March 4, 2020 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:04:45] Chair Robert Cox: Are we there? Oh, okay. Do we have all the staff that's going to be sitting at the dais tonight? Okay, good.

[00:04:53] Chair Robert Cox: Alright, um, hello. I am going to open the, uh, meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission today on the 4th of March 2020 at 7:02 p.m. Um, let's have a roll call, please.

[00:05:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All the commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Holbrook, who was serving in the place of Commissioner Capriles.

[00:05:30] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you. Uh, the third item is minutes approval. There are no minutes for approval tonight, so we will move on to item four, which is oral communications for the public.

[00:05:44] Chair Robert Cox: This is the point in the meeting where members of the public may address the commission on any item of interest that is not on the agenda tonight. Uh, our agenda items are, uh, consideration of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance, Annual Housing Element Progress Report, and review of the 2030 General Plan Action Plan.

[00:06:14] Chair Robert Cox: If you would like to address us on something other than that today, uh, please, uh, raise your hand.

[00:06:23] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, seeing no one, I will close that oral communications from the public item and move on to item number five, which is a public hearing on consideration of text amendments to Chapter 36 Zoning Ordinance of the City Code to update accessory dwelling unit and home-based childcare regulations to align with new state regulations and modifications to planned community permit regulations. Uh, is there a staff presentation?

[00:06:55] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. My name is Brittany Whitehill and I am joined tonight by Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator Stephanie Williams.

[00:07:04] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: The item in front of you consists of zoning ordinance amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling units, also referred to as ADUs, family daycare homes, and planned community permits.

[00:07:19] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: In fall of 2019, the Governor signed into law several bills amending multiple government code sections related to ADUs and junior ADUs, as well as SB 234 related to family daycare homes. This legislation became effective on January 1st of 2020.

[00:07:38] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Upon reviewing state legislation pertaining to ADUs, staff has identified necessary zoning ordinance amendments including allowable zoning districts and ADU development standards and regulations. Additionally, state law requires jurisdictions to permit JADUs and ADUs in multi-family districts.

[00:08:00] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Finally, under state law, owners of unpermitted ADUs built before January 1st, 2020 may request a five-year delay of enforcement of certain building and zoning violations. Staff will be proposing an amnesty program alongside the zoning code updates in order to comply with state legislation and incentivize the legalization of unpermitted ADUs.

[00:08:26] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: The Zoning Ordinance currently permits ADUs in the R1 zoning district on properties with an existing or proposed single-family home. State law now requires jurisdictions to permit ADUs in all residential districts and mixed-use districts which allow residential uses.

[00:08:47] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Whereas the Zoning Ordinance currently limits ADUs to a maximum of 700 square feet, state law now mandates that jurisdictions allow studio and one-bedroom ADUs of up to 850 square feet and ADUs with two or more bedrooms of up to 1,000 square feet.

[00:09:05] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Cities must allow both attached and detached ADUs to be constructed four feet from the side and rear property lines. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows legal conforming garages and carports to be converted to ADUs. Now, under state law, cities must allow the conversion or replacement of legal non-conforming structures with ADUs.

[00:09:20] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Under state law, cities must allow ADUs in all multi-family zones. ADUs shall be permitted within portions of an existing multi-family dwelling structure that are not used as livable space. Up to 25% of the number of existing multi-family units in the building, but at least one unit shall be allowed.

[00:09:31] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Currently, the R1 district requires two parking spaces for the main house, one of which must be covered. An ADU requires one additional parking space, which does not need to be covered. Currently the Zoning Ordinance allows for certain exceptions from the ADU parking requirement.

[00:09:49] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Under state law, if a garage or carport is converted to an ADU, no replacement parking needs to be provided. Staff proposes to update the Zoning Ordinance accordingly.

[00:10:16] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Cities must additionally allow two 800 square foot detached ADUs.

[00:10:33] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Previously, cities had the option to allow junior ADUs, however, now the state law requires cities to allow JADUs in all single-family homes. A junior accessory dwelling unit is defined as a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size, includes an efficiency kitchen, is contained entirely within the walls of a single-family home, and may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the single-family dwelling.

[00:11:05] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: JADUs do not require additional parking.

[00:11:10] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: In fall of 2019, SB 234 related to family daycare homes was signed into law. The objective of the legislation is to streamline the administration of child daycare licensing to facilitate an increase in the supply of family daycare homes. This legislation became effective January 1st, 2020.

[00:11:31] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Currently, large family daycare homes, which allow 7 to 14 children, require a non-discretionary conditional use permit in all residential zoning districts. Large family daycare homes must provide one additional parking space per employee and are subject to additional standards such as a pick-up and drop-off plan and outdoor play area.

[00:11:53] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: SB 234 relaxes many requirements associated with large family daycare homes by requiring cities to permit them by right in all residential districts. Additionally, SB 234 prevents cities from requiring additional on-site parking for employees or additional standards such as pick-up and drop-off plans or outdoor play areas.

[00:12:14] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Staff is proposing to update affected code sections.

[00:12:19] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Finally, staff proposes minor amendments to the planned community permit section to clarify that the purpose of a planned community permit is to allow for creative, innovative developments within the context of defined community goals.

[00:12:33] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: The proposed amendments clarify that in some cases, variations from the applicable precise plan standards may be granted, but in order for these variations to be granted, proposals must clearly demonstrate superior site and building design and comply substantially with the intent of the requirements of the applicable precise plan.

[00:12:56] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: In conclusion, staff recommends the EPC adopt a resolution recommending Council approve proposed code—excuse me—approve proposed code amendments. This concludes staff's presentation, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

[00:13:10] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you, Ms. Whitehill. Um, so since this is a public hearing, we'll do things in the normal public hearing order. First we will get, uh, questions from the commission, and then we will follow that by comments from the public, and then finally we will come back to the commission for deliberation and hopefully a resolution for a motion.

[00:13:37] Chair Robert Cox: So, let's start by questions from the commission to, uh, staff. Uh, does anyone have questions to staff?

[00:13:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Um, just quickly, effectively what's the difference between an attached ADU to a primary dwelling and a duplex? And is there a difference in the zoning code for one versus the other?

[00:14:06] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: So currently ADUs are only allowed in the R1 zoning district, so that's currently one of the differences. Um, additionally an attached ADU would need to be less than 50% of the floor area of the existing home. So if it's an 1800 square foot home, the ADU would need to be 600 square feet, if the whole structure is 1800 square feet.

[00:14:26] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Um, ADUs also only require one parking space, whereas a duplex would require two, um, one of which would need to be covered. So those are a few of the differences, additionally ADUs have more relaxed setbacks.

[00:14:40] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Got it, thank you.

[00:14:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, and uh, Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:14:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I missed the fact that this would affect R4. Um, would something that's in a parking structure—for example, the one project we looked at last week, um, where there's a parking garage underneath the unit—would they, would someone be able to build essentially an ADU into the parking space in a complex, a condo complex?

[00:15:12] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Are you talking about an underground garage?

[00:15:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah.

[00:15:15] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yeah, that would probably wouldn't meet um building and fire requirements for exiting and habitability.

[00:15:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, and if it's a podium?

[00:15:29] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Um, it could potentially, if it was above grade and could satisfy building and fire codes.

[00:15:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Interesting. Okay.

[00:15:49] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Hameyer.

[00:15:50] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Is there a rough estimate in terms of the number of potential ADUs that this could generate in the city?

[00:15:58] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: I don't think we have a way to model that, that's my sense.

[00:16:02] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Um, if you have some—if you have an interest in that, let me know, we could probably get some Stanford students to take a look and see, see if we can get a number for the commission.

[00:16:15] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, Commissioner Yin.

[00:16:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh, yes, another one. I was just wondering, along the lines of quick studies, is there any way to just take a look at um current house sizes, primary dwellings, and the like sitting on the various lot sizes that Mountain View has and to see what that looks like, um, if you add an ADU and a JADU at the maximum square footage, so to speak?

[00:16:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: That might give you a rough number of what's able to be built and how many units you could gain without having to ask people what, you know, if they want to or not, just to find out. Um, but because our—we have certain lot sizes, it should be a fairly easy way to figure out given setbacks. Um, I just didn't know if you guys did a quick study yet or not.

[00:17:09] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: No, we did not. Um, and the provisions of state law that that are then reflected in our ADU um ordinance basically says that every R1 lot, regardless of lot size, is permitted up to an 800 square foot ADU. Within the setbacks and the fire code distance from primary dwelling to detached, so at some point, there's certain lot sizes given what houses are already there, that it's just not doable.

[00:17:44] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So it does allow exceptions, or it actually requires that the city relax um the standards pertaining to that in order to allow up to a minimum 800 square foot ADU.

[00:17:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Got it. Thank you.

[00:18:01] Chair Robert Cox: Uh, other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Schmiesing.

[00:18:12] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Sorry, can I get a little clarification on the ADUs in multi-family structures? The way it's worded, does that mean that at least one unit within the multi-family structure has to convert some non-livable space into an ADU?

[00:18:27] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Sure. So, it's not a requirement that non-livable space be converted to ADUs, but basically what that is saying is up to 25%. So I guess we'll give an example. If there's a 100-unit apartment complex, up to 25 ADUs could be created within non-livable space. Um, and additionally we would need to allow a minimum of one. So if it's a three-unit complex we would need to allow one even though that exceeds the 25%.

[00:18:54] Chair Robert Cox: Uh, other commissioners? Okay, I have a few questions. Um, I'm trying to get my head around exactly what livable space means. I mean like let's talk about like a large R4 multi-family apartment building, right? I mean if they have an area that, you know, is is kind of like, um, an on-site green space that would be used by the people who live there. Is that convertible to put ADUs on it?

[00:19:30] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So the um habitable or non-habitable space pertains to existing building area. Uh, it's the detached ADUs that could potentially go in green open space areas. But the non-habitable building area would be examples could be um laundry rooms or boiler rooms, um community rooms, things like that.

[00:19:58] Chair Robert Cox: But but a a like a private park within the complex. I mean, you know, that that is convertible to some kind of ADU structure.

[00:20:09] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yes, that could potentially be the location for a detached ADU.

[00:20:11] Chair Robert Cox: I see. What about rooftop decks right now? I mean, could this effectively be used to put an additional story on buildings?

[00:20:21] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: No, it would not.

[00:20:22] Chair Robert Cox: No. Okay, and the reason for that is because there's a height limit on the building, or?

[00:20:26] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: That's correct.

[00:20:27] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, what if someone, I mean, the recommendations that are happening here in order to get us up, you know, in conformance with the state code, um, with those that are, um... I believe that some of these are, you know, required for conformance, but some things that we have are we have are guidelines that are discretionary.

[00:20:51] Chair Robert Cox: What if what would if a person had a proposal for something and he didn't know whether or not it was conforming, uh, what's the right thing for him to do? Would he come to you and talk it over? And, um, are all of the things that are discretionary that are in our zoning code right now, are those things that are negotiable with staff or how does it work? Things that are guidelines, I'm talking about basically.

[00:21:19] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So all of the ADU requirements are not discretionary, which is why we it would issue an ADU permit as a building permit. So they're not discretionary. They're all objective standards that would need to be met.

[00:21:34] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So any changes that we're making tonight are things that are are directly required to bring us in conformance to state law, and those are hard and fast rules that we're talking about tonight.

[00:21:43] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: That's correct.

[00:21:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, and what what process does a person who wants to, uh, build an ADU go through right now? I mean is is there a ZA hearing? Is there or is it just, you know, he comes and presents plans and they're looked over and he gets a building permit without any hearing or what how's that done?

[00:22:10] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yeah, so the current process is uh through a building permit and it would continue to be so.

[00:22:16] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So there doesn't necessarily have to be a public hearing with that?

[00:22:20] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: There actually cannot be a public hearing.

[00:22:22] Chair Robert Cox: Oh, okay. Okay. Hm, there was a line in the staff report, it says it requires uh with respect to the uh JADUs it says requires the recordation of a deed restriction. Um, what does that mean? I guess I don't know enough about this stuff.

[00:22:41] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So it's a legal instrument that is recorded against the property, that would run with the land for all future property owners that may purchase the property, and just sets forth certain stipulations um about the um what can be done with the JADU.

[00:22:57] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So basically it's just the deed restriction says this is a JAD—a JADU and and all of the things that go with the restrictions of that type of property. Right? Okay, thanks. And um, with respect to, um, we several years ago, we had a uh loosening of the restrictions on ADUs that we did as a city without any state prompting, and you know, at that time we did talk about the idea of an amnesty program and, you know, I mean the idea that some people might come forward and, you know, want to convert um ADUs that were built without the city's blessing, I guess I'd say, into ones that would be. Do we know whether anybody came forward?

[00:23:48] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Uh, so just to clarify, the previous ADU modifications were based on previous legislation.

[00:23:53] Chair Robert Cox: Oh, were they? Okay.

[00:23:56] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: It was. Um, and there have been ADUs proposed since the last update to them, and and now. But—

[00:24:09] Chair Robert Cox: But we didn't have anybody saying, I have a non-conforming ADU and now I want to talk to you about making it conforming.

[00:24:17] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So there's a differentiation between legal non-conforming and illegal structure. So if it—

[00:24:21] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, well I'm asking about illegal structures, not legal non-conforming.

[00:24:25] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Um, yeah, so previously it would need to would need to have been um legally conforming in order to convert, let's say a detached accessory structure.

[00:24:37] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. But did anybody come forward and say, I'm willing to make these modifications and I want to talk to you about that?

[00:24:44] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yeah, we've had conversations with lots of people.

[00:24:47] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, okay. Um, and is there something specific the city is looking at doing? I mean, you know, in in terms of like an amnesty program or like ramping up enforcement, you know, as an incentive toward people wanting to seek the amnesty, or is it just we're going to just say, hey, there's this amnesty program here and if you want to participate in it, you can, but we're there's not going to be any change in enforcement.

[00:25:15] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: So the state actually allows, um, or sorry, requires cities to allow owners of unpermitted ADUs to delay any, um, any building, any code enforcement issues, um, up to five years. So that's issues that are, um, non-life safety related issues. So any zoning violations or building violations, owners of ADUs can request five years to, um, rectify any of those non-conforming situations.

[00:25:45] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: After that five-year period, um, they would be then required to legalize the structure if they had, you know, opted into this. Um, typically, um, you know, these are determined on a a complaint-driven basis, but if someone were to, um, opt into an amne—into the amnesty program that we're proposing, then they would have five years to remedy that situation.

[00:26:10] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so we don't really have like a list of illegal ADUs in some file in the city database or anything? It's just, I mean the only way you really know about that is if somebody has to come up and complain. Okay, I understand, thanks. Um... one question about the, um, the family daycares. So, let's say a family daycare was run by, you know, say, a couple living in a house, okay, and they don't have any additional employees other than themselves. Um, does that mean they could start a family daycare like that without providing any additional parking spaces?

[00:26:55] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: That is correct.

[00:26:57] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And I think those are my questions. Uh, does anybody else have questions? Uh, I see Commissioner Schmiesing.

[00:27:07] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Um, I was wondering, so if someone approaches the city with, um, the plan to build an ADU, um, does the city know of any examples of other cities or have any ideas about—right, because ADUs can be used as a short-term rental or a long-term rental—I guess, correct? Um, or they could be used as office space, but there'd be have to be different, um, different requirements for what's what's included in the ADU if it's going to be a rental versus an office?

[00:27:39] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So if it's an office space, we would consider that to be an accessory structure and not an accessory dwelling unit. And accessory structures that are not ADUs would not be entitled to the same um provisions and standards.

[00:27:52] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Okay, so if someone approaches the city with um the intention to create an accessory dwelling unit, are is staff aware of any cities that have come up with incentive programs to encourage um using that ADU as a long-term rental, a potentially naturally affordable source of housing, versus a short-term rental? Um, I know cities have outright banned use of ADUs as short-term rentals, I'm not asking about that, but incentivizing um people choosing that long-term rental option.

[00:28:20] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So the state law actually requires that all ADUs under 800 square feet, all multi-family ADUs, and all junior ADUs be used as long-term rentals.

[00:28:32] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: As that what is defined as long-term rental do you know?

[00:28:34] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Uh, more than 30 days.

[00:28:35] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: More than 30 days. Okay.

[00:28:41] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Yin.

[00:28:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, I was curious whether or not the city was investigating any financial aid for those who would be willing to construct ADUs or JADUs, um, that would be used towards the BMR program. Is that something that's been talked about?

[00:29:05] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: No, it has not.

[00:29:07] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay.

[00:29:12] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Lo.

[00:29:14] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um, I have a quick question regarding the, uh, large family childcare homes. Um, so since since the small family childcare homes definition, uh, the limit has been raised from 6 to 8, do we need to change the definition of the large family childcare home? Cause right now it says 7 to 14.

[00:29:35] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: So the way that the state defines large and small family daycare homes also takes into account the ages of the children. So the state's definition could actually allow a small family daycare home of up to eight children, but depending on the ages of the children, um, it could be, you know, a large family daycare home. There is a little bit of overlap, and that's something that the state licensing boards would determine their license type.

[00:30:04] Chair Robert Cox: Uh, Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:30:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So a, I understood staff's response, didn't necessarily like it, but the, our current residential parking standards, are they codified or are they something that's, um, a set of administrative standards? How are they administered today?

[00:30:31] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So they're codified, and that's one thing that we would review in the ministerial building permit, um, process.

[00:30:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, I guess a follow-up question to that. I mean, we have been, as we've seen projects, we have and, and I've fundamentally agreed with the idea that ultimately the, um, parking needs to be something that it needs to be more dense. Um, I I read the statement that, you know, this, that the jurisdictions are a major cause of the housing shortage, to me feels quite frankly like SB 50, which is a we're going to apply a one-size-fits-all set of rules for everybody, and what I'm worried about is that I feel that we have been tightening our, our parking requirements on developments, but we I just want to make sure we have not changed our standards in the last couple years so that if we were to essentially enforce the higher end of the range of standards, rather than going beyond that, we would not be changing our behavior going forward. Is that correct? So we, I think we've been approving projects that are below the minimums that were required. If we were to begin to require the minimums, we would not be changing our standards. Is that correct?

[00:32:02] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: That's correct. I think you're referring to, um, the one space per bedroom for the higher density residential projects. Um, that set of standards is actually codified in a multiple of our precise plans. So there's parking standards for our R3 developments in the zoning code, and then there's also typically lower standards in our precise plans. So those are actually codified numbers and there's not a range allowed.

[00:32:30] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Um, we, people have asked for parking reductions and they do um need to provide either a parking study or some sort of parking justification explaining why the operation of that specific property would with less than the code requirements of parking would not create a parking problem and effectively result in spillover parking on, say, the public streets.

[00:32:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Did we require that analysis to also include the potential conversion to ADUs?

[00:33:01] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: We cannot.

[00:33:17] Chair Robert Cox: Um, I just had a few more follow-up questions. Um, is any of the legislation that we're modifying our zoning ordinance, uh, to be in conformance with, um, subject to expiration? I mean, I know like SB 330 has is like a five-year legislation. Um, any of these other ones have any expiration date on them?

[00:33:41] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: This does not have an expiration.

[00:33:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And if a person wanted to convert, let's say they live in a, um, in a condo development, okay, and they want to convert their garage into an ADU. They don't need to get the permission of the homeowners association, right, after this, right?

[00:34:06] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: I think they would still need to get permission from the homeowners association, but the CC, enforcement of CC&Rs that say, um, your garage can only be used for parking, can't be used for storage or anything else, that is preempted by law.

[00:34:19] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And then another question, um, as far as, uh, ADUs or JADUs that would be built in zones other than, let's say R1 and R2, um, has anyone approached you with interest to, uh, produce ADUs in an R3 or R4 development at this time?

[00:34:43] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: I think over the years we have had some inquiries, um, usually it was for smaller, um, kind of, you know, like fourplexes and other type things, but I am not aware of any request to convert, you know, um, like rowhouse garages to...

[00:35:00] Chair Robert Cox: Uh-huh.

[00:35:02] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: an ADU.

[00:35:03] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Or and you're not, uh, no like 100 unit plus apartment buildings?

[00:35:07] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: No.

[00:35:09] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Alright. Um, any other questions from the commission?

[00:35:18] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: I just want to clarify with staff, the purpose of tonight's agenda item is really just to bring our code into conformity with the state law, right? Because we are a charter city, so a lot of the discussion that we've been talking about is about ADUs in general, but what we're talking about now is not going beyond what the state code is, it's just aligning it, is that right?

[00:35:39] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: That's correct.

[00:35:41] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Okay. So, thank you. That's helpful.

[00:35:46] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Wait, just to clarify with respect to the ADUs, correct, and then as well as the um home-based childcare. And then the additional changes are different under the planned community permits, I just want to be clear about which pieces are to be complying with state law.

[00:36:01] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Right. I just, I've heard a lot of great questions about how this relates to planning in other parts of the city, but my understanding is what we're looking at tonight is only making sure that what we have adopted in our code is conforming with the state law, so these other questions bring up really good points about how we want to look at other pieces of, of projects that might come before us, but this seems pretty cut and dry if, if that's what we're doing. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't off base. Thanks.

[00:36:33] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Very quickly, I'm just confirming, JADUs do not need to have a toilet?

[00:36:41] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: That is, well they need to have access to a toilet, but it can be a shared sanitation facility with the main house. So internal access between the JADU and the main house would be required, but that is correct.

[00:36:55] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, and enforcement is very, very difficult. Correct? As in ensuring that they have access at all hours?

[00:37:06] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: That is correct.

[00:37:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay.

[00:37:13] Chair Robert Cox: Alright, any last questions before we open this to public input? Okay, um, not seeing any other questions, yeah, I'll just make the comment that, you know, my questions and I'm sure questions from some of the other commissioners, we're just trying to learn about this so that we can understand how it's going to affect other decisions that we make, and also be able to answer questions to people who ask us, you know, so thank you very much for that.

[00:37:42] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, having closed the initial questions from commissioners, I will now open it up to public comment. Are there members of the public that would like to comment? Okay, I see one. Um, please come up to the microphone. Please talk into the microphone. Uh, please tell us your name, and and then you should get 3 minutes to talk.

[00:38:05] Santosh: Hi, my name is Santosh, so I want to, I have five recommendations which are like I found a little different from the other cities. So the city of San Jose, city of Santa Clara, I found...

[00:38:14] Chair Robert Cox: Move the microphone closer to your mouth.

[00:38:16] Santosh: Uh, sorry, other cities like the city of San Jose, city of Santa Clara, I found...

[00:38:20] Chair Robert Cox: We can't hear you. You need to speak into the microphone. This is being recorded too.

[00:38:24] Santosh: Okay, sorry. So the City of San Jose has a 6 feet, uh, distance between the main main dwelling unit and the primary dwelling unit, and Mountain View is proposing 10 feet, and the state law requires it for 5 feet safety, 5 feet.

[00:38:38] Santosh: So, like, it limits the proper the property owners to add the ADUs because it takes a a lot of rear lot, and the 10 feet, the separation which city is requiring, it's it goes as a useless space. So like if it is like compliant with the other cities like the City of San Jose, the 6 feet, then it is good, like it motivates people to add an ADU because the lot sizes. Because the Mountain View has a very smaller lot sizes, even the San Jose has a bigger lot size but still they are giving 6 feet, but Mountain View is only giving is 10 feet. So this is one of the recommendation.

[00:39:10] Santosh: And the regarding the attached attached ADU and JADUs. So there is a clarification needed because state law by minimum says 800 square foot ADU is needed. But when it is attached, so let's say the main dwelling is only 1200 square feet, so when it when you attach it, the ADU becomes only 600 square feet, which is not compliant with the state law. State law says 800 ADU has to be done.

[00:39:36] Santosh: It's good like when when there is a single-family dwelling is an 1800, you get a 900. But when it's 1200, so it's 600. So that needs to be, and City of San Jose has a clear definitions how it is done, so you can take a look. I gave you all all the notes.

[00:39:52] Santosh: And the amnesty program, city is proposing that, uh, like we follow the San Jose one, which is two years, but uh state law recommends it's five years because someone who's going through pregnancy or the medical expense or the children education. Let's say the two years ends, then they cannot convert it.

[00:40:12] Santosh: So if it is 5 years, then it's better for the people, so that the incentive program has to be for 5 years so that people can adopt it and people can use it. So yeah, that's the third recommendation.

[00:40:25] Santosh: And the fourth recommendation is the JADU location recommendation. The state law says that, uh, JADU has to be attached to the main dwelling unit, and the city is complying with that, there's no doubt about it. But my recommendation is like the if the JADU can be detached, so people can add more more housing into in the city of Mountain View.

[00:40:43] Santosh: So the thing is that many people are converting the garages to an ADUs. So once they convert the garages to an ADUs, they cannot have they can like some people they cannot add the JADUs. So let's say people can convert the garages to an JADUs, and they can still add the ADUs. So you get more housing. Like let's say the person who has an a 9,000 square foot lot, he converts the detached garage...

[00:41:12] Chair Robert Cox: Your time is up.

[00:41:13] Santosh: Okay, the last one, I just gave you a checklist how the San Jose has given it. So it is pretty nice, like it helps the people to understand like what what can be built. And it clarifies the fee structure also. So in our ordinance, the fee structure is not clear. So if it helps if...

[00:41:29] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you. Okay. Um, are there other people that want to comment on this?

[00:41:40] Catherine: Hi, good evening. My name is Catherine. I have three questions to, maybe the commissioner can, uh, help to clear, clarify. One is that, uh, is it a, a two-story ADU allowed? Uh, the second question is that, let's say there's a, a detached garage at the backyard, and is the ADU could build on the second floor of the detached garage?

[00:42:07] Catherine: And the third question is, according to the state law, uh, the maximum, uh, ADU including JADU, uh, I, I'm not sure if it JDU include it, should be, uh, 1200 something, right? And, uh, let's say, uh, my backyard is big enough and there's a 1,000 detached ADU, and is it allowed, uh, a 500 square foot JADU be built at the same time? So those are my current questions. Thank you.

[00:42:42] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you. Are there other members of the public that would like to address the commission? All right, seeing none, I will close public comment and then, uh, bring it back, uh, for additional questions to staff and some deliberation over a recommendation. Um, but I guess first I'd like to see if staff can comment on the issues that were, uh, brought up in the public comment here. Um, I guess the first thing is for the first gentleman who spoke, um, he had some recommendations, we're talking only about bringing things in conformance with state law. Um, what's the best way for him to find out how to solve his problem about what he can do with his property?

[00:44:45] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So we have, we have been in contact with the speaker, and are actively working with him on what can be done on his specific property.

[00:44:54] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, do we know whether or not, you know, there...

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Chair Robert Cox: be uh opportunity to have the council look at you know additional changes to the ADU regulations beyond this this year? I mean is it on the schedule?

[00:45:10] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: No we are not anticipating any future

[00:45:13] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, okay. So then the right way for him is just to keep working with you and have you work something out with him.

[00:45:18] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: That's correct.

[00:45:20] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And how about the questions from the other two ladies?

[00:45:26] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So I believe Catherine had a question about whether a two-story ADU could be allowed. Staff is proposing to allow second-story ADUs but not two-story ADUs. So the ADU itself would need to be one story but it could be on the second story. She also asked about the maximum overall ADU size that would not include a 500 square foot ADU. So potentially someone could have an 800 square foot detached ADU in addition to a 500 square foot JADU. And I apologize I believe I missed the second question.

[00:46:06] Chair Robert Cox: Uh second floor of a detached garage?

[00:46:09] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yes, that's correct. Um yes, you could have potentially a detached ADU on the second floor of a detached garage.

[00:46:15] Chair Robert Cox: Okay.

[00:46:16] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um, and then Fay had a question about if pre-fab ADUs could be allowed. Um, they could be allowed provided that they comply with the ADU zoning and building code standards. Um, and now if there is a legal non-conforming garage, that can be converted to an ADU.

[00:46:35] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, let's then thank you very much. Let's bring it back uh to the commission for uh either additional questions or comments about, you know, this uh legislation or how it would affect other things that we're looking with and then finally, you know, uh we were hoping for some to come and uh put up a uh recommendation to the council. So are there commissioners that want to follow up with additional questions and/or comments? Hmm not all at once. Ah, Commissioner Smeezing.

[00:47:23] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Um, building off my question before and um Commissioner Yin's comment about financial assistance for residents who want to contribute to the BMR um housing supply. Um this isn't necessarily a question but I do think it it would be nice to look into what incentives or what aid might be available to to support further creation of BMR units within our community.

[00:47:59] Chair Robert Cox: Other commissioners? Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:48:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I understand that we're working on coming in compliance here. What I'm troubled with is I feel to some extent like this is, I mentioned before, kind of like SB50 where Mountain View has been doing things, we've been allowing things to be more dense, we've looked at tightening down the parking requirements, and this seems to, you know, I've lived in a townhome development, um there wasn't a lot of parking in it to start with. And one of the things we regularly hear in, in review of projects is, is this going to spill over into the neighborhoods. And my sense is that today where many of the, of the developments are, we're already kind of, we're already squeezing the parking to, to bring it down on these things. And I'm, my concern is that I have no issue with the concept of ADUs, don't misunderstand that. My concern is that we're, um, that we're not necessarily looking at, are there things that we should be in, in, along with this, are there things that we should be looking at that say as we evaluate projects going forward that those are presented as a package to council to say here's what we're doing to bring things in compliance but there's an implication of these items. And should we be recommending, you know, looking at, are there things that we should be considering differently as we look at projects in the future that would be impacted by these items. And so I'm, I feel like we're, we've got only half of, half of it here. And I guess I don't, you know, the, the law kind of sounds like, you know, local jurisdictions be damned is kind of, kind of the way it, it's kind of coming across. Um, but I don't feel like we're, I don't feel like we're one of those that are intentionally raising parking standards to make it more difficult for these to be put in. But I don't feel like we're having an opportunity to look at what's the implications of this and I'm worried about the fact that it's not going to come up in the future, that we're going to be putting something in place and we don't have the chance to look at them going forward. And I guess I'd ask staff, did staff consider what the potential impact of this might be and should, are there things that we should be, in addition to this presenting to council, that would address the potential impact on future project evaluations? As, as not just reaching legal compliance but understanding the implication of this on our planning process. Is that something that you've considered at all in your evaluation?

[00:50:47] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So that would need to, we would need to be able to make assumptions that basically every project and we would need to assume the maximum number of ADUs that could potentially be part of it in order to do that and that is not something that we have currently um considered because it would have the potential to further over-park a project making those assumptions about further conversions of ADUs. Especially with related to multi-family. So that is not something that we have considered to date. Um we can certainly raise that as, if you'd like, as a concern that the EPC um would potentially like considered. But maybe with the future um R3 studies, um certainly parking is going to be part of that, um perhaps it could be folded into that evaluation as well.

[00:51:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks.

[00:51:52] Chair Robert Cox: Other commissioners?

[00:51:56] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think I'm just gonna go on record saying that I know we have to bring ourselves into compliance but I have a lot of concerns over these regulations. Not that I'm against them at all but it would be nice to have a clearer idea of what the implications are before we just okay them. I know we have to, but um for instance the smallest thing is the JADU without the toilet. That to me just screams like the potential for abuse. And I don't understand how that's even okay. I don't see anyone who's going to build a a separate unit for a stranger and allow them to come wandering in at all hours of the day into their house to use the facilities. So if enforcement is not possible, which it isn't, then I just see all kinds of potential for problems, um just one of potentially many.

[00:52:47] Chair Robert Cox: Other commissioners? Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:52:51] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Um I support the staff recommendation that's before us. I think one thing that could accompany perhaps the discussion tonight and a recommendation to council would be something along the lines of getting um maybe systematizing the data collection when we are approached about ADUs because I think from what I recall from our prior discussion is that it is really expensive to build here, right, and so the the main deterrent had been the cost of building the ADU and then the additional property tax assessment. And so I would be curious if there's any kind of way that when we're getting applications, if we can know some of the concerns of homeowners, whether it's enforcement or the cost or um liability, I I just don't know what the types of concerns are from homeowners that might impact um what Vice Chair Cranston is getting, getting at which is we're trying to build more housing and if this is a way to allow us to build more housing, we want to better understand the whole ecosystem because Mountain View is doing what we can but how do we make sure that we're doing as much as we can be.

[00:54:02] Chair Robert Cox: So uh do we have a sense right now of about like in the R1 neighborhoods what percentage of homes have uh ADU or JADU?

[00:54:14] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So essentially um leading up to about 2017, 2017 we permitted one to three ADUs annually. In 2018 there were eight permits issued for ADUs. And then in 2019 there were 15 permits um and in 2020 there have been three permits so far. So we have been seeing a continuous increase in the number of permits issued. Um we haven't, you know, determined the percentage of lots that have an ADU.

[00:54:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. We yeah we don't have really a sense of you know the illegal ADUs because I mean I can walk through the neighborhoods and I can see but you know I think there's a lot more of those than the ones that are permitted. But even with that it doesn't sound like it's at this point an over overwhelming number. Like I would personally I would be surprised if it was more than 10%. But um I don't know did you may not have any sense of that, right, but

[00:55:15] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: We we don't have a way to track the number of illegal ADUs but it's likely you know the number is maybe much higher than what we're seeing as permitted ADUs.

Unknown

[00:55:25] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah. I mean, you know, like in terms of my own, I'll throw some comments in here. I mean, you know, in terms of my own thinking about all this, you know, I'm going to echo some of the concerns that, uh, Vice Chair Cranston has. That, I mean, you know, um, you know, the state is increasingly getting involved, okay, in, in, uh, passing legislation. I mean, I think with regards to modifying local jurisdictions, I mean, it's a mixed bag in my opinion.

[00:55:55] Chair Robert Cox: Um, some of the things that I've seen come forth, you know, are, are good, okay. Um, other things, you know, I wish that, that we had a way of doing less one-size-fits-all way of doing this. I mean, in particular, you know, like the thing about the parking. I mean, you know, I can just see what would happen in the place where I used to live, where, you know, a townhome complex where, you know, basically anytime anybody put his place up for sale and the honor system, you know, with the parking went up. I mean, it just kind of blew up because nobody wanted to say to anybody coming in to sell their place that they shouldn't be parking in these spaces that, you know, most other people think are theirs.

[00:56:39] Chair Robert Cox: And so, um, you know, I mean, I, I think that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess the HOA could at least say that for, you know, parking spaces that are considered to be guest parking spaces, somebody would, I mean, that part of the HOA could still be enforced. So if somebody wanted to take the car that he had in his garage and convert the garage into an ADU and park it, you know, permanently in a guest space, then the HOA could say something about that. Wouldn't that be right? Okay. And so he might have to park off on the street or somewhere if there's a place. But, you know, so that, that kind of thing, you know, I have just some concern about that, but I understand we're in a housing crisis, and so, you know, we're going to deal with it as best we can.

[00:57:25] Chair Robert Cox: Um, in terms of the home-based child care, I mean, you know, uh, I think, you know, the idea to make it easier to form a home-based child care is, is generally a positive thing. I mean, um, my wife is in not a home-based but in a child care, um, she works in a child care center, okay. And, you know, I mean, like, whenever people have talked about like going out on their own and being able to do this, I mean, the main obstacle to it is, is that, you know, well, if we're going to have kids in somebody's home and want to provide some day care for them, then we have no way to create additional parking. Okay. And so therefore it can't be done at all. So I think that, you know, the fact that those are, regulations are loosening up a little bit, I mean, will help provide a much needed, um, additional, uh, child care. So, um, that I think is relatively positive.

[00:58:30] Chair Robert Cox: Uh, and, you know, the third thing I would just say is I'm going to echo what I've heard from the other commissioners, like, um, Commissioner Hehmeyer, Yin, and, uh, Vice Chair Cranston, and that really what I think since we have to become conforming to the state regulations, that's not a matter of choice. But, um, I'd like to know what the effect is ongoing. You know, so that, I mean, if we had some idea of, you know, if we start to see this kind of thing become, let's say, significantly popular, you know, then it might be useful to have a study session at some point to discuss it and ask ourselves how things are going and whether we want to do anything else. But in order to do that, you know, you have to have some, you have to have some information to act on.

[00:59:22] Chair Robert Cox: I mean, one of the things, I understand staff time is really limited, and one of the things that, you know, I've heard from time to time over the, you know, years I've been here is that, well, we recommend legislation to the council, but we don't really get a lot of follow-up on how well it's going. And so, um, particularly with respect to state, uh, legislation that we have no choice over, I mean, knowing a little bit about what the effects are, um, would be useful. And, um, I guess another thing is that since action is taken based on complaints, if I start to hear complaints and when I do hear complaints from my neighbors about whatever, then I'll tell them, yeah, you know, you oughta go and let them know you're not happy about something 'cause otherwise we don't know about it. So, um, so anyway, those are my comments.

[01:00:17] Chair Robert Cox: Uh, does anybody else have comments before we ask for a resolution?

[01:00:31] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. I don't...

Segment 2

[01:00:45] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Sure. I'll move to um accept the staff recommendation as is but I'm before we see if there's interest, it sounds like there I'm not sure how to synthesize what I've heard in terms of discussion because it seems like there's general consensus on the staff recommendation as is, but to the chair's point, I think what I'm hearing is there's some additional language that we would like to forward on to council to better understand the impact of accessory dwelling units overall. So I don't know that I have the language based on my notes but um I'm happy to to make a motion for the EPC recommendation as is, if someone wants to synthesize that to to have the accompanying language.

[01:01:27] Chair Robert Cox: Okay I I'll speak for myself and the other commissioners can speak as well. I mean the comments that I'm making are things that you know I mean are if the staff so chooses, they can indicate that in the staff report, you know the things main points that we made. I don't think that those are things that I was looking to add onto the to formal recommendation. Um any other commissioners have thoughts on that?

[01:01:57] Chair Robert Cox: It looks like Vice Chair Cranston is in agreement.

[01:02:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: No, I'm... I guess what I would, and I'd look to the attorney as to how to word it, but um essentially I would request that maybe either that's an additional sentence or an addition that says and require that staff put in place a process for monitoring the impact of the implementation of this procedure and report back on a periodic basis on the on the impact of the of the change. Something along those lines so that we have some some method of of understanding what it's done. Would be my request for a friendly amendment.

[01:02:45] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: So in just a to make sure that we're clear in terms of what that means, in terms of like a number of applications that we're seeing or um

[01:02:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So you got an application if there's an implication of of how many units it's adding, how many parking spaces it may or may not be displacing, um how many if there's a concern about safety issues, how many of the JADUs are there, just for us to begin to track so that we have some data that we can look at later. I'm not looking for action on the data, but there's a method for based on the applications collect that information and then report it back on a periodic basis.

[01:03:32] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: So then in addition to um the recommendation that's here then it would also be something along the lines of directing staff to monitor and report back um I guess both the EPC as well as council on um things related to ADUs and JADUs such as additional units... things you just listed... additional units, parking spaces um or impact on parking, I'm not sure if I'm framing that right, um unit count, code enforcement related issues.

[01:04:07] Chair Robert Cox: I I think also Commissioner Yin brought up the issue of whether JADUs are going to be built without toilets in them. I mean I'd like to at least know if that's happening. If you mean as long as you're taking notes I mean you know on the new things coming up.

[01:04:27] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So if I may, I think I would be more supportive of the chair's suggestion that it goes in the staff report as opposed to adding it on to this amendment. But if someone else wants to make a motion or if the vice chair wants to make the motion, I just...

[01:04:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I was proposing it as a friendly amendment so it sounds like you're saying no.

[01:04:46] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: No, I just think that we're... I I absolutely agree that this has broader implications. I just think that maybe tying something that directs staff time to a resolution that really is bringing us into compliance with state law it gets a little muddled for me. So it's it's not an unfriendly rejection, but I just I think that we're muddling things a little bit. I think we could have language that says we strongly you know recommend that as part of this um zoning text amendment that it is accompanied with these these monitoring elements, but I guess I I am a little hesitant to couple them.

[01:05:25] Chair Robert Cox: Is staff comfortable putting these ideas into the staff report to go to council? I mean not that you're recommending them but just that you know we voiced a concern about them.

[01:05:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yes. Absolutely.

[01:05:40] Chair Robert Cox: Then it's up to the motion maker to decide. Yeah I mean are there... okay so are there other commissioners that want to weigh in on this?

[01:05:54] Commissioner Kammy Lo: I think um if the staff you know um captures what the commissioners are saying in the staff report and forward that to the council, I will be comfortable with that.

[01:06:09] Chair Robert Cox: Is that a yes from you Commissioner Smeezing? I see you nodding your head.

[01:06:14] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: I just nod as I listen. Um it's just a... I I absolutely agree I think that data is really important to inform the future policy and to inform later projects and and things that come before EPC and the council. Um I do see the point about marrying the two as one thing. And so potentially including as a strong recommendation or if there's a way to separate separate the two, um that makes sense to me.

[01:06:44] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Yin.

[01:06:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm sorry Stephanie, did you say you were comfortable adding it into the language of the adoption?

[01:06:50] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: So so typically say with a code amendment, if you're modifying the resolution for recommendation, it would mean that you're actually modifying some sort of the text amendment. Um as opposed to just providing your um suggestion to council.

[01:07:10] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Well I'm comfortable keeping it separate as long as word does get to council. It's in the report. Um I think um Vice Chair Cranston had once made comments that we haven't seen minutes in a while. And so perhaps that's part of his concern is that he wants to ensure that it does get there strongly worded, you know, the concerns. So if it is in the staff report and it goes goes to council, perhaps then you would feel more comfortable separating them.

[01:07:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay.

[01:07:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay so I think Commissioner Hehmeyer can go ahead then.

[01:07:49] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: All right. Um I move to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve zoning text amendments to Chapter 36 Zoning Ordinance of the City Code to update accessory dwelling unit and home-based child care regulations to align with new state regulations and modifications to planned community permit regulations. And if I can add to that, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[01:08:11] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, is there a second?

[01:08:17] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: I second.

[01:08:18] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, let's uh we're going to do a show of hands is that the right because I don't know, are we going to be able to vote because I heard at the beginning of the meeting that the equipment may not accommodate our doing the electronic voting. Is that right?

[01:08:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: That's correct.

[01:08:34] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so let's see a show of hands. How many commissioners support the uh resolution for the recommendation as read by Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[01:08:45] Chair Robert Cox: Okay that looks like that's 6-0. And so I think this item is closed. All right. Let's move now to item 6.1. We'll be discussing the annual review of our housing element. Uh do we have a staff report? Staff presentation?

[01:09:19] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Good evening commissioners. My name is Erin Horan, Assistant Planner and I will be presenting the annual progress report for the 2015 to 2023 housing element. This is the fifth report for the housing element period. It is mandated by the state that we report on our progress of our housing element every year. Um the purpose is to report on our progress of our programs and policies as well as our building permit activity of housing units meeting our uh regional housing needs allocation, otherwise known as RHNA. So the regional housing needs allocation, it's determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments. This is our allocation number here in front of you. These are the number of units we are uh we have as a goal to meet during the 2015 to 2023 period. So we're uh we have a goal of meeting 2,926 units over that 8-year period spread out with the income levels you see in front of you. This is the building permit activity that we've had between 2015 to 2019. Uh highlighted with the box in red you'll see the number of units that were approved last year. That included 294 net new residential units with 61 very low income units. And on the far right column you'll see the total percentage of units per those income categories that were meeting towards the RHNA numbers. Being at the fifth year of the cycle we're 63% through the cycle now so you'll see those percentages down the column and how that is meeting or not meeting with the 63%. Uh we are meeting the above moderate numbers and we are uh not meeting the very low to moderate income levels currently. These are some affordable housing projects we have in our city. Uh these four are 100% affordable housing projects. 779 East Evelyn and 1701 West Evelyn or West El Camino completed last year. 460 North Shoreline Boulevard had a building permit issued last year for those 50 net new units. And 950 West El Camino was approved and the building permit is under review. These are some mixed-income unit developments. 1101 West El Camino completed in 2018. 400 San Antonio is set to complete this year hopefully. Uh it has a 583 units with 48 very low-income units. 2268 West El Camino is almost completed and 2700 West El Camino was issued a building permit last year. These four projects have building permits under review. They're also mixed income developments with a variety of levels of income here. 777 West Middlefield, that one includes 144 moderate income units available to teachers and staff housing. Our next steps are to forward this report to the City Council on March 24th and then to submit the report to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning Research by April 1st. And that concludes staff's presentation. If you have any questions.

[01:13:13] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um so for this, I mean do we normally take the uh comments from the public first?

[01:13:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I would say since there's no action, that would make sense.

[01:13:25] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this issue? Okay seeing none, we will take it back to the commission for uh discussion. Who'd like to start us off? Commissioner Lo.

[01:13:47] Commissioner Kammy Lo: Um regarding this chart where you show the um 63% cycle, um my question would be you know since we're below goals on the first three row, um what are the implication of that?

[01:14:22] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: So the implication of not meeting the the lower income goals, that was your question? Right. So the implication can be that there is a bill, Senate Bill 35, that developers can propose projects with at least 50% affordability level with their projects and receive a streamlined permit review.

[01:14:57] Commissioner Kammy Lo: And that's the only penalty?

[01:15:02] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: That is, yeah.

[01:15:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh there there may be as part of the um next RHNA allocation process, uh there's a another, you know, ABAG uses uh a kind of a a series of inputs in in assigning the next round of low-income units, moderate-income units and and above moderate-income units. We don't know what those inputs are at this point. Uh so that's an unknown. Um it's not certain that this could be an input there, but it's it's also possible.

[01:15:37] Chair Robert Cox: Uh Vice Chair Cranston.

[01:15:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So first I'd like to thank staff for the the table, that that's very helpful. Um if I, we have what, three years left in the cycle? And using your answer to my question number three, looks like entitlement to completion is you know they don't have to be completed, they just have to be permitted, right? To meet the numbers? Is that what we're...

[01:16:05] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: They have to receive building permits.

[01:16:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the stuff that's under approval and under review if I look at your timeline, assuming that they progress of course, they could add a pretty substantial number and put us potentially well over the permit number if they, assuming they progress, so that we have, it appears to me that the pipeline is strong to at least hit the top line. Is that staff's assessment as well?

[01:16:38] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: I believe the pipeline is strong. Um it's hard to say for the next three years if there will be enough to still meet 100% of our goal here, um but we're definitely moving in the right direction. I mean if we are as of now supposed to be at around 63%, I have this table in front of us here that shows these pipeline projects that have been approved and that are under review, and you can see the low and the moderate are near at that 63 or near the 63%, so in our pipeline it is close. Um so potentially we could, yeah, I mean it is strong but hard to say if we're going to get to 100%.

[01:17:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm not saying mix, I'm saying at the top line that well, the chances of making the 27, whatever the total we need to hit, we're I'm not worried about that. Mix is mix yes but total we're there. I was surprised by the feedback on the question on the elimination of the housing, of the the I think you guys said uh 207 rental units were demolished and constructed and 236 ownership units were emplace. Is there any evaluation that is routinely done on the the type of incomes when when one of those kind of convert, like an R3 transition occurs, do you guys look at how many of them are BMR, you know are very low, low or or moderate in at all to measure that? Because I'm I'm worried that okay we're we're already low on the low and the very low and we potentially destroyed 207 that aren't counted here. So even if we get to 270, we're actually are we really only at 65? That's my.

[01:18:40] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Mhm. The units that were demolished were naturally affordable. Um but we wouldn't be able to, we don't have the the studies or the information to know what the income levels were.

[01:18:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: When um under our our tenant relocation assistance ordinance, we do actually um inquire on the incomes of the current residents uh to assess whether they are eligible for um tenant relocation. Um so uh we do have the information about how many of those residents would have been eligible for tenant relocation and assumingly a low enough income to qualify.

[01:19:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess does naturally affordable mean very low, low and moderate? In general?

[01:19:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Not not necessarily. Um certainly there could be a lot of um tech workers that are living in you know uh older apartments. Um so uh that's that's why we go through the the uh process to determine qualifications for tenant relocation assistance. Um but by and large if if somebody is coming in to demolish an apartment building, uh that that apartment building is probably you know somewhere along in its useful life, a fairly older apartment building. Uh people don't come in and demolish brand new uh structures that are being rented out for um high above moderate rents.

[01:20:22] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Smeezing.

[01:20:24] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Sorry this is a probably a pretty novice question but for the total units required under RHNA, so say 270 very low income units, does that just mean the city has to offer 270 units that would be affordable to very low income people or that 270 units are occupied by people who have very low incomes?

[01:20:49] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: So we have to provide the, those number of units have to be issued and deed restricted to that income level.

[01:20:59] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Okay.

[01:21:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um but the the real force of law is in zoning. So the RHNA allocation is really um ensuring that cities have enough land zoned to accommodate those units.

[01:21:21] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:21:23] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: So my understanding is at this time Santa Clara County does not have the same kind of sub-regional RHNA that allows for trading among cities um for the different income levels. I know that there were early talks a couple years ago I think I know that San Mateo County has done this and maybe maybe Napa, um but we're not far enough along in that in this cycle that we could see some kind of trading with other cities to to meet these targets. Is that, that's what I read in the news.

[01:21:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The trading would happen with the allocation. The trading... in the next cycle, yeah.

[01:22:04] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Yin.

[01:22:05] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just curious, uh when do they come out with the new numbers? I know we're in the midst of the cycle but typically what month and...

[01:22:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't have the schedule in front of me, um you know we can look into that and and keep the commission updated on it, but it is coming up soon.

[01:22:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks.

[01:22:26] Chair Robert Cox: So yeah I have a few follow up questions. So this um this trading process, has that already been agreed upon as part of the new methodology that'll come in the next uh cycle or how how does that work?

[01:22:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I don't have all the latest information. I know that there was a um uh a proposal that Santa Clara County be a uh a um sub sub-committee sub-region. Yes, thank you. Uh and I don't know if it got anywhere. Um but uh I don't have all that information right now but again we can I can do some research, look into it and and keep the commission updated on it.

[01:23:10] Chair Robert Cox: There was a I remember a few months ago there was a call that um ABAG and MTC put out for you know public comment on on potential changes to the methodology of ABAG. Um did anything come of that that you know of or um I I know I mean I can say this in in public in when I get to my comment, I know that there are some people who did comment on it but I don't know whether or not there has been there was any changes that were made to the methodology or whether those are still in progress and still under discussion.

[01:23:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, the there's a whole RHNA methodology committee that that um you know our community development director uh Aarti Shrivastava is involved in that. Um so it's it's going on now.

[01:24:02] Chair Robert Cox: Um going back in into the original chart that you had in the staff report, I noticed that there was a spike in building permits in 2017. Do we have any reason to understand you know why that was?

[01:24:23] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: There was just a lot of development during that time. I I couldn't tell you the exact reason but

[01:24:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Usually those spikes are caused by large developments being approved at a particular time. Um and um because they happen kind of sporadically and randomly, uh they can be clumped in a particular year or not. Uh for example, it looks like this year we're going to have building permits issued for both the Greystar project on California Street and the Sobrato project in North Bayshore, which right there is going to be over 1200 units. So these these things are are spiky in nature.

[01:25:07] Chair Robert Cox: And I was also wondering, I mean in the comments staff has made recently on SB330, in particular on the um the change to the state law that if you tear down an existing complex and build a new one, you need to find a way to bring the people who are displaced from their affordable housing back in at the same uh rents. Um can you comment on whether that's had any effect on like new applications or?

[01:25:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's a little early to tell if it's had an effect, although we absolutely expect it to. Uh just because it it puts such a strong limit on how you can rent out or sell the subsequent project. Um and so few sites in the city that have existing CSFRA units allow very much more density.

[01:26:16] Chair Robert Cox: So I think to say it in short, you're expecting the kind of project that we saw you know a lot of contention about where you know affordable housing, naturally affordable housing, was demolished to produce other housing, we're expecting less of that? Fewer proposals of that sort?

[01:26:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We are, but there are some some technical uh uh details to work out in the actual implementation that could have an effect on that. Um and there are certainly underutilized sites out there that could still uh turn.

[01:26:50] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. If you demolish you know rental housing and build ownership housing there, is that different then under SB330 than demolishing rental housing and building new rental housing?

[01:27:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh similar under SB330 the um the the city can implement similar restrictions on ownership housing.

[01:27:14] Chair Robert Cox: Okay but I mean if I guess my main question is is that if someone were to demolish rental housing and then uh the proposal would come in to build um you know ownership housing on that, I mean would that be not allowed? Would you have to replace it with rental housing, at least the number of units that were demolished? Or what?

[01:27:58] Anna Salvador: Hi, Anna Salvador with the housing division. Um so with the replacement units, if the project that they're building is ownership, the replacement units would need to be ownership units it set at affordability levels. So um so it wouldn't necessarily need to be replaced with rental, they could be ownership units that are replaced in the new project. Yeah.

[01:28:21] Chair Robert Cox: But what if I mean I thought the idea with SB330 one of them is that the people who are living in the project before it was demolished had this ability to come back. I mean does that mean that they're coming back means that they have to find financing to buy a new unit in that place?

[01:28:40] Anna Salvador: Yeah, so they do have a a first right of return to the ownership unit, so they do have the opportunity to purchase. Um

[01:28:46] Chair Robert Cox: Okay but there would be an affordability um aspect to it. They wouldn't have to purchase them at the market level. Is that right?

[01:28:55] Anna Salvador: That's correct, it would be at a rate that's affordable based on their income.

[01:28:58] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, okay. And and is it usually left up to the city to work out the details of how that's done or?

[01:29:04] Anna Salvador: Uh as far as like implementing like making sure that the prior tenant does get that first right of return and is that kind of process? Yeah.

[01:29:18] Chair Robert Cox: Alright. Thanks.

[01:29:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Can I ask a related question?

[01:29:22] Chair Robert Cox: Sure.

[01:29:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess my read of SB330 was that the restriction only applies to very low and low income units, that it doesn't apply to moderate or above moderate units?

[01:29:33] Anna Salvador: Um it's they they don't have to be replaced it's kind of a little more complicated than that. Um if you don't know, if the units are vacant or you don't know the prior incom- or the incomes of the prior tenants, um then you use uh this formula based on the incomes of the city to determine the number of VLI and LI units that need to be replaced.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: but as far as the remaining units that need to be replaced that are above that ratio for VLI and LI, the city does have some discretion about what income those remaining units are returned at.

[01:30:15] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: So and just to maybe add to help clarify potentially, it is very complicated, um, and so there's a number of categories that fall within the protected units. So it could be a protected unit based on income level, um, being low and very low, and I'm looking at Eric and Christian to see if they bet that better than I do, um, or it could be a unit that's subject to, for rental purposes subject to CSFRA. So you could have someone with a moderate or higher level of income in a rent protected unit that way as well. So there's there's I think there's four categories actually of protected units under SB 330.

[01:30:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So a moderate unit that's under... the rent control ordinance would have to be replaced as a moderate level as well, even if it's...

[01:31:10] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: The unit would have to be replaced, but it doesn't necessarily have to be replaced at a moderate income level.

[01:31:19] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Right, so I think it's, and I might be getting this a little bit mixed up because it is complicated, but I think for units that are subject to rent control, so CSFRA, um, if those units are actually occupied and we can verify that they're occupied by someone with a moderate income let's say, um, those units would need to be replaced and I believe that's where the city or local agencies are given the discretion of determining whether it's a deed-restricted unit or a rent stabilized unit, so making it subject to, for Mountain View, CSFRA. And I think these are... that hasn't been determined yet in terms of how that's going to play out for Mountain View.

[01:32:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Alright. I guess I have some words... I guess I just have some general concerns that, um, developments that are not very low and low, that we may see an acceleration of the destruction of those units and replacement before they can become, before they could slip into that category, and I'm just... how we might understand the impact of that just because it's... it would seem to me to be in the interest of the landlord to get out of that trap before they get, before they slip into it. And I'm just... I'm worried about losing more moderate income units than even at the lower end simply because they can get out and SB 330 doesn't protect those units. Um, so we're not creating moderate income units, but I'm worried that we may see a higher rate of destruction of those units and replacement by above market rate... above moderate units in the future.

[01:33:23] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: The thought that comes to my mind is that a new residential development will still have to follow the BMR requirements as well. So, um, if it's a new ownership product, a rowhouse product, they have to provide 25% of those units as below market rate and so forth. So we will still receive, um, affordable housing, uh, with those new projects.

[01:34:02] Chair Robert Cox: Is there a time limit between the time the units are destroyed and when they have to be back in usable order?

[01:34:12] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Are you talking under SB 330?

[01:34:15] Chair Robert Cox: SB 330.

[01:34:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I know that as long as there were units within the last five years, it can apply. Um, I'm not aware of any time limits of like development timelines.

[01:34:42] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: But I thought SB 330 only applied to deed-restricted units. I think what you're talking about, Vice Chair Cranston, are units that might be, as we say, naturally occurring affordable housing, right? They're not... Is that right? Does it apply to both?

[01:34:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: As Ms. Horan was saying before, the it can apply to CSFRA units. Uh, and so that really covers the vast majority.

[01:35:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Radical subject change. Um, is there anything we can do... I was really disappointed there were no Mountain View properties on that Measure A bond funding thing. And it was just like, let's get some money, damn it! Um, are there things that we could do to... I mean are there things that we could do, you mentioned a couple that are in progress, but it's like, there's money out there we could build affordable housing, could we do something? Why is San Jose and Santa Clara getting all the money? Could we have some? I just... are there things we could do?

[01:35:32] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:35:37] Chair Robert Cox: Vice Chair Cranston.

[01:35:56] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Majority. I see. Okay, that's the distinction. Okay. Thank you.

[01:35:57] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: I think um the city is currently doing a lot of things to make possible affordable housing projects that could take advantage of Measure A funding, and the three projects in the pipeline that are considering it are, um, like kind of demonstrative of that. Um, in the sense that, um, to get the type of income mix and things to make these projects work we, we have the densities to make that happen. So I think that the city currently is already doing a lot. Um, the thing with Measure A funding is that it is primarily targeted for permanent supportive housing, and so with that there are additional considerations. So for some non-profit developers who haven't historically done that type of product, there is some type of capacity building too that is involved. So.

[01:36:02] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Yeah, there's no, within SB 330 specifically there's no timelines for when the units need to return.

[01:36:40] Chair Robert Cox: Okay.

[01:36:48] Assistant Planner Erin Horan: Um, so permanent supportive housing is targeted for extremely low income, um, sometimes historically homeless or chronically homeless individuals who, um, the housing is, includes wrap-around services. So, um, that that are tied to the housing itself. So all of the services are within the property as in addition to the housing unit, so.

[01:37:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm pleased that we're getting the numbers, I'm really disappointed by the mix. I, I, the, when I do the... your little table that you created for me, made me feel a little bit better, um, that there's more in the pipeline. But I'm, I'm... I don't know whether it's, I don't think it's a, I can't remember whether it's a goal on what can we do more on the moderate, the moderate income level. But it feels like it's a, it's a gap, and I'm also worried that if we're, um, if we're using this as our basis and we're not taking into account naturally affordable housing that is being destroyed, then to some extent we're fooling ourselves that even the poor progress we're making is as good as we think it is. So I'm just, I would like to, maybe this is an over and above what the housing element provides, but some some feedback on when when, um, naturally affordable housing or whatever is being, has been destroyed and turned into something else, that we at least that we still see that on a regular basis so that we take full account of, are we making progress. Because what we do need is the very low and, I mean we need those bottom three categories and, um, I just I don't feel like we're making enough progress. And, um, I'm I'm welcome to, welcome other ideas to get there, but I'm worried that we're not even counting it right if we're not including what's going away.

[01:39:59] Chair Robert Cox: Substantial progress on this. Um, I think we're in the class of cities in the Bay Area that are, you know, there's a number of them that are above, you know, the total arena numbers and, you know, as we've talked about, we're expecting that we're going to come in above, um, maybe even 2X or 3X above where, um, we originally, you know, our total numbers for the whole, um, 8-year period.

[01:40:29] Chair Robert Cox: On the other hand, you know the the common thing that we have um with other cities in our circumstances is that we don't make the very low, low and and and moderate categories and in particular I mean you know, you know, um I remember Councilmember Kamei making the point that every year we hit zero in the moderate category and that in that election cycle she made a point of saying that well you know, we, the council should address the idea of moving that number up from zero.

[01:41:04] Chair Robert Cox: So I'm glad to see the numbers that you showed us um coming in the next 3 years and that this is being addressed and that we are making at least some progress to it because to me that's the worst thing that I see happening is hollowing out of the middle of our community. I mean if I if we go back to, you know, if we look at that um income spread and we go back 20 years, I mean, you know, we were at a position where 50% of the people were moderate income and 25% were below and 25% were above.

[01:41:37] Chair Robert Cox: And you know in that short period I we've seen, you know, people who can afford moderate income housing in our city go from half to 25%. So basically it just comes down to well, you know, you know, if you're um, you know, if you're still you had bought the housing a long time ago and you're still in it and you're a moderate income person it's working for you. Um, or if in the cases where like a parent dies and leaves the property to the children, it's still protected under Prop 13, and so some fraction of the children will continue to live in the community and still be able to enjoy that, but oftentimes there's more children than there were parents and so the property gets divided up and sold. And so you know, it goes out of the affordability.

[01:42:27] Chair Robert Cox: So I mean, you know, that decrease of moderate is is just our biggest problem, but I'm glad that we're addressing it. I'm very happy with staff and and their innovative um and um ways of trying to use new programs to help address these issues. In particular the fact that we added jobs housing balance as part of the East Whisman Precise Plan and that it was attempted as part of Terra Bella. Um, you know, one of the gentlemen who's running for uh State Senate District 13 I think it keeps moving around. But he at least brought that point up as one possibility to work into state legislation.

[01:43:11] Chair Robert Cox: So I'm glad that idea is getting traction and I think Eric did mention at one point that he's even discussed this in seminars in other cities, right? So, so hopefully you can spread the good news and and that can uh work its way out. Um I also think that it's a great thing that we moved up to a 15% real inclusionary affordable. I mean, you know, that's that's another big step ahead and and that's good too.

[01:43:37] Chair Robert Cox: Um beyond that I think you know in order to address this I'll I'll bring up a point I was on a call this weekend with um with people from Livable California. And they were talking about brainstorming about addressing the affordable housing crisis basically how do you meet these lower numbers. And there was a guest speaker there from Santa Monica and he spoke about that Santa Monica has a 30% inclusionary, um it's the highest uh in the state of California. It was put in place by a ballot initiative and they've been able to work that out.

[01:44:18] Chair Robert Cox: So I would just say you know that was encouraging and that if you know staff gets the time or someone else on council gets the time to research that a little bit more find out you know what it was that made that happen and whether it had a there's always the possibility check to make sure that it didn't just crater the housing production. But you know, I mean any other ideas like that would be good ones. And another thing is, you know, just um I continue to be somewhat concerned that you know um it's possible for developers to play the cities off in terms of who gives them you know the lowest inclusionary.

[01:45:01] Chair Robert Cox: I mean, you know, I mean I know that it was a great thing that we plugged the hole because what we saw happening was our 15% inclusionary had had a back door that could let you do 7% some other way and so you know now that hole is plugged, but I think it's it would be great if we could work as a region to set a lower limit, a higher lower limit on inclusionary housing in new projects. Um, meanwhile I think we need to watch out for SB 50 and other solutions that um that don't give us the most effective way to provide affordable housing you know in conjunction with new housing, and don't respect the preservation of our most key historic resources.

Housing Element

[01:45:49] Chair Robert Cox: And I want to mention one last thing, and that's that there's a member of a person who is a member of our community, who has a long history of employment in the affordable housing, um, area. And with respect to Measure A, and the concern she's brought up to me a number of times is that, you know, that what she worries about with Measure A funds is that it tends to produce projects where people with very serious, um, challenges, um, are all concentrated in the same place. Now that's great if you can have the right supportive environment, you know, to help them improve, but her concern was that if that isn't an integral part of that, that, um, that it may not be best for the people themselves, it's better to have, you know, them distributed more, you know, throughout projects, inclusionary projects, rather than having everybody concentrated in one place.

[01:47:00] Chair Robert Cox: So I want to respect that comment because I know she's a person with a lot of experience, but what I'd really like us to do is to have a dialogue if a Measure A project comes up, so that we evaluate, you know, I mean, you know, the pros and cons of doing this, so that we enter into it, you know, eyes wide open. Um, and because the bottom line is what we want is to have housing that's most effective for the people that we're trying to serve. So those are my comments on the housing element. Would anybody else like to add some comments? Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:47:44] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Um, I would move to accept the report. I think it just underscores the fact that this is a regional issue and that we're not going to get there alone. Mountain View has set a good example but I'm really curious to see how this sub-regional, um, collaboration could work out because I think that there's probably more opportunity to work with communities that that aren't making progress and and see how that we can better better work to fill this hole that has happened after decades of not permitting enough housing. So.

[01:48:21] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Uh, anyone else? Oh, I I want to make one more, um, comment. I went to a meeting of, uh, Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning. And one of the guest speakers was, um, former council member and mayor of Palo Alto, Greg Schmid. Um, he proposed to the ABAG MTC methodology committee that incentives be offered to, um, to allow housing, um, to help produce more housing in areas that are not housing rich right now. So that, um, so that I mean this is just within the Bay Area, so that so that, you know, there would be, um, an ability to build housing at in cheaper rates in places where that was possible.

[01:49:16] Chair Robert Cox: So that's just an idea of his that he and a number of people had taken to the ABAG methodology committee. Um, I don't know that I want to endorse that specifically, but I guess, you know, what I really would like to make a call for is if, um, our representative, you know, uh, is would look at these kind of creative ideas, I mean, so that when the ABAG methodology comes out this time, it's not a rubber stamp of what we had before. I know a lot of people feel very discouraged that, you know, I mean they can even make the above moderate numbers, but they feel a sense of despair at...

Segment 3

[01:50:40] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Just very shortly, um echoing what a lot of my fellow commissioners have said, um, as a child trying to come back to where I grew up, I think I'm encouraged to see like the the very recent progress made on moderate income housing in addition to the low and very low. And I think it is important to look at innovative strategies to continue to, um, reach our goals for those numbers in addition to working with other cities in the region. Um, and I think, you know, staff brought up several opportunities coming up in the future to, um, like programs, um, in addition to the BMR ordinance that we can look at to create more naturally affordable housing or to look at ways that our land use supports people of all incomes.

[01:51:36] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm sorry, I just have a very quick question. Um, Eric you had mentioned that um lawfully it was looking at zoning and ensuring that we were able to zone for the types of housing to be built. Um, given our zoning, are we meaning that we're, we're okay there?

[01:51:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah in fact recently there was a state law that required cities to keep track of that, um, through the, um, through the whole RHNA process, uh a no net loss law. So uh we have been tracking that uh and we included it in the staff report showing the sites where we have seen redevelopment of market rate units on sites that we had identified for our housing element and we have identified other areas where we can still accommodate those uh income levels elsewhere in the city.

[01:52:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um and just quickly to follow that up, given that we know how much office... in general we know that office is what gets developed a little bit more readily than housing sometimes. And if we are zoned for a certain number or a certain amount of office even with a housing balance, would we still be able to meet the total number, um, given how much is able to be allocated and given our current zoning? Does that make sense, this question?

[01:53:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so you're talking about mixed use areas like North Bayshore and East Whisman?

[01:53:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah because we know how much office is allowable or has been zoned, and if they were to max out the office and do the minimal amount of jobs-housing balance, do we meet those numbers?

[01:53:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, the, um, during the housing element process, when you're actually crafting your housing element, HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development, um, has a significant amount of oversight in the sites that you select to ensure not only that it's a viable site for residential development but also that residential development is the likely, um, development there. We don't have that same oversight in the no net loss process, um, but we do have a very wide net that we can cast on sites that we have zoned for a significant amount of higher density housing. So we can, given that it's higher density, we can make take, take a big chunk out of our RHNA just by a few smaller projects. Um, and I think that gives a lot of, uh, um, kind of justifiability to select, looking at those areas and looking at those sites as adequate to satisfy our RHNA. Um, and I'm, I'm frankly looking forward to the conversation with HCD when we do the housing element and pointing at our programs like the Jobs-Housing Linkage program and saying, hey, even though this area allows a mix of uses, we have other programs where we are actually mandating that those uses include housing.

[01:55:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. And I just wanted to add that yeah I... I take it to heart that our city is actually making concerted efforts to do the intent of what the RHNA numbers are giving out, so to everyone in the city including Council and staff that we're genuinely trying, and I take that to heart. Thank you.

[01:55:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know whether this is a feedback to our representative on the methodology committee, but I would hope that those cities that are actually doing a job of addressing the numbers during the existing housing element don't get penalized by a disproportionate allocation of the numbers during the next cycle. Because if, you know, we shouldn't be penalized because we actually did, we actually, we actually paid attention. So hopefully the methodology isn't, you did this so now you get twice that the next time, kind of a thing. So.

[01:56:12] Chair Robert Cox: So I have a question about that. Um I remember there was some discussion about the idea that you know it used to be just going from housing element to housing element, you know a city that wasn't meeting the numbers would just kind of get a blanket forgiveness and wipe the slate clean and you'd start over. And then there was a proposal that cities that didn't meet their allocation had to carry it over into the next, uh, cycle. Uh, do you know anything about that?

[01:56:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I I don't know any of the details of the methodology discussions, um but it's certainly something that we're keeping track of and we can continue to report back to the EPC on.

[01:57:03] Chair Robert Cox: Um, any other comments from the commission? So that since there's no formal action here then when the comments are done we just adjourn that item to the next one right? Okay. Last chance. Alright I'll close this item, thank you very much.

[01:57:26] Chair Robert Cox: Now we'll move on to item 6.2, the annual review of the 2030 General Plan Action Plan. Um, is there, looks like Ms. Whitehill has a presentation.

[01:57:48] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Good evening again commissioners. My name is Brittany Whitehill and tonight I will be providing an update on the General Plan Action Plan implementation. Tonight I would first like to briefly highlight a few General Plan action items that have been recently completed. In the next couple of slides, I will also highlight priorities listed in the General Plan Action Plan as well as the EPC work plan. Finally, I will discuss a proposed change to the process for reviewing and updating the General Plan Action Plan. As noted in the memo in the attached spreadsheets, several General Plan action items were completed in 2019. A number of action items were completed with the adoption of the East Whisman Precise Plan. Additionally, the Permanente Creek Trail was completed. I would also like to highlight that the Multimodal Plan and Transportation Impact Fee were adopted in 2018. However, these items were not included in last year's update, so we would like to make note of them now. And I apologize if this is a little small, but um, this was attached in your, um, in the staff report as an attachment. Um, so if you refer to the 2019 through 2021 EPC work plan, you will see that the adoption of the East Whisman Precise Plan was prioritized both in the General Plan Action Plan and the EPC work plan. EPC has previously prioritized development of a city-wide TDM ordinance, North Bayshore sustainability measures, and General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning Ordinance amendments as high priority General Plan action items. These items are also identified in the EPC work plan. North Bayshore District sustainability measures are currently underway and work on a TDM ordinance will be starting in the near future. Staff and the EPC continue to work on General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning Ordinance updates as the need or opportunity arises. Staff is recommending that the General Plan Action Plan review be better integrated into the Council goal-setting and EPC work plan process. Since Council goals and EPC work plan will not be updated this year, staff is not requesting formal EPC action on the action plan such as prioritization, modifications, or removal of actions. However, the EPC is encouraged to review and comment on the action plan in light of current Council goals, the EPC work plan, and other community values or concerns. On a biannual basis, when Council goal-setting and EPC work plan updates take place, staff will be asking the EPC to consider reprioritizing, striking, and adding action items. And this concludes staff presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[02:00:44] Chair Robert Cox: Thank you Ms. Whitehill. Um, do any commissioners have questions for the staff? I just, I have one. Um, it said on page two, staff is recommending that the General Plan Action Plan be better integrated into the Council goal setting and EPC work plan process. Um, I'm not sure what that means. What, can you elaborate on what specifically you're thinking of there?

[02:01:18] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: Sure. So currently we sort of have you know a few different parallel processes but they're not really integrated into each other. What staff is proposing now is essentially when Council sets their broader goals and the EPC reviews those goals and sort of provides more specific recommendations, that would be the time when EPC also looks at the General Plan Action Plan and updates that, reprioritizes things.

[02:01:43] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Any other questions?

[02:01:55] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Maybe just one. When do we start working on the next General Plan?

[02:02:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 2030 isn't that far off. When Martin retires I think.

[02:02:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, uh, yeah we, um, it's something that we talk about periodically. Um, you know, what would trigger that and what wouldn't, you know, when would we really need to start kicking that off or start advising Council to kick that off. Um, this general plan is only, what, 8 years old at this point. So, um, usually cities go a little longer than that between general plans. Uh, and it is a very costly process and a lot of staff time and work. Uh, so, um, it's, it's not expected in the very near future, but um, you know, certainly the EPC can advise uh Council on your sense of the, um, the general plan's adequacy in a whole, uh, and and whether a new general plan might be needed to reflect new current needs.

[02:03:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: How long did it take the last time? To develop it?

[02:03:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 2008 to 2012.

[02:03:25] Chair Robert Cox: So generally I think I heard at one point we do them like every 20 years mostly, is that the general idea?

[02:03:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah before, uh, the 2012 one, the one before that was adopted in 92.

[02:03:40] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And I remember that you know like, that uh Moffett was considered like a change area in that plan. Is the Moffett precise plan still on the docket anywhere?

[02:03:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, we are considering ways to plan for that change area. Um, one of the challenges with that change area is that there are really few prime developable sites, they tend to be very small. Um, and so there's not a lot of, uh, you know, community or developer pressure to, to go in and update the zoning, but we do see it as an opportunity for um kind of re-envisioning the streetscape, um you know mobility improvements, and that's work that we're doing um kind of ongoing through our different uh um transportation processes.

[02:04:37] Chair Robert Cox: And do we have any idea what kind of follow-up is going to be done uh, if any for Terra Bella?

[02:04:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I I can't speak to that right now, I mean, you know that, um, you know that we may open up a gatekeeper authorization hearing, uh, and that would be the opportunity for a developer to to come in and propose something.

[02:05:14] Chair Robert Cox: But we are, this year there's still continuing items on the downtown precise plan right?

[02:05:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so we're working on Downtown Precise Plan and the R3 zoning code update.

[02:05:28] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner, I mean Vice Chair Cranston.

[02:05:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I watched the Terra Bella discussion and it seemed to be Council's view that gatekeepers were the way to go on master plans rather than a precise plan, so I didn't get any sense that the existing Council is pushing for a full precise plan in the area.

[02:05:41] Chair Robert Cox: I just I guess a for my education, isn't Moffett federal property?

[02:05:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh we were talking about Moffett Boulevard. So a stretch just north of downtown.

[02:06:05] Chair Robert Cox: Is there any news on Shenandoah?

[02:06:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, what's the news on Shenandoah? Um, I don't think there's anything to update uh the commission on. Um, certainly staff can we'll we'll note the question and and look into to what we can share with the commission.

[02:06:31] Chair Robert Cox: Any more questions or comments from the commission? So that since there's no formal action on this too right, I mean I can just adjourn this one right?

[02:06:48] Assistant Planner Brittany Whitehill: I might have missed it but did you open it up to public comment?

[02:06:49] Chair Robert Cox: Oh, sorry. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask my question again about closing the item. Okay so there's no formal action. Alright. Okay so then I'll close this item, and then I'll move on to item number 7, which is commission, staff announcements, updates, requests and committee reports. Uh, let's hear from staff first.

[02:07:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, let's see. I'll just point out I just sent an email earlier today about the Human Relations Commission Civility Roundtable which is coming up. Um, I do also want to point out just to to be clear we are requesting that if commission has questions about staff report items that we get them by Tuesday morning so that we can have time to do research and and review as necessary. Please feel free to send questions after that, um, it's just great to get an understanding of where commission's heads are at even if we can't get the answers in writing by the mid-day our mid-day deadline for getting them back to you.

[02:08:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Also, uh, I did get responses from most commissioners about whether you would like hard copies. I did not hear from Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[02:08:23] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: No.

[02:08:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Great. So, um, we will have those ready...

[02:08:29] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Are they available at the police department?

[02:08:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We need to know how many commissioners want them. Oh I thought they were available just for viewing.

[02:08:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, we'll have them to go pick up if you want us to have a copy for you.

[02:08:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, and then, uh thank you. So uh starting next week, uh there will be for the the item that we're expecting, which is 1001 North Shoreline, uh we'll have the plans there for you to to pick up your personal set. Uh that concludes my announcements, other than to say that um, like I said next week we are expecting an item on 1001 North Shoreline, and um code amendments to our tenant relocation ordinance, um and then other upcoming meetings include uh projects on Fayette and um, a project on um, hotel project on El Camino that I think is going back through the process again, they they lost their entitlement uh from not building it, doing their building permit in time. Um, so then uh that concludes my announcements.

[02:09:04] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you.

[02:09:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's probably right, yeah.

[02:09:47] Chair Robert Cox: So out of the question about the um, availability of the documents, are they available like Saturday morning or Friday evening or when when are they available?

[02:09:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So my understanding... oh so when will they be available? We will drop them off at close of business on Friday. So when we when we leave work on Friday we will take them over there.

[02:10:14] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And when is that usually? 5 o'clock or?

[02:10:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 5, 5:30 yeah.

[02:10:16] Chair Robert Cox: Okay so then if we if I were to circle by around 6:30 or something like that they'd probably be there on a Friday night.

[02:11:39] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, if there are no other commissioners that wanted to give updates, um, we will move on to item number 8, which is adjournment at 9:08 PM on Wednesday March 4th, 2020.

• ← Previous
• Next →