Even everyone.

Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of November 5th, 2025.

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.

Request to show an audio or video presentation during the meeting should be directed to EPCM Mountainview.gov by 4 30 p.m.

on the meeting date.

Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item.

Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card.

Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak.

Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on.

Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

Now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with the roll call.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Here.

Commissioner Donahue?

Here.

Commissioner Yin.

Here.

Commissioner Cranston.

Here.

Commissioner Pham?

Here.

Vice Chair Nunes.

And Chair Gutierrez.

Here.

All commissioners are present.

Great.

Thank you, Clerk.

Excuse me.

Before we get started with today's business, please note the city is recruiting applicants for appointments to the parks and recreation commission, the downtown committee, downtown property owner and or business representatives in the downtown area.

And the senior advisory committee.

Applications are due by 5 p.m.

on November 6th, which is tomorrow.

So if you're interested, by all means, please apply.

Moving on now to Section 3, minutes approval 3.1.

We should be approving the environmental planning commission meeting minutes of February 5th, 2025.

Let's start off with APC discussion.

Do we have any?

Seeing that we don't have any, do we have any public comment?

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the APC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Thank you, sir.

I need a motion to approve the minutes.

And the motion should state approve the environmental planning commission minutes of February 5th, 2025.

I'll make the motion to approve the environmental planning commission.

Oh, here we go.

Oh, I don't have that on.

Here.

Let's see.

Okay.

The mover is Bill Cranston.

And the second is Hank Dempsey.

Thank you, sirs.

To approve the environmental planning commission minutes of February 5th, 2025.

EPC Clerk, mine says no signal detected.

But I'd like to vote yes.

The motion passes with all the commissioners.

Uh yay.

Great.

Thank you, sir.

Moving on to section four 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 the section.

State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Great.

So we'll do three minutes each.

Sorry, one second.

First up is Robert Cox.

Robert, you may uh speak.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um Robert Cox here speaking on behalf of local Mountain View on Mount on Monday, October 27th.

Representatives of our organization met with community development staff at their invitation.

We spoke about the impact SB 79 could have on our downtown historic retail district and explain how adopting an SB 79 local alternative plan could preserve the district.

We are advocating that consideration such a local alternative plan be done quickly.

SB 79 will become state law on July 1st, 2026.

The SB 79 text outlaws the outlines the adoption process for a local alternative plan, noting that the review process can take as long as six months and two weeks.

Palo Alto has authorized moving forward their local alternative plan on October 22nd.

Los Angeles expects their local alternative plan to be submitted to California HCD by mid-February.

Staff advised us that missing the July first deadline could leave Mountain View open to the default SB 79 provisions, which include no protections for the downtown historic retail district.

Therefore, we are asking the EPC agenda as a vote to recommend the council to move forward on an SB 79 local alternative plan.

Work on the dependent work items like the Mopper Precise Plan, Downtown Precise Plan, and Historic Ordnance Register update should be suspended until the SB 79 local alternative plan is submitted.

This will make available resources to complete the local alternative plan in a timely fashion.

If needed, consultants could be hired to support this effort.

As was seen in the sixth cycle housing element, missing a deadline can have serious consequences.

Thank you for listening to our request.

Yeah, I did.

Thank you very much.

Hello, everybody.

Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive.

Speaking as a member of Greenspaces Mountain View.

On the 29th of October, at the PRC meeting, um, a proposal was heard about ADU installments at 151 Calderon, which is near Avalon and right next to uh Stevens Creek.

The commissioners there were concerned, very concerned, I would say, about the idea of putting ADUs in such an environmentally sensitive area.

And yet state law allows the developer, in this case, Avalon Bay, to do such a thing.

Um because state law allows this, it pretty much tied their hands.

They had to go ahead and approve the project.

But I spoke at the city council meeting the other night.

I just wanted to tell you also as an FYI that I think it's worth the city pursuing to find out how the state law might be modified to ensure that uh everybody knows what an ADU is, because if you can just put any dwelling unit anywhere you want, and you call it an ADU, um, regardless of any definition of what an F an ADU is, then that opens the door to all kinds of things similar to the builders' remedy problem that you're familiar with.

So I'm hoping that the city will talk with um our representatives at the state level of Becker and Berman about this and use their legislative analyst consultant to look into it.

I don't know if they will, but like I said, I'm just letting you know that that happened at the PRC meeting, and I brought it up the other night at council as well.

Thanks.

There are no uh no more speakers.

Thank you, Clerk.

We'll move on to Section 5 Public Hearing five point one housing element program.

Excuse me, 1.1 province G, zoning precise plan, and general plan amendments.

We will take this item through a special deliberation process due to commissioner conflicts of interest.

First, we will have a staff presentation, then public comment.

At the closure of public comment, the commission will discuss individual topics, including any questions about those topics.

Let's begin with a staff presentation from senior planner Chrisha Penelar and Planning Manager Eric Anderson.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name's Krisha Pinoyar, senior planner, and I'm joined today with Eric Anderson, planning manager, and we're here to present this item.

At today's meeting, we'll be reviewing the proposed amendments to implement program 1.1G of the housing element.

The housing element rezoning sites and densities are shown here.

And as a reminder, the Moffitt Boulevard will be completed as a separate project through the Moffat Boulevard Precise Plan.

And the program has a housing element deadline of December 31st of this year.

At previous meetings, the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the proposed general plan, precise plan, and zoning approaches presented tonight.

City Council expressed support for a general plan mixed use village center land use approach for the sites as shown in blue on the map.

This approach would help preserve locally serving businesses, would avoid making existing uses nonconforming, and would also support placemaking and transition strategies.

The city council also supported a flexible precise plan approach for the remainder sites as shown in orange, which would allow site-specific language to allow the densities and character appropriate for the area.

Additionally, council directed staff to study opportunities to prevent small business displacement that could result from redevelopment.

And on September 24, 2025, the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the Evondale Precise Plan and Mountain View Transit Center as these areas are in the airport influence area.

And at the meeting, ALUC found the proposed general plan, precise plan, and zoning amendments consistent with the adopted Moffitt Federal Airfields Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

As a reminder, the general plan mixed use village center land use is a set of existing mixed-use development policies that preserve the existing commercial zoning, but allows opportunities for multifamily housing.

The location for these developments are determined by the general plan through mixed use designations.

However, the zoning districts remain commercial, including commercial office, commercial services, and commercial neighborhoods, with general plan mixed to use village center developments as the only residential use allowed in these commercial zones.

The development standards for this use is established in the zoning ordinance or precise plans and include requirements such as ground floor commercial, public plazas, transition standards, and pedestrian connections.

In summary, this approach utilizes existing mechanisms to preserve existing commercial businesses without the need to create a new mixed-use district.

This does not change the underlying zoning, avoids non-conformances for existing developments, and creates a pathway for residential development consistent with the general plan's village center policies.

And this slide is intended to review the proposed general plan map and text amendments.

The sites proposed for general plan mixed use village center land use approach are shown in blue, and orange shows the flexible precise plan approach with the corresponding general plan amendments.

And as stated earlier, the general plan determines locations of general plan mixed use village center.

As such, the Evondale, Mary Monte, Cuesta, and Calderon sites require general plan amendments to a mixed use designation.

General mixed use land use designation is proposed for the Evondale Precise Plan to allow densities of 43 dwelling units per acre.

The other sites in blue are proposed neighborhood mixed use to allow 30 dwelling units per acre.

1949 grant route proposes a medium high density residential land use designation, which allows 35 dwelling units per acre, which is slightly greater than the 30 dwelling units per acre required by the housing element.

And lastly, the Mountain View Transit Center proposes text amendments to allow residential at 75 dwelling units per acre.

And staff has made several zoning and precise plan updates to implement the general plan mixed use village center land use.

The Evondale Precise Plan has been modified to allow this land use in Area A of the Precise Plan, and the zoning ordinance has been modified to allow this land use in the commercial office district, which would allow them for the Miramonte and Cuesta sites.

Additional changes to the development standards are proposed to allow existing office businesses to return to the sites if we developed and reduction in street lot with requirements to allow commercial to be retained in the Calderon and Evidale Precise Plan sites.

Additionally, updates to the Grant Martins Precise Plan to create a new area C and add new uses and develop development standards have been incorporated.

The Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan modifies the Transit Services sub-area to allow residential and to also add a height provision.

Other minor code updates have been made to update outdated code references in the precise plan and to amend the Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan to remove minimum parking consistent with city code and state law.

And lastly, to clarify when navigation easements are required citywide.

As directed by council, staff reviewed existing resources to help small businesses return to redeveloped sites.

Existing programs to assist small businesses include site selection to provide hands-on support to businesses to evaluate relocation or expansion opportunities, business development to connect small businesses with tools for technical assistance to help with everyday operations and financial resources.

And lastly, small business loan program is under development and intended to provide capital for small businesses for things such as new equipment, tenant improvements, and other operating expenses.

Additionally, the economic vitality strategy outlines tools such as rent caps and commercial rent subsidies to help bridge market gaps.

This can serve as a support mechanism to allow businesses to return in new developments.

However, further work is needed to identify a stable funding source to ensure success of this program.

And as directed by council, staff also studied several zoning options to retain small businesses.

There are limited land use and zoning tools as restrictions on residential development conflicts with the housing element goals to create more housing opportunities or may be difficult to implement under state law.

One zoning alternative approach may help preserve several small businesses in the Evondale Precise Plan.

This alternative would continue to prohibit residential development on three parcels shown in the hashed lines.

This alternative would meet the housing element program as these excluded sites are not in the site inventory, and the program itself does not prescribe the entire area A to be rezoned.

A drawback to this option is it reduces potential housing capacity in Area A, and as such, staff does recommend does not recommend this alternative and recommends rezoning the entirety of area A to maximize housing opportunity.

Additionally, small business displacement is a citywide issue and not limited to this area alone.

Therefore, other options should be considered outside of implementation of this housing element program to look at this issue more broadly.

As for next steps, following a recommendation from EPC at this public hearing, the proposed amendments would be reviewed at City Council on December 16, where a final decision will be made.

And staff reviewed the amendments to understand if there were new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts, and found that the project was analyzed as part of the citywide housing element update program EIR, which was adopted in 2023.

Therefore, no additional environmental documentation is needed under CEQA.

And staff did receive 12 written public comments prior to this meeting.

One comment disagreed with the proposed approach for the Evondale Precise Plan.

One supported the amendments and several voice concerns related to the amendments at 1702 Miramonte.

As such, staff does recommend EPC recommend the general plan, precise plan, and zoning amendments.

Thank you for your time.

And this concludes staff presentation.

We'm having available to answer any additional questions.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry.

So now should we move on to public comment and then do a questions?

Yeah, let's do that.

Okay.

Bear with me, folks.

Okay.

Alright, so let's move on 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 APC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please check the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

A PC clerk.

Uh we have one member online and several speakers in person.

Which would you like first?

How many speakers in person do we have?

Because that'll then dictate the time allowed, right?

Six, six.

Yeah.

Okay, let's go with two minutes.

Two minutes.

And let's if if there's no specific order, can we do Zoom first and then in person?

Sure.

Okay, great.

Or sorry, we have two uh on Zoom now.

Cool.

Okay.

First speaker will be Bruce Ingwin.

Bruce, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Thank you.

Hello everybody again.

Uh Bruce English Wisman Station Drive speaking for myself this time.

I just um wanted to let everyone know that so where I live is in the Wisman Station area.

And this was the light industrial for a very long time.

And then in the late 1990s, it was changed to uh enable a precise plan for our area and also to put in HOA development with townhomes and single-family homes and so on.

I've lived here since 1997.

And I really enjoy this neighborhood.

One of the things that we were told at the time was that we wouldn't be able to have the services that we really wanted until the population went up.

We needed more development, more housing here, so more people lived here so we get the services.

So there's we do have a shopping center at Wisman and Middlefield, um, but even better for my perspective is Pyramid Park, which is a jewel park, uh new park that exists in Mountain View.

And the city would not have installed it, I'm pretty sure, unless there was a need from residents who lived here.

So we've created a new neighborhood, relatively new neighborhood by changing the zoning and recognizing that we needed this kind of a neighborhood on this side of Mountain View.

I wanted to say that because people who are concerned about change in their part of Mountain View might consider that their part of Mountain View might actually be improved as a result of the changes.

Thanks.

Next we have uh Zoe Martin.

Zoe, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Um hi, my name is Zoe Martin.

Um, and I'm a resident of the Varsity Park Walsham Valley neighborhood.

I wanted to express my support um for the changes of the housing element program specifically for the neighborhood mixed-use rezoning proposed for 1702 and 1704 Mirmonte Avenue.

Um I've lived in this neighborhood pretty much my entire life, and I know what a great place it is to live.

We have great schools, parks, streets, and other resources such as gas stations, grocery stores, churches, and much more nearby.

I know that some of my neighbors have expressed concerns about the rezoning.

Well, sorry.

Well, I can sympathize with our concerns in my opinion and experience and without details of an actual proposed development.

I see this change as an extension of rather than disruption to the existing neighborhood.

And I'm excited to see a positive change in our city's development happen in a place I know I know well in love.

In the face of the Bay Area Housing Crisis, and especially considering affordable housing, I am happy to see Mountain View taking action and incorporating more mixed-use zoning into our city.

If we want things to change, we have to be willing to see an experience change.

I also appreciate efforts to retain local businesses and their existing spaces with the mixed-use zoning.

Thank you for your time.

In speaker, uh in-person speakers.

Uh first will be Louis Lin.

Good evening, uh, honorable counsel.

Uh, thank you for uh sending me the notice about my neighborhood.

Um I just had a quick comment about Lyong.

I drive there all the time and it's on a blind curve.

So please make the developers know that probably someone's gonna get T-boned if there's more density there.

Right now, it's just a bunch of duplexes.

Uh I actually don't know what's being built there, but I'm pretty much fine with it.

Uh also I wanted to ask, how can easy street get rezoned?

Because it's ripe for rezoning.

You know, the recent property sales were quite disappointing.

Um all those duplexes were old back in the day, and they're not getting any younger.

So all the lots are pretty much between seven and eight thousand square feet.

They only have uh 1,800 square foot duplexes on them.

Uh I don't know how it works out, uh, but I'd be interested.

I I'm thinking like I was wondering why no one's been talking about this, but I'm assuming the reason why is because there's single-family homes on the uh other side of my fence, and the single family people, even though these are like homes that were probably worth like 80,000 uh not that long ago, uh, or probably have a pretty big influence.

But I think there's plenty of spots who at least build fourplexes or um whatnot.

Uh, but I I guess I could say it's uh not easy living on easy street, unfortunately.

So uh that's pretty much all I have to say.

Uh, if there's anyone who wants to reach out, or at least who could I reach out to to uh ask of how this process could get started?

It was kind of uh went off in my mind when uh Leong uh when Leong showed up on the uh public notice.

So uh, but it you know this neighborhood is like the cross northern crossroads of the Bay Area.

I mean, Middlefield 101, Central, El Camino, uh 85, they all come through this neighborhood, so it's definitely underutilized.

Uh thank you.

Next speaker is.

Hi, I'm uh Pirna Dylan, and um I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of giving me a chance to speak here today.

I'm from the varsity park neighborhood, and um I'm here to express concerns on the rezoning for 1702 and 1704 and 777 Cuesta.

Um while I am also pro-housing and I understand that we are in a crisis where we need more housing.

Um, my concerns are around whether sufficient studies have been performed on, say, the impact to the traffic, the parking uh neighborhood, schools, parks.

How would we really absorb this high density housing?

Um I just haven't seen that kind of analysis done in whatever information was shared with us today.

And um that is my plea that if we are rezoning, are we taking into consideration the impact to the quality of life for existing neighbors and um the existing neighborhood where we all bought our homes uh because they're quiet streets where our kids can ride our but ride their bikes to school?

Um there were accidents on Grant on uh kids biking to school, and this is something that really concerns me: that if we increase the density, how are we maintaining the safety of our uh existing neighborhood?

That's all.

Thank you.

Next is uh Kristen L.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I can't see you with my glasses on, but I'm gonna I'm gonna read this.

Um so I'm particularly concerned about the zoning proposal for 777 Coesta.

This is a building that's literally 10 feet from my house.

We would lose privacy.

Part of the zoning is for a potential high rise, and we would lose privacy.

Everyone in that strip along our entire backyard if we had a high-rise residences be able to look over the backyards.

The high rise would eliminate all light into our house.

Imagine the house that you live in and a tall building 10 feet from your house going up.

There's one room in our house that gets a direct sun, and that would be eliminated.

A multi-residential property creates additional density, which is a major safety issue.

Cars are are currently.

We currently are having an issue with uh the traffic at this at this intersection where it's Maramonte, Sladkey, and two lane.

The cars create U-turns mid-street, um, especially because we have the two-lane Sladkey intersection.

My daughter experiences a lack of safety daily with her biking, and more traffic would create major safety hazards.

There's currently no street parking near our house.

When we come home after 3 p.m., we have to park two or three blocks away, and then we go move our car at night.

We experience excessive noise.

People park.

People who are the employees of the current building, they park between 7 and 8 a.m.

and blare their music until they go to work at 8 a.m.

And during their breaks, they turn on the music in their car and are blaring their music during their breaks.

Um people are parking illegally.

Every single day you'll see people parking on the red curbs.

They sometimes cross into our driveway and make it hard to get in.

And they are covering public fire hydrants.

This is a major concern.

We understand that housing is an issue, but this solution isn't an appropriate one for the street.

And one more thing.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry.

Okay.

But just so you know, we didn't, I we read your emails that came in, so I know you had something in as well, along with other folks here.

But if you'd like to continue with sending us additional comments, by all means feel free to reach us through email.

Okay.

I just want to say the more people are also upset about this, and that the information was relatively hidden in the postcard and communication.

Next up is Anna Duran.

Hello, this is Anna.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

So I'm a resident of the Tulane Drive, and I I have strong opposition towards the 1702 Miramonte, 1704, 777 Cuesta Drive.

We are a community of families who invested in this neighborhood in uh stable neighborhood, quiet where all of our kids, two, three, four years old.

They run around.

They are so happy playing with their friends and going with bikes.

So adding a more residences and more cluster and just creates unsafety for our neighborhood and for our kids.

There are schools surrounding that neighborhood and all the kids back to school.

So just imagine having hundreds of more cars doing illegal things on the street.

It's already a problem right now, so adding more residences creates a bigger problem.

Um we believe that this is an arbitrary spot zoning is actually in direct conflict with a general plan of protecting and maintaining the character and the quality of single family neighborhoods.

This is a neighborhood where is single family mainly, so adding those high rises there is in direct contrast to that, then we just don't think that there has been enough analysis on what is gonna do to the traffic.

What about the safety?

I'm hearing a lot of commercial, commercial, commercial, but what about the safety and all of our residents that have paid millions of dollars for every single house of that?

Then this proposal is also based on an assumption, it's like near major transit stops, but the BTA is not a major transit stop, so we don't believe that this is factually correct, that this is next to a place where there's a lot of like public transportation.

There's just the BTA.

Um, we also believe that there are other areas that could be analyzed: El Camino, San Antonio Road, Moffett, all of those have already high-rise buildings, so it's more consistent with that rather than our neighborhood, and just if you thank you very much.

Appreciate your contact.

If you all have family and kids, if you can think about it.

Next is Pradeep Bardia, and followed by Tajus Mystery.

Hi, good evening.

I will try to be quick.

I'm opposing 1702 1704.

My house is directly in front of that.

I have when I moved into the neighborhood 14 years back, there were two medical dontal offices.

Now there are 10 of them.

On top of that, I've never had the problem of parking on the street.

You guys, I don't know if the team has analyzed the transportation.

We've complained over years and years of complaints.

But either my options are should I convert my house into a rezoned public mixed use land or what?

Because I can't stay there.

There's no way I can stay there.

If you guys are directly, you know, putting an apartment complex right, blocking everything that I have invested in that property, it's all gone.

So my concerns are basically how do you address the parking situation?

It's never been resolved.

And on top of that, you know, if would I be allowed to rezone my house?

Because there's no point in staying there.

I can't be sitting and staying in front of an apartment complex.

Is that possibility or what are the options I have?

Because I don't think I can live there.

With the decisions that you guys are making.

So I solely, I'm not sure if all of you know the property, but solely oppose 1702, 1704 Miramonte.

I've been living with it for 10 years from two medical offices to 10 medical offices, and now mixed use.

You're forcing me out of the community.

Thank you.

And lastly, to just uh mystery.

Hi, good evening, Commission.

Um, speaking on behalf of 55 Fairchild Drive, which is in Evondale Precise Plan Area A.

Um, I spoke at the last meeting where we discussed uh the rezoning, and I raised the same concern again that with this mixed-use village, we will have 1.35 FAR for residential, but the neighborhood commercial zoning will still limit um my property as well as everyone else's to 0.35 FAR, which basically will uh essentially discourage any sort of commercial redevelopment in that area.

I just want you all to be aware that the hotels that are in Evendale Precise Planning Area A generate about half a million dollars of transit tax for the city every year.

And as soon as we all uh redevelop as housing, all that money goes away.

So I would really strongly suggest you talk to the planning department about rezoning the commercial side as well, because honestly, Mountain View does not need to lose half a million dollars of transit tax.

Two other points um to mention.

Um as it is with 1.35 FAR and 43 dwelling units per acre.

I do have a concern about what the height restriction would be for us, considering that Moffat Field is across the street.

Will we be able to actually achieve 43 dwelling units?

So that's something that I would like to follow up with the planning department.

Um and the third thing is our part of the precise plan.

Essentially intentionally does not have a uh sound wall on 101 because we're the commercial part of um highway 101 right after my property, there is a 12 foot tall uh sound barrier.

If eventually all of our properties turn into multi-family residential, how do we petition Caltrans to change that to a sound wall because there's no way we'll be able to meet the decibel rating that the city is gonna oblige us to for having residential there?

Thank you, there are no other speakers.

Thank you, and thank you for everyone who stopped by to give us your perspectives and viewpoints.

Please know that when we limit the time, it's because we have a lengthy meeting, and we need to respect that just so that everyone has a fair amount of time to be able to speak on the issue.

That way we don't treat anyone more.

Um, we don't give anyone more time than others, and everyone's treated equally.

Uh, we will move on to the segment of the APC deliberation and take into two parts.

The first one is the first part will include a commissioner recusal and we'll focus on discussion about general plan amendments at 1702 1704 Meramonte Avenue and 777 Questa Drive and zoning amendments affecting commercial districts and general plan mixed use village center development.

We must also consider the Leong Evendale area and 677-699 Calder on Avenue in our little deliberation regarding the general plan and mixed use village center development Standards and the zoning ordinance amendments.

Afterwards, the second part will be the commissioner's recusal.

Well, where we will discuss the remaining amendments, including the general plan amendments and precise plan amendments regarding the transit center, the Leong Evan Dale area, the Grant Road site, and the Calderon Avenue site, and the zoning amendment regarding navigation easements.

That will also be the appropriate time to discuss the Leong Evendel area small business alternative in the staff report.

I will now ask the commissioner with conflict of interest to make the recusal statement.

I unfortunately need to recuse myself from the discussions pertaining to the Cuesta and Miramani properties because of proximity of my primary residence.

Thank you, sir.

Great.

Deliberations regarding general plan amendments at 1702 1704 Maramonte Avenue and 777 Cuesta Drive and zoning amendments affecting commercial districts and general plan mixed use village center developments, including development standards for general plan, mixed use village center developments at Evondale Precise Plan and 677, 699 Calderon Avenue.

We have any speakers.

I think we'll do it the way we always do the majority of times that we proceed with these issues, we go with questions first, and then we'll have deliberations.

I probably misspoke and said deliberations first in conversation, so I appreciate you bringing that up.

So let's start with questions.

Do any commissioners have any questions?

And having said that, Commissioner Cranston, do you have a question?

I have questions.

You have a question?

Okay, questions.

Sounds good.

Go ahead and question you.

Okay.

So then, therefore, the next question again around just clarification of process.

Um, which are we exclusively making our um final or like round of deliberate?

Are we gonna ask questions, deliberate, and then vote on exclusively these properties and then the rest or are we how are we doing that just one more time?

You know, that's a great point of clarification.

That was my understanding, but if Deanna or Eric have a different interpretation, I'm sure they'll let us know right now or Chris.

I yes, we would encourage you to um make a recommendation.

Make your recommendation on these items, uh specifically the chapter 36 uh commercial zones, uh the chapter 36 general plan mixed use development standards and the general plan amendments at Miramonte and Cuesta.

Um, if there's conversation about the Evondale area or the Calderon area after the recusal item is over, uh, then we will ask uh the commissioner to leave again, and you can reopen that item if you feel like you need to.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Um, then in that case, unless there's more questions on process, I can go ahead and ask questions on subject matter.

Um, so I have a quick question just to kind of make sure I'm clarifying my understanding on this.

Um, this is us as the city seeking to uh you know formally uh finalize the commitments made as part of the housing element uh that was certified by the state as of last year for the latest uh cycle.

Um, and so just really, I guess like either as simply or broadly as possible if that's okay um to to staff, what elements are like at all within the discretion of any discussion today for the commission.

Good evening, honorable chair and commissioners Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Um, I think it's important to keep in mind that this subject matter was discussed in extensive detail back in January by the EPC and City Council in February, at which time the city council provided direction on the approaches to take relative to these general plan amendments and zoning amendments.

And so I feel as though the task has been given to the commission and really the role tonight is to explore what's been prepared by staff and to ensure that it accomplishes that city council direction.

So then for the remaining uh parcels, properties, uh tracks, plotches, uh, et cetera.

Uh it's it sounds like, and correct me if I'm uh mistaken in this, it sounds like the commission cannot reject delay reduce or substitute any committed sites or densities as part of the connection to the uh certified housing element.

Is that uh uh accurate statement?

Well, I think it's important to note that the commission's making a recommendation to the city council, but I would encourage you to make a recommendation that respects the housing element and the city council's prior direction on this subject matter, and so that would be to continue with these sites and to effectuate the changes as staff is prepared in the materials for the meeting.

Got it, thank you.

Yeah, so I guess technically we can't recommend anything that would uh, or we ought not to.

Okay.

Um and then another question when it comes to the SB 79 component, um was there uh it's it's new, it's fresh.

I'm just wondering um of what is expected or or just broadly known about SB 79 at this stage and point in time.

Um, does that obviate anything?

Or is that going above and beyond what we're like um looking at in terms of densities within the scope of what we put forward in our housing element, or or is it too early to tell yet what the like um comparison would look like between what we committed and what SB 79 now calls for?

Sure.

So I think it's first important to note that SB 79 um takes effect July 1st, 2026, and so it's not in place now and it wouldn't resolve any obligations the city has broadly uh in the housing element.

Um also uh I don't know that any of the areas specifically are um within the SB 79 area other than the transit center site, and so uh we may need to take a closer look at that, you know, when we do our work related to SP 79, but um it's not of immediate import for uh the question tonight for the commission because the law is not in effect yet.

Sounds good.

And the last question from my end, um, in these public notices that go out, um, to what extent I I know that you know there's like limitations and pragmatism that has to be kind of um you know, if not actual requirements technically in terms of how these get put forward, but um is staff or does staff have a sense that they can share in terms of um what kind of like contextualization um gets communicated as part of these uh notices in terms of you know how how we communicate that, right?

I mean, because if this is something that is a continuation of right, like the housing element, which itself is a very complicated beast, right?

Um, and I'm sure we all don't want to relive that trauma.

But but to what extent are we kind of contextualizing that when we're communicating with with residents?

Yeah, I'll provide a general response first and then allow planning manager Anderson to elaborate on the considerations that may have gone into this particular notice.

So um it's certainly a balancing act.

You know, there's limited space to communicate this information.

Um it's important to do so in a way that's legally uh adequate and accurate as to parcels being acted upon for zoning, for example, uh, but not to get so technical and specific and extensive that the message is lost, and that you know an ordinary person would not be able to digest and understand the subject matter.

And so there's some judgment that goes in uh to to crafting those public notices, and maybe um Mr.

Anderson can speak a little more about the noticing for this item.

Yeah, for this item we focused on implementing the housing element, allowing multifamily development, and of course, as uh the the director said, uh our statutory noticing requirements, which include identifying all the properties as clearly as we can.

Uh so that uh um the uh you know we we also provide our contact information uh for anybody that wants to reach out and better understand the content of what's being discussed.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cranston.

Yeah, a few questions.

Um can you remind me what the some of the the height restrictions and so forth are for the neighborhood mixed use?

Yeah, so the maximum height for the Miramonte and Questa sites is 45 feet.

So a town home within that.

Yeah, and currently the existing zoning is about 35 feet, so a mixed use would be 45, so an additional 10 above existing.

By changing the designations, it doesn't prevent or require or relieve the obligation of any applicant from going through the normal business process in the future.

They would have to submit plans, they'd have to submit what they plan to do, how it would fit into the area, meet the city's codes and so forth.

So there's nothing in this that says that they can do away with anything that's part of the normal process.

It's still simply saying this land use is permitted, but you still have to go through the normal process, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and then um I didn't think this was anywhere close to the SP 79 area.

I don't actually believe this area falls in anything in something that would have any that anything would reduce the requirement for parking as so any project submitted would have to go through the normal existing already established parking regulations for a property of this type on the number of spaces.

Am I correct in that?

Yes, that's correct.

These sites aren't impacted by is not near a major transit stop, so minimum parking regulations still apply.

All the normal correct.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Yen.

Sorry.

Um actually Commissioner Cranston asked my question.

So I'm I forgot to withdraw.

No problem.

Commissioner Donahue.

Um noticed actually just around dinner time was that it we're talking about 1702 and 1704 Miramonte, but the housing element only talks about 1702 Marimonte.

So is this an expansion of the um like additional properties?

No, it's it's just an additional address, so it's on the same parcel, but the two buildings have different addressing.

Oh, intent was for that one parcel.

Oh okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, and okay, another question that I I sent to staff.

The in in exhibit one that some of the parcel numbers, not I don't think it was for this one, but for some of the parcel numbers uh expressed didn't follow the three-digit, two-digit, three-digit format, and I wasn't sure if they were correct parcel numbers or or what?

Yes, I think we accidentally omitted a zero in front of the third digit, so we will update that.

Okay.

So I just want to make sure that there's like no.

It's 323, you're correct.

Yeah, yeah, but I just want to make sure that there's no like kind of that something would would go wrong or not be legally binding or something if if that if this mistake was found later.

Yeah, so I think we can we still we can update those.

Okay, okay, great.

Um, um there's uh an amendment to I'm not sure whether to ask this now or later.

It's a this whole kind of splitting it up is a little confusing.

But in the amendment to uh uh 36 3011, it changes the width from 70 feet to 60 feet for the the storefront um uh where you can have a storefront.

Um and it says that the the purpose was to capture certain parcels but not capture uh or certain uh streets or parcels, I guess, uh but not to capture some others like uh plaza court and uh Dalma on the kind of the back side of that that property uh does it affect any other like is that a full list of the of the uh of the streets that that would be affected in the in the staff report where it was which ones you you intend to uh uh to enable the storefronts and not to enable the other storefronts.

Yes, that's the intent was to allow the storefronts on those streets that we listed in the staff report.

I think it was Evondale uh Leong and uh Calderon.

Calderon, church and church, right?

But I just want to make sure there weren't any additional things that weren't listed there that would also have been affected or that that you know there's not any unintended consequences to that.

So, I think it sounds like the answer is no.

Okay.

Um I think other people actually already asked asked my uh my question.

So thanks.

Commissioner Fan.

Um let me know if this is not the right time to ask the question if I should wait um after the recusal, but I had a more general question about how the opportunity sites were identified um for housing element program 1.1G.

I know that this item um had come up in January and February, but that was before I joined EPC.

So just wanted some context.

Sure.

Um early in the housing element process, uh we had um determined or we had uh projected that we had enough sites in order to accommodate our uh regional housing needs allocation um already zoned because we had recently done big rezonings in East Wisman and North Bay Shore and other areas.

Um however, later in the housing, we at that time uh sorry, earlier in the housing element process, we also identified some uh what we called back pocket sites.

Sites that we would continue to uh study as potentially including in the sites inventory or rezoning in case uh something came up in the housing element process.

It was a very uncertain housing element process.

We didn't know how the state was going to respond to our drafts.

Uh and of course, later on in the process, we did get some resistance from the state on uh some of our drafts and some of our uh uh proposed uh opportunity sites, and so we went back to those back pocket sites that we had identified earlier on, and especially focused on the ones that are in higher opportunity neighborhoods, neighborhoods south of El Camino and around downtown.

Uh so that's why we included commercial sites uh specifically south of El Camino and around downtown, and then as well the um the uh Evondale area is a commercial area that has several underutilized sites.

So that was a another opportunity through the housing element to identify um uh areas where housing development is likely feasible.

Um so uh and then we were also aware that Caltrans was our Caltrain was uh interested in potentially developing the transit center.

So that's why these sites uh we've got several commercial sites south of El Camino, we've got uh and around downtown on the Calderon site and then Evondale uh and the transit center.

All right.

Um perhaps I'll ask my Caltrain related question later, since it's not pertaining to the item right in front of us.

Um I did have a question related to the staff report um mentioning outreach, and I know um Vice Chair Nunes asked a question related to the notices, which was a great um question, and so I appreciate he asked that question.

I had a follow-up question about um outreach related to the landlords, and the staff report mentioned a lot of the outreach happened during the housing element time frame.

Um so it's been some time.

Do we know um if additional outreach has happened or if um my concern is um has there been any turnover for the landlords for these particular parcels that may have been missed in terms of outreach?

Well, I'm not aware of any turnover, uh it's not something that we track directly.

Uh but we do send uh notices, and I believe we also sent formal letters during this process.

So we sent formal letters during the housing element process, during this process, as well as notices uh for these meetings.

Uh some uh property owners responded, some didn't.

Uh, and uh to the extent that it's possible for us to um kind of find contact information for property owners, which is very difficult, that's our best way to get a hold of them.

And I'll just add um the uh extra effort as well by staff to hand all over notices to uh business tenants within the affected commercial areas as well, which is beyond the legal requirements for this process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fan.

Commissioner Donahue.

Okay, sorry, I have I have another question.

The um one of the things in the in one of the emails that we got around the Miramonte uh site was studying cumulative impacts of having multiple developments like at on the the property on Questa Drive and the Miramonte ones, or one that has two addresses, I guess.

And uh I know that as Commissioner Cranston asked, that there would be uh studies done, I guess, when an actual development proposal is done, but as far as the EIR goes, we're do you have any comments about the study of of cumulative impacts and uh uh, sure.

I will say that um at the program EIR level, the analysis of cumulative impacts is necessarily um less precise than it would be at a project CEQA level.

Uh so there are a lot of unknowns because we don't know exactly what projects are gonna look like, we don't know everything there is to know about these properties, like what's in the soil or anything like that, right?

Like we can't know that until a development actually comes through.

Um, so looking at cumulative impacts from a housing element level, yeah, we looked at utility impacts and um population impacts and all the all the other required impacts that we need to study for a CEQA document at the scale of citywide growth for the 11,000 plus additional units that we need to across the city, and this project is consistent with that analysis.

The next level of analysis would happen either at the you know at the project level if they are required to go through CEQA at the project level, um, and you know, through the development review process.

Okay, thanks.

Great, and I have a simple question in terms of parking.

Um, how was that process addressed?

Because I know we had talked about it before.

I mean, we had to talk about all these plans back in 2023, touched on in 2022, took them on in 2024, and then now earlier in the year, we also talked about it in January, and we had brought up that issue.

Could you please remind um from folks who are viewing or who you're who are here now uh what that looked like?

Uh discussion of parking and regulations in terms of construction growth and there not being any specific minimum one-to-one requirements, but rather minimum standards, which means you can afford to build and not have enough parking spaces.

That was my understanding, right?

Uh there are uh there are minimum parking standards that would apply to developments at Miramonte Avenue and Quest to Drive.

Um, now I will say that there are um processes in state law for developers to request adjustments to those standards uh but we do have those standards and we will enforce them to the extent that we can under state law um and so this is not um you know the uh we are doing the the extent of parking enforcement that we can under state law with these development standards okay so you did factor them in and they are what they are basically is what I'm hearing and there's a there's a process involved so that once a developer comes in and says I'm interested in doing XYZ that will also then be talked about at that time and right okay exactly great thank you.

Do any other commissioners have any questions?

Commissioner Yin yeah quick question uh what is the current parking standard for the office uh office is typically required to provide uh one space for every 300 square feet okay uh actually medical is a little higher so if it's majority medical I think it's one space per 150 square feet I asked because the uh a lot of the public members said that the current parking situation is already a little bit challenged given the standards we're at today.

And it may be a case where the existing building is not built to current parking standards as they are as they're required today.

And so that could be an issue that could be helped by future development because it could be built to current parking standards in the future thanks.

You have any other questions Commissioner Yen that was it thank you.

Okay who would like to start with deliberations.

And the reason why is because this is part of our housing element process no longer I mean it's part of fulfilling our obligations to the housing element that you know as the city we undertook three years long process that most of us were a part of in some shape or form I'm yeah it's as I understand that from a noticing perspective there's um only so much from a um contextualization side and um you know kind of like the amount of kind of like the percentage of people that get them that these notices that read these notices along the way of any process not just like this one involved but even the housing element for example and so um yeah and the housing element obviously being one of the most noticed processes that the city runs um and and so it's just unfortunate um but I mean this is where we're at with this um from a consistency perspective as much as I would like to um also save some of those small businesses um in the um uh kind of discretionary part of this I believe around the the Evondale concentration um Mexican restaurant I think as much as as much as I would love to do that um I also agree that from a um from policy perspective that's better addressed through a a dedicated policy program for that and then in addition to that um you know again we have to you know I was a part of the the housing element process and if you know I started trying to chip away at that now then I would be not consistent with that um so that's where I'm at.

I will be supporting the recommendations.

Thank you, Vice chair nunez.

Any other commissioners?

Commissioner yin.

Um, I uh have always been a pro a proponent of you know transitioning to existing, and that's usually when we have a project before us that's more defined, and that is the hope.

Um because of where we are and why we're doing this, it's a it has been a very long process.

I sympathize with those that have taken the time and effort to come speak.

So much has already gone into it, and so much research and analysis, and these a lot of these are state mandated.

We are required to follow through, and unfortunately we are where we are, and at this meeting, we're really just trying to implement what we've promised we would do in a sense.

So there are opportunities to take your voice and share them further when a project does arise.

But at this point for this meeting, we're looking at a larger sort of um goal, which is to just rezone according to the housing element that has already been passed and approved.

So from my perspective, given that this is what we're what what I am going to say is what I'm gonna do.

So I'm going to be in favor of the change to the ordinance and the zoning to accommodate residential on the site as well as what's already there.

Bringing it to mixed use.

Thank you.

Commissioner Donahue.

Um I have similar thoughts.

I uh I appreciate you you guys are showing up at the meetings and and that's I think absolutely the right thing to do.

And and can and show this will go to the city council, you should go to that meeting.

If there's any development, uh like concrete development proposals, you know, there'll be a whole process for that.

Absolutely.

I think um you should should be involved.

I mean it's it's important.

Um we we got to this this point.

Uh there's a housing element that uh we have an agreement with the state, and um it took a long time to get there, and I think that it's uh that we need to fulfill our obligations under that agreement and um and uh yeah, so I I guess I uh I don't you know if this were from fresh looking at it, uh I I don't know how I would come out, but but I think I'm gonna have to to support the fulfilling our our obligations.

So thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Cranston.

So a key part of the housing element was making sure that when we created these opportunities sites that have presented an opportunity in all areas of the city.

Um we don't want to process that says, okay, well, these people can only live in this area, these are putting all that or and when we were look when this when it's just challenged during the housing element process, these areas were identified specifically because they're high opportunity areas too.

But if someone's gonna build some housing, they're areas that uh those good schools or shopping nearby, it's uh it's a nice neighborhood, and and that was an important factor in our original evaluation of these sites was to make sure that whatever we did uh met those met those needs.

The fact that again this is not this is not a specific project, it's not as and I would that's that was the reason I asked that question because I just wanted to be sure we weren't doing anything that was going to remove that, and it's not an area where the ability to waive parking standards go is is in place is required in areas like downtown.

So I think this there's this is what I had expected when we looked at this.

Um it's not a it's not a huge change in the set, is that and it's important to recognize and and I I do it myself.

It's like you look at something saying well, it's a single story building today, but that's not how it's zoned today.

It's zoned bigger, so we're not comparing to what's there.

We're comparing to what's what's permitted today and we're doing something that allows housing in a space that's actually permitted for larger than what's in any location so I've I'm comfortable with proceeding on this still meets those things that when we originally talked about it as to why we would include it.

And I don't none of those have changed in my mind as to the reasoning behind it at that time.

So you should proceed.

Thank you, Commissioner Cranson.

Commissioner Yen Oh no I had already gone that list left over commissioner Fam.

I want to thank staff for giving some of the context a lot of this work and a lot of the work of the fellow commissioners here happened long time before I joined DPC but even so I can see that a lot of work and analysis has happened you know over many years.

So I'll say that.

I also appreciate um you know the look at small businesses and you know having commercial being able to remain there as well as well as housing.

And also staff being very careful about not creating non-conformance issues.

I also want to encourage staff to think about what additional outreach could happen between now and um the council meeting on planned December 16th.

I know that um all the notices that are you know legally required have gone out which is great um but just to go over and beyond something that staff could consider.

Anyone else no okay I'll I'll go ahead and chime in.

I think when we have folks like we do now here present and they're becoming involved with how this process works there's a sudden realization that holy cow this was in the works for a long time.

And now we're finding out now we're participating now we're speaking out we are concerned and change like that is always hard when it affects you personally.

When you're up here on the dais and if you're not in that particular area or neighborhood you know one of the one of the things that's asked of us which I think is is good is to go visit those sites.

Try and imagine yourself as if you were in the neighborhood as if you've lived there and and try to envision what this may or may not look like so I just have to stress to everyone that like it's been said before we're just changing the zoning category right now that gives then the property owners the ability to have the option to then do something else in compliance to the norms that we've established today and then that council will ratify later on according to what we submitted to the state and if and when something's then submitted for proposal like Commissioner Cranson and Yen have mentioned that's the time when you would then go into these particulars about how will this look like how will this impact my view my sunlight parking spaces one key point that I'd like to stress again is what Eric had mentioned earlier which is it could be that at the sites by Maramonte at that time the standards weren't meant for parking which would possibly and I'm saying this is the reason why it is the way it is but it could possibly explain why there's some issues there.

So having heard that there's still concerns about parking spaces there people parked in the red spots or by fire hydrants that that there's an issue there for allocation of spots of uh vehicles for the property owners that live there because people come in and work there and then they took over some of those spots.

I I think that's also something where the team here including the city attorney's team and Eric and everyone here have have listened to that.

So possibly if there's a way to let the chief know about the concerns that were brought up to us about those issues I think that would be greatly appreciated up to a point.

I can send an email to him as well, or whatever process you think was is fine to inform them of of these concerns, that would be appreciated.

And I'm just leaving that there for follow-up and and I welcome your input on that front.

But I'll be supporting this as well because it's been um in the works for a while.

And what I want to also stress is our ability to also try and have the businesses stay and be part of the community still, right?

Because we don't know what the future holds.

And that's the scary part because you don't know.

And when you don't know, your imagination can run among.

But at least there's a possibility there that we will have not just business, but business and housing, if it even comes to that, because it could be that nothing happens.

And that's something else that we have to think about because that could then affect our plans of how we look at the overall uh goals of what we wanted to do with the housing element plan.

Thank you.

All right, so at this point in time, I think we're moving on to point two, where which is where we'll discuss the remaining amendments, including the general plan amendments and precise plan amendments regarding the transit center, Leon.

Excuse me, Chair.

You may want to have a motion then for the recommendation.

Oh, that's right, that's right.

Let's let's let's go ahead and do that, which would be point number one.

Thank you for that.

Truth be told, I got hit right before I came here from behind.

I got bumped now over on the way to the mean.

So that's why I'm a little out of it right now, right?

So, anyways, having said that, let's move on with a possible motion for point one.

Um, and then would you like me to read that right now?

Um, can you as a mover?

Yeah, can you bring up the recommendation?

So this this is a slightly adjusted recommendation that removes the unrelated properties uh from the uh general plan action, and then that there'll be another uh more text for the zoning action.

So if you can read from the screen, I don't know if it's possible to bring it up.

Sure.

So first I'll announce to the EPC clerk and to the team that a motion has been made by Vice Chair Nunez and seconded by Commissioner Cranston.

I read that just as is.

Exactly.

Um yeah, do they need to read the title text for the or the text for the motion?

Yes, okay.

All right, I make a motion that the environmental panel commission one recommend the city council adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain be adopting a general plan amendment to update the land use and design element and modify the general plan land use map to change the land use designation for the following properties to implement housing element program 1.1g.

Uh colon 2, 1702 and 1704 Maramonte Avenue and 777, quest to drive from office to neighborhood mixed use as recommended by the environmental planning commission on January 24th, 2023.

The city council certified the 2023-2031 housing element update environmental impact report adopted by resolution 1875 present to see quick guidelines section one five one six eight one five one six two and one five one six three.

None of the circumstances necessitating further sequel if you are present, exhibit one to the EPC staff report.

And that the environmental planning commission to recommend that recommend the city council adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the city code to implement subtext G of Housing Element Program 1.1 including updates to Article 5 commercial zones to allow general plan mixed use village center land uses in the CO commercial offices zoning district and to make other clarifying conforming changes such as modifying and reorganizing standards in Division 23, general plan mixed use village center developments of Article 9 standards for specific land uses to be consistent with the CO zoning district and del precise plan exhibit two to the EPC staff report.

Okay, great.

Let's uh let's vote.

The motion passes with six years and one recused.

Great, thank you, sir.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Okay, now let's move on to point two.

After the commissioner's recusal, we will discuss the remaining amendments, including the general plan amendments and precise plan amendments regarding the transit center, the Leong Emadel area, the Grant Road site, and the Calderon Avenue site, and the zoning amendment regarding navigation easements.

That will be the appropriate time to discuss then the Leong Evan Del Area Small Business Alternative and the Staff Report.

I will now ask the commissioner with conflict of interest to me.

Well, no, no, no, we got that.

Commissioner Dempsey, you're back.

Thank you for being part of the team again.

And who would like to ask questions first?

Because we'll do again questions and then deliberation.

Commissioner Cranston.

I guess I had maybe I misunderstood this definition for the question said that the areas were hashed were not part of the original scope of what was in the opportunity area or they are.

I got the impression that if we remove those, then we were actually taking something off of the site inventory.

Is that if she made it sound like it wasn't there at all?

So the site inventory in the housing element does not include the three sites that were hatched on the map that she showed.

Does include sites that are not in the site inventory.

So for example, 777 Cuesta is not in the site inventory, 1949 Grant Road, not in the site inventory.

So it's a uh it's a belt and suspenders approach to rezoning that we are um rezoning for more opportunity than even the sites that were deemed underutilized in the site inventory.

Um so in this um portion of uh the Evendale Precise Plan, uh a number of those sites are in the site inventory.

I don't recall exactly which ones, but probably at least three or four of them are in the site's inventory, but um several of them are not.

Thank you, Commissioner Crasson.

Commissioner Yen.

Could you go into a little bit more detail about the avigation requirements just to understand it better?

Uh sure.

So the comprehensive land use plan for Moffitt field does have a whole section about uh avigation easements.

Uh avigation easements are typically uh uh a um kind of a property owner notice that there will be planes flying overhead generating noise uh and um you know potentially other other disruptions.

Uh they also can occasionally have the benefit if um like let's say you have a tall building that needs to under federal law have like light special lighting, it can also provide um whoever uh owns the easement, in this case it would be in Moffat Field, they would have the right to maintain that lighting or require that that lighting be maintained.

That can also be part of an avigation easement.

Now these sites aren't going to be built tall enough to require any of that.

Uh we've gone through the um the uh uh ALUC process, and they're they're not going to be going through the maximum height, going above the maximum heights where any of those mitigations are going to be necessary.

So, in general, for these cases, avigation easements are the former case that I was talking about when a uh a property owner is essentially being notified that there are sources of uh noise or other quality of life impacts from the airport.

Um, because of that, our determination during the the comprehensive land use plan has this language that says where legally allowed, the city should require avigation easements.

But it doesn't provide much more detail than that.

So they put it on the cities to determine to answer that question where legally allowed.

So we did some analysis, we looked at other parts of state law, and we determined uh along with this relationship with the um the noise impact that avigation easements can be um kind of uh can be allowed unilaterally only in areas where noise is an identified impact of the airport.

Uh and so that is the the what we've drafted in the zoning ordinance to be consistent with the CLEP, so that our zoning ordinance says what it implements what the CLUP requires it to implement.

Um it only affects if you parcels in the East Wisman area because those are the only areas where approaching aircraft will generate or taking off aircraft from Moffat Field will generate enough noise to be an impact.

Um and so that's what the um that's what the east the the language in the zoning ordinance is essentially says for clarifying.

Um that's it for now.

Thank you, Commissioner Yan.

Yeah, any other questions?

Commissioner Van.

Um I did have a question for the Mountain View Transit Center regarding Caltrain and if the city has had any update from them or any sort of information on what Caltrain is planning for that area.

Um earlier in the year uh in the lead up to uh the January and February meetings, um, we did engage with Caltrain at that time.

They were undergoing an internal process to evaluate opportunities to increase revenue generation across their uh portfolio of properties.

Uh my understanding uh I think from the April or May time frame of this year following those meetings is that they uh concluded most or all of that process and identified the transit center as one of the primary locations to further evaluate for development and revenue generation opportunities.

Um beyond that, um, there was not a specific plan or timeline uh known by Caltrain uh at that point in time.

Um we have expressed an interest to them to uh cooperate very closely and to coordinate on what their processing plans would be.

Um, and as it relates to the earlier discussion of Senate Bill 79 that's passed, um, there are uh new opportunities for development by uh transit districts, and so it may be possible that um sort of the parameters for future development there could be different than we're contemplating here under this framework.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Dempsey, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just uh a question for staff and really uh I think a point of clarification for the community and anybody who's listening for the proposed new um general plan land use designations that all of the properties that are currently under discussion, except for the ones that I can't be here for.

Um for those how does the density bonus law apply to them?

Does it apply to them all equally?

And if you could just generally characterize what the density bonus law would mean for all of the all of these new properties and their new designations, uh density bonus law does have some provisions related to transit access.

So again, it it may be moot with the transit center under SB 79, but the uh that would be the only site where density bonus law would treat, uh could could provide opportunities uh that aren't available to the other properties, so all the other properties would be treated similarly.

Uh it really is very developer-led, so it depends on um how many affordable units the developer wants to provide uh in the project uh what the what the ultimate outcome would be.

So the height increases and the accommodations and all of the various things that we've seen in other programs those would show up the same here.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner again.

So along those lines then, um, would it be fair to say that the the city would have less levers to pool if the state density bonus project did come in regards to retaining some of the commercial for any of the projects?

Uh so we have had one general plan mixed use village center project come through our process already.

Uh the project on uh at 400 Moffitt.

They were approved, I think in August.

Um and yes, they did request waivers to reduce the amount of ground floor commercial that they are providing from the development standard, but they did not they did not use waivers to eliminate it entirely, and uh that could be because uh of the way the standards are structured to kind of require this development type in concept uh within the zone, and that um nobody has tried to waive that concept yet, okay.

Commissioner Cranston.

Any philosophical question?

So the some of the communications regarding the Evendale uh essentially would permit higher density commercial instead of uh residential.

Um would we have to basically remove these sites from this site inventory if they were if they were as attractive for commercial?

I it seemed like if it was more attractive for commercial than residential, that we could actually could be going against the intention of the site of the of the uh housing element and placing ourselves at the situation where we'd have to essentially be missing a requirement of the housing element, and we'd have to go find space elsewhere.

Oh, the resource of the housing moment is to add residential, but there's a bit of a question to make commercial more attractive, which would seem to be a conflict.

Yeah, that's a very subtle argument.

Um, and I'm not sure that it would rise to the level of um of uh kind of uh invalidating our site inventory.

Uh it is possible, that is certainly possible uh concern that somebody could raise in um in uh, you know, kind of addressing concerns about implementation of our of our housing element to HCD.

So that is always a risk.

Uh we do have some analysis in our housing element, uh sites inventory justification for um assumptions about the mix of uses that might be built when a mix of uses are allowed, that is was required for populating our sites inventory.

Of course, I don't remember what those calculations were um, you know, years and years ago, but it that could be something that we could rely on for uh further justifying the um the sites inventory even if a mix of a mix of uses at higher intensities are allowed.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Let's move on to the liberations who would like to repine first.

Commissioner Cranston.

So I just in general I mean it's a discretion.

I don't I don't see any downside of including the hashed areas in the change.

Um it wasn't apparent to me that it would hurt in any way.

Um, could actually create some more opportunity.

Um so I'm uninclined, I'm inclined to support the staff approach of including those or three tiny persons in the recommendation.

Um everything else was that was consistent.

I do want to thank staff for addressing the potential um for uh alternative use at uh site.

Thank you.

But in general, I think that was my uh I'd be inclined to go ahead and add the the hashtag staff circuit or recommended.

Commissioner Yin.

Uh just to discuss the point of the hashed area.

Um I was curious, I'm glad to hear that given that the city says in the precise plan that they want that to be a mixed-use area and to have ground floor retail, um, I wouldn't want to, you know, do anything that says okay, or take any steps that allowed for an easy path for people to forego that requirement.

I'm glad to hear that no one has taken advantage of that, even with the state density bonus law, but it's a possibility, and so I'm weighing in internally, just sort of weighing, uh, knowing that when a project comes forward, uh, you know, policy is very powerful, but it cannot design a building.

And so very often what you get is based on the intent of the developer.

If they wanted ground floor retail, you'd get it because they would design space that allowed for it.

Um, and maybe the city has some levers to pull a little bit to say, yeah, we'd like, you know, we're really seeing that this is a desirable thing.

Council might look favorably if you allowed enough room for X, Y, or Z.

But if the intention is we really don't want to do it, then even with all the wonderful economic development strategies, if it's not designed to house anything, you won't get any of it.

So my internal struggle is you know, the state of things is that we don't as a city do not have as many tools available to work with developers in getting sort of some of the small things that we want.

Not small, I don't want to say small, some of the things that we want, and that's sort of soft, not hard policy, right?

It's sort of just going with culture, just working together for a goal that the city has decided that they wanted long ago, because we have less power as the city to kind of work with a developer, I worry that there's the possibility that it will just be gone, and the question is: do we really want to ensure that small businesses can stay?

They might not want to, but can they if the choice is well, we're going to allow for the developer to decide, and they can if they follow certain rules, then we won't get any of it.

If the only way we have is to say we have to remove this from the site, the general plan right now, and it can change if the priority is to retain what is there, then that is almost the only way to guarantee it.

So it's really a matter like for council, do they really want the small businesses to stay?

If that's a priority, we leave it out.

If it's a wish, we'd like it, may not happen.

I understand that from a planning perspective, it is much easier to have the whole site available for housing.

So that's my internal struggle because in projects that we've seen, it's less and less sort of availability for the city to work the soft power, Chair, if I may.

Of course, thank you.

Um, so uh Commissioner Yin, I think, raises some important points, and there are unknowns and risks related to state density bonus law.

I think um a different perspective on the challenge is really not so much related to that aspect, but it's the specific uh impact to specific businesses that are present currently caused by the inducement, if we if we'll call it that of higher economic opportunity driven by redevelopment of the site and how those individual businesses would be displaced from the site during the project construction for a year, two years, however long, and maybe unable to find other suitable places in Mountain View at a rent or of a space type and location that suits them, or um, you know, even if they could endure during that time, maybe couldn't afford to return because the rents would be higher for the new commercial space.

So I think that's another aspect of this, and it's really this question of business generally, which probably will continue to remain, you know, a viable space in these projects in the future, but probably for different businesses, and it's really the impact to those existing, commonly local small businesses, that's I think the essence of the issue from staff's perspective, and that's why this sort of hinges on that aspect where removing some of the development pressure from these three parcels is one approach, and one of the very few approaches that we have to offer at this time, Commissioner Yin.

I was done.

Thank you.

Any anyone else?

Um I'm I agree with Commissioner Yin.

I I thought about that too, because there's an inherent tension there, and I'm not sure which way to go.

And so I had to look at it more from the perspective of like, okay, well, what can I do?

And so I thought, well, the only thing I can do right now is not look at it from a policy perspective, but more from a zoning perspective.

And if I look at it that way, then I agree with what's been presented from the policy perspective.

I would like to make the exception, but that's for city council to try and figure out one way or another.

And that's the part of all this right now that kind of it's kind of like when the folks were here earlier, they realized something and they're like, hey, wait a minute, this doesn't seem right to us.

And that's what when I read this, that it hit me that way too.

So I I know what you mean, Commissioner Yin, from that perspective, and it's hard to come to resolutions with something like that because you just don't know.

And that, and not having that certainty of what's going to happen in all this process is what sometimes holds me back a little bit to always fully support what the staff recommends, right?

And so hence the questioning.

It's not because of lack of trust, it's more just because of the what ifs.

So, if anyone has any other comments, then wait.

If not, then Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh let me try to keep this brief.

I'm gonna be supporting the staff recommendations today.

I think uh in many ways, this this vote is a bit pro-forma.

I think we've already committed to what we've committed to in the housing element, and we've gotta get that done.

So, you know, to me that's it's pretty cut and dry.

I think the one thing that I want to say, and maybe this is a broader comment about densification and growth in Mountain View.

And it is simply this.

If we as a community want greater density, and I understand that we do as a policy, if we want neighborhoods to embrace not only that density, but the humans that come with it, the people that move in, the people that become our neighbors, then we, as a city, have to do a better job of managing the externalities, the problems that come with denser living, because if you wonder what the fuel is for people pushing back against densification, the fuel is problems that they see every day.

And you know, here with the planning commission, we make plans, we make maps, but the map is not always the territory.

Um, and I can speak with personal experience that some of the things that our neighbors are talking about are real.

And so I would simply make the plea to the to the city that we when people come in and tell us they're actually having real problems right now, that we listen seriously to that.

And maybe maybe we care, maybe we don't, maybe that oh, it's a small problem in a small part of the city.

Okay, you could say that.

But that is where opposition to growth comes from.

It's not a theoretical or ideological thing.

It's because of problems they experience when they're trying to take their kids to school when they walk out their front door.

So that was a lot longer than I expected.

Expected it to be.

Um let's just take that very, very seriously when people come in and say that stuff because it's for real.

With that, I'll be supporting the measure.

Thank you, Commissioner Debsy.

Anyone else?

Oh, here we go.

Commissioner McDonough.

I will also be supporting the measure.

I I I agree that there are real problems and that they need to be taken seriously.

I mean it's it's it's clear.

Um I think that though sometimes I mean sometimes there's existing problems.

There's people parking in front of fire hydrants and things like that, which uh, you know, it happens once, you're annoyed, it happens you know, once a week, that this is really a problem, it happens, you know, five days a week, what the heck's going on around here.

Um so I think that uh that definitely and and I I do think that in general the city is is pretty good at at listening to to those types of things and addressing but of course it's not perfect, and and I think that uh the the goal of the uh of the entire organization should be to to really strive to uh to address these kinds of problems.

Um as far as this uh specific, like the the Evondale area and that the hash uh area that that we're talking about.

I think that there are um yeah, I I am concerned about uh about the loss of of small businesses, but that's not limited to to those parcels.

Um the the medical offices that we talked about earlier, uh you know could we we didn't really talk about trying to retain them, but but you know, th those kinds of things uh affect kind of everything that we do, and I think that having a uh more of a citywide approach uh is a is important and and kind of spot zoning three uh parcels to to try to to deal with three specific businesses is kind of not not the right approach.

We need to we need to think more systematically.

Um so I will be supporting the uh staff recommendation.

Commissioner Yin.

Oh, I was just gonna say that in the staff report it says that those sites actually are not required for the housing element.

That's just one point.

It's okay.

I mean, everyone can still have their you know opinions, that's not a big deal.

And I do understand that it's just easier to plan.

Um I think you know, I'm not necessarily fighting really hard for it.

It's just still the internal struggle with the the hatched area is that um one, what I just said it's not required, and two the other businesses and those addresses are in the housing outlet.

So that's why we're not discussing those or I'm not bringing it up.

This isn't an opportunity, and I'm just putting it out there.

Really, it's for council, it's up to them.

Um, you know, I don't I haven't seen that many people come forward saying we really want to keep those businesses.

I'm just going with what was in the precise plan for that neighborhood.

So I'm just putting it out there.

Um I understand it's just cleaner to go for it.

I just wanted to discuss.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

But on that note, I'm just gonna quickly have to bring this up.

Um did anyone of those business owners write in and opine on what their feelings were to the proposal that we're discussing now.

No, we did not receive any um comments from the businesses or concerns when we hand delivered the notices.

And were the notices just in English, or were they in English and Spanish or what we're doing?

We're just in English, but um the business owners I spoke with personally um were spoke English.

Okay, just checking that's all.

Okay, Commissioner Cranston, thank you.

That's inconsistent with my reading of one of the emails.

One of the businesses that actually asked that the height density for the commercial be raised was the unit that's farthest close closest to uh 101.

Okay, so that business and the hotel across the street, not the gentleman that was here, asked for the density of the area to be made for commercial equal to the density of the residential, and so I think their request was not to make it residential, but to allow them to build the same density as the residential space.

Yeah, is the market player, and so it was a letter.

It wasn't asking for it to be included, it was I it came across as I want to be able to build my business bigger, and by not changing the commercial areas, you don't allow me to do that.

So there was a letter, but that it was not it was purely a commercial site, which might actually be more supportive of Mr.

Yin's concern that they actually want to do something, but they need more they need the ability to have more density to be able to do make it viable from the commercial system.

That's right.

Thanks for bringing that up, Commissioner Yan.

But they weren't in the hatched area, right?

The hotel was is not in the hatched area, but the map up, Christian.

It's the one that's on the corner on the corner, just north of the street.

Okay.

Um, there's three three properties, the one farthest to the north is the one that has the marketplace.

No, no, it's on whatever that darn street is.

Up, up, up, there you go, right there.

Right there, you just passed it.

It's the marketplace.

The market is the one right there, yeah.

They're the ones that are.

Them along with a letter from the hotel across the street, said we would like you to make the density available for commercial equal to the density for residential.

The one that's in the hotel is in their in our area, but the one that's the other one is not.

So they were it indicated to me that they wanted to actually the opportunity to develop their space on a commercial basis more densely than it is today.

I think that might have been the second batch of emails that we received.

I'm not sure, but it looks like uh I'm so sorry.

What what is your name next to Eric?

Christian.

I think because you were receiving all the emails, right?

Um because they were addressing to you, so but I saw that you wanted to opine on something that Commissioner Cranston was talking about.

Okay, then no problem, no problem.

Okay, well then as far as discussion goes, then it brings into what you were asking earlier about the balance of housing to commercial and whether or not it would sort of go against what the housing element was seeking if we were to.

But wait a minute, this is just to allow for current, not for future.

The discussion of leaving the hatched areas out, is mainly what you're asking.

So earlier you had asked about whether or not allowing for the commercial to increase would be going against the housing element's intent.

Eric had answered it's a hard one to answer.

You know, it could be seen as you know subtle.

Oh, but the discussion of whether or not to include the hatched areas, which Christian, you were saying that really we're not talking about increasing their ability to grow their business.

It's about whether or not we retain what is there now.

Right.

I think the issue as we've tried to frame it with this question of whether to include or exclude the cross-hatched parcels, is the question of the impacts to the existing businesses.

Um, you know, these sites likely would have a commercial component if they were to redevelop, but the businesses that are located there.

So it'sue is those existing business retention preservation question.

Okay, that I just wanted to be clear.

Yeah, and these parcels are saying how it interacts with the decision.

Right.

And the issue is that these parcels are not required to be included to achieve the housing element requirement.

Okay.

So there's some discretion there to exclude if there's a perception that that would better preserve the existing small businesses or include them if business generally or maximizing housing opportunities is the policy preference.

Okay, thank you.

All clear.

Commissioner Cranson.

So the the reason for my question is the gentleman who spoke today, he owns I think the property that's all the way down, all the way to the left.

One of the letters was for the hotel that's way over next to the Chevron station.

Okay.

And it was co-signed by the owner of the property that's in the hashtag area.

What they asked for in their letter, and what he's essentially asking for is allow me to develop those areas as commercial at the same density as you're allowing the residential.

Okay.

The proposal from staff is that we allow residential, but we don't change the commercial density at all.

And when I said I didn't see any downside, in my mind, I looked at it and said, okay, they're actually gonna get more ability to have more density in the area.

It's mixed use, so they may decide that they want to have a bigger bigger retail space below and they want to have some apartments up below above.

So it actually gave them more flexibility than what they have today.

It's entirely possible that they may say I don't want any commercial at all, and it's just gonna be over.

So you're right, but I since our objective here was not to rezone to make the area denser in general.

Um to allow it to be equal to the 55 foot that's what's proposed here, but by incorporating it all, it in my mind gave the the those three more options for their space because right now they're limited by what they have today, and this would allow something beyond that without us saying we're gonna change the CO to the 55.

So that was I didn't articulate that before, but that was my when I said I didn't think there was a downside, I actually thought there might be a little bit of upside that would give them more options than they have the with as it's proposed today.

We've not discussed the idea of trying to go back to council and say change the CO to 55 feet as well, because I don't think that's what we're here to do.

Um, so that's very long answer to it's okay.

No, it's very helpful.

I'm just trying to put all the pieces together with all the questions for the discussion purposes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Donnie.

I think Commissioner Cranston basically said what I was thinking.

Great.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

If not, now would be a great time to entertain a motion.

Great.

So moved by Commissioner Cranstead and seconded by Commissioner Fan.

That we, and I believe we would like to have Commissioner Cranston read the language.

I can't read quite as fast as uh the vice chair.

Again, we have uh we have some special uh recommendations.

Oh um, yeah, it's gonna be different than than what the content of those slides is.

We'll bring it up on the screen real quick here.

Just to exclude the questa and miramanti sites that uh Commissioner Dempsey can't vote on.

The um present presentation copy has it.

The presentation copy has the full titles, but they've already voted on the quest and miramonti sites.

So the we have the recommendation excluding those sites and on the slide here.

Okay, we're okay.

So I move that the environmental planning commission number one recommend the city council adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, adopting general plan amendments amendment to update the land use and design element and modify the general plan land use map to change the land use designation for the following properties to implement the housing element program 1.1g.

Number one, 830, 835, 850, 859, 870, 889, 897, Leong Drive, and three.

Okay.

From neighborhood commercial to general mixed use, three seven six seventy-seven to six ninety-nine Calderon Avenue, from neighborhood commercial to neighborhood mixed use for Grant Road from low density resid uh low density residential to medium high density residential as recommended by the Mary of Planning Commission on January 24th, 2023.

The city council certified that the 2023 to 2031 housing element update and value impact report adopted by resolution one eight seven five five pursuant to the CECO guidelines sections one five one six eight one five one six two one five one six three.

None of the circumstances necessarily refer necessitate necessitating further seek review or present.

Number two, recommend the city council adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending the charter 36 zoning of the city code to memorize subtast G of the Housing Element 1.1 requiring navigation easements pursuant to the modfiel airfield comprehensive land use plan recommended by the environmental planning commission to be read and title only, further reading wave.

Exhibit two of the staff report two and that the environment planning commission recommended city council adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending the P 32 Even Dale Precise Plan to implement Housing Element Program 1.1G and make other clarifying changes at recommended by the environmental planning commission to be ready title only, further reading waived exhibit three to the staff report.

Number four, recommend that city council adopt a resolution of the city of Mountain View, amending the P26 grant martin's precise plan to implement the housing element program 1.1g and make clarifying changes to recommend the environment as recommended by the Mineral Planning Commission exhibit four of the staff report and five.

Great.

Let's move on for the to the vote.

Motion carries.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you, team.

Thank you, staff.

And thank you to everyone who showed up and spoke up.

And for everyone who called in and gave us their perspective on what they thought.

Moving on to commission staff announcements, updates, requests and commitment reports.

Chair, I if I think Commissioner Fam might have uh accidentally uh vote on item 3.1 minutes approval.

One more time.

So just for the record, we'll just have to.

Yeah, I apologize.

I should have recused myself for that one.

Abstained.

Sure.

Okay.

So let's go back before we go to point six.

Commission staff announcements, updates, requests and community reports.

We will then go back for the record to clarify section three minutes approval 3.1 environmental planning commission meeting minutes of February 5th, 2025.

EPC Clark, can you please remind me who was the mover and who seconded?

The mover was uh Bill Cranston and seconded by Hank.

Okay, and that was to approve the environmental planning commission amendments of February 5, 2025.

If we can recall, do we do the vote, please?

And if not, we can do this by hand and we'll make a note that.

Yeah, I think if we can just do advice.

Okay, so let's let's if we don't mind, let's see.

But just by hand.

Sure.

Let's go by hand.

Why not?

Okay.

So I'll um.

Uh Commissioner Fam.

Absent.

Uh Commissioner Donahue.

Yes.

Uh Vice Chair Nunes.

Yep.

Chair Gutierrez.

Yes.

Commissioner Dumpsey.

Aye.

Commissioner Yin.

Yes.

And Commissioner Cranston.

Yes.

Motion carries six yay and one abstain.

Okay, thank you.

And thank you, Commissioner Fan, for that.

That was awesome.

Okay, now let's move on to point six.

Commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and community reports.

Thank you.

Uh Diana Pontcholi, Principal Planner, and EPC liaison.

So just a few quick announcements on the November 19th meeting will be canceled as there are no discussion items scheduled as of now.

The next EPC meeting will be scheduled for December 3rd 2025.

And lastly, just an update on the EPC Commission positions.

Um meeting recommended to uh for two positions.

One of them uh, you know, being stating uh Commissioner Tina Fam for another term, and then um a new member Shweta Subraman for uh another place, uh since Commissioner Yin is gonna term out.

Uh the final vote, uh council will take the final vote on the appointment recommendations at the December 9th uh meeting.

So yeah, just a short announcement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Cranston.

Yeah, so I have uh a request for the future.

Um the governor signed SP 79 a few weeks ago, and um I'm the Mr.

Murdoch suggested that we don't have to do anything until after it becomes the law.

And I am not comfortable with that.

We have the downtown precise plan, we have the Moffat Precise Plan, and we have the historic district that all are touched on by this law.

Um I realize that staff likes the idea of being very certain on everything I've done T's crust, but we also need to be able to react to things as they come up, and this is something that's coming, it's already been approved, and I don't believe that we should be waiting until later.

The way the law is worded, it will affect it absolutely will affect any evaluation I make of the Moffat Precise Plan, the downtown precise plan, or anything further on the historic ordinance.

And so I think I don't believe it's necessarily a separate project.

I think it's in the context of what we already have.

Um but I would like to request that staff come back with what you know today.

I'm not expecting a perfect answer.

Um HCD is probably still working on what it is, but we have now, I guess, two more meetings till the end of the year.

I'd like I would like to request that staff come back before the end of the year with your analysis of what we know today of what SP No 79 does, what we know about what maybe some other jurisdictions are doing, and how it might tie into these three projects that are already under the way.

I don't think that we should wait until July to figure out what the answer is.

I think this is a case where the environment has changed.

We didn't know about this when we defined these three projects, but it is changing and it's gonna affect how we vote.

So I would like to request that, and I don't I don't know whether my other fellow commissioners feel the same way, but I I'm not expecting staff to come back with a this is the answer to BL and what I'm looking for is what do we know right now, how might this affect these things that we're looking at so that we can then look at it and say, all right, can we could we could have a discretion and whether to recommend a council that it really be looked at in the context of these three plans before July 1st or 31st, not after.

That's my request.

Thank you, Commissioner Cranston.

Yeah, I'll I'll uh follow up with that.

I think that's a great idea.

I like that approach.

I know we've had a chance here to be part of the team for a little bit of time now, and I think if we are looking at it from the perspective of being proactive to understand what it is that we can do to facilitate discussion prior to things becoming more of an issue, and then that way helping out not just the city team and the staff, but also the commission itself and subsequently then the city council in general to look at it from that vantage point.

I think that's what we're here for to try and do just that.

So if we can get support for this, I know you have my support, so um, I see also Commissioners Donahue and Yen.

Um I'll see the floor now to Commissioner Donahue.

Chris, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just want to clarify one point.

Um that Commissioner Cranston made.

Um I didn't state that there's nothing to be done prior to July 1st of 2026, uh stating earlier that the law takes effect at that time.

Indeed, there's a lot of work the city um needs to do between now and then to understand the implications of SB 79.

Um, and indeed that work has started.

Um I'm not sure you know I can commit to uh providing an update as requested to the commission prior to us having an opportunity to provide the same update to city council.

Um we're working hard on preparing that update at this time, um, including uh potential implications for the Moffat Boulevard Precise Plan and Downtown Precise Plan work.

And so um we're gearing up to have that uh update provided to council and to receive direction on some of the key points that affect uh city process and uh work that's underway.

And I think once we have the direction from council, uh it's likely an opportune time for us to update the EPC on what that direction is and the work that we may be carrying out in response to that direction.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Bernard.

So, question for you by when do you plan to have that be ready to be presented?

Um we're working with the city manager currently to identify a specific date, sometime in the middle of Q1 2026 is what I'm anticipating at this time.

Late January, early February time frame approximately.

Okay, that'd be great because I know traditionally we I mean you've noticed this, we tend to have meetings that are canceled during that period of time.

Um, and so it'd be great to actually discuss that during that period of time so that we take advantage of the time that we do have for scheduled meetings.

Uh let's see, Commissioner Donahue.

So we had a public comment at the at the beginning about SB 79 and the downtown, and I'm I'm concerned.

He said that the city of Palo Alto is already authorized having an alternative plan in place.

Um I'm I mean, I I don't know if if the timelines he gave were were accurate.

I think he said six months plus two weeks or something like that.

Um that uh that might be kind of a worst case scenario, I don't know, but um I am concerned that if it's the middle of Q1 uh that we get started, then then the law takes effect on July 1st.

Somebody decides to bulldoze the 100 block of Castro Street or something, uh then there's kind of nothing that the city can do.

It's kind of like you know, the builder's remedy type of type of deal.

Uh so it's better to get ahead of that.

Um, and in our uh capacity is advising the city council.

I I would like to uh be able to discuss and and potentially formally recommend some action to the city council.

Um I know that there's that we we need to understand exactly what the law uh involves and exactly what I mean we don't have to understand what the alternative plan would be, obviously, uh, but but I think uh being able to discuss and and try to get that alternative plan process in motion earlier would be uh would be the best move.

So thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Donkey.

Commissioner Yen.

Yeah, I'm in support of the idea that's been brought forward.

I feel like um I think Libble Mountain View had sent slideshow, PDF prior to the meeting, and in my understanding of SB 79, it's um I I think the deadlines we need to lock down and understand better.

Um I think there are some maps that we need to know, like what the areas actually are affected, and I agree with uh Commissioner Donahue that could be very easily, you know, we have no control, have a builder's remedy situation in our historic downtown.

And I think you know, if SB 79 comes out, it's not like we get notices every you know area gets notices saying your property might be affected.

And we're we we saw today a little bit of what happens when the realization comes forward, I think that would be such a big loss that the city would really turn out and but there's nothing that could be done at that point.

So the sooner we act to prepare the better, and if we need to uh make recommendations that if staff can't do it, given some of the responsibilities that we go ahead and hire consultants to help in order to get this done.

Thank you, Commissioner Yan.

Commissioner Fam.

Um I agree with a lot of what our fellow commissioners have mentioned, and I'd support having staff um look into something sooner rather than later.

Um I also in my understanding of SB 79 is that it um may cover areas not just covered by downtown and Moffitt plan.

So um I urge staff when you're trying to prep to brief council to also consider the other areas already identified and um you know weigh in whether that should be uh included in the alternative plan, and also if an alternative plan is the way to go forward as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Nunz or Vice Chair Nunes.

I think this is not necessary at all.

I think that if we want to get that report, we could either go to that city council meeting or we could inform ourselves.

We could look it up.

We could like we're all very smart people.

We got appointed to this for a reason, and I think staff works really hard.

I don't always agree with them.

I don't always think that they're like, you know, working toward the outcomes I want, even though they're neutral and what have you, but they're like so strapped for time.

I think we should just take the responsibility.

Go research it.

We have questions for an agenda item that is coming up, and then we can ask that.

I am loath to like put anything on like staff, especially because it's it's the grunt people at the bottom who are doing this, and I think we can put our own time into this.

Commissioner Cranston.

Is there a reason that we can't provide a recommendation at the time that you're presenting to council?

You're you're taking the approach that EPC doesn't have an opportunity to weigh into what you present to council.

I guess I view that we that's part of our role.

Sure, and I respect that perspective.

I think the issue is the compressed time frame under which we have to do our work and then what the sequence of meetings would even be to get something to the EPC in time to provide an op uh provide input and then prepare that for city council in time for their meeting.

And so I'm not able to commit to that opportunity at this point in time on this particular item.

I'd very much imagine that whatever the council's direction is flowing out of their presentation, that there would be an opportunity for EPC to have input on shaping what the response and next steps would be.

Commissioner Donahue.

Okay.

The main thing that I'm the main thing I want to be able to do is to advise the city council.

So like having it on our agenda so that we can discuss things and and make a formal recommendation.

Not that we um I mean yes, we we can we can learn about the the details of of SB 79 on our own.

We can go to the city council meeting, but if we go to the city council meeting, we can't as a body advise the city council about that.

So uh I think you know, I can go stand there just like all of us can, but uh obviously as a body, um we have we have more impact and and and it also involves the public process, right?

We we get we get input from the public, we uh gather all that, we synthesize it, and then we make a uh a recommendation to the city council.

That that's kind of what I'm interested in in having the ability to do.

Thank you, Commissioner Donahue.

Last Chair Nunez.

I mean, that sounds like an agendized item.

Yeah, and which I mean for for like just understand I um, yeah, I I'm just gonna like uh strongly oppose this, and you know, again, if we want to get informed, if if everyone wants to vote yes on this, that's fine.

But I think that staff is a not able to commit to something, we're not able to provide, you know, clear scope on what the outcome is.

It seems like, you know, putting out an agendized uh like official item for something that you know we can do and participate in as well as members of the public as well, um, and even have more ability to have the ear of council as a whole or as individuals.

Um it just seems like I like we talk about staff efficiency, um, and we're trying to introduce inefficiency, and so I I don't understand the inconsistency.

Commissioner Yen.

Yeah, to my point, if staff doesn't have the time, then maybe we hire a consultant.

But I I agree, I think even though we have the ability as individuals to make comments to city council if it were to arise before them, I think as a body it is that much more effective.

And personally, to me, I think it's such a big law, and I understand its intention.

I think that some of the fallout potential is great enough to warrant this being on the agenda for city council to decide.

You know, we make a recommendation, they have the power to say yes or no, and that this is just our way.

If you know the majority of us vote this way, that we feel like it's an important enough to put on their agenda, and so um I would be in favor of that um because it's it's more than the sum of our parts, I think by by doing this.

Yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner Young.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Maybe I can back clean up here.

This being item six, which is just individual comments, not something that we're voting on, not something that was agendized.

I will simply say I think you've probably got a good sense of how people here are feeling.

Um I myself would probably ask just for a sort of a verbal update of the December 3rd, you know, I probably would ask the director that, like, hey, tell us what your latest thinking is, and that would probably be sufficient for me.

Um, because I do think it's highly relevant, but again, I think uh I don't want to create work unless that work is gonna be impactful, and I think you now know that we think it's impactful, and we you know, I myself trust you to come up with the most efficient way to help us be impactful on that, and that's it.

Great.

So then that leads to Commissioner Yen.

Oh, that's left over again.

Oh, no worries.

So, having said that, that leads to my perspective on this as chair.

So, question number one: how do we bring up something that we would like to be agendized?

What is a protocol for that?

That's the first question.

Yeah, I think the typical process is that the chair and the EPC liaison work on the format for uh the structure of upcoming meeting agendas.

Um, there is some judgment and input that may be needed from staff as to our ability to support particular requests.

I think I've tried to make myself as clear as I could that I'm not sure that I can commit to providing the update of the sort that's been requested.

And there's certainly not a range of policy options or inputs to provide to the city council at this time on the subject matter.

It's really a high level, significant policy level discussion that the city council needs to have to direct staff resources to weigh their own council work plan priorities and other housing element obligations that the city council is responsible for prioritizing and resourcing.

And so uh I think it's for those reasons I've tried to subtly indicate it, but maybe I'm being a little more forthright at this point that the message is clear, we will do what we can, but I'm I'm not able to commit to us having a particular agenda item or update at this time, given uh the myriad uh competing workload demands on staff uh that we're trying to accomplish between now and um you know Thanksgiving holiday period, Christmas, New Year holiday period, and then gearing up for the city council update uh in late January, early February.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Murdoch.

So I'm not gonna go off on a speech.

Uh just quick points.

I think we understand right now, Commissioner Crass's perspective, and the majority of the commissioners are in agreement and wanting to have some sort of update.

I think we should look at this as a learning experience, right?

Um, tonight I was off my game, and I try to get back into it because, you know, life happens.

But let's try and think about these things as a team together to try and think ahead of the uh of the what ifs because right now we're looking at the future possibilities of what if this happens sooner rather than later.

And if we have a competing city uh oh no, if we have a neighboring city like Palo Alto already on it, we missed it.

We didn't have that vision to be able to bring that into play.

And let's learn from it so that we're not in this situation again, come sometime in the future.

Because we don't mean ill intent by that.

Yeah, we understand the holidays are coming up.

And I've had a I my life has been I've been privileged to work as a paralegal at major law firms.

Hank's a JD.

I wish I would have gone to law school.

It didn't happen for you, but I do know this.

I've missed a lot of Thanksgivings, I missed a lot of holidays, did a lot of overtime trying to get this done for a high price clients so that we could win, so that we can inform them of what their options were, so that we have better informed decisions in the end and best represent their needs.

Not everyone can do that for whatever reason because we all have different paths, and this city team's staff.

I trust your judgment, and we just want to elevate the game.

We want you to help us to get to that point where we don't have a missed opportunity because the last thing we need is that have something like that, and then something comes in, and before you know it, we lost that chance to be able to deliberate and be part of what we were appointed to do, which is to get feedback to understand that feedback from the team that's who are experts, and then to present recommendations to the council as an advisory body.

And I I think we all can agree on that front.

So having said that, let's adjourn the meeting at 9 20 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.