2026, I will call the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

For those joining us in person,

please note that due to our hybrid environment,

audio and video presentations

can no longer be shared from the lectern.

Requests to show an audio or video presentation

during a meeting should be directed

to epc at mountainview.gov by 4.30 p.m. on the meeting date.

Additionally, due to our hybrid environment,

we will no longer be having 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 in to the EPC clerk as soon as possible

but no later than the call for the 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 please proceed with the roll call.

Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Cranston?

Commissioner Dempsey?

Here.

Commissioner Gutierrez?

Commissioner Pham?

Here.

Commissioner Supermanian?

Here.

Vice Chair Donohue?

Here.

Chair Nunez?

Here.

Six commissioners are present.

Commissioner Gutierrez is absent.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Okay, we will move on to the next meeting.

Okay, we will move on to having completed item number two roll call.

We're moving on to item number three, the minutes approval.

And agenda item 3.1, the Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 1st,

2025.

Is there any EPC discussion on the meeting minutes of October 1st, 2025?

No.

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 EPC 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.

Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers either in person

with a yellow speaker card or on the Zoom?

No speakers in person or online.

Okay, thank you very much.

Would anyone like to make a motion to pass the minutes?

So moved.

So moved, do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, we've got a motion from Commissioner Dempsey

and a second by Vice Chair Donahue.

I think we're ready to take a vote on that.

Did we get all the votes?

Not mine.

Oh, sorry.

Should I take a manual roll?

Yeah, let's do that.

Okay.

Commissioner Cranston?

Aye.

Commissioner Dempsey?

Aye.

Chair Nunez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Donohue?

Yes.

Commissioner Pham?

Yes.

Commissioner Subramanian?

Abstain.

The motion passes.

Five in favor, one absent, one abstain.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey and Vice Chair Donohue.

Okay, we'll move on to item number 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.

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.

Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers

having submitted yellow cards or on Zoom?

No speakers in person or online.

Okay, perfect, thank you.

Then we will proceed to agenda item number 5.1,

public hearing on the Roadhouse Project

at 515 to 545 North Wiseman Road.

We'll first have a staff presentation,

then questions by the EPC, followed by public comment.

At the closure of public comment,

the commission will then deliberate and take action.

So we'll begin with a staff presentation

from Senior Planner Sam Hughes

and our Planning Manager Eric Anderson.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Nunez and Commissioners.

My name is Sam Hughes, Senior Planner

and Project Planner for this Rural House Development Proposal.

Located at 515 and 545 North Wiseman Road,

I'm joined by Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager.

Staff have prepared a brief presentation

outlining the project and I'll begin

by providing some context to describing the project location.

The approximately 10 acre site is located

in the East Wiseman precise plan

within the mixed use low intensity sub area of the plan.

It has a general plan land use designation

of East Wiseman mixed use.

The existing development includes two vacant office buildings,

surface parking and associated landscape

and hardscape improvements.

There's an existing 18 foot public access easement

with an eight foot wide pedestrian and bicycle trail

running north to south along the eastern property line

of the site.

The north of the site is a two story,

two building office campus, the Google Fairchild campus.

To the east of the site is a four story office building site.

To the south is a one story commercial condominium

with various commercial and light industrial service uses.

And to the west across Wiseman Road are one and two stories,

single family and multifamily residences.

The project involves demolishing the existing office buildings, surface parking and associated

landscaping and replacing that campus with a row house development that will have 195

units.

This involves a request for the following entitlements.

A planned community permit, development review permit, and provisional use permit to allow

the project as proposed.

a heritage tree removal permit to remove 139

of the 151 heritage trees on the site

and a vesting tentative map to create 30 residential lots

containing 195 condominium units and 26 common lots.

Proposed design involves 30 row house buildings,

each three stories containing a total of 195 dwelling units

with individual rear loaded garages,

a 0.24 acre publicly accessible mini park

with game space and landscaped gathering amenities

in the Southeast corner of the property,

which would be accessible through the existing

and proposed public access easements,

as well as a total of 40,275 square feet

of common open space, new streets and residential pathways,

paseos and common open areas,

as well as three new service streets

and 11 alleys that provide garage access.

Regrading and relandscaping of the project frontage

to provide stormwater treatment,

as well as frontage improvements

to meet the East Wiseman Precise Plan

street design standards for North Wiseman Road.

This project is consistent with the general plan,

East Wiseman Precise Plan and Row House guidelines.

However, in order to comply with the processing timelines

in AB 130, the project is coming before the EPC,

before a formal consistency determination

as defined in AB 130.

The applicant has proposed a BMR program

or below market rate housing program

that restricts 46 units to below market rate prices

equal to 25% of the base number of units.

28 of these units are restricted to moderate incomes

between 80 and 120% AMI consistent

with the city's BMR requirements.

The remaining 18 units are proposed

at 100% AMI average,

which does not meet the city's BMR requirements

for row homes,

but the applicant is proposing an alternative mitigation plan

under the city's BMR program.

This alternative mitigation supports the city's goal

of middle income home ownership,

which were discussed at the December 16th, 2025

city council meeting.

By offering 28 units or 15% of the units for sale to moderate income households, the

project is eligible for a 10% density bonus.

It's also eligible for one concession and unlimited waivers.

Project requests one concession for the disperse of affordable units requirement.

The affordable units would be located on the western side of the property where the units

are slightly smaller by floor area.

The project requests waivers from 20 development standards,

which are listed in the staff report.

The North Wiseman project frontage

includes four buildings with units facing the street.

The buildings are separated from the right-of-way

by a private sidewalk providing access to each building

and a bioretention basin,

which can be viewed in the images here.

This area is currently on a berm that will need to be regraded

and the existing heritage trees along this frontage

cannot be retained for this reason.

The buildings along the frontage use

intersecting symmetrical gables,

as well as stone-clad front entry features,

which are usually paired between two adjacent units,

often as a two-story accent with a standing seam metal roof.

The building materials consist of stucco, fiber cements,

shingle siding, and stone veneer,

and the buildings along the frontage

use alternating color schemes

to provide more variety in the building character.

The image on the right shows the Central Paseo

and its terminus, open recreational space,

and crosswalk across the planned A Street.

The Central Paseo will be the new publicly accessible pathway

going from the north to the south of the site.

And on the left, you can see the bicycle and pedestrian path

that runs along the east of the property

and the interplay between the proposed units

and the open area that's behind it.

Project proposes three new publicly accessible paths

to access the bicycle path from east to west.

The project has a vesting tentative map

that would create 30 residential lots

with 195 condominium units and 26 common parcels.

The slide here shows the public access easement areas

as shown on the vesting tentative map.

Those can be viewed here in light green color.

Project would remove 139 of the 151 heritage trees

at the site and remove all non-heritage trees.

The project would replace the heritage trees

at more than a two to one replacement ratio

with 282 new trees and 158 additional accent trees

for a total of 440 new trees.

The canopy area at maturity

would exceed the existing canopy area.

This map shows the various hierarchy of pedestrian,

bicycle and vehicular circulation at the site,

as well as street parking.

Project is not subject to a minimum parking requirement

and voluntarily provides 390 garage parking spaces

and 30 guest parking spaces.

Project also proposes 195 long-term bicycle parking spaces

bicycle parking spaces and 24 short-term bicycle parking spaces.

The project received feedback at one design review consultation hearing meeting in November

5th of 2025 and made some changes to its design in response.

The city received public comments about the project expressing concern about tree removals,

traffic, crime, crowding, and the environmental review.

In addition, there was a comment recommending that the below market rate units be dispersed

throughout the development.

The project is subject to the AB 130 streamline process that creates a statutory infill, urban

infill exemption to CEQA.

So the staff recommends that the Environmental Planning Commission adopt a resolution adopting

approving the project and its entitlements, as well as the proposed modifications to the

conditions of approval that are provided as a desk item, as well as adopting a resolution

to the vesting tentative map to create 30 new residential lots and the condominium units

and the 26 common lots with the proposed modifications

to attachment to exhibit A

for the conditions of approval in the desk item before you.

This concludes the staff presentation.

Staff are available for questions,

including myself and Eric Anderson, planning manager,

George Schroeder, planning manager,

and Wayne Chen, housing director,

who's available on Zoom, and Renee Gunn,

senior civil engineer with public works

and Quinn Beyer also available in person from Public Works,

and Lauren Cody, associate engineer,

who's available via Zoom.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We will look to the commission for questions now.

Well, we do have an applicant presentation.

Sorry.

Just a moment.

I'll get that queued up here.

Thank you very much.

Great. Good evening, Chair Nunez, Vice Chair Donahue,

and members of the EPC.

My name's Brian Griggs, and I'm joined with Jonathan Boriak,

who's a principal from KGGY Architects.

I'd like to first acknowledge staff.

We've worked hard over the last 10 months,

both Sam Hughes and Eric Anderson

from Community Development.

As Sam mentioned, Lauren Cody, Renee Gunn, and Quinn Beyer

are phenomenal when it comes to public works.

There's a lot to do with a flat 10-acre site

that requires their involvement.

And Housing Director Wayne Chen

and Housing Specialist Anna Reynoso,

as you tried to work through the,

and I'll discuss in a second,

the challenges of a 25% affordability requirement

and some of the challenges of AMI levels,

missing middle, that sort of thing.

We're excited to bring this to you.

We think it fulfills a part of the vision

of the East Wisman Precise Plan,

which is transitional housing

between the high density areas to the east.

Next to us, where you're going to have densities

of up to 100 units an acre, mid-rise product.

We think with a major housing single family

to the side of us, it was a really good vision

of what was done when the Precise Plan was adopted.

And while there were comments by various people

within the community that we should be doing more

on a square 10 acre site,

we think it's a good transition

for what ultimately will be built

throughout the East Brisbane Precise Plan area

with a lot of respect to the neighbors.

The key issues, I think, in front of you tonight are really, you know, the affordability, I think, as Jonathan will present in a minute.

We've tried to address a high-density site, which was zoned to 20 units to the acre.

We're coming just under that at 19 and a half units to the acre.

But also provide open space.

As one of the slides you're going to see shows, we have about one and three-quarters acres of open space,

both dedicated to the public and then private open space

for the residents within the community

who will be living there.

We are very proud and pleased to be able to present

the 46 BMR units.

We are asking for some flexibility

on some of the affordability levels,

and I'll explain that in just a second too.

But this will be a little over a threefold increase

in the 14 BMR units for ownership

that currently exist within your city.

Right now, those 14 units represent 1 10th of 1%

OF THE ROUGHLY 14,000 OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENTS.

AND WE THINK THERE IS A BIG NEED.

THE CITY STAFF DID PROVIDE US LAST WEEK.

THERE'S ABOUT 4,000,

LITTLE OVER 4,000 PEOPLE RIGHT NOW

WAITING TO PURCHASE A BMR UNIT WITHIN THE CITY.

AND WE THINK THIS PROJECT WILL REALLY OFFER

A VARIETY OF LEVELS OF AMI

AND REALLY GIVE A GOOD, YOU KNOW,

MIXED ENVIRONMENT FOR BOTH PEOPLE WHO PAY MARKET RATE,

PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE LOWER INCOME LEVELS,

AND THEN PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE HIGHER

THE MODERATE INCOME LEVELS,

WHICH IS REALLY THE MISSING MIDDLE

that everyone talks about.

I think as far as the staff presentation,

I think Sam covered everything pretty well

regarding the neighborhood meeting

and perhaps why we didn't do that.

We did spend a lot of time very early on

with Rebecca Shapiro and some of the staff folks

trying to get their input.

Some of the changes that Jonathan will talk about

reflected that.

We did voluntarily bring it

to the design review commission committee, excuse me,

and got some really good feedback from them.

I think the staff report may have included

some of the input that we received

to end up with the project in front of you tonight.

So Jonathan, if you wanna take over.

Good evening, commissioners.

Again, thank you.

I'm Jonathan Boriak from KTGY Project Architect.

I'll try to keep it brief and not redundant too much

after staff's thorough presentation.

So maybe if you go to the next slide,

just wanna talk about really some of the organizing principles

around the site and how we got to what you see

before you tonight.

Again, existing commercial site, really two story buildings

surrounded by a parking field, right?

And it's all about the East Wisman precise plan

and how you continue as a city to create pedestrian

connectivity from existing single family and multifamily

to the west across the site and across the Wisman

neighborhood to the existing transportation to the east.

You can go to the next slide.

So there's a hierarchy here.

In purple, what you're seeing are connectivity zones

that have a public access easement over them.

So those are truly public spaces along both sides

of A Street, moving west to east,

and then running north-south through that central Paseo,

as well as on North Whisman,

and to the east along that existing pedestrian

and bicycle pathway.

And then across the south, along what is now New B Street,

we have another public access easement across there.

And then the next hierarchy down you see in red

is really what we consider homeowner access

and pedestrian access for the homeowners to front doors.

And what we're trying to do is link

all of those elements together to create, right,

a good walkable grid that meets the East Wiseman specific plan.

You can go to the next slide.

Along those public access easements

is where we began to focus our common open spaces.

So these two highlighted here,

we kind of refer to as the picnic park

along the bike pedestrian access

and then the public plaza park along the central Paseo.

What you're seeing in terms of renderings,

these are a result revisions to the project design

as a result of our DRC hearing in November.

DRC felt that the existing layouts

were a little rectilinear and lacked some focal points.

So we've added curved landscape elements, seat walls,

and then articulated the trellis elements more to soften it.

They felt it was a little harsh.

It was more of a larger frame.

So bringing down more detail, more human scale elements

as a response to DRC's feedback.

So those again, serve as focal pieces

and really our approach you'll see with the mini park,

which was under the guidelines for the 0.3 acre.

But again, as Brian mentioned,

we felt in terms of neighborhood planning,

it was better to provide more common open space

spread throughout the neighborhood,

as opposed to one specific area.

You can go to the next slide.

So then on the southeast corner is the mini park.

This is 0.24 of an acre.

However, if you add in the new public access walkway

across the south and take that all the way to B Street,

you are about 0.33 acres of space.

So that, again, links with the bike pedestrian access,

meets the, I would say, the location,

the high level location that shows up within the precise plan,

and then links back to North Wisman

and to the single family neighborhoods.

So all of these together, if you go to the next slide,

equate to about one and three quarter acres

of open space spread throughout the site.

That's approximately 17% of the site.

So that really becomes then how we create this balance

as a neighborhood.

Starting from there, the next thing we did is, right,

North Wismans frontage is considered a transitional zone.

So you'll see some extra setback there.

There's height restrictions there as this transitions

to that single family neighborhood there,

as well as connections to the north.

There's a dog park, linear dog park along there.

So again, creating multiple options for people

to use these spaces in a variety of ways was the goal.

Next slide, please.

Another comment that DRC had was they wanted to see

some more connectivity along North Whisman,

specifically getting over the bioswale that exists

or that would be required along the frontage there.

So working with landscape,

we've added two additional boardwalk spaces there.

That's what the orange arrows are highlighting.

DRC did have a comment to carry that connectivity

between those buildings and across the alleyways.

So between two and three and six and seven and 10 and 11.

We opted not to do that.

In looking at how homeowners live in these neighborhoods,

those narrower through connections that cross alleyways,

it's a less safe version of connectivity through the site.

So we prefer to rely on the bigger hierarchy

of movement that we've previously presented.

Next slide, please.

And then just touching on architecture briefly,

because I think staff did not.

We've brought many projects before you all,

we've been lucky to in Mountain View.

This is looking to use some of the existing context

and materiality that we see throughout Mountain View,

but bring it to a more contemporary approach.

So we're not trying to recreate craftsmen

or mid-century or some of the great styles

that exist already and are done

during those proper time periods within Mountain View.

But board and batten siding,

wood look, fiber cement siding, stone, stucco,

and then adding some asymmetry at the roof lines

and how it turns the corner.

So this is what we call Neighborhood One.

This is a more shallow product,

allows for some more density

and gives us a variety of home sizes

as we look at a site that has 195 units,

we wanna have that variety and not just all be the same

type of row house that you're seeing.

Next slide, please.

And then this is what we call Neighborhood 2 or N2,

slightly more traditional,

but still with a contemporary approach,

brings in some standing seam metal roof accents

over the entries, carries up some of that stone

to the second level.

And then this highlights as well,

There was a comment from DRC about articulation

of the corner elements or the ends.

What you'll see on that bottom left is anywhere

where a building end faces street A or street B,

we have created a side entry and articulated that

either with a balcony deck projection above

or a frontage that faces that side.

So we are engaging along those sides,

something that we know this commission cares about.

And you'll see that as well in the layout

throughout the site of it's not all short ends

that face A and B.

The grid does turn so that you really get doors facing A,

facing B, North Whisman, and the bike path to the east.

That is why the neighborhood grid switches up

as you go across the site.

Next slide.

And then this is just a final rendering

of the entry view along North Whisman.

Again, showing that transition zone.

We did work to break down some of the fence massing

as a result of DRC comments as well.

So I'll leave you with this.

Again, team is here to answer any questions

you all might have.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Really appreciate that.

Yes, now we will move forward with the questions

from the commission.

The queue is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Usually I kind of like to let everybody else talk first, but I can drop out and then Paul

if you want to go.

Okay, so there was, I guess I have a couple questions for staff.

And what I want to understand, I want us to understand a little bit better this letter that we received today from Hogan Lovells,

raising the question of the AB 130 designation, whether or not that site is a Superfund site,

whether or not it should have been on the Cortese list.

That struck me as important.

And so I would like to, if I could, ask staff to tell us what they know about this question

of Superfund site status of the property, the Cortese list, and what efforts have been

made to try to confirm with DTSC whether or not it is properly off the list or not, and

therefore whether or not the AB 130 certification was properly granted.

Sure, yes.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Dempsey.

Eric Anderson, planning manager.

So yes, it is a known Superfund site.

We have been working with EPA for a long time on these sites in the MEW area.

We certainly are fully aware of the issues that exist at this site and the potential hazards that may exist for development at the site.

We've gone through this process a number of times with developers throughout the MEW area.

We have strong safeguards in place.

We have procedures in place with EPA to review projects according to the best standards for

safety, both the construction process and for residents residing in the units.

And so we've done this a number of times, and it is an established process that we have.

There are a couple of points that I want to make about the AB 130 process.

First of all, AB 130 is highly prescriptive.

It says exactly what list you must go to, and it does not give you any leeway or discretion to go outside that list for determining whether a project is eligible.

This question of verification with DTSC is, in fact, outside of that process.

It is a prescriptive process.

We are supposed to receive the list as is and process permits the way the statute intends.

And there is reasoning behind this.

The reasoning is to take these types of concerns and requirements and mitigations outside of the approval process and apply them to the building permit process.

So it's not a function of the city's entitlement decision around the project.

It is a function of how the project is designed when you start putting up walls and digging in the dirt and everything like that.

And our procedures, our conditions of approval, and our relationship with EPA is really focused on that building permit process.

So I would say that there is nothing necessarily new in this letter that calls into question our interpretation of AB 130 or our existing procedures and conditions of approval for compliance with EPA requirements.

Understood.

Let me ask perhaps a theoretical question or a hypothetical question.

if it were be, say we discover next week that DTSC hears about this and is like, oh crap,

we better go check the list. Oh, that should have been on the Cortese list. Assume that happens.

What happens then if that changes? Would there be reconsideration of, I guess maybe,

let me put my question to you a different way. If there were no AB 130 designation here,

How would the process going forward change?

If there were no AB 130 process, then yes, they would be subject to at least an initial study and mitigated negative declaration.

If, well, so the, actually, let me rephrase that.

we adopted a program level EIR with the East Wiseman Precise Plan

that theoretically clears projects under this potential significant impact with mitigations.

So this project could move forward if there aren't new potential impacts,

which is a possibility, but unlikely, that we didn't study everything.

But this project would more than likely move forward under a consistency memo under the East Wiseman Precise Plan program level EIR, which is not an exemption in the same way that AB 130 is an exemption, but it's a CEQA clearance that doesn't require the same level of review as, say, an initial study or a...

EIR. Okay. And it makes sense that you've worked with this property and adjoining properties. I

understand that Superfund site is pretty large. And so you've been here before. You've seen this

before. So what I'm taking away, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that even if this site were on

the Cortese list, even if that were true, the presumption would be that there's an alternative

process that this property would go through that's maybe a little bit longer, but not substantially

and you've done that many times

and you kind of know how that story ends.

That's not exactly a legal way to put it,

but am I generally getting the gist right?

I think that's a good summary, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That's it, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey.

Commissioner Donohue.

Mr. Donohue.

Okay.

That was a good question.

That was something I was wondering about.

Another thing I'm wondering about is that

it says the applicant is required

to dedicate one acre of land or pay a fee in lieu thereof

to offset the burden the additional residents

will place on the city's parks and recreational facilities.

Fair market land value is $9.5 million,

but then through some formula that involves

the city's pre-existing parkland deficit

and the population of the city,

the applicant is being asked to pay

about $4.25 million,

dollars, which at nine and a half million dollars an acre buys less than half an acre,

which is less than half of what I think is required under chapter 41 of the municipal

code.

Looking at 41.9, it just says dwelling unit, acreage per dwelling unit times number of

dwelling units times the fair market value of the land.

I don't see anything about proportionality,

so I'm kind of wondering where that whole calculation

came from.

I think our public works staff haven't, oh, sorry.

Our senior assistant city attorney has.

Selena Chen on behalf of the city attorney's office.

So the calculation of the parkland dedication

and loot fees needed to be adjusted

in light of a recent Supreme Court decision,

U.S. Supreme Court decision,

sheets versus county of el dorado this was in 2024 and under this decision the fee has to satisfy

nexus and rough proportionality standards so in other words the fees have to be roughly proportional

to the specific impacts of the the additional residents in the that are generated by the

development and the impacts that those new residents place on the city's parks and recreational

facilities so the current calculation method does result in reduced fee

amounts these fees are based on a complex mathematical calculation that involves

factors such as the park planning area the existing number of parks or acreage

of the parks in that area the current availability of open space in that area

the net new residential units those sorts of things so I think we mentioned in

previous meetings that the city is conducting a nexus study to ensure that

the city is compliant with state law and to better align the fees with state law

requirements okay interesting yeah actually I know that Supreme Court case

about road fees and some unincorporated area of El Dorado County interesting

Okay, so, okay, I have maybe some comments on that,

but not questions.

So there's 20 waivers being requested,

and I can understand how most of them

would cause reduced density,

and so they need to be waived.

I guess I'll ask this way.

So, however, they're asking for a waiver

on the ground level plate height requirement.

And it says that that's explained in sheet A028,

but that wasn't in the packet.

So I don't understand how having a taller ground floor

would affect the density of the development.

It just seems like the development would be taller.

it would be more expensive,

but that gets into the concessions, not into waivers.

So can you comment on that?

Yeah, I think you're correct

that it probably would be more expensive.

The waiver has to do with whether the standard

physically precludes the project at the density proposed.

So if there's a physical constraint,

the physical constraint in the case made here

that they're having a higher first floor wall plate

would require a taller second floor level,

which would require additional stair riser space,

and that would take away space from potential units.

Okay, I didn't think about that, yeah, sure.

um i have just a general question about uh bmr ownership units how does that work over time like

somebody qualifies when they buy but if later they they're making more money and they don't

qualify anymore i assume that you know it doesn't get taken away from them what like what what would

happen i'm gonna let uh wayne chin who's available here on zoom tonight answer this

Thanks so much. Good evening, EPC commissioners. Wayne Chen, housing director. Yes, so unlike

BMR rental units that have ongoing annual income verifications, that just wouldn't work for an

ownership situation. So once you qualify, regardless of how your income changes over time,

you get to stay there for as long as you wish to stay there for.

If and when that BMR household wishes to sell,

then they would have to sell at specified prices

in order to maintain the affordability of the unit

and have an income-qualified home buyer at that later point in time qualify for the unit.

Okay, that's not surprising.

Okay, just wanted to clarify because I'm unfamiliar with that.

Thank you.

And I think that's my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair, Commissioner Cranston.

So while we have Mr. Chen on the line,

I am

what is

the assumption and what it takes for

a person to buy a home

the moderate income

going up to 160

and 200% AMI

surprised me

it's

I don't know what AMI is and what to

take to buy a home but that

still calling that moderate income

seemed like wow

okay um thank you commissioner that's a great question and a large part of our analysis of

the applicant's proposal was based on taking a look at the current economic conditions of

being able to afford a home in mountain review and it was also based in significant part on

a study session that was found with council at the end of december last year

That study session was related to the council priority to develop a low and middle income home ownership strategy.

And in that study session, we had conducted some analysis of the sales prices relative to the income limits that are published by the state every year.

And what we found, based on six months' worth of transactions last year, is that in order to afford a median-priced home in Mountain View, either a condo or a townhome, we're really looking at AMI levels up to 150 to 200% AMI to afford just the median-priced home.

And of course, there's a range of transactions.

And at the 120% AMI level, it was really not feasible to purchase a home, and there were no homes that were really sold within a price point that was affordable to someone at 120%, and just barely at the 150% AMI.

So in that study session with council, we had articulated a recommendation to study a middle income strategy that expanded the range that we would consider moderate income.

So moderate income typically stops at 120% AMI based on industry standards.

But based on the economic realities of home ownership, we will be studying and coming back to the city council at the end of this year to talk about a strategy that would include AMIs potentially as high as 200 percent AMI.

And so that was really informative for evaluating this particular project and really thinking about it through a middle income lens and broadening what the range could or should be simply based on how difficult it is to buy a home, even at the 120 or at the 150% AMI level.

I can pull it up if you would like, and I can do that concurrently, but I believe that the current price of a median home is about $3 million in Mountain View and is about $2.2 million, maybe $2.3 million for a townhome.

And as we look through the down payment assumptions, that's where we're bumping up to the 200% AMI, which I believe translates into about $390,000 for a household of four.

Just to give you some data points there.

I guess I live in a low-end district in Montaluma.

Okay.

Question for staff.

the...

I'm troubled by the removal

of all the... Many of the heritage

trees are... I mean, you show all these

heritage trees along B Street,

but they've all been decapitated because there's a

power line that goes along that.

The trees that are decent are the

ones that are long on Wisman.

Why is it necessary for

the stormwater retention basin to be

in an area where we could

retain the trees? It just seemed

a crime to me to lose all

those trees along Wisman.

And then putting the stormwater retention basin there seemed like a reason to get rid

of them, but not a good reason to me.

So the project has designed it that way, and that is something that under state density

policy bonus law and under the various state laws, we have little discretion to require

modifications to design in order to address.

I can maybe look to the applicant to respond to the question about why the stormwater retention

basin may be necessary or most efficient or best suited to the project in that location.

Jonathan Boriak again. So there's there's a couple factors that are impacting that. One is

the transition zone and the setback required along North Whisman results in deeper setback

along that frontage already, as it's specified in the precise plan, to give that transition

to the single family. So we end up with more landscape and width there already required on

site. And then working with civil engineers, it is easiest, and that is the, of a flat site,

that is the lower natural direction that water wants to flow across that site. So their preference

in working with us both to maintain density

and the rest of the site

was to move bioretention along that frontage.

Okay.

This isn't so much a design question,

but maybe I've just never noticed this before.

There's 30 different residential parcels.

Is that common in a townhome development?

It's like, why is it split up into so many little pieces?

It's fairly common for condominium and townhome developments to have multiple lots and have kind of parcelization that maybe looks a little counterintuitive.

I think the reason why there's 30 of them is just because it's such a large project site.

Usually you see like two, three, four of them on smaller project sites.

This is a 10-acre site.

It's got 195 units.

hence the 30 of them.

So I'm sure the public works and fire people looked at it,

but I look at the layout of the streets

and I think how the heck would a fire engine get to a house

in some of these spots?

This was reviewed closely by the city

to make sure that trucks can get in here

and there's spots where you think you could get through that they've actually been cut off.

There's a cutoff at across A at N Alley and K Alley where you could potentially,

it seems like A is the street where you could get engines through most easily,

and then you've cut it off from some of these areas.

And it just struck me as if there's an emergency, how do the emergency responders get to the locations?

Yeah, so the question was, has the fire department and the building and safety departments, have they reviewed this?

And, you know, is the design safe?

And the answer is that they have reviewed this.

And they have given their okay with the design.

Just a little bit generally speaking about what they're looking at is the width of the dry vials and then the turning radii of those dry vials and whether an engine can turn within those spaces.

As well as the other thing they look at a lot is the ability for the trucks to turn around, to back out.

so there's kind of standard templates for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the fire and building department.

They have reviewed it and they've approved it at this entitlement level.

Okay.

And then the last question was, I thought it was interesting that the mock-up that the architect provided showed a street that has that really horrible power line on it.

Is that going to be removed as part of the project?

All the trees along the south side of the property are redwood trees that are decapitated because there's, I don't know, 10 huge power lines that go across the top of it.

Are those going away as part of this?

Are they bearing any of the utilities?

This project and Public Works is here.

They can correct me if I'm wrong.

It doesn't have any utility undergrounding.

Okay.

all right thanks thank you commissioner cranson uh commissioner subramanian

thank you chair um to follow up on a couple of the previously stated questions i just wanted to

clarify a couple more points so going back to the first question about the status of the site from

from an environmental perspective and following

the project EIR requirements,

does that mean that this project

just follows the testing and

project EIR requirements or is any further testing

required based on the DTSC determination?

So first off, thank you for the question.

Let me clarify that the DTSC,

the Department of Toxic Substances Control,

really only enters into this conversation

in their role around listing sites for exemption

or lack thereof through the AB 130 process.

This site is actually managed by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

They have very clear rules and procedures about what kinds of testing needs to be done

for what kinds of new land uses that may be proposed on a site.

And along with that, they have a very extensive ongoing testing and monitoring program,

including wells, you know, groundwater wells throughout the area,

and mitigation programs and pumping programs and all kinds of other programs that are ongoing

and currently installed throughout this very large interconnected area of multiple Superfund sites

called the Middlefield Ellis Wiseman or MEW study area.

So there are established procedures.

We are not experts on those established procedures by any means.

we defer to EPA on those established procedures,

but we are in communication with them

about when those procedures need to be carried out

before key approval timelines.

So before they get their building permit,

EPA needs to review their building permit plans

to make sure that vapor barriers are as required.

Any active pumping of groundwater vapor

is proposed to be installed as required.

And then throughout the construction process,

there is monitoring of newly constructed interior space.

And then before occupancy,

there's testing of newly constructed units

to make sure that there are no vapor intrusion pathways.

So this process is very well established.

Again, I don't know all the details

of the testing and monitoring and requirements and science behind it all but we've done this

a number of times for similar projects in this area thank you my next question was about just

consistency with some of the design standards and objectives that were laid out in the east

Wiseman precise plan so the first question relates to there was a street

grid proposed and I I don't know to what extent that was sort of set in stone and

in a very good fashion but there seemed to be a street grid proposed with a

street that was adjacent to this property on the eastern side and I think

I remember reading a reference to the project opting not to perform or go through with that

street improvement just because this allows them more density and more site area to put

more units on.

So my question relates to what the impact of not putting in that stretch of street is

on the rest of the precise plan.

I believe our public works staff is prepared to answer that question.

Thank you.

RENEE GUNN, RENEE GUNN, Good evening Chair, Vice Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Renee Gunn.

I'm a Senior Civil Engineer in the Land Development Department.

So you are correct in the fact that Street A is laid out in the Precise Plan to be halfway

on this parcel and this applicant has requested a waiver to not do that dedication.

That is in particular for this project that they've asked for the waiver.

As other projects come in, we will still be asking for dedications for part of Street

A.

Other projects may still have waivers to ask for.

But as these projects come in, we'll continue to look at what Street A looks like in the

future.

It may not look exactly like it does right now, like what's in the PRECISE plan, but

we do have bike and ped access currently, and we'll continue to have that.

And that was the key portion of the PRECISE plan that was needed to make sure we built

a neighborhood that had porosity for bicyclists and pedestrians.

So to clarify, was Street A mostly intended to be a network for bike and pedestrians or

also vehicular traffic?

It was intended to have vehicular traffic on it also, but that vehicular traffic was

intended to be deliveries, local traffic, trash truck, things like that. When we studied the

traffic impacts as part of the larger precise plan, we did not include any of the new streets

in the traffic model. We really expect the large-scale traffic to work on the existing streets,

and these are like little local commuter streets.

Understood, that was the main intent behind my question.

So thanks for clarifying that.

So my next question perhaps is along the same lines,

which is thank you Commissioner Donahue

for clarifying the park fee, the in lieu fee.

But I also wanted to ask, and maybe this is tied

to more a development impact fee

as it relates to the East Wiseman precise plan.

but given that the mini park which was also

construct of the park design for the precise plan is

reduced compared to the size that the precise plan required

So is there a

an impact fee that is being calculated as a result of the

reduced neighborhood park and the offset of a

a portion of the proposed street a

no there's no fee based on the precise plan requirement they are legitimately allowed a

waiver from that requirement however they are also not entitled to a fee reduction

to their parkland dedication fee based on the provision of that open space

So the parkland dedication fee is the other calculation that was discussed earlier.

That's right.

Yes.

My next question has to do with the BMR units, particularly the moderate.

As Director Chan pointed out, the AMI for Santa Clara County is 195,200.

So a 200 percent AMI.

That's 390,000.

So for a family of four that computes to a home price of 2.3 million, which is right

there in line with what he said was the median price of townhomes in Mountain View.

So I'm kind of struggling to understand why creating more units at that moderate band,

which is kind of hitting close to where the market is, is actually creating more BMR units

that would not be available on the market.

I will defer to Wayne Chen on this question.

Yes, thank you very much for the question.

If you can give me a moment, I'm going to double check

some of the assumed pricing that we've been working

with the applicant about what the price ranges might be.

So if you can give me a moment, I can come back

to provide a little bit more information

based on the way that the BMR program

would prescribe how these prices are calculated.

So if you can bear with me,

I'll let staff know that.

I'll have some information in a moment.

One more question along those lines.

Just wanna understand better,

given that we're looking at such high price points,

what happens if there aren't buyers

are specifically qualified based on their income family size for that particular size of unit

does the income get adjusted to a different band

uh yes thank you for that follow-up as well we have and did have conversations with the applicant

as well in terms of marketability of the units their market assessment is that there would be

be sufficient buyers at the price points at those income levels. Certainly, the lower the price

points and the deeper the AMI levels are, you would have a larger pool or you would have a lot

of demand at those lower price points. And so ultimately, it would be up to the developer to

find the buyers and then potentially lower the prices.

That's not a scenario that we've talked about, but I believe that would be something that

would be supported by the city.

Ultimately, we've only had 14 VMR units in supply, and there's always a lot of demand

for that.

These units would be at a higher price point, so it would be a unique set of units, but

applicant believes that there is demand at those prices.

One last question on the BMR issue.

I saw some mention about equity sharing agreement upon sale of the unit.

Can you elaborate on that, what that structure is?

The BMR ordinance requires, and just to clarify, this would be for

for a household that resells the unit at a later point in time?

That's correct.

Great.

So the way that the BMR program is structured

is that there are three thresholds that get compared

and it's essentially the lowest of the thresholds

that the unit is sold at.

But to keep it simple,

the BMR unit needs to be affordable to a household at that income range at some future point in time.

If there's a comparison, for example, if the market is down and maybe the market price happens to be lower than what the income limits would suggest,

then the market price becomes the lower price point.

but our BMR program in the city doesn't have the typical equity share that

other cities might might structure it and those equity share situations usually

a household can sell the unit at market the city gets back a portion of

of the proceeds but that's not the way it's structured here so you might be referring to

just the way we calculate the future sales price to ensure that the affordability is retained on

the unit. No, I was referring to it because I saw it, I think, in the resolutions. There was a

reference to upon future sale that there would be an equity sharing agreement, which is why

I was curious to understand that. Let me also do this. I will pull up that resolution and just try

to identify it, and then when I have some more information about the sales prices as well, I

can let staff know.

Okay, thank you.

And last question.

This is with regards to just circulation around the site.

I noticed that there were some zones marked for loading, drop-off and distribution.

And so I wanted to understand what the intent and maybe the architect, this is a question

better posed to the architect, what the intent was.

Is that meant to be the only zone where move-ins and move-outs happen, or are the trucks kind

of imagined that are just going around all the sites, all the streets, as well as Amazon

trucks are circulating on all the streets?

But what is the intent of these loading zones?

Yeah, it's precisely to help alleviate what we see these days with delivery drivers, both

food, Amazon, parcel delivery. We're finding more and more that if we can allow for designated zones

within a community, right, that it leaves some of those fire lanes, emergency lanes, traffic lanes

open so trying to spread that out and then centralized mail as well adjacent to that

park plaza in the middle.

Thank you. Thank you, Jay.

Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Pham.

I only had one question regarding the neighborhood meetings. I was wondering why the

applicant declined to conduct a neighborhood meeting for the project.

The feedback we got from staff was really valuable.

We didn't show you the earlier iterations,

but as far as circulation,

and then we elected to come to the design review commission,

committee to try and get feedback and kind of perfect it.

KTGY and CBG, who's the civil engineer.

We asked them to not absolutely maximize the site,

but we wanted to have a density

that was commensurate with what was envisioned.

The aesthetic aspects of colors, doors,

the heights are all consistent at three stories.

And I think in this instance,

we thought having 10 or 15 or 20 or 50 other people

who might come across and have different opinions,

we're confident of what we're delivering

will be accepted in the marketplace.

We think aesthetically it's good.

There's flexibility and variety.

That's why we declined.

Okay.

So I'll ask questions.

I'm just gonna follow up on that.

Did staff actually recommend to a developer

that it wasn't really necessary to have the community meeting?

If I understood that correctly,

did staff, hold on, please, did staff, yeah, I guess.

Yeah, I'll keep elaborate on that.

What I believe is that the applicant is saying

that the feedback they receive from staff on design,

not a recommendation on a community meeting.

Do you wanna please just elaborate on that?

I just wanna make sure I understood.

No, to be clear, staff encourages

to have the neighborhood meeting.

I'm sorry if I misspoke to the contrary.

All right, I actually did have questions for you as well,

just based on, I actually appreciated

Commissioner Fram's question

because it kind of just set the table

for the kind of questions I was gonna have.

Obviously with the AB 130 and a lot of the kind of state law

changes that are ongoing, there's a shifting dynamic

between the discretion and control

that municipal governments processes have

in terms of whether or not your projects can move forward.

I'm presuming this isn't your first rodeo

on this front, right?

I guess I'm just kind of curious and obviously,

I can't put you under oath,

but to the extent we can be candid with each other.

I guess I'm just kind of curious in your mindset

or you as a person in this enterprise, in this field,

how does that kind of like shift your mindset

in terms of how you engage with the recommendations,

guidance, the staff members that you're working with

from the city perspective across the state?

Can you just elaborate on your approach

and how this may or may have not,

or in what ways has it kind of shifted?

That's a good question.

Certainly the state housing laws give developers

the opportunity to, in many ways, do what they want to do.

And the success of a development is at the end,

when a development is financed,

it can be actually constructed.

If you look at Mountain View,

you've had numbers of six to eight story buildings

THAT CAN'T BE FINANCED.

DELIVERY OF HOUSING AT THE END OF

THE DAY I THINK IS WHY THE STATE

DECIDED TO GIVE DEVELOPERS MORE

FLEXIBILITY AND TAKE OUT

DISCRETION.

HAS IT SWUNG A LITTLE BIT TO THE

OTHER EXTREME?

SURE.

I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE PROJECTS

UNDER BUILDER'S REMEDY OR OTHER

PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE ARE USING

WAIVERS TO SUDDENLY SAY I WANT TO

GO SIX STORIES EVEN THOUGH THE

ZONING SAYS FOUR?

DO I WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING

THAT LOOKS LIKE A HOTEL SIX WITH

A BUNCH OF PUNCHED WINDOWS?

or we actually build something that you can be proud of,

that you have a reputation of, you bring in good architects.

And in this case, these need to be sold.

And so we are trying to design a product with a density

that ultimately will be sold.

The first key and part of the reason staff's been

so collaborative with us on the BMR

is we wanna provide those 46 units.

But if we provided those 46 units

at what the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance stipulates

right now, this project could not be financed

and it would not be constructed.

So we're trying to find that fine medium

of delivering something that is aesthetically pleasing,

that perhaps does take a lot of the opinions.

And I respectfully didn't do the,

not do the neighborhood meeting

because I wasn't concerned about people's input.

I think it was more just trying to,

once you start a process,

if that process can be completed

as the city has been able to do in this case in a year,

that helps make projects viable.

Because when you own a piece of property

and you don't know if it's gonna take you a year,

18 months, two years, three years to get something done,

that every month that goes on that you're carrying that property makes it that much more difficult

to pencil. And in the financing that's available today, you're lucky to get a 60% loan. So you have

to go raise money for the other 40%. That's very expensive because people can invest in the stock

market. They can invest in all sorts of other things. And so investing in real estate, especially

in Mountain View, you know, is attractive. But you also have to have somebody at the end of the day,

you know as Eric already said the EPA we've got a lot of uncertainty and we we've already met with

them several times we have a lot of conditions of approval and putting vapor barriers in putting

active you know systems in place and so it's not everyone looks around and says well Mountain View

is so desirable but you know if you look back the last five or six years nothing's really been built

as far as this where it's home ownership.

And so having the ability to come

and try and respectfully say,

this is what we think is a great project,

but take away that someone doesn't like

a black window versus a white window,

doesn't like a red door versus a green door.

Those are the things that I think you try

and thread the needle, so to speak.

I mean, unfortunately for,

I imagine in your guys' position,

you're gonna see some projects that feel like,

hey, this isn't what we really vision.

And what we're trying to do is deliver a project

that even if we had gone through another six months,

even if we had had community meetings,

if we had gone through six or eight iterations of design,

we're all gonna be proud of.

But at the end of the day,

we're gonna have to find 195 buyers.

And we're confident that the project in front of you

will meet that.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

And just between us,

where I would imagine far more on the pro-development

and growth side of maybe other kind of like,

whether appointed or electeds that maybe you've worked with.

And so for me, I guess like the aesthetic element,

the material, like all that, at the end of the day,

I think people need a place to live,

but I also am just kind of curious about the safety element

of where they're living as well, right?

and there are matters of, I guess terms

like environmental racism, et cetera,

to whatever stock you put in that.

It also can be smart business to not have

that risk kind of carry through and be found out later.

So I guess I'm just curious,

because we did get that letter

that Commissioner Dempsey had touched on earlier,

and I'm kind of curious if you could walk us back

to some of the earlier stages

when you were either identifying, scoping,

or getting about, thinking about this project,

to what extent did the due diligence element

either identify or account for some of the

Superfund contamination?

Like at what stage was this something

that you became aware would be some form of risk

as far as this project goes?

And kind of like what controls

or what actions did you take?

Because of what I'm trying to get a sense of,

is this letter a surprise, right?

I can't imagine it would be,

but I'm hoping that you could kind of walk us through

what that was like at the earlier stages

when you found out about this.

Be happy to.

May 28th of 2025 was our first meeting

with the consultant for the responsible party.

We've had two or three meetings with them.

We've had a collaborative meeting with them

with the EPA.

They do have certain responsibilities

because of the contamination.

We've tried to work with them collectively

on submittals to the EPA to make sure

they're approving of it.

We have discussed some sort of cost responsibilities

that what we would incur, what they would incur.

Those discussions haven't gotten very far.

For them to give you a 23 and a half hour letter

the day of is very surprising.

given that we had these meetings

and went to them and said we want to collaborate.

There's certainly issues here.

And so, you know, as far as the process we're going to follow,

the city, as I think Eric had said,

has really protected both the future residents,

the occupants, the children, the families, everyone else.

Because if the EPA doesn't sign off on everything

and they don't test and they don't approve it,

this project will not be occupied.

It will not start construction.

And so as far as health and safety and issues, I think the belt and suspenders are in place.

Do we know it's going to cost money? Yes.

Do we have a dispute with the landowner?

And is that why they gave you a six-page letter? Yes.

Okay.

And I guess within your own experience in this field,

do you have experience in developing on sites like this?

or any of your partners experienced in matters like this

in terms of projects you've successfully completed in the past?

Or what's your capability of engaging with issues like this?

Personally, not high.

Do I have a lot of good consultants that I've worked with that I trust?

Absolutely.

Have there been development on Superfund sites?

For sure.

In this particular case, I think it's 130 acres,

and we're 10 acres of it.

And you can imagine the focus that this is getting by that responsible party who has 120 acres behind us that may be converted to residential.

And so I think this is probably a little bit of a case where they're going to look at it and say, well, you know, is the domino going to fall next door?

Is it going to fall down the street?

I think from the city's perspective, this was all analyzed.

This party came forth during the environmental impact report when the East Brisbane Precise Plan was established.

they knew exactly what the zoning of this was.

And so to come now and protest residential

when it was previously presented, reviewed, analyzed,

the safeguards were put in place

by the Environmental Protection Agency

to make sure that health and safety

was never gonna be compromised.

I think that's the issue at hand.

Thank you.

And last question for you here.

I guess in terms of the matter of the heritage trees,

Did you guys try to save it?

Did you try?

We did not.

We could, it would have compromised density.

Did you even like think for,

like was there a moment where you went,

okay, we're hearing this.

Just be honest, like was there a moment

where you were like, oh, they're saying this.

Let's at least see, let's, you know,

put another variable in the Excel

and see what comes out of that.

Did you at least try that?

Yes, we actually looked at whether certain trees

could be relocated on site.

there are some beautiful trees on that site.

There's no question about it.

But when you're trying to work around the ability

to construct close to a tree

without being too close to the tree

and hope that tree is gonna survive,

it just, it became, especially with the way that

in order to get the density, it was laid out rows.

And you can tell by looking at the plan,

trying to work around a tree was any particular tree

or 10 trees.

Thank you.

And I'm sure I can trust in your Excel skills.

So then I guess to staff, I do have a few questions.

then around that desk item.

Thank you for educating me on desk items last week.

I really appreciate that.

Or I guess a couple weeks ago.

Really quick question.

Did you have an opportunity to kind of, you know,

make those changes in collaboration with the applicant

or did you not have time for that as part of the desk item?

Yeah, we have a process

when we are putting together the conditions of approval

where we allow the applicant to review them

and see if they have any comments.

So the desk item is a result of that kind of back and forth

on the conditions of approval.

All right, perfect.

And so then I noticed that there were a few changes in particular

around some of these contamination matters,

so like the vapor barrier, if I'm understanding correctly,

I think there was also one where it was like not a city standard, like the EPA, like there shall be some EPA testing.

and I think there were some particular modifications

that would have seemed to almost kind of like,

without knowing how the sausage is getting made,

almost be impelled by the letter that came from that legal firm.

So I guess I'm just kind of curious.

It sounds like the applicant had a chance to review

and be engaged on those,

and I just want to make sure I'm checking with staff.

if those are enforceable,

like we're pretty good on those desk item changes

as per addressing some of this contamination matter?

Yes, we have confidence that our conditions are enforceable.

They are related to health, life, and safety,

which is fully within our purview to enforce.

And then I'll just also add that we did prepare this desk item

before we received the letter.

So as I said earlier, we didn't receive,

We didn't see anything in the letter

that would change any of our findings,

and it did not prompt these edits to the conditions.

Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

And so then that means that,

unless I'm super making stuff up in my mind,

certificate of occupancy sounds like a thing,

or something to that effect, if I'm reaching back in there.

The city has discretion, right?

So for example, this new state law regime,

highly constrains the ability for the city

to get in the way of applications being approved

and or construction permits getting issued.

But my understanding is that there's not that same level

of discretion that's been taken away

from the city certifying safety of human occupancy.

So it sounds like, so I'm wondering like,

A, is that the case?

And just in terms of assuring that, you know,

if and when we have new housing stock,

that we are also ensuring that people are moving

into a relatively safe setting.

The city at that point,

even though there are nice, wonderful buildings

and housing units ready to go,

if the cleanup isn't sufficient to assure human safety,

then a certificate of occupancy won't be issued

and until it's safe for human habitation.

Is that a lever that is still in existence

or am I kind of like misguided here?

Yes.

Throughout the process,

whether it's prior to permit issuance

or prior to certificate of occupancy,

the applicant is going to be required

to coordinate and get approval from the EPA.

And then there will be, the EPA has its own procedures

for reviewing and monitoring to make sure that it's safe.

We also have our own inspections,

which are only building code, life safety related.

They're not really, they don't have,

we don't have the purview of the EPA,

but the EPA does kind of the environmental

and the vapor barriers

and the site mitigations that are needed

related to the MEW study area.

And so prior to permit issuance,

we look to see that the EPA

has taken the necessary steps that they're ready to issue the permit as

well as during construction we have a strong working relationship with them

if I may add you know the desk item which shows the conditions of approval

already but our standard conditions already bacon you know those kind of

requirements like the vapor barrier it's required during building permit

remediation and the preliminary endangerment assessment

is required before the first occupancy can be issued.

So we have built that in already in the standard conditions.

Perfect, so it sounds to me like the public

can be resting assured that there are controls

and mechanisms in place to enforce human safety

and that the applicant has a lot of reasons

and dollars why they would want to ensure that as well.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other questions from anyone on the commission?

No, no.

We will proceed.

If I may through the chair,

it looks like there were some unanswered questions

from Mr. Wayne Chen for commissioner questions.

I believe he's now ready to answer those.

Thank you.

Yes, thanks so much. So there were a couple of questions regarding the potential sales

prices of the BMR units. And the ranges that we are calculating for the three-bedroom units

would range from just under $1.3 million to about $1.6 million. So still below the average

market sales prices. The four bedrooms, of course, are bigger, so the prices would be a little bit

higher, just under $1.4 million. And I'm referring to the 160% AMI level up to just under $1.8 million

for the 200% AMI level. So still at a discount to the sales prices that we're seeing.

I also wanted to flag another benefit of the BMR units is that oftentimes to be competitive

on the open market, you would have to bring, say, 50% of the down payment or even buy all cash and

be involved with bidding wars. And so the BMR program assumes a 20% down payment for these

levels, and it wouldn't require someone, in fact, it wouldn't even allow someone that can pay all

cash to buy this because that would mean that they would have some means. So those are at least two

benefits for the BMR units, lower price points, and a reasonable down payment amount.

The second question was regarding, I believe, a reference in the resolution related to equity

sharing, and I was able to find that citation, and that citation is referencing a state code

that is related to the calculation of the affordability prices, and it says it's subject

TO AN EQUITY SHARING AGREEMENT AS WE IMPLEMENT IT HERE IN THE CITY WE DON'T USE AN EQUITY SHARING

AGREEMENT SO THAT PART OF THE PROVISION WOULD APPLY IF ANOTHER CITY HAD AN EQUITY SHARING

COMPONENT TO THE PROGRAM THEN THAT WOULD LIKELY APPLY IN OTHER CITIES BUT NOT IN THE WAY WE

IMPLEMENT IT HERE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER IF

YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION DIRECTOR CHEN JUST A QUICK

question on the last point you made so if Mountain View doesn't have an equity

sharing agreement is it correct to on is my understanding correct that the

homeowner then gets to take the whole upside should there be an increase in

the value of the home at sale given the prevailing AMI yeah it would be based on

on these lower of the three threshold provisions.

So it would be the lower of market price,

the lower of a price that's adjusted by inflation

or the lower of whatever would be the affordable level

that is at that same income level.

That same income level over time

is still gonna get adjusted higher.

But our BMR program is essentially really set up to maintain the affordability of the unit, even if it changes hands over time.

Typically, equity share programs, as you may know, are set up so that the unit can be sold at market.

The equity share is captured, but that affordability for that unit is gone.

The equity share is invested in another unit, but the approach that Mountain View has is a different one.

it's to maintain and preserve the affordability of the housing stock.

So that's why we don't have it structured that way under an equity share program.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Donohue.

I have hopefully a quick question.

These are affordable in perpetuity, not for some fixed period of time?

That's correct, in perpetuity.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

No, okay, all right.

Let's proceed with public comment.

Anyone in attendance would like to provide comments

on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card

and provide it to the EPC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment

on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom

or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone having submitted

the other speaker cards or in the Zoom queue?

I don't see anyone online.

We do have one in-person speaker.

Oh, it looks like we have one online so far.

Okay, all right.

So in-person speaker is Alex Andrade.

Thank you very much.

I think, can we get the clock for the three minutes on

before we start?

Thank you very much.

As mentioned, my name is Alex Andrade.

I am a resident of Mountain View since 2003.

And I live on Devonshire, just down the street from the proposed project.

And I'm really here under two hats.

One as a resident and one as an economic development professional.

So I want to make two points.

Number one, thank you to the planning commissioner who talked and asked the question about

the community engagement. That was one of my thoughts. The staff report clearly states that

city staff recommends that the applicant host a community meeting. However, while not mandatory,

the applicant opted to not have a community engagement meeting. So this is somewhat a

rhetorical question, but why would the applicant who wants to be a partner with the city and the

community members that live nearby not provide an opportunity for the community to learn and ask

questions about the project. And so before I get to my second question, I'll just pause and let you

sit on this or with this. Is this or is this not a public process? My second point here is, as I

mentioned earlier, I'm kind of here at the intersection of being a housing advocate,

specifically an affordable housing advocate, but also wearing my economic development hat

because I've worked at various cities in Silicon Valley, actually including this city,

just to be fully transparent.

With respect to the development team, I have recently started getting better informed about the residential project.

So I just want to say I may not have all the information about the process.

And really, I'm not here to say I'm supporting the project or I'm against the project, but I think it's really important wearing my economic development hat that every decision that you make on land use and zoning does have a fiscal component to it and a fiscal impact to the city.

So we're looking at a site that at one point was a pretty vibrant employment and activity center.

Today, that's not the case.

Since the pandemic, this area has likely been a depreciating asset.

And as the applicant indicated, it's a pretty simple formula.

If it pencils out, the project moves forward.

If it doesn't, then that's it.

But if the project moves forward, there's a fiscal impact to the city.

These new residents, and I don't know how many, but I'm sure it's hundreds of residents,

and I've got to make this quick because I only have a few seconds,

they're going to require public facilities, infrastructure, and that comes with a cost.

So I would say to the city to make sure that you fully understand the fiscal impact of this project.

If a fiscal impact analysis has not been done, maybe that's something you should take a look at

so that the city's not left holding the bag.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much for your commentary.

Madam Clerk, we have, I believe, Zoom.

One speaker online, Stephanie Chen, you should be able to talk now if you unmute.

Hi. I just wanted to say as a local neighbor to the area, I live basically on Wisman and Walker,

and my family and I oppose this project because we were just aware of it two months ago as we take our daily walks.

We saw the signs posted, and it was just to our surprise.

And I guess we're just frustrated with the whole process, knowing that this happened out of nowhere.

Again, the neighbors were not notified of any of this.

It's going to cause a lot of traffic to our neighborhood with all the high-density housing.

And just getting rid of the heritage trees, again, that provide a lot of shade.

and their beautiful trees, just getting rid of them is just kind of like, well, what happens to,

you know, the local wildlife and just maybe you could just not build as many houses. We've lived

here for over 20 years and this is just a big disappointment to our area. And I really wish that

the community was more involved in this.

I think that's pretty much what I wanted to voice

to everyone there.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any other speakers?

No, there's speakers.

Okay, all right, having no more speakers.

We will proceed to EPC deliberation and then action.

Anyone on the commission like to take a stab

at sharing their initial commentary?

Commissioner Subramanian.

Thank you, Chair.

I will start off by commanding the applicant

for really trying to intensify the density on the site.

and fitting in as many housing units.

As we always say, we need all the housing we can get,

so please bring it to Mountain View,

and we're grateful that we're able to build up as much density

that's in accordance with the vision that was set out

for the East Wiseman Precise Plan.

So I want to make a note of that.

That said, I think you've heard it loud and clear.

Community engagement is always a good thing.

I don't think it adds months, days, probably a few hours at best, but it is, it's a good

way to build goodwill with your neighbors, future neighbors, and to make sure that you

have all the support, even if it's not required under the newly mandated state process.

So I highly encourage you to consider that on this project and going forward.

I also want to make a point about some of the things that were noted around heritage tree preservation.

I think, as Commissioner Cranston pointed out, there are the best heritage trees that are located closer to the sidewalk on Wiseman.

So if at all it is possible to rethink within the bioswale design a method for preserving

the four or five trees that are in the best condition as noted in the Arborist report.

I think that would also go a long way in holding on to some of the best components of the site.

And then my last point that I wanted to make is around the BMR units.

you to Director Chan for bringing back all that detail but I do want to point

out that it's an interesting problem that in the in in the tone of creating

the missing middle the missing middle is not so much the middle in Mountain View

at 200% AMI and you know with the numbers that he provided at 1.8 million

Essentially, homeownership has been a tool for wealth creation.

And if the idea long term is to turn over these units without too much upside for the occupant or the homeowner to get in the long term,

it's a pretty big lift I think to ask for even a 20% down payment on a 1.8

million dollar townhome is 360,000 which is a lot of pocket change to put down

to buy into this program so I think this is something that we as a city need to

think about more in terms of whom we're extending the support to so this may not

be so specifically to the applicant, but a general note for how we're thinking about

developing middle-income home ownership.

And those were the comments I wanted to make.

Thank you, Commissioner Sivramanian.

Any other commissioners would like to—yep, Commissioner Cranston?

When we put together the East West and Precise Plan, this is the kind of thing we were hoping

for was getting residential in this area.

I think a lot of thought was put into the standards that were put in place at the time

and the reasoning behind those.

And so while the fact that these are three-bedroom and four-bedroom units, I'm all for that.

My kind of general comment for staff is nothing more.

Okay. A concession and 20 waivers is like, I was shocked. Okay. They're not, they're,

none of them are like egregious, but there's a lot. And the design of the precise plan had

things thought in mind, how these would work, how things would fit into the area. And I can't

change all these, but I know other developers have come forward and said, give me a 10-year

development agreement. I would say tell Council at least one commissioner says no. Okay. They

submit it. They get what they the normal process and they need to live within that because they're

already in my mind going well beyond what I would have expected on these things. Like Commissioner

Subramanian I would love to see some of those trees along the front saved. A lot of the ones

are listed as heritage trees. I drove around the property for a while and like that's a heritage

tree but the ones along east westman they're their heritage trees so try to find some way

to go after that but um in general i mean it's it's in in general it's in line with the precise plan

um i understand why you did what you did and so i'll support the project but uh

nothing past that is my would be my message

Mayor Redekop.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Something quick and then something hopefully a little bit quick.

Given the discussion that we had tonight, spurred clearly by this very late hit Hogan

letter, which by the way I recognize that letters come in super late, that's not always

the best way to do things.

would have been really helpful is if there had been some discussion in the

staff report about the Superfund nature of the site. I think I was that the the

letter hit me the way that it did because I didn't actually grok that that

was a Superfund site. So I think when it goes to council just please have some

coverage in the staff report about that and I think you said then you sort of

inoculate people from being surprised. So there's a comment I want to make and I

I say this recognizing I don't really want to lay it at the door of the applicant.

This is actually sort of a macro, something I've been struggling with for a while,

and it's sort of one of the perhaps unintended consequences of the density bonus law.

But I guess I have an increasing discomfort with where BMR is headed.

Like when I look at the way that, and again, for the applicant,

they're trying to optimize for what's permitted under the law.

That's like their fiduciary duty.

I have no criticism of that.

But I will use this particular case to demonstrate something that's making me uncomfortable.

So when we look at the way the BMR is handled here, there was literally a special class of, not apartment, but unit that's like 20 to 25% smaller than the rest, specifically created for BMR.

They made 40, and all 40 are going to BMR.

And they're like 300 square feet smaller than the next smallest unit.

And I understand the economics for that, and I don't criticize that.

But my understanding was of the BMR, the entire BMR program is that we wanted inclusionary housing.

We wanted, when we were going to do BMR, we want everybody mixed together so you could hardly tell.

I remember years ago we would have conversations about where the BMR units would be in a development,

and we really wanted them scattered all over so you couldn't really tell.

There wasn't like a specific building where all the, you know, the BMR kids lived.

Because that kind of terrifies me, if I'm being honest.

Like if anybody who grew up in the 70s and 80s, you might remember here in California that if you had subsidized lunch, you had a different color lunch card.

And all the other kids knew who had subsidized lunch.

They knew.

I know people now for whom that memory is burned in their brains 40 years later.

That stigma is very, very real.

And so when I look at this, we have literally a separate class of unit for BMR.

My understanding is, and I didn't see it on a map, I would be interested to see it at some point,

that there is a pretty heavy clustering of the BMR units in, I think it was neighborhood one.

I don't know where this ends.

That's my concern because density bonus means you can kind of,

they can kind of just say, hey, look, it's how it pencils out.

This is what we get.

And if we end up in a world where BMR means special extra small units all put

in one little building off in a corner, I think we failed our community.

But I don't see what is going to stop us sliding towards that because I keep

seeing this in proposal after proposal after proposal that there is a density bonus law

application. And so again, thank you for the forbearance of me bringing this up, which is a

this is a systemic problem. So it's not just the applicant. I don't mean to critique the applicant

for it, but this is bothering me. And I don't have any power really as an EPC commissioner,

let's be honest, right? All I can really do, the only thing left for me to do is try to speak for

the people that I live with and I know in Mountain View.

That's kind of all I got left.

And so on their behalf, I would simply say,

we are falling away from the spirit of being inclusionary,

and that is concerning to me.

And I hope we could find some way to kind of inch our way

back towards being a little bit more inclusionary,

because I don't like where this is headed.

Thank you for your forbearance, my friends.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Donohue.

I feel the same way.

And that, yeah, when I was reading the packet that was like my number one comment that I

really wanted to make tonight.

But you said it much better than I ever could.

I, but that's the way the rules work and unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that.

Also I mean I have other concerns about the parkland dedication, the in-lieue fees, that

stuff.

You know, unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that with the Supreme Court.

I have concerns about the heritage trees.

I used to be on the Parks and Recreation Commission,

so I think about that so that I'm into parks.

I used to be on the Urban Forestry Board,

which is really the same body.

And so the heritage trees are concerning to me,

but there's kind of nothing we can do about that.

One other thing that I'm concerned about, I guess I'm being very negative here, but

these are just, really I'm just sharing my concerns right now.

I'll get to some good things in a minute.

The Street A and the precise plan, not the Street A in the project, the fact that that's

not going to be built on this property or there's no easement for that, no provision

for that, really kind of breaks up and messes up, in my mind, the whole precise plan.

I grew up in this strange neighborhood where you could optionally have a sidewalk, and

And so there was like a house that just had a sidewalk, and then the next house didn't have a sidewalk.

And we didn't have a sidewalk, but our next-door neighbors did.

So their sidewalk just went nowhere.

It just went to the property line and just ended.

It was like, what's the point of this?

So having something like that just doesn't make any sense.

And I'm afraid that basically this is going to just kind of scuttle that whole street and that thing that was so carefully planned in the precise plan.

I do have also some concerns about the lack of the community meeting and as Commissioner

Subramanian said, it's just goodwill.

You know, there was a public speaker tonight who was talking about lack of a meeting and

I think that that's spend an evening,

hear what people have to say, get some feedback,

and then it doesn't reflect,

then the staff report doesn't say

you didn't have a meeting.

That's kind of seen as a negative

that you didn't have a meeting.

But on the other side, I think it meets the,

generally the goal of this area of the precise plan,

it's ownership units, BMR ownership units,

I think are great.

I mean, we only have 14.

I think this is great.

This will really add to that stock.

I think that the, I do have some concerns

about the kind of the Superfund site, of course,

as everybody has said.

And of course, you know, we have to trust in the EPA

for that.

And yeah, I think that overall,

I will be supporting the project

because I think that it,

while there are a lot of waivers,

probably more than I would like to see,

I think it generally is kind of in the spirit

of the precise plan and it will bring

much needed housing to this area.

Thank you.

Any other commentary?

No?

Okay, I will make my commentary.

I'll also try to keep it brief.

Yeah, the BMR thing kind of like, kind of sucks, you know?

I mean, like, it's pretty obvious what you're doing.

And as someone who, I was going to say has grew up poor, but I might still be poor, actually.

So I understand that purchasing power is a thing.

And so I think in terms of Commissioner Dempsey,

your commentary on this being a systemic thing,

I agree and I think the solution might be

trying to plug in with our local legislators

who have been very active in advancing housing law

to maybe look at some of these less savory aspects

of the laws that have recently passed and maybe, you know, at the state level try to

require a general consistency in terms of distribution of size, quality, material, because

like you knew what you were doing, right?

Like, you know what I mean?

And so, I mean, it's almost like, you know, developers are just like economic creatures

and they're just like going to, you know, default to the floor of what they need to

do to get the pro forma to become reality.

And so along those lines, yeah, the main thing I was concerned about was just having said

that and acknowledging some of the BMR elements.

The main thing that I was concerned about and I'm concerned about is just the long-term

habitation of the site.

and it sounds like there are controls in place

and safeguards and incentives

that the public can at least have some assurance on

that will drive some addressment of that matter.

So to that end, I'm pretty, A, constrained by state law

and also supportive of the state law

and the ability for us to have more housing than less.

So I think, I don't know, to the extent there are or aren't other commentaries.

I mean, Commissioner, Subraman, go for it.

Sorry, I forgot one more point.

On the topic of trees, I also noted that given the amount of trees that are being taken away

and the new ones that are due to be or proposed to be planted,

that the canopy is pretty small at the start.

and so my request would be for the applicant to consider some more mature

grown trees to be planted in so there's at least a semblance of shade when the

project takes takes shape.

That was it.

Any other comments?

Concerns?

Nope.

Yeah to the extent that anyone would like to make a motion in that case or propose

any other form of action?

That would be the time.

Commissioner Cranston.

Commissioner Cranston would like to make a motion.

Anyone make a second?

I brought my glasses this time.

It's in the

PowerPoint

is what I should be reading, right?

You can read the blue thing.

I will second it.

If it's here.

I move that the

The Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council 1 adopt a resolution to the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving the planned community permit, development review permit, provisional use permit to construct a 195 three-story attached row house utilizing state density bonus law.

heritage tree removal permit to remove 137 heritage trees on a 10-acre site at 515 and 545 North

Richmond Road, APNS 16054002 and 16054003, and a determination that the project is statutorily

compliant exempt from CEQA under section 21080.66 of the Public Resource Code to be read in title only.

Further reading waived, Attachment 1 of the Staff Report.

With the staff proposed modifications to Attachment 1, Exhibit A, Conditions Approval 5, 14, 24, 34, 41, 47, 59, 103, 106, 118, 119, 135,

146, 157, 158, and 159.

And number two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View,

conditionally approving a vesting preliminary parcel map to create 30 residential lots

with 195 condominium units and 26 common lots on a 10-acre lot of 515 and 545 North Wisman Road,

APNs 160-54002 and 160-54003.

For condominium purposes to be written title only,

further waived, attachment 2 of the EPC staff report

with the staff proposed modifications to attachment 2,

Exhibit A conditions approvals 1 and 22.

Quick question.

Does that capture the desk item?

Yeah, okay, perfect.

Just wanted to make sure.

Okay.

And just to clarify the staff,

the presentation did have a typo.

It is supposed to be 139 heritage trees.

139 heritage trees and item number one.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Six votes yes, one absent.

Let's proceed.

All right, it looks like we're skipping from item five to item seven.

Sorry, it should be six.

Six.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commission staff announcements, updates, requests,

and committee reports.

Does anyone have announcements, updates, requests,

or reports?

Commissioner?

I have a question for the director.

I would, I think it'd be helpful for us as a commission

to understand following the discussion

at the last council meeting on the recommendations

that staff made regarding process around the AB 130 process

and what it means for project reviews in the future

and the role of the EPC.

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner, good evening, Chair, Vice Chair,

Commissioners, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. So as Commissioner Subramanian

mentioned, the City Council on January 27th considered an item related to Senate Bill 79

and Assembly Bill 130, two important statutes that affect the City's land use regulations and

development review process. The City Council provided direction on January 27th to prepare

an ordinance under Assembly Bill 130 that would create a ministerial review and approval process

for projects eligible for the statutory exemption.

So, for example, the project tonight under the new ordinance

would have gone through a staff-level review only,

given the very limited discretion associated with state housing laws

and the environmental review process.

So we are working on an ordinance to carry out that direction

for Council currently and are driving to have that

in front of City Council before their summer recess,

given the need to continue to process projects throughout the year.

One of the other elements of direction was to prepare an ordinance under Senate Bill 79 to exempt historic resources that are on the local register as of January 1st, 2025.

It's one of the allowances under SB 79 where cities can exempt those properties from application of the height, density, floor ratio, standards, and so forth.

So we are going to work on an ordinance for that as well.

The council also discussed preparing implementation standards under SB 79.

That's something that we proposed and council supported building off of the adopted R3 zoning standards when that process concludes later this year.

So that's work that will carry into 2027.

And so that's sort of the second phase, if you will, of direction from council.

And then the sort of third category that council talked about was preparing a transit-oriented development or TOD alternative plan under SB79.

Most of the discussion focused on applying that to the downtown area, specifically Area H of the downtown precise plan.

but there was some discussion and interest among council members of perhaps preparing for a broader area of the downtown

and potentially some other TOD zones that are affected by SB 79.

We have five stations in Mountain View that range from San Antonio all the way to the border with Sunnyvale.

So more to follow on that for City Council to consider at a later date,

sort of the breadth and extent of such an alternative planning process.

Thank you for that report back, Director.

So in terms of developing the ordinance for the administerial approval at the zoning administrator

level, can you share any thoughts on how the EPC might still serve as an advisory role,

if at all, and for there to be a very clear way

for the public to engage, I understand there is

a public comment period with the zoning administrator,

but is there a way where some of the visibility

that happens with items that come to the EPC

for discussion have a similar visibility in that process?

So we're still in the very early stages

of developing a ministerial approval process under AB 130.

What we did propose and council supported

was a courtesy notice.

Typically ministerial processes do not have public noticing

given there's no public hearing.

But in this case, given the unique nature of this process

and the fact that some of these projects

could be very large under AB 130 project sites

can be up to 20 acres in size.

And so some very sizable projects

could be subject to that process.

So we anticipate that this would include a courtesy notice,

similar to public notices for hearings,

that would at least ensure that the community is aware

of these projects being submitted and undergoing processing.

We're trying to find the right point

in the project review process to provide that notice.

Earlier is better,

but it needs to be after the project's sufficiently complete

in order to characterize the project accurately

for the community.

We've also contemplated trying to provide a written comment opportunity,

given there would be no public hearing.

There wouldn't be a live public comment opportunity like EPC hearings, for example.

So some sort of written comment opportunity.

So at least if we missed something or there's different ways to interpret a particular code,

there's an opportunity for the public to identify that

and for that to be considered before staff makes a final decision on the project.

As it pertains to the ordinance itself,

that is an ordinance that would require a recommendation from EPC.

So the EPC will see that ordinance before it goes to city council,

given it would be a zoning ordinance that does require under state law that

the EPC weigh in and offer a recommendation.

Beyond that,

there's a range of other projects that would continue to be subject to an EPC

recommendation to city council,

primarily projects located in certain precise plan areas and, you know,

other non-residential projects that would not be subject to AB 130.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no more questions, are we still on track for our next meeting in two weeks?

Yes.

Our next TPC meeting is going to be on February 18th on schedule.

All right.

Thank you.

In that case, this meeting is adjourned at 9.01.