Audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lector.

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 have speakers line up to speak on an item.

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

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

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

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

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

Commissioner Superman.

Here.

Commissioner Gutierrez.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Commissioner Kernston.

Here.

Here.

Chair Nunes.

Here.

All Commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Okay.

We will proceed.

Uh just a minute and Commissioner Gutierrez, they're both absent.

Perfect.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh moving on to the minutes approval.

There are none, so we will proceed to item number four, the oral communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

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

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

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

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have anyone with a yellow speaker card for oral communications or on the Zoom list?

No speakers online or in person.

Okay.

Uh seeing none, we'll proceed to new business, starting with agenda item 5.1, the housing element annual progress report for the 2023 to 2031 housing element.

First, we'll have a staff presentation followed by public comment.

At the closure of public comment, the commission will have the opportunity to ask questions, deliberate, and take any action.

So let's begin with a staff presentation from assistant planner Madeline Fall and planning manager Eric Anderson.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Madeline Fall, Assistant Planner, and I'm joined today by Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager.

We're here to present the 2025 housing element annual progress report.

At today's meeting, we'll provide a summary of the housing element annual progress report or APR.

This is required by the State's Department of Housing and Community Development, and the APR form must be completed by April 1st.

The report tracks all phases of development of housing units from application submittal and entitlement to building permit issuance and certificate of occupancy.

It also includes policy and program implementation for 2025.

Recent legislation has impacted some of the future reporting for this cycle.

This includes one reporting of historic resources.

No new sites were added to historic inventories in 2025.

Two, reporting at new income levels.

The city does not have RENA at these levels, but can voluntarily report units in acutely low and extremely low income categories.

The units reported will apply to the very low income for this cycle.

Three, reporting of new units in opportunity areas.

Opportunity areas have different categories based on transit access, education, and other resources.

This is independently tracked by HCD and does not impact the city's reporting responsibilities.

The regional housing needs allocation, arena for short, is a requirement by state law in which local jurisdictions must provide their share of new housing units through zoning of adequate land to build these units and to implement other housing element requirements to facilitate housing production across income levels.

The table here shows the city of Mountain View's arena of 11,135 total units, which is a substantial increase from the fifth cycle's requirement of 2,926 units.

This table shows the third year progress towards meeting the RENA goal, with building permits issued from January 1st to December 31st of 2025.

Projects receiving building permits between June 30, 2022 and January 31st, 2023, also contribute to the city's overall progress on the six cycle RENA.

The city's total units to date for the sixth cycle is 1,867 units.

The housing element also includes several implementation programs to help promote more housing.

The following programs listed here have been completed in 2025.

These include program 1.1g, updates to the general plan, precise plan and zoning to allow residential development in several areas throughout the city consistent with densities and locations identified in the program.

Program 2.5 ongoing outreach to tenants and property owners regarding tenant rights.

Program 3.1 adoption of the pathways to housing homeless response strategy implementation and expenditure plan.

This is a strategic plan to support those who are unhoused and prevent people from becoming unhoused.

Program 3.2, amendments to the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance or MHRSO to lower the allowed annual rent increase.

And program 4.1C, adoption of a new master fee schedule based on the development services fund fee study and continued implementation of the matrix study, including the posting of interactive dashboards and other study recommendations.

Additional housing element program successes in 2025 include the following items.

In terms of next steps, the housing element annual progress report will be presented as a consent item to the city council.

After it is presented, the APR will be forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation before April 1, 2026.

Staff recommends that the EPC review and recommend that the City Council adopt the 2025 housing element EPR.

This concludes the presentation.

Staff will be available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right.

Looks like we may actually be going to public comment.

All right.

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

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

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six, Mr.

Clerk.

Are there anyone on the Zoom or having somebody yellow speaker for no speakers online or in person?

Okay, thank you.

Uh we'll take it to the commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Um, so in table three, it says that moderate provisional uh units dropped by 161, and there's a threshold at 5%.

So if it drops by another 22, then we're at the 5% right now.

So it's six point something.

If if it happened if that happens and it drops to 5%, what's what we have to identify additional units, but what's kind of like the timeline to do that?

So additional sites, I guess, not units.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Donhue, Eric Anderson, Planning manager.

So there is a uh instructions in the housing element for how to use this table.

Um for the moderate income units, we can actually take lower income units if there's plenty of buffer for the lower income units and convert them to modern income units.

Because all of the lower income units actually also qualify as moderate income units.

It doesn't work vice versa.

You can't necessarily take the moderate income units.

They don't necessarily qualify as lower income units.

But since we have plenty of buffer for the lower income units, our first step would be to just simply take our existing inventory, convert some units from lower to moderate, and we'd be done.

We don't really need to report that to HCD because we're not identifying new sites.

Now if our lower income buffer runs it gets down to 5%, at that point, you know, we would be this is the provisional buffer, so we would ideally have a certain uh heads up and as far as the review of projects in the pipeline.

Once your buffer runs out, the law says that if you approve a project that takes that reduces your inventory to below the RENA, you have six months to rezone properties for to re um uh refill your your inventory to meet the RENA.

So all of this math is there to give us as much advanced notice as we possibly can so that we can come to council with uh, hey, our buffers are getting kind of low, you know, maybe there are a couple of projects in the pipeline right now that might get us down below five percent.

Here are some ideas for future rezonings that we could do.

Council, do you want to pursue any of these so that we can refill our inventory well below well before that that buffer runs out?

Okay, great.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we're not gonna be blindsided or like have to suddenly do something like very quickly.

Okay.

Um the other question I had uh is there's nine things in table four, and five of them are behind schedule, so um how do how does that go over with with HCD?

Um, is that going to be a problem with them?

And and furthermore, like what's happening within the city to kind of make sure that that isn't, you know, that things are done in a on time as they they should be.

Yeah, I it's certainly not ideal.

Um we have not heard from HCD or from uh anyone you know with uh with concerns about that um you know missing these deadlines, we are making forward progress on all of these items.

Um I will say that uh council has prioritized actions that are not in the housing element, like the R3 zoning district update, uh, which is actually very good for our housing um production.

Uh and so um working on those projects may um uh may give us some leverage with HCD about moving forward on projects that are very good for housing production, even though they may not be uh specifically what is in our housing element programs, nonetheless, we are making forward progress on all of these items.

Okay, yeah, forward progress is good, and making a good faith effort, I think is is probably what they're mostly looking for.

So okay, great, thank you.

Commissioner Subraman.

Thank you, Jay.

Um, so on table two, um, in the notes that are below table two.

There's the approved but no construction start, which I am assuming means that the entitlements are done, but projects haven't uh proceeded to with their design and getting ready to start construction, which is when they go in for permits.

On average, how much time are you seeing between projects that are entitled and sort of waiting to get to that permit stage, permit ready stage?

Uh it it really varies by developer by a really considerable amount.

Uh certainly you might see developers who are not moving quickly at that stage, uh, and you see other developers that are moving very quickly at that stage.

Um, since I'm not as much involved in current planning, maybe I'll ask principal planner pancioli to give her experience.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

I think um the earliest we see is like eight to twelve months time frame within which you know developers have come in with the building permits and they're ready to pull them.

Um yeah, that's not that frequent either uh in today's market uh conditions.

Yeah, it's kind of leading into that, which is why, because looking at the table, certainly this is the second year of pretty low numbers in terms of our housing fulfillment, and obviously we all are aware of market conditions and are able to point to that.

Um, but I was also going to ask if you know there's any incentives.

I know last year there was some talk about within the housing department, making sure that streamlining of NOFAs made it easier for affordable projects to proceed to construction.

Are there um other points that staff is noticing or noting, and thinks that we should be considering as a commission to really sort of help projects advance to construction?

So I can speak for the Nova projects a little bit because um we are in the process.

Um there are a couple of projects in the in the pipeline right now, and I can assure you there's significant amount of effort on the staff side to make sure that we can bring them, you know, beyond the building permit phase into the actual construction phase, whether it's um, you know, very streamlined process for the review of the building permit, but also uh collecting all the staff resources that's possible and engaging more in coordination and meetings with the applicant to ensure that they can you know get the funding that they need, um, and also get the building permits done quickly.

Okay, um so uh uh a year ago around the same topic in the similar meeting, there was talk about performance metrics around streamlining.

Um I know staff was asked to get something together and present to this commission.

Um I was curious to see if there was any work done and if you had something to present to us around some of the streamlining efforts so we can understand what that's looking like you're aware.

Good evening, Commissioners Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Um so without recalling specifically what that particular statement was, um we do report annually uh what is part of the budget process with City Council, um our performance um uh objectives and um how we've satisfied those with respect to various types of building permits and other types of permits, and so um that's probably the best source of the most current information uh when that comes out uh over the next couple of months during the the budget process.

Thank you.

One last question.

Um in attachment one, table two.

What is completed there signify?

Attachment one, table two.

Uh there the tables are A, table A, table A two.

So it it is the very first page of attachment one.

And it's the second table.

It's uh it starts with unit by structure time and title permitted completed.

What is completed there?

Uh completed means uh received certificate of occupancy.

And so this was for the planning year 2025.

Those were the number of units that received certificate of occupants.

Yes, that's right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chase.

Commissioner Cranston.

So just one question.

Um I'm not surprised by the numbers, but I am we're at about half of where you would think you might want to be at this point through the cycle.

Um how does that compare to other jurisdictions?

Um in the Bay Area and across the state.

Uh the uh APRs are not broadly publicly available until March until April first.

So we wouldn't be able to give you that uh estimate um until after April first when they're all submitted to the state, and then all of these uh numbers are are calculated and compared.

Commissioner Pham.

I just have one question.

I had the same question as Commissioner Cranston, but I'll ask my second one.

Um attachment two with the AMI for Santa Clara County.

Um, how often are these numbers updated?

And then um, what's the reasoning behind the other three counties that were chosen to be on the same page?

Um thank you for the question, Madeline Fall Assistant Planner.

Um, so the attachment two is drawn from a broader document that's prepared every year by the um by the state.

So that's just the other counties in alphabetical order that are close to Santa Clara.

Thank you for that clarification.

No, no other questions.

No.

I mean, I I I don't really have questions um myself, so I guess we'll take it to a deliberation or action.

Looks like the staff recommendation is to accept the annual progress report.

Do you have any thoughts, considerations, Commissioner Cranston?

Of the 2023 to 31 housing element attachment under the staff report.

Do we have a second or any other deliberation?

Oh, second.

Second.

Okay.

I think we might be ready for an action.

All right.

All right, awesome.

Thank you very much.

Uh having completed five point one, we will proceed to 5.2.

The 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report.

First, we'll have a staff presentation, followed by public comment.

At the closure of public comment, the commission will have an opportunity to ask questions, deliberate, and take action.

We'll begin with a presentation from Associate Planner Vincent Quan and Planning Manager Mr.

Eric Anderson.

Thank you.

In 2012, City Council adopted the 2030 General Plan and the related general plan action plan.

The 2030 general plan action plan is a list of action items that carry out the general plan's goals and policies.

These action items include programs, plans, studies, ordinance updates, and other measures.

EPC is responsible for the annual review of the general plan action plan in the form of an annual progress report or APR, and for monitoring the progress the city is making in implementing the general plan.

Staff has provided three tables of general plan action items for the EPC's review.

Table one includes items which have not started, are currently in progress or were completed in 2025.

Table two includes items which were completed prior to 2025.

Table three includes items which are achieved through day-to-day operations, practices, and policies.

In addition, staff has also removed the prioritization column from table one as council priorities have changed since the adoption of the current general plan in 2012.

One item has been formally completed in 2025.

Action item INC 8.12.1 trash capture.

In 2025, over 180 full trash capture devices were installed in the stormwater system at various locations in the city.

The city has achieved the 100% trash reduction goal required by the municipal regional permit by June 20, 2025, and is on track to maintain the 100% reduction level through June 2026.

In addition to the completed items, there are ongoing efforts by staff to help implement action items.

Some key efforts include included are the transportation demand management or TDM ordinance and R3 zoning district updates.

Staff is currently drafting language for the TDM ordinance and is tentatively scheduled to be presented to EPC and the Council of Transportation Committee, CTC in quarter two of 2026.

City staff also has ongoing efforts to update R3 zoning development standards, which include reviewing and updating standards related to parking, neighborhood transition, mix of uses, transit-oriented development, and other actions in the action plan.

The R3 zoning update is tentatively scheduled for adoption by city council and later in 2026.

Lastly, the city is reevaluating precise plan work and timelines for both the downtown precise plan comprehensive update and the Moffet Boulevard Precise Plan due to the state's recent passing of Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130, since both bills have impacts to the work being conducted for the precise plans.

Following a recommendation from the EPC, the General Plan Annual Progress Report is scheduled to be presented to City Council on March 24th, 2026, and shortly thereafter, forwarded to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, previously known as the Office of Planning and Research.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the EPC review and recommend city council accept the 2025 general plan annual progress report.

This concludes Steph's presentation and staff is available for any questions.

Thank you.

Alright.

Then if anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out the 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 and zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with a star six.

Any speakers with yellow cards submitted or on the zoom list?

No speaker online or in person.

Okay.

Alright, we'll bring it to the commission for any questions.

Commissioner Pham.

Sorry.

I did have a general question.

I know that the general plan was completed in 2012, which is quite some time ago, and I hesitate to ask because I know it's such a huge lift and effort.

Are there plans in the works to do an update at some point in the future?

No, nothing's uh on the council work plan or you know staff's work plan.

Um it is something that comes up in occasional discussions at the council level during say the work plan discussion, but no, nothing's been added to the work plan.

Thanks for the context.

Commissioner Subraman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, in the list of projects under review, there is a builders' remedy project listed.

I was curious about why it was on the list and if it was a project that entered kind of the inventory before the sixth housing cycle that started, because since we're in compliance at the start of the housing cycle, why is there a builders' remedy project under review currently?

Uh so not all the builders' remedy projects have been approved yet.

There are some that are still under review from the point at which they submitted an application during the period when we were out of compliance with our housing element.

Um, and then moving on to other questions.

Again, I think this might have been stated before in past years.

This is a lot of information to digest and certainly hard to make uh nuts and both sort of like a very long ongoing list.

Makes me really fearful of looking at staff's desk on these days.

But um, could you help us maybe understand what our priorities uh beyond just the high level um ongoing items?

What is kind of the key areas of priorities given that staff has spoken about the focus on passing R3 standards this year along with overall development standards and then really focusing on developing an alternate to the SB 79 plan, and then getting to the Moffat Precise Plan and Downtown Precise Plan.

What are some of the other, I don't know, pages of ongoing items and how do you prioritize them?

Uh well, let me clarify that the ongoing table is for things that don't really have a start or end date.

Those are things that are mainly part of our day-to-day activities.

So it might include things like um uh uh criteria for projects that we look for during development review, or making sure that we're maintaining um, you know, adequate levels of service for utilities and police and all of those other um ongoing day-to-day activities that we do.

Uh, so in that sense, the ongoing projects are a little bit of a different animal than the other tables, which are discrete projects that have will could potentially have specific beginning and end dates.

Like we will do X and it will be done at some point.

That's for things like updating the zoning ordinance to achieve some goal, you know, or policy in the in the uh general plan.

Uh so the the table of ongoing actions, there's a lot of things there because there are a lot of things that staff does on an ongoing basis, just as a matter of our day-to-day obligations.

So maybe stated differently in bringing these different tables to us.

What if anything do you want commission to focus on so we understand what is priority for staff, or how do we help you achieve those priorities?

Um I think uh looking at individual uh uh action items, this is your opportunity to ask questions about the intent of the action items, um, maybe look for opportunities for synergy between action items and projects that we're currently working on.

Um, you know, uh ask questions or uh direct staff to make comments or recommendations to the city council uh about uh how items are prioritized or organized.

I think in the last year there were some suggestions that maybe council bring up this uh this action plan and maybe direct staff to modify it in some way to organize it or to remove items that are not likely to be done.

Um and so that uh recommendation was forwarded to the city council, they did not take it up, but um you know it was forwarded to them, and um doubtless they they reviewed that information.

Thank you for that clarification.

I will be thinking about that beyond today and hoping to clarify some of that and providing recommendations to council.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Donahue.

So I have a uh I guess a follow-up to Commissioner Pham's question.

So the the uh the 2030 and the 2030 general plan, is there any uh is that a deadline or in any way uh a requirement that that we would have to have a new general plan at that time or no, no, the the city is not obligated to um have a new general plan after 2030.

Um there are um certainly uh drawbacks and challenges to have a Ving uh an older general plan.

Uh certainly some of our analyses can be less efficient with understanding of what the kind of cumulative case of the city's build out might be.

Um and so there are reasons and to just you know update that information, update um you know the city's policies if the general plan is out of alignment with the city's current goals.

Um, but the uh there is no legal requirement, as far as I know, to update the general plan any given number of time, given amount of time.

Okay, it's just in 2012 it was seen as maybe it's an 18-year plan, and it's always good to have up-to-date plans because I guess a lot's changed since 2012.

So okay, thanks.

Commissioner Cranston.

So I would it's not so much a question as a well, maybe it is a question for the director.

Um as you're looking at the work needed to get AB 130 and all these other streamlined things.

Perhaps have you considered looking at this and saying, I'm I my frustration with this has been ongoing for eight years now.

Um so I look at this and these were priorities in 2012.

The things that haven't been prioritized yet aren't priorities anymore.

So if you're looking for opportunities to get staff time to do something else, I would suggest that maybe you consider including getting all this stuff that's not been done for 14 years and probably isn't going to be in a priority anytime soon off the list so your people aren't spending time on it and it can be spent on things like 130 and other things.

So I would it's more of a request that you consider that.

Um, because I quite frankly view the time that's spent on this would be better spent doing other things until we get to the point where it's working on the 2050 plan or whatever it is, but it's just this is not a I don't believe this is a good use of staff's time any longer, and unless something comes in that council wants to look at the stuff on this list, I don't know why it's there anymore.

So use this as an opportunity to free your people's time would be my recommendation.

But it's you're doing what you're supposed to do.

This is the report's the right thing.

But man, I wish you didn't have to spend time.

Okay, I guess I have a question.

Um isn't it?

I guess I just want to follow up on that line of thought because my understanding is that um it's a council, uh it's a municipal, almost like a constitution of like development or land use, and so only council would therefore have the authority to actually take things off or move things around.

Is that a is that?

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

Uh so uh it's indeed the case that the city council is vested with the authority to amend the general plan.

Um I think it might be helpful to clarify that the action items that we're describing in this annual progress report are not actually um specific work plan items, it's not directing the staff's work.

These are programmatic level activities that you know at the time of adoption of the general plan were determined to be areas worth uh advancing at some point, and different items uh achieve different priority order and execution.

Uh for example, the city, you know, aggressively pursued uh precise plans for several of the general plan change areas that was prioritized as one of many um general plan action items as an example.

Other items uh have fallen lower in the priority order.

The council has a separate independent council work plan prioritization process.

Um and so it's it's a complex landscape.

Um, it it presents challenges for staff to prioritize, but it's in fact not the case that we're um you know proactively pursuing these general plan action items in a way that detracts from staff capacity to pursue other work.

Uh thank you and then uh to that extent um what if any uh consultative relationship does uh staff or yourself as representative of staff and or with our city manager um have with regard to our city council in terms of you know the the freshness of the plan, the um the staleness, um any kind of like nudge nudge, hey, maybe we ought to consider um, you know, because that was kind of my line of thinking as well, like independent of um the initial round of commissioner questions is around the um the closeness.

I know I know that the name of 2030 is just like a stand-in name, but um I think just from the the actual fact that so much has changed since, especially uh the pandemic with um, you know, like movement, economy, um like yeah, to what extent can you characterize um staff's relationship with council around um the suitability of of a general plan?

Sure.

So in my career, I've I've seen it both ways where um, you know, the staff is you know agitating a council to say a general plan needs to be updated, it's no longer um you know effectively guiding staff's work.

Um the community has changed so much that these policies, these programs, these land use designations no longer reflect the environment in which we operate.

And that's a very concerning uh position to be in as staff because the general plan is supposed to be the guiding framework for city actions, city financial investments, infrastructure decisions, and the like.

And so um oftentimes you'll see staff saying, Hey, the general plan is is unhelpful and we need to fix it uh as soon as possible.

Um, in other cases, you'll see the community agitate for an update to the general plan because they perceive that the general plan is no longer meeting their needs as a community for one or you know several reasons.

And so they apply pressure to the council to prioritize an update to a general plan.

And sometimes there's elements of both, right?

Um, because staff interests sometimes are different, maybe more technical in nature or legal in nature than values based, for instance, for the community.

Um, I don't think we're at either of those um, you know, turning points at this time where the general plan is continuing to serve us reasonably well.

Certainly, our community has changed even in the you know, ten to fifteen years since the adoption.

Um, we do uh I think have a duty as staff to look out on the horizon and begin to plan, begin to have the conversations, turn the whispers into, you know, dialogue with the council and the community.

Um, prioritizing a general plan update will be a massive effort, and it will require the council to largely clear the decks for staff capacity and other work for a multiple number of years beyond just the community development department.

And that's a big conversation to have, even about undertaking a general plan update.

Right.

So we won't be targeting that to run concurrently with the next housing element update, is what I'm hearing.

Um, cool.

Yeah, I don't have any other questions.

Um I mean, I would be very happy to make a motion unless someone else wants to do that or have other deliberation on this, as I'm assuming there's no more questions.

No more questions.

Mr.

Cranson, our resident motion maker.

Would you like to?

So I will move that the Vital Matter Planning Commission accept the 2025 or recommend to council that they accept the twenty twenty-five general planning reference report attachment one of the staff report.

Hi, second.

All right, Commissioner Sudamanin makes a second on that.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

All right, we will proceed to our uh public hearing.

Item number six point one on the agenda, the rowhouse gatekeeper project at 92 to 950 San Leandro Avenue.

First, we'll have a staff presentation and then questions by the EPC followed by public comments.

At the closure of public comment, the commissioner the commission will then deliberate and take action.

First we'll begin with a staff presentation from our senior planner, Edgar Maravilla and Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Members of the Public.

My name is Edgar Maravilla.

I'm a senior planner with the City of Mountain View.

And I'll be presenting the 922 through 950 San Leandro Road Home Gatekeeper project.

I'm joined at dias by Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro.

This project is located on approximately 1.69 acre site comprised of two existing parcels on the west side of San Leandro Avenue between San Pablo Drive and Terrabella Avenue.

The property is currently in the General Industrial MM Zoning District and has a general plan land use designation of general industrial.

The site is surrounded by industrial uses to the north, State Route 85 and Highway 101 to the east, single-family homes to the south, and a future city park to the west.

The existing general plan designation and zoning for the project site does not allow for residential uses.

As such, the applicant is requesting a general plan and zoning map amendment to allow redevelopment of the site.

Additionally, the project includes a planned unit development and development review permit to construct a 38-unit row home project, including 10 below market rate units utilizing state density bonus law.

The applicant application also includes a vesting tentative map to facilitate individual sale of the row home units.

The state density bonus requests includes one concession and four waivers discussed later in this presentation.

If the general plan map amendment from general industrial to medium density residential and the zoning map amendment from MM General Industrial to R3-1.5 medium density residential are approved, the proposed residential development would be allowed, consistent with the proposed general plan and zoning land use changes, which are subject to city discretion.

More specifically, the R3 zoning district allows row home developments through the planned unit development permit process consistent with row home standards and guidelines referenced by the R3 standards.

In summary, the project complies with the applicable standards of the proposed general plan land use designation and zoning district.

Building A, 10 units orient towards the San Leandro Avenue Street frontage, Building B and C, 9 units each, front the project's main common open space area, and building D, 10 units will face the future city park.

Pedestrian and vehicle access into the property is provided from San Leandro Avenue.

The site also provides a 10-foot-wide publicly accessible pathway along the southern property line, which will provide access to future city park and includes amenities such as benches, a row of California native trees, and a bicycle fix it station.

The vehicle drive provides access to 14 guest parking spaces in each garage, as well as city emergency and solid waste vehicle access.

The project design features hip and intersecting gable roof forms.

As proposed, each row house unit will provide three bedrooms, a private balcony, and a small front yard with a porch, anchored by drought tolerant landscaping.

As noted earlier, the project will provide 10 below market rate units equivalent to 25% of the project units, three units for low income households, five units for moderate income households, and two units at above moderate income.

All units in the development are three bedrooms, including the below market rate units.

This proposal meets the city's BMR requirements with one concession and qualifies the project to utilize state density bonus law.

Pursuant to state density bonus law, the project qualifies for a 716% density bonus, up to two concessions, one incentive, and unlimited waivers of development standards necessary to construct the project.

The applicant's not requesting bonus density, but is requesting one concession and four waivers as shown on the screen and discussed in more detail in the report and project findings.

Denials of the waiver would physically preclude the construction of the project at the permitted density, and denial of the concession would increase project costs, undermining overall financial feasibility and delivery of the project.

The project proposal exceeds the objective design requirements for private and common open space, providing approximately 19,500 square feet of common open area and 10,0100 square feet of private open space.

Thirty-one on-site trees are proposed for removal by Bar Heritage Trees.

Project will plant 94 new trees, roughly three times the number of trees to be removed, which will also provide three times the existing site canopy at maturity.

Overall, the landscape plans complies with the city's water conservation and landscape regulations and includes a strong focus on California native species.

The vesting tenant map would create 38 residential lots via one-lot subdivision, allowing individual sale of the units and common ownership of shared improvements.

Staff reviewed the subdivision and has found the project is consistent with the requirements of the subdivision map app, city subdivision standards and the general plan.

A draft initial study mitigative negative declaration is prepared for the project, which found that the with implementation of Mount View City Code requirements standard city conditions of approval and mitigation measures disclosed in the ISM and D and MMRP attachment one of the project material, the project would not result in any potential significant environmental impacts.

The city did not receive comments on the ISM and D during the 30-day public period comment.

The applicant hosted two community meetings, outreach meetings, one prior to submittal.

It is important to note at the December 2025 community meeting, all six attendees express appreciation for the design, including that the revised site plan created a larger buffer to adjacent homes to the south, and that the applicant revised the project to address prior community feedback.

As part of the city collaborative design review process, the applicant also attended one design review consultation meeting.

And we are now at the EPC recommendation meeting.

After this meeting, the project is tentatively scheduled for a city council public hearing on March 24.

In conclusion, city staff recommends that the EPC recommend city council adopt the ISMD pursuant to applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the general plan amendment, zoning map amendment, plan unit development, and development review permit utilizing state density bonus law as well as the associated vesting tenant map with the recommendations more specifically shown on screen and in the report.

This concludes staff presentation, city staff, and the applicant team are available for questions.

Please note the applicant also has a brief presentation for you tonight.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll just add sorry, one moment uh city uh deputy zoning administrator, Becca Shapiro.

Um, our city attorney uh representative tonight will also have some remarks uh after the present uh after this presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh looks like the applicant would come up then.

Can we get the speaking time on the clock before they start, please?

How many minutes?

I think it's 10.

Thank you.

Oh.

Will the presentation be on the screen?

Oh, okay.

Just double checking.

Okay.

Hello, Planning Commissioners.

Thank you so much for having me here tonight.

My name is Keon Malik with City Ventures, and I'm honored to be here tonight uh to present to you the Arbor Square project on Stanley Andrew Avenue.

Next slide, please.

Uh, for those that are not familiar with City Ventures, uh, we are an infill developer, so our focus is developing underutilized parcels in existing urban areas with the goal of meeting the large demand for naturally attainable housing.

We love working in the city of Mountain View, and this is our third project.

Next slide, please.

So the slide you're seeing right now is not the site plan we are, the final site plan we're proposing tonight.

It's the initial site plan we shared with the community about five years ago, where we gathered really valuable feedback that you can see on the next slide.

And I'll highlight really the main themes of this feedback was really to uh create an increased setback from the existing single-family dwelling property owners to the south property line.

And I'll be remiss not to mention the uh site plan uh drawn by one of the community members that was reorienting the un the buildings further north uh to have a further setback.

Uh but I'll go over uh how we achieved and implemented these comments on a later slide.

Uh next slide, please.

So, like I mentioned, um, this project uh has been in the works for a long time.

Uh it's been about five years, and at the early stage of the project, we spent a lot of time uh meeting with staff, uh meeting with council members and the community uh to do our due diligence because it's a it's a complicated site.

There's uh two parcels, it's a an assemblage, and multiple property owners.

So after we had our first community meeting where we shared our initial site plan and got feedback, we had multiple site plans, some uh multiple uh submittals submitted to the city and reviewed.

I think we had about 15 to 20 site plan iterations.

Um, and once staff uh felt the project, uh once there was staff support for the project, um, we uh were then agendized for the DRC and the Airport Land Use Commission, where we received unanimous recommendations of approval from both bodies.

Um and then after those meetings, we implemented the comments we heard from the DRC into our sixth submittal uh that we shared uh that was deemed complete uh that we shared with the community um uh this last December for our final community meeting.

And that brings us here tonight um to respectfully request your recommendation of approval to City Council.

Next slide, please.

I wanted to restate uh that this is a 1.69-acre site that today is mostly a vacant industrial building, a surface parking lot, and a vacant dirt lot.

Um, so uh as you'll see on the next slide.

Um, this is a fantastic infill site and a great opportunity for more housing, more ownership housing in the city of Mountain View.

Next slide, please.

So we are proposing 38 homes that will be marketed towards first-time home buyers, small families, uh, families looking to downsize and below market rate buyers.

Um, and as you'll see on the next slide, 25% of the homes will be deed restricted to affordable buyers.

Um, you know, we heard through the grapevine that not many developers are implementing this and are able to achieve this.

So we're really proud to be including 25% affordable in this project because you know how important it is to the city to have different income levels of ownership housing.

Um the next slide, uh you'll see that we uh the goal of the design was really to create a strong street pedestrian experience by orienting the front doors to face both public ways on San Landro Avenue as well as the future park.

And then on the next slide, you'll see the large separation between all the buildings in the south property line.

We were able to achieve that by consolidating the project uh dry vial, the public path for the public, as well as the uh canopy trees along the south property line, all to uh consolidate along the along the south border there.

Next slide, please.

So um, with all of those uh um uh th through that uh iteration of the site plan, we had a fantastic uh December community meeting.

Getting looks great and and good job is awesome, uh, but also getting the the comment card on the top left, and I'm gonna read it.

Um, unlike many other developers, city ventures actually listened.

That means a lot, and we really appreciate that with all the work we put into this project, and I think it's because we implemented the feedback we heard from the community early on.

Next slide, please.

The goal of the design for the public path was simple.

We wanted to make sure everyone feel comfortable using the path.

And so if you're looking to walk your dog or you're looking to go on a walk with your family, or fix your bike at the fix it station, there's a there's a place to do that, whether it's at night where there's the lighting along the path or during the day and a hot summer day.

There are canopy trees to shade the path there.

Next slide, please.

And then we're also very excited about the right-of-way improvements we're proposing along San Leandro Avenue.

Uh that includes a five-foot right-of-way extension, uh a brand new seven foot sidewalk, uh, and an eight-foot landscape strip uh that will accommodate a double row of trees along the project frontage that not only softens the architecture, but also creates a uh just an overall better pedestrian experience along San Leandro Avenue.

Next slide.

Uh last point is that we are uh proposing 94 new trees where only 31 trees exist on site today.

Uh the majority of the trees are native species, and at full maturity, about a quarter of the site uh will be under the tree canopy.

So very very green site, and we're very excited about that.

Next slide.

We at City Ventures want to thank you for this opportunity to join the fabric of this community.

Um, and we're we're um we're really excited uh, you know, about the uh, you know, well actually first of all, we want to we want to thank um staff and uh I want to give a special thank you to project planner uh Edgar Maravilla, who's been an absolute pleasure to work with um throughout the five years of this project, and um Edgar and staff have really made this project the best it could be.

So thank you, Edgar.

Thank you, staff, and thank you, commissioners.

Thank you.

And with that, and maybe before we move on in the uh script for tonight, I can turn uh our attention to Selena Chen, our senior assistant city attorney for some remarks.

Evening, Selena Chen, senior assistant city attorney.

Um just wanted to give you a brief overview of the law that applies to this project.

Um, so there's two buckets of residential projects.

There's those that are consistent with the general plan and zoning at the time the application was submitted, and there's another bucket of projects that are not necessarily consistent and require amendments to the general plan or design to move forward.

Um, under the first bucket, we have the housing accountability act in play, and that gives the city very limited discretion to disapprove any projects that are consistent with the general plan and zoning um standards in effect at the time applications are deemed complete.

The city's disapproval of those types of projects can only be made if they're supported with certain written findings.

Um this project tonight is something that falls in the second bucket.

It's being proposed on a site that does not currently allow residential uses, and it requires both a general plan amendment and an amendment to the zoning map.

So these types of projects have a different standard.

The city has very broad discretion to approve or deny the general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment, uh, because they're discretionary legislative decisions.

Um there's no obligation or requirement by the city to approve the general plan amendment or the zoning code or zoning map amendment.

Even when a housing development project is being proposed, um and I guess I just wanted to let you know the city is not obligated to modify its laws to accommodate such a project, and it really is these things kinds of actions are authorized when it is deemed to be in the public interest.

So there is substantial discretion by both you as a recommending body and the city council as the decision maker.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Versus questions or no, this is public hearing, so we will do EPC questions first.

Okay.

Alright, sounds good, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Vice Chair Donahue.

The figure figure one of the staff report it shows the um the layout of it shows where the these parcels are, where the site is, and it shows the um uh the park.

And the park in that diagram looks like it's maybe three parcels, but the the park in attachment one looks like it's only two parcels.

Is that um I I found a few different disagreements on between attachment one and the staff report, like the amount of open space uh on the development and like the diagram of the the park.

So I'm just uh is the staff report the most up-to-date information.

Yeah, deputy zoning administration, Rebecca Shapiro.

Uh the graphic uh in the staff report is the most current graphic, and uh the city park layout includes uh three parcels.

Um that was a late update in the staff report that um uh did not apparently make it its way into the attachment appropriately.

Thank you for calling that to our attention, and we'll make sure that's fixed.

Okay.

Um that's actually my only question.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Chair Donahue, Commissioner Subraman.

So it was mentioned that the uh the commercial parcel was mostly vacant.

So are there any existing tenants in there and is there a requirement to relocate those tenants?

I don't know if we have a commercial tenant relocation program.

Uh the city does not have a commercial tenant relocation program.

Um I'd have to turn uh our uh that sort of question as to whether there are existing tenants to the applicant to answer for the commercial property, uh thank you for that question.

Um the industrial building is 53% vacant.

Um all of the existing tenants are on month-to-month uh leases.

They've been notified about the uh close of escrow um once the permits are achieved.

Um and the uh property owner of 922 San Leandro has actively uh tried to lease the vacant spaces for the last five years without uh any any results.

Um and the existing tenants have also been introduced uh to an agent uh to find new spaces um uh and not have left uh most likely, and I this is from the property owner, uh, due to the the low uh rates uh provided to the tenants because of an impending development project.

Thank you.

Um, that there are efforts being made to reach out to them.

A couple of other quick um points about the project itself.

Is there submetering to the units?

In terms of the utility metering?

So the uh development is a for sale project, so each unit is individually owned and should have a time meter.

Um and then in terms of an EV provision for parking.

Is there an EV requirement for the guest parking spaces or I don't know how the EV requirements for the parking itself work in this project?

Um off the top of my head, I cannot quote the green building code.

They adopted uh reaching green building code for you tonight.

Um but if there is a requirement uh under the building code for this project, then if approved, the current building code would apply to it.

And then under the um density bonus letter, which talks about the affordability plan.

There is mention of an HOA reserve fund.

How does that work?

Is that a one-time um fund that is put in place by the property developer?

And is that financed one time or how does that work?

Um my understanding, and I believe our our housing director Wayne Chen is uh available virtually tonight, and we may want to turn to him for more detailed information is that it's a one-time deposit and the that the intent of that um that reserve fund is um to uh you know try to cover sort of the unknown kind of future increases in costs associated with um being part of an HOA that has certain financial obligations to the development, um, and that it's it's not uh necessarily serving to um pay for like the standard monthly um sort of HOA costs to the extent that they exist, but that is it is a one-time fund that's established for the development to uh the benefit of the the BMR uh unit owners.

So it's not a subsidy for the BMR units in terms of the HOA.

That's my understanding.

Okay, and then last question has to do with the trees along the northern edge of the property.

So I see that the proposed development has a five-foot setback from the northern edge, and there is a row of existing trees which are probably in the neighboring property that are being identified as being preserved with the new development.

Um they seem to be fairly large trees.

Will there be any sort of impairment to the trees with the new construction being so close to that northern edge?

Will there be any sort of impact to those canopies which are pretty large?

Thank you for that question.

Um it's not envisioned that there will be impact to those trees.

Uh the Arboris report does provide best practices and measures.

Um there is also a condition of approval uh that will require a monthly update on the trees during construction uh that the applicant if the project advances would be required to adhere to.

Okay, and does that also mean that there is a row of new trees proposed there which goes into the count for the project that they won't be in any way obstructing the canopies of the existing trees?

Correct, those are a smaller growing trees.

Uh they were reviewed by the city uh forestry division um within our arboris, um, and then they felt those trees were appropriate in those locations and could survive.

And if I could just add more often than not, when we get to the construction phase of a development, there's sort of fine-tuning of the planting plan to really address field conditions and in a manner that's just easier to do in the field than then in a plan, even thank you for the answers.

Those are all my questions, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Cranson?

So just one.

Do we have any ability to earmark the future park and loo fees towards this new future park?

Um so the question was uh is there an opportunity to earmark uh the park and loo fees for uh the future park adjacent to the project?

Um those uh decisions about the utilization of the park fees are are made outside of the land use planning process, and so um perhaps the commission could consider making a suggestion as part of a recommendation to council, but it's not something the uh EPC could require.

Alright, uh Commissioner Pham?

Sorry.

Um I had a question, I think for city staff.

Um the applicant was uh deliberate about putting in the pathway on the south side of the property um I think in response to neighborhood comments is there a plan to continue that into the future park all the way to San Rafael F.

I think the the best answer I can give at this time is that there is no current plan for the design of that future park um and that the you know the design will be sometime off you know to the extent that this approval is still valid and or has been implemented by the time that design work for the park begins um the existence of this public path will absolutely be an existing condition that that I would imagine be would be factored into the design process for the future park.

Kind of a related question for the applicant I saw in the plans that um on that corner of the future park in the southern end there's there's a note that says temporary fence on the west property line until park opens um kind of interested in knowing when and or how much that temporary fence extends um the note points to a blue line that goes all the way to the north part of the property as well and intersects with the retaining wall so it's I'm looking at page I think 45 of 53 of the project plans.

I believe your question is about the thank you for this question.

If I could turn your attention to uh sheet L4 which is the landscape plan sheet um the the note is also there and the goal and this was this really came from the city and then we we agree with this is once the future park is built um we we want to have that flexibility and that give that ability uh for our community to give access if we don't give it now uh it it may be harder to do so we we wanted to give it up front um there will that entire stretch uh will be a a um a six foot a six foot tall uh perimeter fence along that western property line um and there will be a uh a gate uh just along the 10-foot wide uh path portion so it it just I'm hoping that clarifies the question yeah that clarifies um I originally thought it the gate would be right behind the trash enclosure but it makes more sense what you described for the connectivity thank you thanks all right um I have a quick question for staff um I I would presume maybe no given the current general plan designation but uh did the housing element inventory opportunity sites touch on this um on the site on the parcel on the land on the was it was it included this particular property is not a housing element opportunity site okay um if this were to go through would it would it count um you know for lack of better words would it would count anyway sure the units approved uh would count towards the city's satisfaction of its regional housing needs allocation or arena obligation all right thank you uh those are all my questions um I think we're ready to proceed to oh yeah I just had one process question for staff um if a motion were to be made would the commissioner have to read the entire recommendation of all five points.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah, and I just wanted to just circle back on one of the questions from uh Commissioner Subramanin regarding or maybe Commissioner Fam, I don't remember on the EV parking requirement.

So as per our new green building code um the city's green building code, the it's a percentage of the total parking spaces that needs to be installed with the EV charging stations.

And then at least one parking space per unit needs to be EV ready.

So the guest parking will be involved in the total parking calculations.

Thank you for that clarification.

Other questions?

No.

Okay.

Um I think now we're ready for public comment.

Uh if anyone in attendance would like to provide comment on this item, please fill out a little speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

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

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have a tally of individuals, either with yellow card submitted or on the zoom?

We have one in-person speaker and one online.

Okay.

Uh, can we get the speaker clock ready for them?

Travis Boy.

Uh just a minute.

Uh the Lactin microphone, please.

Okay.

Are we good?

Yes.

All right.

I can't see the light from way up here.

Anyway, uh 45 years ago.

I built the property to the north of this project.

We've talked we're talking about.

And uh actually that's been the last major property that's been constructed in this area in 45 years.

So we're pretty uh excited about a new project, uh, particularly housing.

Uh the housing is so badly needed, particularly for first-time homeowners.

We think this is a tremendous opportunity for uh particularly young families, and with the city park, and I got confidence that that's gonna be a really great park.

Uh young families with kids.

I just can't uh uh it's just a wonderful development, and I think it'll serve the community well, and I think the yeah, City of Mountain View should be commended for the park.

I think city ventures should be commended for this really great development.

Uh I'm not really looking forward to the construction phase, but the results are gonna be worth it.

So I'm really optimistic and happy about this.

So thank you for doing everything you can do to make this happen.

Thank you very much.

We'll proceed to the zoom.

Next speaker is Albert Jens.

All right, thank you.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, great.

Um, yeah, this is Albert Jeans.

I'm a long-time resident of Stirling Estate, which is the housing development just to the south of this uh new proposed development.

And in general, yeah, this is a great project.

Um I really appreciate the care that the developers gone to uh make a sensitive transition of the generally single story homes to the south of the project.

I guess my only point here or objection is to the city itself.

And once again, you know, staff is using this new formula for computing the parkland dedication.

Even though this project seemed like it's ideal and fits the letter of the law for the traditional park band dedication ordinance of you know three acres per thousand people.

Using this new formula, the student of the steering estate's planning area will again suffer.

And you know, we already have one of the lowest park land ratios in the city and this is not going to raise it at all.

I mean it'll just keep I think essentially it just keeps it at its low level.

Fortunately it's a small project the amount of land or the amount of money involved is not a lot.

The developers generously dedicated the pathway through the project to the new park.

And so you know my we're probably only you know being shorter maybe a couple million dollars here over what the parkland dedication ordinance would require but going forward I'm just wondering you know how is it that we're using this new way of computing this parkland dedication when the old ordinance is still on the books and has not been changed by the city council.

It seems kind of arbitrary and I'm just wondering going forward you know I think maybe um Mr Murdoch I mean the little comments on this I guess they're coming forward with a new plan but it seems like in an interrogation we're losing a lot of chances to get valuable I mean much needed park space or money to buy new park space um that's all I have to say yeah I just hope that you guys think about that and hope the city council do the same thank you.

Thank you Mr Jeans okay uh Mr.

Clerk any final comments lined up for us or not okay.

All right then one second we're good yeah all right uh sweet then we can take it back to the commission for comments deliberation action.

Anyone would like to go in the queue, Commissioner Cranston.

So I like the project um I really would like to find I mean this is your area as uh this is one of the speakers mentioned this is an area that doesn't have a lot of parks and the getting that park next to it funded to me.

But still not okay.

So I like the project um but I I like if there's a way to suggest that whoever the powers to be are um get that park next door funded through this that would be great and so I'll be supporting this and enthusiastically seconding whoever has to read this really long motion.

Okay.

Vice Chair Donahue.

I actually appreciate that that we have some discretion in this in this in this matter I think that's that's kind of refreshing but uh but I think that I it's a good project so I I'm you know not going to you know not going to vote against it or anything like that just even though you know it's like I said is refreshing to be able to um the um yeah I think this is a great project um it's it meets uh the housing needs it's it's you know adjacent to residential area already um it uh it you held voluntary meetings which I you know some recent uh projects have not done that but and and you listen to the feedback and you you incorporated it I think that's fantastic.

So the neighbors are happy um I'm happy I think I think everybody's gonna be happy with this.

The uh you know I'm uh never super excited about concessions and waivers uh I think that the the concession is is okay because the uh the the BMR units are in uh a floor plan that is that there are market rate units that use the same floor plan so it is a uh the type of unit that that people would would want um so I think that's fantastic um and and things like you know FAR being one point zero six versus one point zero five I you know I think that's fine.

Um so I I I love the the the easement for the path to the park um and I and I am glad that we are uh getting maybe not uh as much of the uh parkland fees as uh the ordinance would otherwise require but we have to abide by the Supreme Court decision um but there's a park right next door and I'm sure that the the parks and rec commission will recommend that the that those f uh bees be used to uh to develop that park so um but of course that's in their that's in their domain um so yeah overall I think it's it's great um so let's move it forward.

All right uh Commissioner Subramanian.

Thank you Chair um I too will be the third voice sort of expressing appreciation for the plan.

I like the general goal of creating more consistency with the surrounding uses creating the many tiers of BMR to really serve our affordable housing plan and support that um with regards to and then I was going to say I very much appreciated uh your community engagement process and the feedback that you took I would recommend you hire the community member who uh drew up the very smart plan and I think it has uh it has vastly improved the plan that you have today so I commend you for that um it's um my comment on the four waivers required to me is really a comment to staff and I think as we move towards more objective standards uh I hope we can get away from um stipulating such fine demands within our standards which require a degree of variation to be considered as a waiver um rather than spending all our time uh um on that uh it I I would recommend that we mo move towards more objective standards uh citywide and consider that as we implement the R3 standards so we can really speed up the process of review in these projects and hopefully other developer developers find that useful as well um I appreciate the easement that you've provided although it's a path to nowhere on both sides.

So I do hope that the your marking of funds is something that can be recommended so the park that's proposed next door comes into being sooner because then it would really be um a value to both this development and the neighborhood um and I think that's really a summary of all that I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you um Commissioner Pam.

I'll also be supporting the project.

I agree with a lot of what my fellow commissioners have mentioned.

I also want to add I liked um that there are three bedroom units.

And they've come out to show support which I appreciate as well.

And I appreciate your collaborative nature especially with city staff.

No other comments well um I feel we all deserve congratulations.

And uh I would like to uh just go ahead and make one comment which is um I used to work in that area and uh I used to go on uh a lot of walks with uh my co-workers and I think that area is definitely um in need of uh you know the the facelift that this is gonna give it and so I know I'm I'm very happy uh that you guys were able to find that site and um hopefully make it more of a resource to the city and our future residents.

So um to that end um I'd like to make a motion and I think I have a packaged second in the wings.

Um you're so far away though.

Okay, um, do I just read it as is okay?

Uh then in that case I will make a motion.

Uh that the environmental planning commission recommend the city council one adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View adopting an initial an initial study slash mitigated negative declaration for the 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue residential project pursuant to section 15064 F3 and 1507 0 at Sequire at Sequita of the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only for the reading reading waived attachment one to the PC staff report to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View adopting a general plan amendment to modify the general plan land use map to change the land use designation for the properties at 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031 from General Industrial to meet him density residential as recommended by the environmental planning commission to be read in title only for the reading wave.

Detachment 2 to the EPC staff report three, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View approving a zoning map amendment for the properties located 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031 from the MM General Industrial Zoning District to the R3-1.5 multiple family residential zoning district as recommended by the environmental planning commission to be read in title only for the reading wave.

Attachment three of the EPC staff report for adopt a resolution of the city of Mountain View of the City of the City Council of the City of Mountain View, conditionally approving a planned unit development permit and development review permit to construct a 38 unit roadhouse development and related site improvements utilizing state density bonus law, replacing multi-tenant industrial building into single family homes and a heritage tree removal permit to move five heritage trees on a 1.69 acre site located at 922-950 uh San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-1802-026 and 153-18-031 to be read in title only for the reading wave, detachment forward of the EPC staff report five, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mount V conditionally approving a vessing tentative map for condominium purposes with one common law on a 1.69 acre site located at 922 to 950 San Leandro Avenue, APN 153-18-026 and 153-18-031.

To read entitled only for the reading attached for the reading wave, I guess it would say um attachment five to the EPC staff report.

Um I think we can take it to the vote.

Can you say that again?

Okay.

Yes.

Alright, further reading wave.

Alright, um I'm gonna fall asleep to that tonight.

Um we got uh moving forward to commission staff announcements, uh updates, requests, and committee reports.

If nobody else has anything, Diana Pancholi staffly is on to the EPC and principal planner.

Our next EPC meeting will be March 4th.

Um so yeah, as scheduled.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Pontrolli.

In that case, uh we will go ahead and proceed to eight adjournment.

This meeting is adjourned at 8 34 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.