►
From YouTube: 12-04-2019: Environmental Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Council Chambers, 500 Castro St., Mountain View, CA 94041
7:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 4, 2019
A
D
B
F
D
A
A
So
this
evening
there
are
no
minutes
to
approve,
so
we
will
move
on
to
4.0,
which
is
oral
communications
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wish
you
to
address
the
Commission
on
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
3
minutes
during
this
section.
Is
there
anyone
from
the
audience
who
would
like
to
speak.
A
Seeing
none
we
will
now
move
on
to
item
5
item
5.1
is
a
public
hearing
for
consideration
of
a
general
plan:
amendment
zoning
map,
amendment
Planned,
Unit
development,
permit
development
review,
permit
heritage,
tree
removal,
permit
and
tentative
map
to
construct
a
9
unit,
row
house
development
at
851
and
853
Sierra
Vista
Avenue
for
the
instructions
from
our
legal
counsel.
We
are
now
being
asked
the
Commissioner
asked
if
we
have
met
with
the
applicant
or
if
we
visited
the
job
site
so
can
I
see
from
left
to
right
who
has
met
I.
F
A
A
E
Thank
you
and
good
evening,
chair
and
members
of
the
Commission.
My
name
is
Diana
pancholi
Senior
Planner,
with
the
city's
Planning,
Division
and
I
have
with
me
tonight.
Our
planning
manager,
Stephanie
Williams.
The
project
in
front
of
you
tonight
is
a
nine
unit.
Rowhouse
development
proposal
at
eight
five
one
and
eight
five,
three
Sierra
Vista
Avenue,
the
0.56
acre
project
site,
is
located
on
to
the
north
east
corner
of
Sierra,
Vista,
Avenue
and
colony
street
between
Plymouth
street
and
colony.
Street.
E
The
project
site
is
surrounded
with
multi-family
residential
developments
and
single-family
homes
in
a
city
park
to
the
north.
At
the
intersection
of
fluid
and
service
the
Avenue,
the
current
project
site
is
comprised
of
three
parcels
which
are
split
zone.
The
northern
section
of
the
project
site
is
a
zone
multi-family
residential,
whereas
the
southern
site
is
zoned,
Journal,
industrial
and
the
general
plan
land
use.
Designation
of
the
northern
portion
is
also
medium
intensity,
residential
and
the
southern
portion
is
general
industrial.
E
The
project
site
is
currently
developed
with
three
single-family
home
and
warehouse
buildings,
which
will
be
demolished
as
part
of
this
project.
The
project
applicant
is
proposing
to
develop
the
site
with
four
with
nine
buildings,
and
there
are
nine
row
house
units
they're,
all
ownership
and
the
project
site
will
comprise
of
two
common
open
spaces.
The
project
is
laid
out
along
zero,
Vista
Avenue
and
a
private
driveway
which
provides
access
to
all
the
nine
units.
The
project
site
has
two
common
open
spaces,
which
comprises
around
2,900
square
foot
of
open
space.
E
The
project
is
proposing
a
architectural
style
which
is
a
mix
of
craftsman
elements
with
traditional
architecture
using
porches,
balconies
and
composite
shingles
railings
porch
columns
units
are
differentiated
through
use
of
different
exterior
materials
and
massing.
The
site
is
laid
out
with
visible
front
doors
and
substantial
porches
facing
the
street.
In
addition,
the
front
doors
and
porches
also
face
the
common
areas.
The
proposed
architecture
is
compatible
with
the
varied
architectural
styles
that
are
found
in
the
neighborhood.
E
Although
this
project
is
requiring
the
journal
planning
zoning
modification,
it
did
not
go
through
gatekeeper
authorization
because
the
project
is
using
the
gatekeeper
exemption
under
Section
36
point
5
to
point
one.
Five
and
thirty
six
point:
five,
two
point:
five:
five
for
special
application
requirements:
the
project
site
is
less
than
two
acres.
It
is
owned
by
a
single
entity
and
is
surrounded
by
similar
residential
uses
and
hence
they're
getting
this
exemption.
E
The
project
went
through
development
review
committee
twice
and
in
the
August
2019
meeting
the
TRC
recommended
with
minor
comments
for
the
applicant
to
work
with
the
staff.
Since
then,
the
applicant
has
revised
the
design
to
address
those
minor
comments.
The
project
also
an
initial
study-
was
prepared
for
the
project,
because
this
was
a
general
plan
and
a
zoning
modification
project.
E
The
initial
study
analysis
has
found
that
implementation
of
the
mitigation
measures,
as
mentioned
in
the
staff
report
and
the
standard
conditions
of
approval
of
the
project,
will
reduce
all
the
significant
impact
to
less
than
significant
levels.
Therefore,
a
mitigated
negative
declaration
is
recommended
for
the
project.
Along
with
the
mitigation
monitoring
plan,
the
project
is
a
not
subject
to
city's
community
stabilization
and
fair
rent
act
and
tearin
relocation
ordinance
because
all
the
three
single-family
homes
on
the
site
are
on
different
parcels.
E
Tonight
EPC
is
recommending.
This
is
reviewing
this
project
and
staff
is
asking
for
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council,
which
will
which
will
be
reviewed
by
City
Council
in
January
2020.
The
City
Council
will
make
a
final
determination
on
this
project.
In
conclusion,
staff
recommends
that
the
city
comes
the
EPC
recommend
to
the
City
Council
to
approve
and
adopt
the
initial
study.
E
Alternatively,
APC
can
still
consider
some
alternatives
to
send
us
back
to
staff
for
further
review,
but
as
a
next
step,
the
project
will
be
reviewed
by
City
Council
in
January
2020.
This
concludes
staff
presentation.
We
do
have
the
applicant
present
in
the
audience
tonight
if
you
have
any
questions
and
they
do
have
a
presentation.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
The
architectural
designer
for
the
project,
as
well
as
the
representative
for
the
applicant
I'd,
like
to
start
off
by
thanking
staff
for
their
presentation
and
for
their
staff
report
I,
will
try
to
be
very
brief,
so
the
project
had
an
informal
submittal
in
August
of
2018.
Since
then,
it
has
had
three
formal
submittals
and
is
met
with
the
Design
Review
Commission
twice.
We've
been
very
receptive
towards
comments
and
suggestions
from
staff
and
the
DRC
throughout
this
process.
C
Just
some
background
on
the
site.
The
site
is
adjacent
to
two
large
row
house
developments,
single-family
residences
and
Sierra
Vista
Park,
the
to
northern
parcels,
which
is
853
Sierra
Vista,
a
and
B
are
zone,
R
3
to
SD
residential
and
the
southern
parcel,
which
is
851
Sierra
Vista
is
owned.
Mm40
industrial,
the
parcel
which
is
industrial,
is
essentially
an
island
surrounded
by
r32,
so
this
project
would
actually
finally
allow
the
site
to
match.
C
With
the
surrounding
parcels
on
the
zoning
map
and
the
general
plan
for
this
project,
we
had
certain
concepts
that
we
really
tried
to
follow.
First,
looking
at
where
the
project
is
in
relation
to
the
existing
neighborhood.
Second,
making
sure
the
site,
layout,
open
space
and
architecture
were
all
fully
developed
and
third
creating
a
project
that
would
be
the
most
successful
for
the
community.
So
for
the
site
layout,
you
can
see
from
the
site
plan
we
have
two
attached
units,
three
attached
units
and
four
detached
units.
C
This
was
done
to
create
variety
within
the
project,
but
to
also
create
a
project
that
would
not
feel
heavy
or
dense
the
orientation
of
the
units
which
includes
setbacks,
shifting
and
the
driveway
placement
we're
all
heavily
examined,
and
the
goal
was
to
create
a
project
that
would
seamlessly
fit
into
the
site.
The
common
open
space
for
the
project
equals
2,900
square
feet,
which
is
more
than
three
times
the
minimum
requirement.
The
private
open
space
for
the
project
equals
1718
square
feet,
which
is
almost
too
times
the
minimum
requirement.
C
Finally,
with
the
architecture
we
combine
the
traditional
craftsman,
aesthetic,
which
is
common
in
the
area
and
tried
to
mix
modern
architectural
details
and
accents
which
include
colors
and
materials
fiber
cement
panels
with
vertical
horizontal
and
shingle
patterns,
composition,
roofing,
metal,
railing
and
stone
accents
for
the
columns.
An
initial
study
was
prepared
for
the
project
due
to
the
general
plant
change.
The
analysis
determined
that
the
implementation
of
the
three
mitigated
measures
and
the
conditions
of
approval
would
reduce
all
impacts
to
the
project.
C
So,
in
conclusion,
the
project
provides
an
incredible
opportunity
to
fully
maximize
the
existing
purpose
of
the
site
and
to
create
additional
housing
that
will
benefit
the
community
with
no
significant
impact
on
the
area.
The
project
complies
with
every
ordinance
and
guideline,
but
tries
to
go
above
and
beyond
certain
requirements.
The
project
is
below
the
maximum
and
above
the
minimum,
for
many
categories,
which
include
open
space,
height
setbacks
and
spacing.
C
A
H
C
E
H
A
D
And
maybe
it's
just
the
way
the
zoning
is
set
up.
There's
a
question
for
staff
on
page
5
at
the
bottom,
the
staff
report.
It
says
that
this
didn't
this
area
allows
this
project
is
effectively
a
16
unit
per
acre,
but
that
the
zoning
category
allows
from
the
13
to
25
drawing
and
it's
and
in
the
table.
It
says
that
nine
is
the
maximum.
So
I
was
if
it's
only
doing
16
units
per
acre
as
designed,
but
the
zoning
would
allow
25.
Why
is
the
maximum?
E
E
I
E
G
C
Sidewalk
on
service
that
would
be
remove
and
replace.
So
if
it
is
in
that
area
and
it
is
going
to
be
affected
by
that
remove
and
replace,
then
we
probably
would
have
to
look
and
see
if
there's
another
option
for
underground.
Yes,
okay,
yeah
I'm,
not
fully
sure
about
how
close
it
is
once
we
remove
and
replace
that
new
sidewalk.
But
we
can
look
into
that
because.
A
Okay,
I
have
one
question:
unless
there's
another
I
have
a
question
that
was
that
I
was
asked
earlier
and
I,
don't
think
it
got
responded
by
staff
in
the
ER
and
the
staff
report.
There's
a
differing
amount
of
trees
that
will
be
added.
I
saw
one
that
said
17
another
said
20
and
another
one
that
said
21.
Can
you
please
clarify
how
many
trees
will
be
planted
on
the
site.
G
E
A
A
H
H
It's
near
Google
and
it's
near
a
neighborhood
park,
so
I
mean
it
should
be
great
place
for
people
to
be
able
to
raise
their
kids
and
I
echo.
What
the
staff
says
about
improving
the
consistency
of
the
disowning
in
the
neighborhood
I
personally
think
this
North
Sierra
Vista
areas
when
a
mountain
views
greatest
success
stories,
it's
replacing
what
was
kind
of
a
decaying
and
blighted
industrial
district
with
a
highly
desirable
area
for
modern
housing.
H
So
I
thank
the
applicant
for
bringing
that
forward,
I'm
happy
to
see
that
there's
not
going
to
be
any
displacement
and
the
loss
of
the
warehouse
is
minor
impact
on
the
community.
Yeah
I
had
said
to
the
applicant
when
I
spoke
to
them
earlier.
That
I
was
very
happy
that,
without
leaving
aside,
you
know
the
special
gatekeeper
provision,
it's
really
nice,
that
they
come
to
us
with
a
compliant
project
and
one
that
goes
above
and
beyond,
particularly
in
the
area
of
open
space.
H
So
the
only
concern
that
I
have-
and
it's
not
a
concern
on
this
project-
that's
just
for
the
area
in
general
is-
is
that
I
didn't
notice
that
the
streets
are
really
parked
up
a
lot
and
I'm
just
wondering
you
know,
partly
what
that
comes
from,
although
since
they're
compliant
with
the
parking
requirements,
I,
don't
think
that
should
impose
any
burden
on
them.
So
that's
my
comments
and
I
could
make
the
motion,
but
wait
for
commissioners.
B
I'd
like
to
thank
the
applicant
for
coming
with
for
some
for
sale
housing
in
Mountain
View.
We
really
appreciate
that
and
would
appreciate
your
consideration
of
really
replacing
as
many
trees
as
you
can
either
non
heritage
or
not,
and
also
I,
think
we'd
like
to
see
those
that
are
native
to
California.
So
they're.
You
know
easy
to
care
for
and
they
will
be
sustained
over
time.
So
would
appreciate
that
consideration
from
the
applicant
and
other
than
that
I
think
it
is
a
excellent
project
for
the
area.
B
F
Homes
I
understand
it's
consistent
with
the
land
area,
but
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
to
perhaps
provide
more
on
or
shop
more
ownership
opportunities
or
a
variety
of
housing
stock
that
and
as
much
as
a
4-bedroom
home
for
our
family
is
nice.
I.
Think
it's
beyond
reach
fir
for
many
of
the
people
who
were
looking
for
homes
in
this
area
and
might
not
want
that
traditional
home.
So
great
projects
I'm
excited
about
the
grant.
Food
pedestrian
entryway
in
particular,
I.
G
Echo,
my
fellow
commissioners
comments,
I,
also
really
like
the
project
and
during
my
meeting
with
the
applicant
I,
made
a
couple
of
suggestions,
including
in
using
more
native
plants
as
well
as
trees
native
trees
such
as
Oaks
I
also
suggested
to
the
applicants
to
try
and
increase
this
area
of
permeable
surface
to
reduce
stormwater
runoff,
if
possible,
in
particular,
in
the
to
open
space
area
as
well
as
guest
parking,
the
pavers
areas,
if
we
can
make
them
permeable.
That
would
be
great,
but
overall,
yeah
I
think
this
is
a
nice
project.
Thank
You.
D
I
have
to
compliment
the
applicant
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
played
a
game
or
any
other
thing
where
somebody
came
this
close
to
the
rules
on
so
many
different
categories.
It's
kind
of
amazing,
so
I
do
like
the
project
I,
like
the
fact
that
you
stayed
within
the
guidelines,
but
I
will
echo
Commissioner,
hey
Meyers
feedback
I
am
I,
am
not
disappointed
by
the
project.
I
am
disappointed
that
our
zoning
guidelines
don't
allow
this
to
be
more
dense.
D
I
would
agree
that
a
couple
of
four-bedroom
units
and
in
the
city
of
Mountain
View
is
great,
but
it
really
feels
like
this
could
have.
This
location
could
have
supported
more.
So
as
we
look
at
the
r3
zoning
I
really
do.
This
is
a
this
will
be
a
test
case
on
my
mind
as
to
why
what
about
the
regulations
prevent?
A
And
again,
I
would
like
to
echo
the
comments
from
the
fellow
commissioners
I
laud,
the
applicant
for
being
creative
and
putting
together
a
challenging
situation
of
trying
to
come
eight
different
zonings,
and
how
do
you
put
that
all
together,
I
think
you've
done
a
great
job
of
utilizing?
Some
unusual
property
zoning-
and
we
also
did
talk
about
there's
other
other
properties
down
the
street
and
around
the
corner.
A
So
I
would
encourage
the
applicant
once
they
get
through
this
one
to
keep
your
eyes
open
for
other
opportunities,
because
I
think
you
do
a
good
job
of
following
the
rules,
as
some
of
the
other
commissioners
did
so.
Can
I
hear
a
motion
from
someone
and
again
her
staff
were
supposed
to
read
all
five
and
vote
on
all
fights
vice-chair
okay,.
H
I
would
like
to
make
the
motion
move
the
staff
recommendation
to
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approve
and
adopt
the
an
initial
study
draft
mitigated
negative
declaration
and
mitigation
monitoring
and
reporting
program
for
the
Sierra
Vista
ro
house
project
in
accordance
with
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
exhibit
one.
The
staff
report
number
two
adopt
a
resolution
recommending
that
the
City
Council
approve
a
general
plan
map.
H
For
the
properties
located
at
851
and
853
Sierra
Vista
Avenue
from
the
general
industrial
to
medium
density,
residential
to
be
read
in
title,
only
further
reading
waved
exhibit
two
to
the
staff
report
number
three
adopt
a
resolution
recommending
that
the
City
Council
approve
a
zoning
map
amendment
for
the
properties
located
at
851
and
853
Sierra
Vista
Avenue
from
the
r32
SD
multi-family
residential
and
the
mm40
general
industrial
districts
to
the
r32,
multiple
family
residential
district.
To
be
read
in
title.
Only
further
reading
waved
exhibit
three
to
the
staff
report.
H
Two
more
points,
please
at
number
four
adopt
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
conditionally
approve
a
Planned
Unit
development
permit
and
development
review
permit
to
construct
a
nine
unit.
Row
house,
development
and
heritage
tree
removal
permit
to
remove
six
heritage
trees
at
851
and
853
Sierra
Vista
Avenue
to
be
read
in
title.
Only
further
reading
weight
exhibit
four
to
the
staff
report
and.
C
B
A
And
the
motion
passes
unanimously
with
commissioner
again,
not
here
because
of
illness.
Okay,
so
that
concludes
this
portion
of
our
meeting.
The
next
portion
of
our
meeting
will
take
place
in
the
plaza
room
next
door,
so
we
will
take
a
minute
to
walk
next
door
and
proceed
with
the
next
portion
of
our
meeting.
Thank
you.