you for that. Um...

[01:05:53] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: The final, the final vote was 6-1.

[01:05:57] EPC Clerk: The final vote is 6-1.

[01:06:00] Chair Alex Nunez: No, 5-1-1. That's odd.

[01:06:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Okay, so I'm just reading it out. So, in summary, the final vote on Item 6.1, the 2027 EPC meeting schedule, is 5-1-1, uh, with um, one commissioner abstained, Commissioner Cranston.

[01:06:22] Chair Alex Nunez: Okay. I'm sure that was necessary. All right. We will go on to uh item number 7, the Commission staff announcements, updates, and committee reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the Commission at this time. Do we have any announcements? Nope? All right, cool. Uh, then we will...

[01:06:40] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: We have our oh, yeah.

[01:06:42] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, can staff ask about uh Council deliberations regarding EPC applicants?

[01:06:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Um, yeah, this is based on just just a brief summary of what we heard, but um, Council decided to move forward with um, all the four applicants, um, and then there was a lot of discussion on, you know, maybe bringing it back to CPPC to see how to avoid such conflicts where we have um, people who have applied for commission or, you know, different boards and commission um, at the same time when they are running for council as well. So that is something to be seen in the next year, uh, but yeah, right now they voted to have all four uh, candidates to move forward.

[01:07:33] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: With with the with the point that they would keep the process open, uh, so it's beyond the elections for Council, and the outcomes of the Council can inform how many seats are available on on EPC. So I think that it's the plan is to take it up in the December 15th meeting for Council.

[01:07:57] Chair Alex Nunez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:07:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Wait, maybe me? Correct. No.

[01:08:06] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I I don't think that I I watched the meeting. I don't the it depends on what happens with the election, but based on what happens with the election, uh, they they will at the December 15th meeting make appointments. It might be that the the um consent item has blanks, and that they they will pull it at that meeting and add the names in during that meeting. It might it it was a complicated discussion. But the the intention I think is that they will at the December 15th meeting make the appointments.

[01:08:46] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: We will circle back with the official record uh at the next meeting. Were there any other commissioner announcements?

[01:08:56] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: Wait, I'm sorry. Do we have a next meeting?

[01:08:58] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, that's where I was going. Oh, okay. As for staff announcements, so we will not be having any um, meetings in November. Our next EPC meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 2nd. Uh, we'll have some items there. And then I also wanted to just share on a personal note, before we adjourn, this is going to be my last EPC meeting, um, as your staff liaison as I'm gonna be leaving the city, uh, but I just wanted to take a moment to thank each one of you. It has been a pleasure serving the EPC and all the partnerships and um I commend all your dedication, this is amazing work that you do, and um wish for continued success for the Commission in future as well.

[01:09:46] Chair Alex Nunez: Was it something I said? I mean...

[01:09:52] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I want to thank Miss Pancholi for all her efforts guiding this city for the past 13 years, and for keeping the EPC honest and showing up on time, and you will be sorely missed. But uh, this next city you're moving on to is lucky to have you, and we hope to bring you back at some point in the future. So all the very best and wish you much success with your next step. Thank you.

[01:10:19] Chair Alex Nunez: Here, just, it can be a free for all. I will have no more order. Go for it. Whoever wants to.

[01:10:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Can I go? I am very sad. Um, but rather more important than that, I'm really happy for you, Diana, and I will miss working with you. You have been a delight. Um, you're you're one of the bright lights that come with doing this as a hobby. Um, incredibly professional, but you're funny, and um, I think we're just gonna miss you, and thank you for all you gave us.

[01:10:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm shocked, and Amber, what the hell happened?

[01:11:01] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Buzinski: Well she's... I mean, she didn't say her title. She's gonna be Assistant Community Development Director. So that's a pretty big deal. Can't really turn those down. But I'm gonna miss her just as much as everyone else and um but I'm really, really proud of her.

[01:11:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So yes, you've been a pleasure to work with. Congratulations on the on the new role. Um, I think you've earned it, and uh, hopefully have a lot of fun, and uh, and and maybe you get a little bit more sleep than you did in your current role. But uh... I doubt it. But you know, it's been a really appreciate the contribution you've made to Mountain View over the years, and uh um it's, you brought a lot of good insights and things and have appreciated that, and uh so really really just wish you the best in your next step. Thanks.

[01:11:47] Commissioner Jose Gutierrez: Yeah, I I like to echo the same. But I'll be quick this time with just by saying I remember when I first joined I was like, nah, I don't know what to expect. I don't know about these people. Uh whatever. And then I'm like, I started working with you more and more, and I kept on kept on talking about certain things, and slowly but surely those little things that meant a lot happened, like the retreat, right? And coming together to figure things out and working as a team and all that. And that's when I learned, you listen. Right? And you actually try and make things happen for the betterment of the group. And sometimes I don't see that everywhere, right? But it was nice to be able to think and know I can count on that here. So I'm like, yeah, I'm shocked too. Right? But I mean, look, when you have a chance to go forward and and get higher up, you go for it, right? So we'll miss you a lot, wish you much success, and and all the best. So thank you for everything. Really appreciate it.

[01:12:44] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yeah, I I have similar thoughts to everybody else. You're um, I was shocked to hear that, but I'm not shocked as well because clearly you're you're excellent at what you do and so it it definitely makes sense that somebody would would snatch you up as as soon as they could. So, thank you for everything that you've done for for all of us and for the city uh as a whole.

[01:13:11] Commissioner Tina Pham: Are we allowed to vote no for this? Good one. Um, more seriously, we are so sad, um, but happy for your new role, and hope that you will come visit us. Yes.

[01:13:28] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you once again. I think Mountain View has been very kind to me. I still remember my first meeting being the EPC clerk as a limited term assistant, but um so much to learn. And this is a fabulous city. I always tell people, come to Mountain View. Um, so I'll miss everybody, um, but yeah, maybe you know, I'm gonna I I'm I'm gonna be around. So.

[01:13:56] Chair Alex Nunez: Thank you, Ms. Pancholi. You'll certainly be missed. Um. All right. Uh, with that sad news, uh, we will adjourn the meeting at 8:12 and congratulations again.

• ← Previous