Environmental Planning Commission Meeting - November 5, 2025

The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) met on November 5, 2025, in a hybrid format to discuss housing element implementation and other planning matters. The meeting included public comments, staff presentations, and deliberations on general plan, precise plan, and zoning amendments to fulfill Housing Element Program 1.1G. Commissioners voted to recommend the amendments to the City Council.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the February 5, 2025 meeting (Commissioner Fan abstained for the record, then the vote was corrected to 6-0-1).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Robert Cox (speaking for local Mountain View): Urged the city to adopt an SB 79 local alternative plan before the July 1, 2026 deadline to protect the downtown historic retail district, warning that failure could result in default SB 79 provisions. He requested the EPC recommend the council move forward on the alternative plan and suspend work on other plans until it is submitted.
• Bruce England (Greenspaces Mountain View / resident): Discussed an ADU proposal at 151 Calderon in an environmentally sensitive area, noting state law tied the PRC's hands. He suggested the city pursue modifications to state law regarding ADU definitions and contact state representatives about the issue.
• Zoe Martin (Varsity Park/Whisman Valley neighborhood resident): Expressed support for the housing element changes, specifically the neighborhood mixed-use rezoning at 1702/1704 Miramonte Avenue, stating it is an extension of the neighborhood and she is excited about positive change despite some neighbor concerns.
• Louis Lin (resident): Raised safety concerns about a blind curve at Leong Drive and suggested Easy Street is ripe for rezoning due to underutilized parcels. He asked how to start the rezoning process.
• Dur Music (Varsity Park neighborhood resident): Opposed rezoning at 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta, citing insufficient studies on traffic, parking, schools, and safety impacts. She noted existing accidents on Grant Road and worried about increased density affecting bike safety.
• Kristen L. (neighbor of 777 Cuesta): Opposed the proposal, stating a high-rise 10 feet from her house would eliminate privacy and light, worsen traffic safety (U-turns, lack of street parking), and increase noise. She felt information was hidden in notices.
• Anna Duran (Tulane Drive resident): Strongly opposed rezoning at 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta, arguing it conflicts with the general plan's goal of protecting single-family neighborhoods, that BTA is not a major transit stop, and that other areas (El Camino, San Antonio) are more appropriate. She asked commissioners to consider safety and existing residents' investments.
• Pradeep Bardia (neighbor of 1702/1704 Miramonte): Opposed the rezoning, noting parking problems have not been resolved and he feels forced out of his community. He asked if he could rezone his own house.
• Tajus Mystery (55 Fairchild Drive, Evondale Precise Plan Area A): Raised concerns that the 1.35 FAR for residential limits commercial redevelopment to 0.35 FAR, discouraging commercial investment. He noted hotels generate $500K in transit occupancy tax annually and questioned height restrictions near Moffett Field. He also asked about sound walls if residential replaces commercial along Highway 101.

Discussion Items

• Housing Element Program 1.1G – General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning Amendments:
  • Senior Planner Chrisha Penelar and Planning Manager Eric Anderson presented the proposed amendments, which implement the housing element rezoning. City Council had previously supported a general plan mixed-use village center approach for some sites and a flexible precise plan approach for others. Staff reviewed small business displacement options, including a zoning alternative to exclude three parcels in Evondale Precise Plan (not in site inventory) to help retain small businesses, but staff did not recommend that alternative due to reduced housing capacity. Staff recommended the EPC recommend the amendments. 12 written public comments were received.
  • Commissioner Recusal: Commissioner Dempsey recused himself from discussions on 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta (properties near his residence).
  • Deliberation on Miramonte/Cuesta and related zoning: Commissioners asked clarifying questions about process, SB 79 applicability, height restrictions (45 feet for neighborhood mixed-use), parking standards, and outreach. They noted the housing element obligations and prior city council direction. All commissioners expressed support for the staff recommendation, emphasizing that this is a zoning change only and specific project details will be reviewed later. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Dempsey recused).
  • Deliberation on remaining amendments (Transit Center, Evondale, Grant Road, Calderon, navigation easements): Discussion focused on whether to include three hashed parcels (commercial-only) in the Evondale area to preserve small businesses. Commissioner Yin expressed concern that without strong protections, small businesses may not return. Other commissioners argued that removing the parcels from rezoning would not preserve businesses but merely defer pressure, and that a citywide approach is better. Commissioner Cranston noted one business owner requested commercial density equal to residential. Ultimately, the commission supported the staff recommendation to include all parcels in the rezoning to maximize housing opportunity. A motion to recommend the amendments passed (voice vote).
• SB 79 Update Request: Commissioner Cranston requested that staff provide an analysis of SB 79 (which takes effect July 1, 2026) and its implications for the downtown precise plan, Moffett Precise Plan, and historic district before the end of 2025. Director Murdoch indicated staff is working on an update for city council in Q1 2026 and could not commit to a separate EPC item earlier. Commissioner Donahue and Yen stressed the urgency, noting that neighboring cities (e.g., Palo Alto) are already moving on alternative plans. Chair Gutierrez suggested the commission could self-educate but acknowledged the value of a formal EPC recommendation. The matter was left for future consideration; the director agreed to provide a verbal update at the December 3 meeting if feasible.

Key Outcomes

• Motion 1 (Miramonte/Cuesta zoning): Passed 6-0 (Commissioner Dempsey recused). The EPC recommends city council adopt a general plan amendment changing the land use designation for 1702/1704 Miramonte Avenue and 777 Cuesta Drive from office to neighborhood mixed-use, and adopt zoning amendments to implement Program 1.1G (including updates to commercial zones and general plan mixed-use village center standards).
• Motion 2 (Remaining amendments): Passed by voice vote. The EPC recommends city council adopt: (a) general plan amendments for Leong Drive (830-897) to general mixed-use, 677-699 Calderon Avenue to neighborhood mixed-use, 1949 Grant Road to medium-high density residential, and updates to the land use element; (b) zoning ordinance amendments for navigation easements per the Moffett Field CLUP and other clarifying changes; (c) amendments to the P32 Evondale Precise Plan to implement Program 1.1G; and (d) amendments to the P26 Grant-Martins Precise Plan to implement Program 1.1G.
• SB 79 Update: Staff will consider a verbal update at the December 3, 2025 EPC meeting, with a full analysis to be presented to city council in early 2026. No formal EPC action was taken on the request.