Dec. 4, 2024 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:00] Chair Hank Dempsey: At 7:01 PM. For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to epc@mountainview.gov by 4:30 PM on the meeting date. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them in to the EPC Clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Furthermore, recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjected to disruptive, racist, verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The City of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive environment for all. This commission welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters over which the commission has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise pursuant to the Council Code of Conduct and the Government Code may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's comment period. I will now ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with roll call.

[00:02:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: I will do a manual roll call. Commissioner Nu�ez.

[00:02:13] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Here.

[00:02:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue.

[00:02:16] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:02:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Guti�rrez.

[00:02:19] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Here.

[00:02:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Dempsey.

[00:02:21] Chair Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:02:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin.

[00:02:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:02:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:02:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:02:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Clark.

[00:02:29] Commissioner Chris Clark: Here.

[00:02:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All commissioners are present.

[00:02:35] Chair Hank Dempsey: Alright. Thank you Madam Clerk. Item number three, minutes approval. There are none. Item number four, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Madam Clerk, do we have any takers?

[00:03:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers at this time.

[00:04:04] Chair Hank Dempsey: Alright, thank you. With no speakers we will move on to item five, study session 5.1. Housing element programs 1.4 and 2.6 incentives for affordable housing on religious sites and other sites south of the El Camino Real precise plan. We will begin with a staff presentation and then take public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then discuss the item including any questions and there will be some recusals prior to that discussion. So let's begin with staff presentation from our principal planner Diana Pancholi and advanced planning manager Eric Anderson.

[00:14:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers at this time.

[00:14:15] Chair Hank Dempsey: Okay, thank you very much. So at this stage, we will move to discussion and that means we will segment the EPC discussion and deliberation into two parts now beginning with program 1.4. So, before we begin, could the commissioners with conflicts of interest related to program 1.4 please make your recusal statements now. Commissioner Clark.

[00:14:46] Commissioner Chris Clark: Yes, um, I'm recusing myself from discussion of housing element program 1.4 due to the proximity of my personal residence to the religious and institutional sites.

[00:14:57] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Commissioner Yin.

[00:14:59] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I too am recusing myself from discussion of the housing element 1.4 due to the proximity of my personal residence to the religious and institutional sites.

[00:15:09] Chair Hank Dempsey: And I myself will also be recusing from discussion of this agenda item due to the proximity of my personal residence to the religious and institutional sites. That means after each question and at the end of the meeting, the vice chair will summarize majority comments and sentiment. The vice chair shall also ask for staff confirmation of summary. I will now turn the chair of this meeting over to my friend and vice chair, Commissioner Guti�rrez.

[00:15:37] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Thank you. We'll wait for you all to vacate. Was there a question? No, okay, just wondering. So, let's start first with, right here it says that we would like to have both questions and discussion. So my question for you all commissioners is, are you comfortable with that or would you rather do discussion first and then questions? Because there's so few of us that's why. I figure we can probably do both at the same time if it's possible but if you all feel comfortable with another approach I'm open to it, that's fine. Questions first. Okay, so let's do that. We'll go with our approach of asking questions and then we'll go with the discussions. So if any commissioner would have questions, please let us know. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:16:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, just, it wasn't really clear in the staff report. There are some state laws that sunset, like SB 330. Does SB 4, 35 or 10, or 2011 sunset or are these permanent things that we would not have to worry about in the future changing back?

[00:17:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: AB 2011 and 35 sunset after the housing element, the end of this housing element cycle. I don't recall exactly what year. 4 may sunset, I don't remember off the top of my head.

[00:17:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct, good evening commissioners. Community Development Director Christian Murdock. SB 4 as I understand it sunsets in 2036.

[00:17:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if approach one that's being proposed is that we would actually basically adopt what's in those provisions so they would be there even if the legislation sunset later. Is that correct?

[00:18:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well that is up to the city council to include that provision or not.

[00:18:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I'll say that it's not typical to have sunset provisions in city code zoning standards and so I think the intent would be to have them as a permanent provision.

[00:18:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, thank you.

[00:18:24] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Commissioner Donahue.

[00:18:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Along those lines, why do we have to update the city code at all if this, because the state law should kind of preempt that anyway. So what's the difference between kind of like doing nothing? I'm not, I'm not proposing doing nothing, I'm just I want to explore this. If we do nothing versus option one.

[00:18:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So yeah, the primary benefit of including this language in our local ordinance, even though as you say, we are superseded by state law and would be required to comply with it anyway, is really for a purpose of clarity and transparency. There are a lot of cases where developers or property owners may look only at the city code for what they can do and wouldn't be aware of what opportunities there are in state law.

[00:19:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, and it would have the additional benefit of presumably being permanent so okay, those things together. Okay. My other question is that the deadline is the end of this year and I mean that was kind of addressed in the presentation but if I pose it as a question, how can we avoid having this problem going forward where we're not going to make deadlines?

[00:19:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, that's an excellent question that we're asking ourselves practically every day. Um, you know, we are working diligently on a lot of programs in the housing element as well as a lot of council priorities, as well as a lot of state requirements for permit streamlining and and other review of developer applications. So we have an approach to prioritization that is based off of you know, council direction as well as kind of the opportunities that we are creating with these with these actions. And so there will continue to be prioritization decisions that we have to make moving forward. And I'm afraid we may not always be able to meet deadlines but we are working diligently towards them.

[00:21:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, thanks.

[00:21:04] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Commissioner Nu�ez.

[00:21:06] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Thanks Vice Chair Guti�rrez. I guess just wanna make sure I got a couple questions in terms of just point of order. Are we going to be, is there any part of this discussion relating to like 1.4/2.6 as they kind of inform one another or relate to one another that we're gonna be discussing or getting our the rest of our colleagues back for or is this like the whole, I just wanna make sure I'm clear on what we're able to kind of touch on right now. I just want to be, yeah.

[00:21:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, at this time, because there are commissioners who would need to recuse themselves in the room for the next part of this item, item 2.6, deliberation should be focused on program 1.4. To the extent that there is kind of overlapping or shared perspective between the two, then you would have the opportunity then to carry over that conversation to the next part of the discussion. Other commissioners may not have that opportunity.

[00:22:26] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Right. Yeah, and I guess the reason why I'm asking is because on the first question it refers to the existing density approach, which sounds like, it seems like that question of what's the approach ABCD, what have you, or one two three is the bulk of the you know, three and four. So then if it's also like something that the EPC could wish to apply, I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of like clarification there.

[00:23:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think it's great that you're asking the question Commissioner Nu�ez. I think you don't need to worry particularly at this stage. You can have a very free and open discussion at this point. The challenge comes later if commissioners are joining this conversation that were conflicted out of this conversation, that the conversation does not trend towards specific sites. That's really where the conflict exists. Certainly there's commonality across the approaches and the subject matter. It's really taking it down to a site level that becomes a problem for conflict of interest purposes. So I wouldn't worry too much, but if you are venturing into, you know, coming back to the program on religious sites when we're talking about commercial sites and conflicted commissioners are participating, that could be an issue.

[00:23:54] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Okay, yeah, just because I think that option three I'm not saying I'm going for that one, but that option three, it reads to me like it would be an option directing staff to assess viability of specific sites. And so then therefore if the conflict that I'm hearing is that there is a proximity to certain sites and if we have some of our colleagues that return for 2.6 and they say, "Oh I love option three, which is about directing towards specific sites," isn't that like kind of contradictory?

[00:24:37] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So let me see if I so um there's specific sites for both and they're different. So in 1.4 there are specific sites that we and we can pull them back up um where you know you all can talk about those very specific sites and in 2.6 there are two well there are a few but two that we're specifically pointing you to and that would be where you would talk about those two sites. So I think you just have to separate the two sites in the two programs and then you all can focus on these religious sites and the and you know we're really talking about you know targeting the ones that can meet you know the the goal um in one of the questions. And then we would do the same thing for the commercial sites.

[00:25:29] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Okay, that makes sense. Just because um the way I understand it, this um both project 1.4 and 2.6 in a way is like directly looking at um the affirmatively furthering fair housing um requirements of the law with regard to the housing element, right? Um and so then we're kind of discussing right now 1.4 which is like a direct um initiative to address that legal requirement. And then you know when our colleagues come back, you know we're also looking at that exact same like at the higher level you know we're all discussing the AFFH requirement. Um and so yeah, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Um and I'm going to just trust and kind of like uh trust that there's smarter people here who can catch me if I'm falling down. Um so yeah, I guess in terms of the questions I have um, I mean I guess like in terms of some of the challenges and and getting responses, um, when I guess like is there can can we get a little bit more of like a characterization of the kinds of conversations? Um, did people um seem like they had known about it before, were they you know saying maybe but not right now, um what was it like just hard no? Like um because I'm not sure that was like fully I just just want to get a sense of kind of how did those conversations go.

[00:27:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you for the question Commissioner, Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner. We actually did very rigorous outreach efforts to reach out and get a response. Um, very few of them responded back and said they are really not interested. Um, we did additional efforts to kind of just um invite them to like a common platform to just introduce and kind of educational part of it, you know like what is the program, what is the state law, what is our housing element, what are we trying to do to even explore an idea. Uh, but we didn't get any response at all to that educational front. Um, in terms of one of the response or so we received which was pretty straight no, like no we're not interested.

[00:27:56] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: I think too I'll just add to that that you know, this doesn't end our trying to get people to to participate and and trying to gain interest. Um, it's just we've tried strategically sir, you know several different ways and and really didn't didn't get the response that you know, or or any response at all.

[00:28:19] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Yeah, that that makes sense. And then with regards to these properties, um as far as like the um cause you know when I think about for example like Blossom Valley or what have you, I can imagine it's like some commercial real estate group or ownership inter, I don't know LLC whatever, CBRE something like that right? Um, that you know owns well I'm just saying like I'm gonna yeah. Um so I would imagine just some like commercial like ownership but in terms of these religious sites, um like what's the owner, um in terms of characterizing that um cause it's I actually don't know. Is it like owned by like the church, like that does the pope own like what's the ownership general ownership structures looking like for these sites?

[00:29:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I can't speak for all churches, but um certainly they are owned by the religious organization. Uh, and they all have different governance structures. And that is actually one of the challenges with working with church sites for these types of projects is that um often times just finding who the person is that has authority and sometimes it's a group of people that have authority that's changing uh you know every so often. Uh, and uh and they may all have different opinions about what might they might want to do with the site. So it is a challenge in getting decisions made about these things.

[00:29:48] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Got it. And and do they generally have like loans um or you know like how how would they fund if a new church you know sprang up or something like that um you know like do they go out and get funding and or is it like these have been religious sites for as long as we can remember or what have you?

[00:30:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I I can't speak for their finances at all.

[00:30:10] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Yeah. Yeah yeah. Okay. Um okay, and then in terms of these 65 units, um so if if as it stands right now, um if we looked at all of these religious sites and we did outreach to everyone we could um and no one said that they were interested, right, um then we would have to find a way to get those 65 units elsewhere or through some other mechanism in in the south of El Camino, right? Um is that yeah? Yes or?

[00:30:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, the way the housing element program is phrased is that if we don't get those units, then we have to do something else in the next few years. We're not in violation of our housing element if the units don't get built.

[00:30:58] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Right. Yeah. Um, but would we have to, as it relates to the AFFH, um would we have to make a good faith demonstrable effort that we were looking to make the difference up in these underserved communities that we um put forward in the housing element?

[00:31:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That that's what the housing element says. It says that the subsequent efforts that we make, if the buildings don't come to fruition, they have to be in these neighborhoods.

[00:31:29] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Okay. Okay, and then last question from me on this, um and I know it's very well written and I appreciate and documented. Just in terms of like the slight differentiation um between approach one and approach two as it pertains to the religious sites, um like what would be that additional like um activity or what what would be examples of those like um possible small increases um that that approach would um lead us towards?

[00:32:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So this is between approach one and approach two, correct? Um, we have not delved into the details of that yet. Um, there are some of the things that have been considered in other jurisdictions or other examples that we have heard, we can look at the affordability levels that are how it has been defined in the in the state law versus what we want to adopt. I'm not sure if we will go that route, uh, but that is one of the things. There are other development standards that we can explore, but we haven't delved into that yet.

[00:32:36] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Um, and so then uh and those things would be like um, how can I put it, limited those those changes would be limited to those religious sites as us, the city, saying we're trying these um, you know designations changes to the land use to try and stimulate that um response, right from from interest? Okay. Alright, sounds good. Alright, I appreciate that.

[00:33:09] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Thank you Commissioner Nu�ez. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:33:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess uh clarifying question. Um is there any reason we can't do something different for the two? Or does it have to be the same thing for both 1.4 and 2.6?

[00:33:25] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah, you could do something different between the two. Mhm.

[00:33:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks.

[00:33:34] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Commissioner Nu�ez, did you wish to? No? Okay, no problem. So I have a couple questions. Um. Let me ask this question. Is it fair to understand that the implementation of these programs is not necessary to meet the city's RHNA requirement but instead goes beyond the sites inventory requirement and the interest of providing housing opportunities in the city's highest opportunity neighborhoods? Hence my question is this necessary?

[00:34:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, yes it is. We've uh adopted it as uh a housing element program uh which means that we uh would need to carry it out or else we need to amend our housing element and go back to HCD and that's a that's a whole other um you know, process. Uh, and like Commissioner Nu�ez said, it's a core part of the affirmatively furthering fair housing um uh uh set of programs that we've identified in the housing element uh to uh to meet those requirements.

[00:34:50] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Thank you. And my other question then is with these religious sites, if they're not interested in participating with these development projects, can we force them to? Or not?

[00:35:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No. We we can't force them.

[00:35:08] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: So what type of incentives were you thinking about approaching them with?

[00:35:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, this conversation is really about creating the question of zoning capacity and whether zoning capacity provides enough incentive for uh for these property owners to want to uh to do something. Uh there are certainly other uh avenues that incentives could take, financial incentives or uh procedural incentives or other, you know uh other incentives that could exist. And we've actually uh identified a few already. Um there's one that uh council indicated support for last year and I believe the housing department is bringing forward some code amendments to implement, where um uh uh market rate developers can um uh have an agreement with a property owner south of El Camino where presumably there'd be some financial incentive involved uh to provide affordable housing on that site, to further uh fair housing, uh and meet the the market rate developers BMR requirements. Um and so that is an example of a financial incentive that really isn't part of this conversation, which is focused primarily on on zoning zoning capacity.

[00:36:38] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Thank you. And then my final question then is if one of the religious sites for example would say yes I'm interested in trying to go with this approach and and further the housing cause of the city. Um what options are they left with then for servicing their community? Are they then looking for property somewhere else within the city of Mountain View for example or are they done serving the community of Mountain View because of the lack of space?

[00:37:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well that's why we're focusing on sites where there appears to be a large enough site and an underutilized uh site from a building perspective. Um, we don't know what the, you know, religious um, populations of these uh of these churches are or what their land needs are. Uh, so I want to get that out of the way right off the bat. Uh, but we are focusing on sites where it appears that the kind of the ratio of improvements to to to site area is fairly small. Uh, and that does lead one to believe that there may be capacity on the site for some housing uh from a pure physical improvement perspective.

[00:38:20] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: And I think I would just add to that that, you know, there could be a congregation that decides, you know, they do want to redevelop their site and that opens a whole other, you know, door. But um, you know, due to the lack of interest or response that we've even received, we have never we have not heard of anybody who would be interested in doing that. So instead we focused on underutilized area of these sites.

[00:38:45] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: That makes sense to me. Thank you, I appreciate that. And and did you all uh also look at in terms of the historical perspective, how it was that the city was able to speed to the St. Joseph's community for example, because you all have a frame of reference with two projects, right? Right behind us the housing units next to and the commercial building next to the St. Joseph's church, just right here across the street. And then the previous projects from some years ago was actual St. Joseph's school on Shoreline where to the left of that as you're going towards Los Altos on the right hand side, you have a lovely community of homes there that the diocese of Santa Clara County related to the Catholic community, which I'm I'm a part of also. Um, and I'm just saying that as a member, right, of of a faith. That they also opened up their land and there was development done there. Have you all looked to see how that approach was made and is that related at all in any way to how we could possibly do a development there for an example sake?

[00:39:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, no, we didn't look into that history, although I I will say that uh those projects are um market rate projects. Uh, so uh presume that uh there's some significant amount of value that comes from the residential development that you're talking about, which is a row house uh development and the uh the office building that you're talking about. So there may be a different kind of conversation happening there uh that we would have to uh that that may be an apples and oranges comparison uh with what we're trying to do with affordable housing.

[00:40:03] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: But I think what I would like to add is that we did look at outside Mountain View in other jurisdictions, if there are any you know affordable housing developers who are working with a religious site and how what are the terms of negotiations, what are really the incentives that they are trying to use uh to encourage housing and make that uh project viable.

[00:40:27] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Great. And then my final question is if we, if it's a recommendation in the end or just ideas that are put forth for you to share with, ponder with city council and the other folks. Um, if it doesn't really move the needle, we're already showing a good faith effort to try and do an adjustment to our set commitment within uh the RHNA. Uh, outside of that though, besides this, is that where we meet our commitment or is there something else that needs to be done?

[00:41:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the uh the housing element prescribes these two actions for um for affordable housing south of El Camino. There are lots of other programs in the housing element that we still need to carry out. Uh, but these are the two programs that are focused on south of El Camino. And uh, so the if if the council wants to take approach one, for example, on both of these items, uh that would meet our obligations under the housing element, at least until 2027 when we need to reassess and perhaps adopt additional policies.

[00:41:38] Vice Chair Jos� Guti�rrez: Great. Thank you for clarifying that. And just for explaining that to the folks that are watching us because I'm sure there's some folks watching us. Okay. Uh, anyone else have any questions, commissioners? Oh I see, Commissioner Nu�ez.

[00:41:51] Commissioner Alex Nu�ez: Uh thank you uh Vice Chair. So um I'm very very happy uh that um or I appreciate very much that uh Vice Chair Guti�rrez brought up um the St. Joseph's uh sites um because in fact that that is an example of success that we already actually have with having um residential uh you know uh capacity on religious sites and so um I know that it had been mentioned, and I understand it's not in the scope of this given it's like a financial kind of you know incentive um or program, it would be a program. Um, with regard to the council indicating the interest in uh finding a way to get like market rate developers to, you know, have more of a a vehicle entry point opportunity into some of these religious sites for that redevelopment. Um and then also given that both of our uh existing uh residential uh sites that were raised by uh Vice Chair Guti�rrez also happened to go through that market rate route. Um then is it the case that um or or I guess if I'm gonna ask it in a question, if we were to say right now um hey uh you know we're gonna go with like approach one or whatever, we're not really going to change much. Um and then uh city council were to a year from now say hey we're gonna pass this you know market rate development program um for religious sites. Um then I'm a market rate developer, I say hey that sounds great. Oh, it's like low low density, doesn't really kind of get me going. Does that make sense in terms of like in so does that mean that this right now is like the opportunity to um kind of think about that in a little bit of a longer term view or you know would we have to find Council three years from now coming back to the religious sites and being like, ugh, we didn't, you know, we didn't upzone it. There's market rate developers interested if we had just done a little bit more. Does that make sense um, where I'm going with that? Yeah, can you kind of help us.

[00:44:02] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah so I think, tell me if I'm going on on the wrong course and Eric will have to help me with kind of the more technical details, but the the program that Eric was talking about, it's actually where a market rate developer would would traditionally would build their affordable units on a site that's south of El Camino. So they would be doing an alt like you know, what we call an alternate mitigation program which you know we talked about in great length at our last meeting and they would build the portion of the affordable units on a different site, like a completely different site. And that's very, you know, it's kind of unusual and um that site would be in that south of of El Camino area. And and then with regard to those alternate mitigations, they would be constrained by that zoning right? They would have to adhere to those zoning standards?

[00:44:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh for the alternate mitigation, yes.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: But that's, that's something that we would need to uh, establish. Uh, there are details of the alternate mitigation program that I am not 100% aware of. And so um, that is something that may be um, anticipated in that program.

[00:45:24] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Right. Yeah, because it sounds like um, if we literally just do nothing, which could be fine, I'm not, you know, um, and I mean that, right? Uh, like if we just didn't make a change, I'll put it that way. If we didn't change anything and then six years from now, there was a developer wanting to use that site in this scenario as an alternate mitigation site, they would be working with these same standards.

[00:45:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think that's what you should assume for now. In the absence of further policy direction to create a specific approach to those off-site BMR units being constructed, you know, some alternative standards or review and approval process, you should assume they would have to follow whatever process would apply to development of that site, regardless of whether it's the off-site BMR through this new process or just a housing project.

[00:46:12] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Perfect. So then the way that sounds to me is that option two, um, just even that plus approach, um, staff's direction to go look at these religious sites and just find, you know, kind of opportunistic modifications to the zoning to incentivize um a little bit more, um, even if this like market-rate uh, you know, situation had never been brought up if we weren't discussing it right now, then that, you know, if staff went with approach two, conceivably that could open up a little bit more flexibility in such a future scenario. Is that safe to say?

[00:46:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think that's right. And I think I conceptualize this as we're talking about development standards and process tonight. Really what we're talking about with that other program is setting different economic conditions that would make the housing development more viable, create an incentive for a market-rate developer to connect with a religious site owner to come to terms to allow construction of affordable housing. So I think they're addressing different aspects of the situation.

[00:47:23] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yes. Which I fully, I think I fully, I think based on your comment, I think I get that part. Yeah.

[00:47:29] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: And I think I would just add that, you know, um, I think the reason that, you know, we are approaching this in this way with kind of these multiple approaches, like maybe there's just the one that is allowed currently and then there's one that maybe we look at certain, you know, we see some possibilities for a little extra, but I think the thing to remember too is that these religious sites are in like R1 zoning districts. So they are surrounded, you know, predominantly by single-family homes. And um, while it is, you know, while 30 dwelling units an acre doesn't sound like that much in, you know, the greater scheme of the things that we approve, that can be impactful in those types of neighborhoods. Um, so I just feel like that's important to mention.

[00:48:15] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah. I appreciate that. Yeah. I don't think any of us would think about getting like R4 on these sites. We have 65 units that we're looking to spread around these sites, so totally understood. Yep. Thank you.

[00:48:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:48:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess the questions have prompted another question. So the way I read the staff report, um, SB 4 allows by right up to 10 units on a property. Is that correct?

[00:48:46] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: SB 4 allows what's in approach one, um, so 30 dwelling units an acre or existing zoning. Um, I think you're thinking of 684, which allows up to 10, but that's on different sites.

[00:49:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I thought there was something in the staff report that said a limit of 10. Because so my question actually was, I know you're focusing on these big sites, but I guess one of the things that I was struck by, I think it was in San Mateo County um, where they did a small thing. To some extent I look at even these smaller sites as what if they wanted to do essentially ADUs for the church, okay, on a smaller site, okay? So there's this additional capacity here. And in my head, 10 was a threshold, and a couple of these units, a couple of these properties could potentially under SB 4 do 12 or 14 units. And so would by our changes, would it allow them to do those, so if one of them wanted to add 10 units in the back for people in the church they wanted to help out, could they do that if we followed the line, if we were consistent with SB 4 or not? I thought it was, I thought I remembered a 10 unit limit.

[00:50:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So the relevance of 10 units under SB 4 relates to prevailing wage requirements, and so it can have a meaningful impact on the costs of a project. Um, nine or fewer units would not be subject to prevailing wage under SB 4. Um, so it's a...

[00:50:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I thought it said more than 10, so it's actually nine or less? It's nine or less.

[00:50:34] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh, more than 10. You may be correct. Yeah, uh, you're correct. So 10 or fewer would not be subject to prevailing wage.

[00:50:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then something like, one of the things I was struck by was most of these folks have no clue as to even what they would need to do. Um, the at our last meeting, one of the gentlemen working for Prometheus was there to kind of help people go through this. Is there some kind of mechanism out there for if a religious organization wanted to do say, okay, I want to build some of these things and they have no clue about how to do this. Is there any kind of, is the housing director looking at putting something in place that might actually be, offer to help them educate them on these kind of things? Or is that organization in San Mateo do that kind of thing? Um, I just...

[00:51:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think the issue of housing development generally is very complex and typically non-professionals uh, aren't very successful in the endeavor. I think what we're imagining as with the larger Prometheus project that you're referring to, or some of these perhaps smaller scale projects with religious uh, property owners is they would more often than not affiliate with a professional non-profit housing developer that is expert in these issues. Um, it would be very difficult I think for um, just a church on its own to undertake such a project um, without having that kind of expert assistance.

[00:51:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But doing something 10 units or less, they could do on their own, potentially.

[00:51:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well, any size project under SB 4 they could do on their own. The 10 or more units would be subject to prevailing wage if they were to hire uh, a construction contractor as you would imagine uh, would be necessary.

[00:51:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And if they were to do something like that, I think um, the Methodist Church in the winter uh, allows people to stay overnight, okay? Does that count as housing or not, since it's not year-round?

[00:52:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No.

[00:52:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So if they did something that was just during bad weather, that wouldn't work. They'd have to do, if they wanted to do five units on their property, they'd have to be continuously occupied kind of space.

[00:52:17] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. So there are different provisions under state law for those types of emergency shelter or supportive housing or transitional housing type services. It's probably best not to think of those in the sort of traditional housing context like we're talking about through these programs in the housing element.

[00:52:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Thank you.

[00:52:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Donahue.

[00:52:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So you threw out this thing about the alternate mitigation uh, and so a lot of questions have been about that. So I'm going to ask another one. Um, and apologies if you already addressed this, but I didn't quite get it. So, um, what you said earlier was that maybe with approach two, uh, you could uh, incentivize uh, market-rate developers in another part of town to um, to partner with a religious institution to have the alternate mitigation on the religious site. Uh, could that already happen? Or is that something that would have to happen under approach two?

[00:53:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, that's not limited to approach two. In fact, that's, that is something that the city is already looking at setting up the structure for, no matter what approach the council takes on this, these programs. Um, so that's uh, that's a separate item that's going on its own path.

[00:53:49] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay, fine. So then I shouldn't really focus on that because it's, it's approach one, two, three, it's happening anyway. Okay. Okay, good. Thanks.

[00:54:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Nuñez.

[00:54:02] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Um, uh, just uh Commissioner Cranston's questioning kind of brought this up. Um, in terms of like uh, discretion around um, unit type, uh, you know, like studios, one bedroom, two bedroom, three, um, is it conceivable um, we could get 65 studios or you know, like what's what discretion do we have around you know, like trying to make sure we're doing like um family-serving units or uh a healthy mix um with regard to this product? Or what opportunity, is that already there, or is this an opportunity for us to to kind of try and make that an incentive if we want to?

[00:54:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So SB 4 doesn't include any language around that. So that's uh, that would have to be something that the city uh, adopts separately. I'm not aware, uh, certainly we can we can look at incentives for it, but I'm not sure that there are uh, I have not seen like standards for minimum number of bedrooms or what have you. That that there may be issues with that kind of a standard.

[00:55:13] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Um, and then, so it sounds like part of our analysis as a city as well, with regard to how we created program 1.4, um, did we, uh, as part of the um, housing element designation, say like we are trying to get two bedroom or um, or did we just say 65 units on religious sites?

[00:55:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, the program doesn't prescribe number of bedrooms. Uh, there are various policies in, and some programs that get to our affordable housing program, our affordable housing processes generally trying to get a range of unit sizes and trying to serve a range of of different household types and sizes. So, uh, but no, this this program doesn't say anything about that.

[00:56:12] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Got it. So then that means if I'm hearing right, last question on this, um, just to confirm, uh, if we were to go with approach one, then we wouldn't make changes. We would just kind of move forward as is with that kind of current um, lack of um, specificity.

[00:56:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exactly. Yeah.

[00:56:32] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Which prompts me with my one question then. If if we were to approach either one, two or three in terms of the approaches you all have, and we wanted to add on specificity in terms of saying the standards like Alex was alluding to for certain types of housing units such as two or three bedrooms or studios, one bedrooms or one bedrooms, any other combination in general, is this the time now to be able to bring this up?

[00:57:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, I think one consideration uh, the, I would encourage the commission to think about ways to do it through incentives rather than through standards or requirements because uh, we would not want to add additional requirements on SB 4. Uh, so it would have to be structured in terms of an incentive.

[00:57:40] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: I think too, you know, um, if, you know, if you look at that as an incentive or if you build in that if you build these size units then maybe you get more density or something, you know, a lot of that can be waived too. So it's really tricky. And then you also don't want to disincentivize housing units um, by making then that more restrictive because it's more expensive to build. Um, so I guess, you know, those are just some thoughts to think about.

[00:58:11] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. Commissioner Nuñez.

[00:58:13] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: I appreciate that. Um, yeah, in terms of the um, right, I because I hear what what um, you're saying um, Mr. Anderson, totally agree, you know, hey, we don't want to we want to like incentivize this, right? Um, and you know, I as part of this role, right, I mean like the city council is doing things they are, you know, we are like, you know, um, ser a tributary to the council, right? Um, we all should be informed of what they're doing um, and we should you know, take that into account in our thinking and processing of these issues. Even if we're not voting on these issues, even if we're not like you know, going to make policy changes on you know, any other number of things, but you know, we are talking about um, what is happening here. Um, what I also want to in terms of my thinking, just want to make sure that we're not um creating a scenario where um we are limiting the future or having to revisit things in the future. Um, and so when it comes to, you know, yes, definitely not um, you know, going with standards. Um, the only thing I kind of, you know, would would like to have some considerations about as well is are um alternate mitigation, I think and we saw this on uh in in the last meeting uh, the alternate mitigation calls for a similar mix of units. Um, so yeah, we're not talking about alternate mitigation right now, but I know that it's in the air. I know it's a possibility. So like if I'm doing a good faith like, you know, steward job that I can, um, and if that entails that I would want all opportunities for these units to get built, whether it's through uh SP4 project or some alternate mitigation from a market rate development project, um, then you know, what are the limitations there? You know, for example, um, if if the zoning um, you know, isn't allowing for the kind of, you know, mix that would that would make an alternate mitigation from some market rate development viable in the future, um, then that's not a site that's available in reality for an alternate mitigation. Um, or at least there's a conflict there between what the BMR um, standards say is the requirement versus what is, you know, allowed from a uh, land use designation on these religious sites. Um, so it's not really a question, but it's just something that I'm like gonna throw out there for like some you know, mixing it up in the conscious juices or whatever.

[01:00:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so if we have no further questions, I believe it's probably the time to go into discussion, um, and unless any of you uh, have one last question. Okay. So let's move on to discussion. Who would like to start? Commissioner Cranston, thank you.

[01:01:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So everybody's so bashful. Um, in my mind, there is no question that I'm viewing this as differently than 2.6. Okay. I don't, in my mind, it's not one approach for both. So I'm what I'm discussing here is 1.4. Um, I'm a I'm a fairly strong believer in the in the Bill of Rights and one of the things there is is uh separation of church and state. So I am uncomfortable with the idea of doing something that kind of drops in something on top of an area where the churches have have chosen areas to be in their community, within single-family communities. Um, and and so I'm as I look at this, you know they certainly if we can do something within, if uh, if the development the housing director could do something to make them more aware of these things, I quite frankly I look at this and I think there's probably more opportunity for what I called kind of like church ADUs, okay? Um, if they could go in and do something that's get here's five here, ten here, we could we may be able to get our 65 and there's no big site that accomplishes it, okay? There's enough here spread across these that we could get the number by making it attractive for them to do that. And so I think I do think that there are elements of building standards within R1, um, not all R1 is a single story, okay? There are things around that. So SB 2, SB 4 does allow um, you know, one story higher in in some of these areas. So I'd wanna definitely want to see how that worked into it. So I'm I'm inclined a little bit to a approach two within focused around what SB 4 permits, but then looking at the area around it. Not going in there and saying, okay, you're going to drop in something bigger behind it. I my dad was a minister, okay? I can't speak for the Catholic church, but I know in the Presbyterian church trying to get the the session to make a decision on a property would be a freaking nightmare, okay? It's not something that happens, okay? They're focused on running the church, reaching their parishioners. Um, but they do have people in the in the community that could do some help. So if somebody said hey, let's, you know, maybe we should put a few units in the back and we can help some get put in place some transition housing for some of our parishioners, that could be interesting, okay? Building a a 50 unit tower next to the church probably wouldn't would be like go away, okay? So I think I'm inclined toward the the approach two plus approach, but with on a on a side of making sure that it still fits within the neighborhoods, okay? And within SB 4. Um, going much beyond that, I'm not I not would not be enthusiastic with. So that's that's my initial thinking.

[01:04:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, if I may, I just want to um, build on Commissioner Cranston's comments, um, which I understand and appreciate. Uh, and so I just want to clarify, um, SB 4 does not require that you build 30 units per acre or nor do any of the approaches that the staff has outlined that the commission could recommend. Um, we're really talking about, you know, maximum building potential, but those smaller scale types of projects very well could be possible under these approaches. And so I just want to clarify you don't have to think of this as a high density multi-family kind of product as the only uh consequence of this. Smaller scale, you know, detached kind of studio size uh unit types um are a potential outcome uh of this this program as well.

[01:05:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so if I understand you correctly then based on what Chairman well, Chair uh, Commissioner uh Cranston had mentioned, this idea of his is already understood as a possible option within the framework of the language.

[01:05:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct. Or a potential outcome.

[01:05:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. Of course. Any other speakers? Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:05:20] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Um, yeah, I'm I'm also inclined um towards the uh approach two on the existing density approach plus. Um, the way that I'm thinking about it um, is I I guess it's interesting, the separation of church and state um, uh situation as well, right? Um, I guess that's an interesting um kind of like thought process there in terms of um, like freedoms and you know because property ownership is um, probably also as sacred in this country um, as as religion. Um, and so you know, I I don't know if um you know whoever you know established these congregations decades ago you know was like looking at the you know 2020 general map or or what have you and said we want an R1 site. Um, and so for for me personally, I would tend to lean towards um, given that that I you know staff confirmed uh to um Vice Chair Gutierrez's question earlier, you know we can't force anybody. Um, and so it, you know, it would be good to um, you know, have ways to again, around the edges and understanding you know no one here is like trying to get like an R3 like you know development project um on these religious sites. Um, unless un unless people are interested, um, but um, I think that just kind of like as staff, you know, because here's what I know already, um, staff did outreach, uh, they are not interested. So if we don't change anything, why would anything be different? Um, and so we have to try and find a way to get these 65 units there. Um, and so for for me looking at that, um happy medium of saying hey you know what, um, it would be a little bit more staff time, um, but clearly what's already there isn't getting the job done. Um, I would say let's let's find ways to get a little bit more um, in there now. Um, we got feedback from the lack of interest, we're get we have the we have the benefit of you know more develop not like property developments but like developments in terms of, you know, how you know we're thinking about it, state law and all of that, um, so we should put that to use and uh try to um make just enough added changes to see if we can get more people to bite. So personally I'm looking at um, uh was it approach two.

[01:08:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Nuñez. Commissioner Donahue.

[01:08:07] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I think that the um, when the staff did the outreach it's it's possible that that they didn't even know that this was an option. Staff says, hey, you can do this, and then they um, like, eh, not really interested, but they they don't fully understand the the implications and uh and and how it works and with with further education maybe they uh would come around and and be interested. So, um, and run it up the flagpole to the the uh the session or the diocese or whoever whoever uh controls their um, um, you know the actual uh property decisions. I mean, I I think that that uh churches are generally like some of the first uh uh safe parking sites were were in Mountain View were were at at churches. So they're interested in in in um, right, and in helping people. I mean, that's kind of one of the main main things that churches are doing. Um, and so just maybe with further education, maybe um, with the alternate again I'll bring up the alternate mitigation thing, um, that uh, you know, if you get some of the market rate developers coming in and saying, hey, look at you know, if if we partner look at all this, you know, the benefits uh from from your side. Um, so so generally yeah, I I I don't think that we need to go kind of like in approach three and and kind of go too overboard uh especially uh given the the staff resources that would be involved and the the number of units that we're we're talking about, but I do agree that there are eight sites here and if they each build just 10, then you've you've already exceeded your 65. So, um, so I think I'm I'm uh inclined to agree with the uh the other two commissioners who have spoken.

[01:10:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Donahue, so just to clarify, uh so you're comfortable with approach two.

[01:10:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Sure.

[01:10:25] Chair José Gutiérrez: Any other comments from the commissioners? Okay. So, uh, in terms of my perspective, uh, I appreciate the outreach you've made and the presentation. Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Uh, these things can be a challenge and when you look at the lack of response, I think you can see the interest there is genuine from their end that there is no no interest. And if uh and I don't mean that facetiously either. It's just it's understood. Um, I applaud the efforts because we're trying to do something here, but it's also a bigger picture issue, right, in terms of the laws that went into effect in the creation of our city, right, which were not very favorable towards minority communities in the first place, and we all can can admit to that. There's no litigation here. Um, but at the same time, trying to correct that type of wrong in fulfilling a a housing requirement, it's that's a tough ask. So if you can, uh I'm also in a pro in favor of approach number two, um, and I understand that uh at the next level with city council, and we hear we we have a uh soon to be elected member or of a of a of the council presently with Mr. McAlister, thank you for being here. Um, they can take up this discussion. But similar to Commissioner Cranston, I'm not I don't feel too comfortable with saying to an organized religion um, or a facility of a wor worship, you have to do this, right? Um, and that doesn't seem right to me. Um, and that's not what you're asking either, but I can understand why in the in the end there may not have been a a a a follow-through response to your question of interest, um, because the way I look at it is which is why I brought this up in the beginning, once they're not here, if there is no alternate site that's held by said community, then there is no place of worship for that said community, and that's something that we don't also want to promote either, right? I think that's understandable. Um, anyone else have any questions or or comments? Sure, Commissioner Cranston.

[01:12:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It doesn't really doesn't change my what I said before, but I do think um, and I think that Commissioner Donahue said it struck me the same way is most of these places probably never occurred to them that oh, I could actually put housing here. So maybe this is a hey housing development director, could you put together a little thing that says, hey, you know you could put 5 or 10 units on your on your on your parking lot and uh and get some of these things. So a little bit of a little education may change it from I'm not interested to huh well maybe. But that's not a that's not a zoning change. That's a that's a different department, not our department, but I think it would be a good thing if if uh if the director added that in his list of things to do.

[01:13:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So just following up on that front, so uh it looks like we have a majority perspective here of looking at approach two as the best path forward. Um, my questions to you all here and bear with me, uh, in terms of the questions at the back with questions number one, two, and three which go to the 1.4 action that we're talking about here for the uh study session. Those questions, did you want me to ask those of the commissioners now or later on? Or was that already part of the conversation and we understood that as such?

[01:13:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So I, I can do a quick summary of what I think I heard from, you know, most commissioners here in terms of comments. Uh, but if you feel like you want to get more consensus out out of any, anything else that you heard, uh, to to maybe respond to question two, like other comments, uh, you can do that, otherwise, um, you know, we can leave it at this. Summary uh, clearly uh, the the commission supported approach two, uh, and the direction I think there was there was support for uh looking for standards that can move the needle a little bit, especially towards smaller developments uh that may be of particular interest to congregations.

[01:14:18] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I think just to make sure I interpreted uh exactly what Mr. Anderson said, um, there's concern about the scale of these developments and the intimate relationship they would have to surrounding low density residential development. So, um, ratcheting up density isn't necessarily uh one of the preferred ways to move the needle uh, particularly if that would lead to um larger scale development. So maybe more density but smaller units might be okay, but concern about scale uh in particular in relation to uh development standards that we might want to work with.

[01:14:56] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah, um, yeah, I guess scale, totally, I I would not um, characterize my view as um you know, uh necessarily, you know, imposing uh, the the screws of limitations on density.

[01:15:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. If I if I to just sort of rephrase, um it isn't simply speaking wanting more density. Um density is secondary to scale in this issue, and if scale can be appropriate and density can be higher, that's fine. But simply more density for density's sake to get bigger projects to get more units might not be the right right approach or the desired approach in this context.

[01:15:42] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah, like there's no expectation of R3 but to the extent that you know we're not limiting what could stimulate.

[01:15:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[01:15:51] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Donahue.

[01:15:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I I agree with what was said. I mean, these are are these things are are generally zoned R1, and so it needs to fit in, I mean generally, when doing planning throughout the city, we want things to to fit in, right? So I I think I agree with uh with what you're saying, um, we don't want to go with our R3 tie style things but uh yeah.

[01:16:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. So in conclusion, Eric, Diana, that's understood in terms of the summary and the approach that you'd be able to to move forward with based on what you understand here from what our deliberations have been. So one final question just for a point of clarification, point of order, uh for the community who's watching and just for us in general. I'm just going to beg the question here just to confirm that I have consensus of this approach and the summary uh regarding uh 1.4. Are we then fine commissioners with um uh moving this as presented to us as suggested, and foregoing the uh question number one approach of what do you think about what was written here from the staff, and question number two plus question number three?

[01:16:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Just the first two questions. The third question is about 2.6.

[01:17:02] Chair José Gutiérrez: Oh, that's right. That's right. So in terms of question number one and question number two. Any further discussions on those points?

[01:17:11] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yep, um, so I'll I'll just clarify for myself. Um, in terms of question number one which is two questions, um, in in one, um, for that first part, does the EPC wish to apply the existing density approach? Mine would be no. And if not, what were the higher density approaches discussing the report? My answer is approach two, so far as that enables that. Um, and then the last part, and I don't know if there's any consensus on this, um, I do have some kind of like concern around um, the um, kind of like unit mix type. Um, I don't know that there's like a fix or a resolution to that, um, but just in terms of like additional feedback, um, you know to staff or to whoever is listening out there, market rate people, whoever, um, you know, it'd be nice to not just get like 65 studios out of this program.

[01:18:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, it would help to just explore if that's a majority position of the commissioners, and if it is, I think we understand that we should strive to create an approach that incentivizes a variety of unit types so that you know, single people, families, and so forth, there's a variety of housing options options to meet a variety of housing needs.

[01:18:23] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, sir. So, having said that and having heard Alex's uh ideas, Commissioner uh Donahue and Cranston, what say you?

[01:18:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm I guess I'm that would be a wish list item, I don't necessarily view it as a requirement. I my thinking is the SP4 allows one story difference between the spaces which is already will could allow some effectively increased density. But I believe that we have some of our development standards require um, may require more step back, more setback than may be necessary in something like this. And so in my thinking if we were going to look at things like you know, looking at some releasing looking at some of the objective standards, it would be on things like that to say okay, if you didn't want to do that, do you have to have a 15-foot setback on something like that? That that would be more what I'd be expecting staff to look at, I'm not recommending that as a specific change, but looking at some of those things on on the objective standards that might make it a little easier um, because that SB 4 specifically had the you have to meet all the object the objective standards, and and so I started going through in my head some of those objective standards and saying well, maybe we could be softened some of those um, to make it more attractive. So I'm I'm not necessarily of the mindset that if you if you came back with something that made it attractive to have more family units, cool. But I don't, I view that as a se when I looked at approach two, it was more the objective standards to make it more feasible um, to get within the spaces available. That was more my expectation of what you would look at.

[01:20:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. And I think it's a, it's a challenge in this context because uh in most cases these SB 4 projects, if they qualify for SB 4, would be entitled to state density bonus as well, and then waiving uh development standards and so forth. So, the challenge is trying to create incentives that get them to uh create the right type of project without exercising waivers and concessions that would undermine the intent and the desired outcome of the kinds of projects that the commissions discussed tonight. So, it's a, it's a challenge, we will do our best and think creatively about that.

[01:20:57] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you for that. Thank you, Commissioner Cranston. I agree with you too as well, just for the record. So, Commissioner Donahue.

[01:21:03] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I agree. Um, I don't think that we should require three-bedroom units and things like that, because that that will actually uh probably increase the scale of things which is as we discussed, not the necessarily the primary goal here. So, so.

[01:21:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, sir. Eric, team, I think we have our consensus. Okay, right on. Spot on. So, having said that, I believe we're now moving on to 2.6, if I understand this correctly, and we'll have some commissioners coming back.

[01:21:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and we'll also have one commissioner who will be recusing from participation in this.

[01:21:40] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Commissioners, if uh you're eligible to come back, please come on, come on back.

[01:21:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: And at this point, can we also have Commissioner Donahue making a statement of recusal, sir?

[01:21:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Uh, I am recusing myself from discussion of housing element program 2.6 due to the proximity of my personal residence to the affected sites.

[01:22:04] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Donahue. Welcome back, Commissioner Yin.

[01:22:24] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:22:26] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was just going to say normally we could hear what you're saying, but we could not, we could watch, we could not hear. So, that's all.

[01:22:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: That's great to know. That's great to know. Okay, so let's move on with questions for I believe it's 2, let's see. 2.6.

[01:22:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yes, Commissioner Donahue, she's still recused. Yeah. Uh, and let's see here. Uh, let's look at the notes. And no, I believe Chris has rejoined as well, correct? Yep. Okay, great.

[01:23:04] Commissioner Chris Clark: Yes, I'm here.

[01:23:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you, Chris. Uh, Commissioners, any questions?

[01:23:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So one of the things um, it wasn't discussed in here, the what's permitted within El Camino um, on like um, like at the Moffett, at the El Monte site um, and others along there, how does that compare to the existing zoning in the in the two bigger sites? I mean, could do they does the two the two larger sites um, if if if we matched what's now permitted on El Camino, would that be a higher density than what's currently permitted on those two sites?

[01:24:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so El Camino has a couple of different kind of subzones in the El Camino Real Precise Plan, three of them. Uh, there's the the the bulk of the corridor, uh which is approximately the same intensity, density as what is currently allowed on the two larger sites, the Grant Park Plaza uh, sites. Um, El Camino also has a lower intensity area and a higher intensity area. So um, like for example the uh, the development that's under review right now at the corner of Castro Street, uh where the Chase Bank building is, is actually in a higher intensity node in the El Camino Real Precise Plan, and so that would be higher intensity than what would be allowed at Grant Park Plaza today.

[01:24:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then uh, another question, the site 17, 1708 Miramonte, that's the gas station. What why isn't the Safeway behind it included in that?

[01:25:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we made a determination in the housing element process that the uh, Safeway site was both too intensively developed as well as too recently developed to uh or improved to be a um a likely development site under the expectations and um the the criteria that we establish for our housing element uh sites inventory.

[01:25:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, if if we if whatever we recommend the council that they do here, would it only apply to the sites that are on this inventory? Or could it, I know you said it's not likely, but if we approved it here, would it also apply potentially to the Safeway site at some point in the future?

[01:26:04] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So if you if we did approach one, um, you know that would allow development on any of those commercial sites in accordance with those state laws, you know that we that we referred to which we can bring back up on the screen. Um, it doesn't limit it to just these sites. These are just the sites that we focused on that if you wanted to use approach three are probably the best suited sites. Um, and approach two takes you know, the the existing state law that allows for those types of development on those properties, you know, and potentially increases or or changes what is allowed. So under approach one and two, you would target any you know commercial site that's that's south of El Camino. And in approach three, you know, could you put that into this table? Yeah, you could. I think um you know Eric described why we didn't put it into the table.

[01:27:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I just want to make sure I'm understanding what we recom what we recommend here, how it affects beyond this. So you're saying is if if we adopted approach one or two, it would also apply to other sites that aren't shown here, such as the Safeway site. I can't think of...

[01:27:35] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yes, we would take the AB, can you do you think you could go to that slide? It would take, you know, what is allowed under um, AB 2011, I'm I'm just not sure I'm saying the right one, which is why I'm I'm letting Diana. 2011 or um, I think it was SB 35 on that one, and that would be allowed for any site that was eligible. And so the eligible sites under those bills go beyond, you know, they're just commercial sites or or um you know, other sites that are non-residential sites. So it includes any of any site that is zoned uh non-residential in those areas.

[01:28:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, and just to clarify, uh AB 2011 applies to commercial sites, whether residential is allowed or not. Uh SB 35 needs to be on a site that already allows residential. Uh the Safeway site does already allow residential pursuant to the general plan and the Village Center um uh development standards that we adopted back in 2023. Um so uh under either of those laws, the safeway site could proceed. There are some other commercial sites south of El Camino where residential is not allowed, and they could only proceed under AB 2011.

[01:28:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The the, and a last question. The site to the north of the two large sites, um where the the health club is, is that is that part of the El Camino Precise Plan or is that south of El Camino?

[01:29:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh no, the where the health club is, uh the the northernmost site in that three site Grant Park Plaza center area is not in the El Camino Precise Plan. Uh it was not included in the housing element sites inventory for similar reasons as the safeway site, just too recent development activity, too intensively developed, too many buildings.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: That the state laws already allow for providing affordable housing. Are they already kind of covered in that respect?

[01:30:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: You're absolutely correct that to some extent they can be redundant. Identifying relaxed development standards may have the benefit, one, of kind of pointing developers towards development standards that are maybe more acceptable to the community to relax, understanding of course that additional development standards can also be waived. But, and Principal Planner Pancholi mentioned this in the last item, there may be other kind of aspects of the development process or development requirements that we could adjust standards for such as the range of incomes that would be required from the development.

[01:31:08] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm sorry, I don't know the details of the state laws. Do they already provide or I know the state density bonus laws do, you have to have a certain mix or a certain amount of affordability that allows you to get certain levels of incentives and percent of bonus. Are these state laws still in play?

[01:31:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, so AB, all three of the state laws that we've talked about, SB 4, AB 2011, and SB 35 do have minimum requirements for the number of lower income units. And I think there's a certain number of, you know, maybe 20% can be moderate or something like that. I don't know the numbers exactly. But it does prescribe the minimum requirements for affordability. And one way to relax requirements may be to relax some of those affordability requirements.

[01:32:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So by going with relaxed development standards, we may be relaxing the affordability that we might get for the same loss of development standards.

[01:32:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That is just one option for relaxing the standards to further incentivize these types of developments. We can continue to look at other options that the city may be interested in. And the kind of policy goals that are articulated by the council, by the EPC and council can help guide us in that direction.

[01:32:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. Oh, sorry, one other question if it's okay. Has there been any interest from any other property owners in wanting to develop? Since that's an issue with, you know, some of the other sites. Has someone come forward saying, I'd love to develop, I have this land and I'd like to do it.

[01:33:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, we haven't heard any interest.

[01:33:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Oh, and part B of that is, given the challenges that were listed in the staff report for interest, were any of the reasons just because they didn't have technical know-how or was it in conjunction with the fact that they already have a thriving business and don't want to do anything at this point?

[01:33:48] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Well, we did a couple of layers of outreach just to reach out to say, hi, we're just starting with this, we'd love to talk to you about this. We didn't get any interest. Then we had another level where we wanted to just educate people, we thought, you know, this would be our opportunity, we didn't have any interest for an affordable housing development firm or any of the property owners either.

[01:34:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So just to answer your question, we can't at this point presume why.

[01:34:22] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, the conversations weren't in depth like that, no one came forward. Okay. I appreciate it, thank you.

[01:34:30] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:34:32] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. So just I just want to make sure I'm confirming my understanding of the objectives and metrics for the total number of units we've committed to. So aside from the 65 religious site units from 1.4 which my understanding are meant to be affordable, if I'm reading this correctly, there are... and I think I'm on page, what was it, page six of the staff report. It says, that bold bullet point, the last sentence of that says, the incentives and zoning will target the development and expectation of at least 100 additional affordable units. So is that 100 affordable units in the South of El Camino pertinent to program 2.6 and 65, so that's 165 total? Okay. Yep, yep, we're going to say everything. No, okay. And so then in terms of, you know, a lot of our current mechanisms for getting affordable units being highly dependent on the production of market rate housing as well, those 100 units are not... I guess I'll ask it in a question format. What's the level of like expectations of viability or realisticness I'll say in getting 100 affordable units from these non-religious sites? Yeah, can you just like help me understand that because it seems like 100 affordable units would be a lot unless I'm, yeah.

[01:36:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the analysis in the report is intending to convey that it's possible given the zoning standards that we have. And it's probably possible on multiple sites. Now that being said, or it's possible on at least one site and maybe a combination of a few other sites. Now that being said, we can't speak for the incentives of individual property owners and we can't speak for the probability of individual property owners wanting to come forward and using this program.

[01:37:02] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: And please don't hate me, staff, the alternate mitigation question that council had discussed, is that also in the vein of non-religious sites or was it like hyper specifically for the religious sites?

[01:37:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it was focused on the city's highest opportunity neighborhoods, specifically South of El Camino.

[01:37:26] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: So it could incorporate some non-religious or commercial retail as long as it's on the South of El Camino. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Yin, because she couldn't hear. Maybe could you catch her up on that if that's okay?

[01:37:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, absolutely. So there was some discussion during the last portion of the meeting about an alternative mitigation program that the city is studying that council has expressed interest in, which would allow market rate developers anywhere in the city to satisfy their below market rate requirements through an off-site mitigation that would focus those affordable units in the city's highest opportunity neighborhoods, South of El Camino. Thereby providing an avenue towards affirmatively furthering fair housing. And so that could presumably, because that would have some financial benefit to the market rate developer to not have to build the BMR units on their site, that financial benefit could be transferred to the property owner and provide an additional incentive to build affordable units South of El Camino.

[01:38:47] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: All right, and just a point of clarification, so by you explaining that specific detail to Commissioner Yin who has recused from the previous item, in no way violates that sad recusal just so that everyone who's watching will also know that we're trying to do our transparency as best we can. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, Vice Chair. Great. And I guess the reason why I'm bringing that up is since it sounds like my understanding of the outreach that we've done is that we're really at least from the city's behalf in that outreach we're not getting much interest right now. And so it's a, you know, in terms of more hands in the pot, maybe the commercial real estate people are more open-eared to, you know, other property people and not so much the city. Who knows. But that's helpful and I appreciate that. Thank you.

[01:39:43] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:39:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I was not of the impression that the high resource areas that were proposed that the Housing Director looked at were specifically South of El Camino. It was high resource areas, period. Are you saying that it's specifically South of El Camino, or any high resource area?

[01:40:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't know the details of the program.

[01:40:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The reason I ask is I don't want to count on that being something here when the project we saw last week was considered a high resource area and it's nowhere close to South of El Camino. So I don't want to do that as something that we could plan for if that's not what the housing director is working on.

[01:40:32] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, qualifying that we don't know all the details, I have only heard this come up in the context of South of El Camino, so my sense is that's the focus of this approach outlined by Mr. Anderson. But again, I don't think we can commit without qualification that that's the case.

[01:40:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It would be good when it's presented to Council that that's clear.

[01:40:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, so as that program's developed, I think the geographic extent will necessarily be clear at that point in time.

[01:41:12] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:41:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. More questions occurred to me. One was, do we recall about how many extra units we would get with R3? I know that's not finished yet, but just, was there a range? I forgot in that study session for South of El Camino. I'm so sorry I did not ask this prior so you guys could prepare. I had two deadlines today so I just didn't get to those questions and it just occurred to me now.

[01:41:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, um, so we're working on that right now. Unfortunately, I don't have anything concrete that I can share at this time.

[01:41:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Would it be more than 100 additional potential affordable units?

[01:42:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I, you know, because it's spread out so much over the city, it's very difficult to, uh, and because we are kind of mid-process of interpreting and identifying the kind of target densities based on Council direction from last April, uh, I really can't give you any information about it right now. I'm sorry.

[01:42:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thanks. And the second one would be, I remember at one point we had been given a presentation and there was a number attached to how many ADUs were applied for or constructed. I forgot that. Do you remember about what that was? Was it like in a year however or a range of years how many ADUs came into play?

[01:42:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't have that number in front of me specifically. And, you know, it'll be coming forward when we do our annual report, which we'll bring to the EPC in February. I will say that the number of ADUs built in the city has increased steadily over the last, you know, decade or so since the state has begun liberalizing the ADU opportunities. I will also say that the Housing Element identifies an opportunity for a certain number of ADUs across the Housing Element cycle. I don't have that number in front of me right now, but I can look for it as you talk and I can let you know what that expected number is.

[01:43:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Sorry I seem to have more and more. The next question would be regarding if the city has an economic incentive program to getting affordable housing with the ADUs. So I know very often ADUs, you know, people will build one, sometimes they use it for family, whatever, they just use it as another piece of property on their property. But is there a program where they're used for affordable housing in part of that program and therefore get an economic incentive for doing so from the city?

[01:44:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so I actually had it on another open window and I didn't realize it. It's 243 is expected over the cycle of ADUs. The Housing Element does have a... However, let me let me also qualify that that the program 2.6 does not in its 100 units, it specifically says those are 100 units in addition to any ADUs. So that is an important qualification. But to answer your question, yes, there is a pilot ADU affordability financial incentives program that is in the housing element.

[01:45:22] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you.

[01:45:26] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:45:28] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Thank you Vice Chair. Yeah I just want to kind of get a little clarification. Commissioner Cranston kind of got my interest going around some of the South of El Camino kind of focus. So if I'm remembering correctly, the AFFH requirement is directing cities to look at their opportunity areas, right. And that being part of the process by which sites as part of the sites inventory process for the housing element that gets submitted to HCD for an approval. How those sites come to be selected. And in terms of the opportunity areas, my understanding is, you know, there's like a mix of economic indicators or diversity indicators such as like potentially school attendance, income level, etc., that the city is supposed to look at to determine, you know, where our opportunity areas are. So I guess like I'm sure we'd be not realistic with ourselves if we didn't know that South of El Camino was probably more of a higher income, not in absolute terms but relatively higher income area of our city. But I am kind of curious, what's the mix of opportunity areas that have been identified in the South of El Camino versus like North? Are there anything in the North? Have they all been developed? Like can we just get some clarification on opportunity areas, opportunity areas in the South and then opportunity areas in the North and how that compares?

[01:47:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the answer to your question is not simple at all. At the simplest level, the state puts out maps annually that are kind of this, a lot of different data dumped into these maps and it identifies census tracts as high opportunity census tracts, low opportunity census tracts. We can find the current map for El Camino, you know, and provide it to the commission. I don't know if we can provide it during this meeting, but we can certainly look and provide it to the commission on a future date. In the housing element however, the AFFH requirements are way more than that. We are required to evaluate our programs and our sites inventory across, I don't know, probably seven or eight different metrics of fair housing. And I will say that our sites inventory alone met that evaluation. And these sites are not, you know, these these programs are in addition to our sites inventory. However, we provided these programs as further evidence that our housing element is meeting the state's requirements for affirmatively furthering fair housing.

[01:48:53] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: So then, if I was to based on what I'm hearing answer the question, why are we as a commission right now seeming to be discussing so much or focusing the discussion on the South of El Camino, it is because as part of creating the housing element, both there's a real element to the South of El Camino being more generally a higher opportunity area and also as part of our AFFH component we committed to exploring ways to stimulate affordability in that area as it was most either needed or lacking in that area. Is that how would you modify that? I just want to make sure I'm understanding.

[01:50:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that was really in response to public input and a lot of focus in from the public input about this part of the city specifically. And so that's why the focus on South of El Camino.

[01:50:46] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Okay, so the public is asking us to look at the South of El Camino. Okay, thank you.

[01:50:56] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:50:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just in case Commissioner Nuñez that I was asking something different, I am my question was related to I don't believe that we should be considering whether the ability to do off-site development will have an impact on this because we don't I don't believe we can count on that. So we should in fact not be including it in our consideration. We need to be looking at what we have here as is. So I'm not necessarily saying we should not looking at South of El Camino, I was simply trying to understand, it seemed to be, oh here's maybe a way to get that without having to do what we need to do here and my impression is no, we have to do what we need to do here, as is, and do not count on that as a component of whether that can happen. So I was actually looking to rule that out as an option in our considerations, not necessarily to look at adding it in or otherwise. So let's please don't misunderstand my question.

[01:52:19] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yes, and I believe that I did not understand you to mean we should not be looking at the South of El Camino and that line of questioning just stimulated questions in my mind. But I appreciate the clarification.

[01:52:34] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Just a quick check-in because I don't have access to this but does can anyone tell me if Chris has his hand raised and he'd like to chime in with a question?

[01:52:42] Commissioner Chris Clark: I don't have any questions. I'm happy to comment when you're ready.

[01:52:46] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Sounds good. Thank you Chris. And if there's any social media persons out there tracking the movements of certain people... I know we had Mark Zuckerberg's movement being tracked. If you are tracking John McAlister's, he left about 40 minutes ago. Thank you. I don't have any questions. It's pretty self-explanatory what the presentation's been and I understand the perspectives that have been shared here so far on the dais. Appreciate your time and help with all of this and I know it's pretty hard to go out there reach out to the community and then get not much of a feedback but it also tells you where folks are in terms of said redevelopment plans or development plans as a whole and how they look at their particular vested interest property site in terms of the value to them right and I'm sure once we continue these types of conversations to those minds change and there'll be a willingness to express an openness for said development that would be appreciated either way. So at this point I'd like to ask the commissioners though and we can move on to discussion but you know just food for thought, are you all interested in a certain approach? Would you like to, I ask that as a question so that we can lead that in that question with our discussion which we can move to now if there are no more questions. Okay great. Cool, no more questions then. Who would like to start us off?

[01:54:16] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:54:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So my initial question about how what you do here affects other sites has kind of changed my thinking a little bit. So I'm leaning a little bit more towards something like approach 3 but I'm, but it does say targeting standard specific sites. So in my own thinking, something like the higher development options something more like what's along El Camino for the more dense like the like the Chase site would be something that would make sense to me on the sites that are along Grant Road. And in my mind I'm no longer just thinking about the two sites you list, but basically since it would apply to everything, to me that block of three sites would be looked at together. I would not want to look at that at the things at the corner of Miramonte and Cuesta, because I don't believe that's appropriate for that area, so I'd be more likely to do an approach 2 for the locations along Cuesta, Miramonte and maybe looking at something closer to what we have already in place on the more intense development on El Camino sites for the the Grant Road locations. I am, if I have a nervousness at all one of the things we've heard about and I mean we saw it last week is I want a grocery store near me. Darn it, there's two of the grocery stores that people love right there. So I don't I don't necessarily want to do anything that pushes grocery stores out of the area. The I can never remember the name of the non-Nob Hill market. Ranch 99 definitely serves a substantial community in the city that isn't served by other markets and so I would anything you look at would need to be done in a way that still finds a way to keep valued resources like that available in the city. But that stretch to me feels like it could potentially be denser. But I wouldn't necessarily do that over at the other site and yeah, Safeway was recently redeveloped, but if it's if this is once it's in place it's permanent. The Safeway site's not always going to be as new and pretty as it is today. So it could affect it later. So that's my initial thinking as we've been talking here. Food for thought.

[01:57:04] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay great. I see Alex that you requested to speak but I'm also seeing that Commissioner Clark has raised his hand so Commissioner Clark, by all means go for it.

[01:57:15] Commissioner Chris Clark: Oh thank you. So I agree with the sentiment from Commissioner Cranston. I think for number three I would support approach two. I think the comments that Commissioner Cranston made and some of the nuances around a few of the sites can be addressed through approach two where we can look at different sites and consider sort of the density plus approach. And then for four I don't have any additional feedback or modifications to any of the program 2.6 implementation items.

[01:57:51] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Great thank you Chris. Commissioner Nuñez.

[01:57:56] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah I'm also looking at approach two most favorably. Not supposed to talk about the alternate mitigation thing but honestly like here's what I imagine. I imagine Prometheus reaching out to whoever owns that you know Safeway site or some site and saying hey that's some nice parking you got there doesn't look like there's much cars on it. How'd you like to make money without having to like get rid of your retail. I don't know right like and and that preserves these grocery stores that I also love to go to. And so you know for me approach two is more about looking at ways to open up more options and like possibilities relationships between private and public and and you know all of that and to stimulate opportunity. So I like approach number two. And in terms of just that second component around additional feedback, yeah just I don't really have any except you know a general sentiment of yeah like however we can just find a way to also think about whether it's this alternate program or not. Opportunities for these grocery sites to not have to like redevelop the whole thing if that makes sense. To just like have to completely go away like the Rose Market did and then have to come back at a later date. Like if if there was a way that staff you know could creatively apply their expertise towards that that's my only feedback on that. But aside from that I'm liking approach two.

[02:05:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I just want to make sure I understood that AB 2011 already grants the there is already a by-right to put housing on any of these commercial sites, correct? That's not something new that we would be doing, it's already the law, we have to follow that. So there's nothing, even approach 1 or approach 2 would not add that by-right, it's already there in AB 2011, correct?

[02:06:05] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Correct. I do want to say AB 2011 is complicated. There are a lot as with most of the bills. So there are a lot of provisions and you know rules and and so and so. So I don't want to say that like it's easy necessarily to apply it to any lot, but it does currently allow for that type of development on any commercial property as long as that property can meet the provisions.

[02:06:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, I just, Commissioner Yin's question made me think maybe I misunderstood that. Thank you.

[02:06:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And if I may Chair, also to Commissioner Yin's point about a nine-story building, conversation about scale came up earlier in the first session as well. And so these laws and these approaches we're describing provide for maximum intensities of development, but they don't require necessarily those maximum levels to be constructed. And so smaller scale development, even one or two story detached unit types, all of those could be contemplated in this framework. I think it's easy to conceive of the maximum type of project and in some cases that may be necessary for economic reasons, but from a regulatory standpoint, it isn't necessarily the case that those kinds of projects are the only ones that could be constructed. Smaller scale projects could be constructed as well that perhaps are more in scale with the surroundings or neighborhood desires and so forth.

[02:07:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I understood that. Thank you. It's just you know, we see a lot of projects where they maximize for financial reasons and you know that's just more the norm than the other way around. But going with approach 1 doesn't preclude being able to do that either, given the state laws.

[02:07:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, again describing maximum potential opportunities, not minimum required levels of height or density.

[02:08:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you.

[02:08:06] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Nuñez.

[02:13:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I I visited the site and what I was struck by was the fact that there was nothing behind these buildings except an empty parking lot. The front of the parking lots where Ranch 99 is, people are parking, packed. In front of the sports place, packed. Okay. So is the the parking lot behind... it was there's nothing there. Okay. And I look at parking lots as, hey, there's a place to put some housing. Okay. So when I'm saying that we do something in the area, that doesn't necessarily... it doesn't necessarily mean that the answer is rip down the entire thing and start all over again. It says looking at the property and saying, okay, is there something you can do in that ghost town behind the building, okay, to somehow find a way to make more use of that. So to me that's that's within the the range of of the approach two. As I said, I am I am not interested in removing something that's a valued asset. I mean we saw that the Safeway was recently redeveloped, but if this is once it's in place it's permanent. The Safeway site is not always going to be as new and pretty as it is today. So it could affect it later. So that's my initial thinking as we've been talking here. Food for thought.

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I felt I mean I'm I'm pleased and but was shocked that uh oh I just drew a blank on the name. The the Rose Market survived. Okay? Because it was one of those valued things and and I would not want to see Ranch 99 go to the same path. But that's that's in my thinking it's it's not you take the entire site and rip it down and start all over. It's looking within the the context of what's there and is there an opportunity within the space to do something with it and I think staff can look at those kind of things.

[02:15:29] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's more of what my thinking was on the approach too, okay. Can you do something in the vacant portions of the property? And uh I'm not a... we've we've had that as a constant approach where you look at parking lots and say can I do something with an empty and parking lots not that's not being used. And that seemed to me to be an opportunity. So, that's just my clarification.

[02:16:55] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, I'm going to chime in here. I I see you raise your hand as well, uh, Commissioner Yin. So... um I I agree with Commissioner Cranston's perspective yet again. Um, and what the way I look at it though is a little bit different and similar to some of my companions here on the dais.

[02:17:12] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, you know, there's some folks that are probably wondering, well, what's the deal with José? I mean, he what, he's looking out for like church space or what's going on? You know, we should build, build, build. There's more to the community than just building. And this exercise is a hypothetical one that's based on reality, real-based uh requirements that's imposed by the state for the RHNA uh goals that we have. I totally get the exercise and why we're doing this. But I also don't want to lose track of why we're here in the first place, which is we like the community that we have.

[02:17:40] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Whether we're a certain part of El Camino or another, whether we're an underrepresented neighborhood with no uh voice on the dais or we do and we have multiple ones. It doesn't matter. What we're all looking for right now is where can I go get my groceries? Where can I go to the shopping center that's most convenient to me that has the products that I need, one way or another.

[02:18:00] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: And I'd hate to think that sometimes we lose focus and perspective in trying to meet these goals without understanding that yes, people do need a place to go to to worship if they believe in a god, right? Or if they have a certain uh grocery store or shopping center that they go to that's part of the neighborhood already.

[02:18:17] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: And we've seen this before with the Rose Market or Frankie Johnnie & Luigi's or other places uh uh like the Milk Pail where we look at them as valued assets to the community. And um, I get why we build and we develop and we seek out input for construction, but I also want to remind us that this is still a community for a lot of us.

[02:18:35] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: And if we lose sight of said possibilities and how that could have an effect with the communities at at what's being discussed, before you know it we're also losing sight of the business community needs here and the small business community needs here in the City of Mountain View. And we won't have a place to be able to go shop to.

[02:18:54] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: And instead of having valued uh small businesses or large corporations like Safeway having a place here to uh do their business, then Mountain View business loses out on money. Our city loses out on investment. And where do we go? Sunnyvale? Palo Alto? And and so that's the fine line. That's the balance that I think we should look at, right?

[02:19:18] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: So, this came up in the previous meeting that we had too, where folks were asking here the question of like well how is it that you developers do XYZ in terms of your uh projects? And it turns out that yeah, they do speak to you, to the staff to find out the layout, the green space, what's what are the tradeoffs.

[02:19:35] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Uh there was a question about well why do you have a business area for the first floor when we have a lot of vacancies with what's been built already in the first place? And it dawned on me. Those are part of the tradeoffs. This is a long-term investment with not just residential but also commercial use. And whatever you can hold on to, to still gain the profit for either or, the developers are going to try and look at that as perhaps something that's enticing for them to pursue.

[02:20:02] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: So, these these these these options for long-term investments in commercial properties that we have in these shopping centers, for them they're not looking at the immediate eight-year run or 10-year run and the timeline of what we have with our RHNA. No, no, no, no, no. They're looking at this for the long haul. That's why they invest in those set properties.

[02:20:19] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: So if we can remember that we're looking at all these divergent factors coming into play with what we're trying to do with affordable housing and correct the errors of city planning from years past based on practices that were not favorable towards minority communities, either socio-economic factors that come along with that or not, that's the whole challenge behind all this right now.

[02:20:38] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: That you're trying to do the best you can with what you have to promote further growth and inclusion within this community that's pretty exclusive anyways. And it's a tough challenge. Uh I'm I'm I'm not jealous of your roles. I'm not jealous of your jobs. I appreciate it because it's so difficult to try to come to this point so that we can then discuss.

[02:20:55] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: I'm looking forward to hearing more of what your thoughts are Commissioners, but it looks like by what I understand here, um I see Bill in favor of approach 2, Joyce 1, Alex 2, Chris 2, and myself 2. If I've misunderstood please let me know. Um, Commissioner Yin.

[02:21:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was just going to um bring up very quickly just the idea of uh approach 3 and not tearing down what's there. And also Commissioner Cranston, you had mentioned the the area in the back. It is a lot larger than one would think. But I think if, and this is just without me doing like full on design, but from what it looks like to me, construction sites or in my experience, construction sites take up more than just the little footprint that you can build on, and it doesn't seem to me like there's enough room back there to build, have construction, and get the service that they need with the loading trucks and stuff, 'cause that takes up quite a bit of room.

[02:22:02] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So even though it's more than what you would think you would need for service, there is over-spill parking that Ranch 99 I think sometimes does use, um, and employee parking probably is in the back too. But um, if I'm thinking long term and doing the site, I cannot see them not tearing it all down. It just from a design standpoint, would be much better if they did to get the maximum efficiency and economy of scale on that site.

[02:22:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: To get housing and a grocery store, the correct parking, all of that, it would require it would be best if they did underground parking or something surrounding a parking garage with housing... just um... it's... from my perspective it seems it would be a tough sell to keep those grocery stores running and be able to build something that doesn't cause a design that is not good for the long-term of that site.

[02:23:02] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Because um if I can use a real quick example, even on a on a house, where I have more experience. Um, sometimes clients will say I want to do stuff in phases. Which this would be, right, if we're going the way um you had mentioned. If you're doing it in phases, you want to ensure that you want to do the master plan first and design the whole thing and then work in phases to that.

[02:23:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, and and that's another way to go. But um, from what I can see, it's it's not going to be you're not going to be able to have service to the existing grocery stores and get um an an ideal plan that's, you know, going to be walkable and accommodate a mixed use kind of area.

[02:23:59] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston?

[02:24:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess my assumption was that I would trust staff to look at that as they evaluated these options. You know, the uh the site that we looked at, the the the BMR site we looked at the corner of uh California and San Antonio, tiny site, no extra space. The property that's being built across from the Safeway at Bailey Park Plaza, tiny site, no extra space. So developers can do it. And I think staff has shown me that they have the ability to look at these things.

[02:24:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, I understand your question, but I the the the guidance here is not here's the here's the exact what it is, it's staff go back and look at this, bring something back as a way to that would accommodate that. And I think we've all voiced the concern of these are the the grocery stores are a valuable asset for the city, you know, like so we said we'd other areas won't have them. So, if you come back with something that's that's going to kind of assume that these grocery stores are going away, you've not done your job.

[02:25:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So... That's that's I guess how I was looking at this is this is guidance for staff and to go back and look at it and that would be Council's guidance as well, to evaluate it and and make sure that those considerations are taken into account. Because I we I think we I didn't hear anybody say get rid of the grocery stores. I think anybody everybody said the opposite. So, um, that's that's just... I understand, I understand your concern, but it was my assumption.

[02:25:28] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin?

[02:25:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was just hoping to push forward sort of yet another path and see if there's another way to get buildings actually built because, you know, I don't I understand that you guys are all trying not to interrupt the service and that it it's it's a key component of what you're investigating or recommending Council to investigate.

[02:25:52] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm just thinking in terms of uh trying to get actual affordable buildings or units built, that that is not going to do anything anytime soon if we're really trying to preserve the the use um of the grocery stores. Um and if there was another alternative approach to take, um I can't think of exactly what that would be other than to, you know, the the community land trust that I was thinking about and trying to accommodate some more affordable BMR units deed restricted South of El Camino in that way.

[02:26:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um I don't know what the city has in terms of plans for assisting that kind of program or programs like it. But I was just thinking let's just think about this differently. How how can we get people to all buy in to this and actually move forward? Because you know, the less contention the better and the more viability the better to equate into a reality. Um, I'm all for planning long term stuff and tearing stuff down on paper and, you know, putting out the ideal future making it a walkable community building, but, you know, even I'm not going for that right now. So, okay. That's enough for me.

[02:27:16] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. And then I'll just chime in too with a lot of this stuff is hypothetical in nature. Commissioner Yin, I totally understand where you're coming from in general and and we all know that the shopping centers there serve a a larger purpose. Um, and and we all have our vested interest one way or another to see what we can preserve in our neck of the woods. Uh some have representation on that and others don't. Here we're trying to do the best we can to cover all that, right?

[02:27:38] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Um but we also understand that this is an exercise that we have to go through. We're understanding each other's perspectives and I think that's the biggest challenge that we have right now because even though we may try to motivate and incentivize and try and get buy-in from developers to do some sort of below market rate housing or affordable housing in certain parts of Mountain View where it deems that we should have affordable housing for whatever reason, um which we all understand as to why, and we're meeting towards the state goals with our uh uh uh approach to the RHNA, that's that's that's fine.

[02:28:06] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: But um bottom line, a lot of these folks aren't also proposing things because it's just too darn expensive. Right? I'm not in the mind of the developer, but but what I've heard the last two presentations or three in the last few weeks, that there's a common point right now that it's just too darn expensive to be able to get a loan if you're able to get a loan. And the timeline and expectations to try and get stuff done have is so different from how it was pre-COVID, right?

[02:28:28] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, and that's a huge issue. So that I think is one of the biggest challenges that we have to try to overcome somehow. I don't know that we have an answer for that, right? I'm hoping that the state and its and and what they're viewing expectations are for us to meet these standards with the housing element plan, is also being able to look at and see what's realistic, what is coming down the pipeline, what do cities actually have in mind?

[02:28:48] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: And how are things changing so quickly to the point where now we have, and this has not part of the conversation but I just throw this in as a as an example to parking spaces and their usage as an potential viability for construction or set projects that would help out the community at a larger pace, right, or a larger perspective. Google's taking off from a lot of their spaces around the Bay Area. I didn't think that that would happen so fast. And there's been announcements of them doing this in the last couple of weeks, right?

[02:29:15] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: So who's to say perhaps something might not also come up in that neck of the woods, which will affect our housing element plan and possibly have a different type of perspective on how we look at that type of land use. But bottom line is I we hear you, we understand what you're saying, why you're proposing all these things. I think you we have consensus around our approaches with how we look at this.

[02:29:34] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Unless you need further clarification. I didn't hear... I know Alex had brought up a modification of 4. Chris had mentioned something about his perspectives with 3 and 4, but I'm I'm thinking based on what we've said in general, in terms of the approach, it looks like 2 is a majority approach that we're all looking at.

[02:29:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If if I could maybe make a um a presumption about what I thought I heard from from the Commission. Uh certainly 2 for the uh sites other than Grant Park Plaza. But originally I heard from Commissioner Cranston support for like a number 3 approach for for the Grant Road sites. And given that one of the characteristics of number 3 is maybe more discretion by the city, perhaps we could look at a process that is uh, and again this would be just a recommendation to Council so this is not necessarily what what staff would do, but what I'm hearing from EPC is look at a process that um maybe allows some site specific uh density opportunities on those sites that's conditional on preserving the retail, preserving the grocery stores.

[02:30:58] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Fair enough. Thank you for bringing that point up. Alex?

[02:31:03] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Yeah, I don't know that I would have characterized my thinking that way. Um my understanding is that approach 2 is a way for staff to look at you know I guess like the totality of the project that we all like worked through with the housing element and find ways and opportunities to modify it a little bit more as a work item. Um I don't know that I feel comfortable saying you know con like condition- like conditioning. Um, you know, I don't know if that word is in approach 2 or in the table or um I I yeah 'cause once that word condition comes in, um it just seems like it opens up so many cans of worms. Um whereas you know approach 2 seems like what I'm hearing staff say is we're gonna look at opportunities to modify a little bit more to 2.6. Um, so yeah I don't know if that's a fair... Is that yeah I don't know.

[02:32:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think from listening to the Commission's discussion, I think the intent is clear that um whatever policy formulation the city might come up with, we should try to find a way to avoid displacement or closure of grocery stores in particular under this program. And so whether it's the way described by Mr. Anderson or within a continued, you know, non-discretionary ministerial framework, having one of the eligibility criteria being not involving demolition or closure of a grocery store. Um, I think there may be more than one way to do this. We need to think creatively and we need time beyond the evening in this discussion to do that. But I think hearing that intent as part of your recommendation is very clear to me. How we go about it, you know, staff can go uh and work on that and see if there is a way to accomplish it.

[02:32:58] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Perfect. So where it says like um approaches for question 3, we're not saying that in that one we're gonna like introduce words like conditioned on preservation, not that there's not value in that, but um that's more of a question 4 um that that like opportunity for staff to go back and say oh we've let's explore conditioning based on preservation of retail, that's more associated to 4, question 4 than to question 3. Am I understanding that correctly?

[02:33:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think so. Yeah, I mean the way that we set out I think the first question is within the framework of the approaches, right? Do you want to relax standards, right? I don't think restricting demolition or closure of a grocery store is a less restrictive approach, but it is uh an important qualification. If we're going to incentivize a certain type of project and maybe make it easier to build than state law would allow, um we don't want to do that at the expense of something we value as a community such as a grocery store.

[02:34:02] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Absolutely, 'cause I want to support approach 2 and also allow for staff to explore opportunities of that nature as um an additional possibility.

[02:34:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think it's what I'm hearing is some combination of uh approach 2 and protection for grocery stores and how we mash that up, that work remains to be done.

[02:34:24] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Thank you so much.

[02:34:27] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston?

[02:34:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So my only hesitation with what I heard Commissioner Nunez say is the way approach 2 says 30 units per acre or existing zoning. And I couldn't I can't measure the amount of space that's actually behind the Nob Hill and the City uh the City Sports. That is the parking lot that looked big enough to do something. And part of what the staff report said was unit count is more important than space. And I was concerned that I guess I was thinking that we should at least give staff the flexibility if they look at that kind of space and say okay well we get 50 or 60 units in that space if we went more than 30 dwelling units per acre in there along with these other things, then that might be worth looking at. So I was I was concerned that the that language in there limits would limit you from looking at that as an option in that space. Okay, that appeared to me to be an attractive site. Could you do could you see a BMR unit tucked in behind there? Yeah, could you see it as a swap with another for-profit developer? Yeah. But I I don't I wouldn't want them to not look at that if it meant that the dwelling units per acre becomes 50 in a half acre lot to get that that that, so that would be... So it it's a little more, you know, it's not quite what you were saying but it's close. It's I didn't want you to be hamstrung by that in there. That's that's what I was when I said looking at a little bit of the 3, it's you know look at it and say could you could you drop something in here and what would it take to do that and bring that back as an option.

[02:36:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, that's really helpful clarification. And I think, you know, we're accustomed to thinking primarily of density, uh, well I guess by definition, but we're familiar regulating by units per acre right, a density-based approach, but there may be other ways to go about saying you know not less than 50 units um are allowed on a given site. Uh, the instrument to do that you know whether it's an overlay zone or some other qualifying criteria for a site that basically becomes an approach 3 type of approach for whatever subset of sites we define and identify. Um I think providing greater flexibility with a you know up to 50 units or up to 60 units and not necessarily prescribing a density that when you do the math on the net area would disqualify the site right by being too dense. Um hearing that that's a creative approach that you want to be explored is helpful uh to staff.

[02:37:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And just to clarify...

[02:37:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know if others I don't know if others think about that but that's that was my...

[02:37:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah if you could bring up the slide that shows the sites the the Grant Road sites with the table. Uh so that that analysis is exactly what we did uh to generate this table and these numbers. We looked at the underutilized parking areas on those two sites and we applied the allowed density, 72 units per acre, to those you know .8 acres and .6 acre kind of underutilized parking areas on these sites to get to those 78 and 104 unit yields.

[02:37:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But you didn't look at the City Sports site.

[02:37:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No.

[02:37:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's my point. This would apply to the City Sports site as well. And that's my point, is that your analysis did not include part of that so it doesn't actually even, quite frankly the parking behind Ranch 99 is too small to even do something. It's the space behind the Nob Hill and the City Sports, if you pull it on a Google Maps you can see it, that's where the space is, okay, it's this... I don't have a laser pointer... Up there yep, the combination of those two lots in behind there, that's that looks like a bigger space. But it's outside of what you studied. But this change would affect it, is what you told me. Right?

[02:38:44] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin.

[02:38:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Um if if we are looking at I guess I have a slight difference in how we approach. If we are going to do um analysis of this area in depth, that I would actually prefer the master plan of the whole site to see what how we can maximize the use of that and to make it a real neighborhood gem and get all the other aspects in that we want other than just units so that whoever is living there it becomes like a big puzzle piece that's improving the community in a way not just adding a few units and some leftover space. I would rather it be master planned first then phased to avoid closure of the grocery stores, otherwise we're using up space for very short-term minimal gain that might preclude much larger long-term gain in multi-areas that the community might benefit from.

[02:39:59] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: I guess in response to that that I I think I understand kind of how you know having a more planned out within the awes- for example a master plan kind of um tract um and and including some of this like phasing right like moving forward um could you know really provide some of these benefits around like the grocery and you know not being like, you know disrupting in that way. Um but I think my my big hesitance with that is that um like this is real work that we did, right?

[02:40:28] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Like we actually did do the housing element, we we went through the process, we all deliberated it. Um we had opportunities, um in fact I remember correctly that there was like an uproar around um these sites before, um you know because people didn't want them to be like redeveloped and rezoned. Um and so then we took a different approach, you know, that that we were all a part of that is actually you know leading us here right now, to the options that we have available that staff is presenting.

[02:40:56] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Um and so like while as a you know future kind of you know you know scenario that I could visualize I agree that would be like the the the superior choice. Um within the constraints of the the the current housing element that we have here right now today, um I mean I it seems like this is what we have to to to work with and be responsive to more than that. Um and and not failing also that you know as as Mr. Anderson mentioned earlier, the public is asking us to find these opportunities to put housing in the south of El Camino.

[02:41:30] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Um and so I remember you know two years ago saying let us redevelop let us um like create different designations. I I I was strongly advocating for us to to to change the um land use um planning for for sites like this, and and and you know I remember the commission didn't agree. It went on to council. I you know clearly that kind of scope wasn't something that was you know reopened back up. And so we're here now the public is asking us or indicating they want housing in the south of El Camino.

[02:41:59] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: We have this legally you know submitted document that we're all doing our best to live up to. Um creating more you know potential delay through a master planning process which is highly intensive would not it would it's it's it just it's too we had our opportunity, which I was in agreement with. Um, so having said that you know Commissioner Cranston, where I I I understand the kind of and I agree with the kind of um desire to you know be very pinpointed with space.

[02:42:32] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: And I know that um you know part of the process has indicated by Mr. Anderson was that you know at least within the red lines there, um there and and other sites there was evaluation of kind of like what was deemed um uh suboptimally used um parking space. Um I guess what I'm wondering is because I still like approach 2 as not necessarily um causing us to have so much intensive staff time and work at looking at a site by site basis, I'm wondering if there's a way to like go with uh um approach 2 as the baseline approach.

[02:43:07] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: But then also within like the auspices of question 4, um if there's a way that we could encourage, direct, ask, you know, beg staff to also kind of like, if we're going with you know approach 2 as a base, um you know to also opportunistically look like is there any kind of like um parts from approach 3 that could be kind of incorporated um into approach 2 such that you know as Commissioner Cranston is pointing out some of these kind of like pocket areas um can be pulled in. Um within the language that comes out of um you know the work product that staff creates from approach 2. If I'm making sense, which I hope I am.

[02:44:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I think the big distinction between approach 2 and approach 3 is uh that approach 2 would rely on the procedural mechanisms of state law. Uh you know the ministerial approvals. Uh but that we would just provide some flexibility around the edges. Uh the approach 3 by significantly increasing the density, we can create a more discretionary pathway. Um, the uh so I um we can look certainly look for uh opportunities, maybe maybe if I can kind of synthesize your thoughts here, we can um we can site test some approach 2 uh um uh ideas, and we can site test those ideas in this area specifically.

[02:45:19] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so I have a just a regroup here. I like the discussion, everyone's chiming in with what they believe is their truth, and that's great. Uh but I still hear in terms and correct me if I'm wrong here Eric and team, um not asking the commissioners just yet, but I still hear majority perspective going with approach 2 with a couple interested in approach 3. And then for question number 3, I still hear just one or maybe two different ideas with no consensus or majority opinion on either one. Do you hear the same thing or am I misunderstanding something?

[02:45:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I I think the way uh the director summarized it, I think that kind of approach 2 recognizing that there's a strong value for protecting grocery stores as a resource. Um, whether it, you know, as Commissioner Yin said it's through a phased approach or through uh a you know just preservation of the building, you know, just that value of preserving grocery stores is an important theme. Uh and then given the last part of the conversation, we can take a more um uh kind of high touch approach to Grant Park Plaza recognizing that that's where the highest densities are already allowed and uh and that is also where there is the most interest from the commission around um more providing uh higher density housing. Uh we can take a slightly higher touch approach to testing some of these um these kind of more flexible standards in this area specifically. So that that sounds like the recommendation from the Commission and we can communicate that up to Council.

[02:47:05] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, and just a point of clarification. So that also incorporates questions number 3 and then your understanding of question number 4?

[02:47:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. But I'll note that Commissioner Clark has a hand up.

[02:47:13] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. Before we go to Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Yin.

[02:47:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, since I've spoken so much let him go first please, if you don't mind.

[02:47:22] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: No, the floor is yours Commissioner Yin. Go for it.

[02:47:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Quick question. When you did the site study very quickly to get those numbers on the table, were you looking at the parking space in the back or the front?

[02:47:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In the back.

[02:47:34] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just in the back. Okay. And then the second question I had really quick. If we are going with 2, if I am correct in that we may lose affordability by loosening development standards, potentially? Not necessarily?

[02:47:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Not necessarily. But I think if that's from the commission, so that won't be what we'll say is recommended by the commission to Council. And who knows what council will end up going with. But that that's not the recommendation from the commission.

[02:48:07] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Correct. But in in the analysis that you guys do in looking at potential development using relaxed development standards, you said there was a possibility that affordability would go down because the state has incentives that if you do relax these development standards, or in order to get those relaxed development standards you have to do more affordability. If we don't have that tool and we don't use it, and we give away the development standards without requiring a certain level of affordability...

[02:48:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We we would still require affordability, it would be a different proportion of moderate or a different proportion of lower in order to. We are we are it would go against the intent of the program to not require affordability. This is for affordable units. And but I just to be clear, we are not hearing from the commission that there is interest in adjusting the affordability requirements through this. So that that is not something that we will forward to the council as the commission's recommendation for a path, for an approach to take on this.

[02:49:21] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Right. But if it's a possibility that route 2 does change it, can that just be put out there to Council so they know that that's a potential consequence?

[02:49:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We are going to be listening to their conversation about their policy goals for approach 2. And if they don't articulate that as a policy goal, that's not a path that we will go down.

[02:49:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Got it. Thank you.

[02:49:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I think it's important to to make clear, you know, tonight we're not fully baking this policy approach. I think we're getting broad guidance on direction. Uh, the work as to uh what extent and which development standards um could be relaxed to incentivize uh affordable housing development, that work hasn't been done. We provided you know the proportion of affordability as an example. Not as a recommendation uh of what could be adjusted, and so we're hearing clearly that there's sensitivity around that, but we'll have to come back later with a recommendation as to where those points of adjustment may be.

[02:50:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, just wanted to reiterate.

[02:50:22] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Yin. Commissioner Clark. Thank you sir.

[02:50:26] Commissioner Chris Clark: Yeah, I was just going to say what um Mr. Anderson um summarized earlier is what I support. I think that was a good summary.

[02:50:36] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Clark. Okay, uh my two cents worth, I think we have clarification now on what the majority of the sentiment is from the dais here and I trust your judgment and um this is the beauty of this democratic process, right? We like Alex mentioned, we had our chance to be able to look at these units and lot sizes way back in the day a couple years ago. And I was with him in terms of the perspective and then that was voted down. So right now I don't think we're talking about revisiting that when it's already been passed. Um but in this case we understand the concerns of the community and and the commissioners and general perspectives from commissioners in general on how they look at this approach for development and housing. Uh which is a great uh opportunity for us to be able to just further understand each other's perspectives and move forward. Eric?

[02:51:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh, no I I think we're clear. Uh I think we've got the summary, thanks.

[02:51:26] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Great, thanks. And so then having said that, it looks like it's time to move on to have Commissioner Donahue and Chair Dempsey rejoin the meeting.

[02:52:21] Chair Hank Dempsey: All right. Uh my thanks to the Vice Chair for running the show. Uh with item 5 concluded, we are going to move on to um item 6, new business. Uh, my understanding is that we would be hearing next uh 6.1 Economic Vitality Strategy Overview. But given the late hour, um uh Mr. Lang needed to get back home and so I think we're going to reschedule 6.1 for a different day. Um so that will not uh be heard tonight. So, let's see if we can move quickly to 6.2 and 6.3 and conclude for the evening. So, 6.2 Environmental Planning Commission Norms. We'll have a staff introduction to the item by the Community Development Director Christian Murdock. Mr. Murdock.

[02:53:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening honorable chair and commissioners. I'm Community Development Director Christian Murdock. Earlier this year the Environmental Planning Commission held a retreat which included exploration of creating a set of norms to guide commissioner conduct while carrying out the commission's business. The draft document attached to the staff report reflects the discussion and set of norms agreed upon by the commission during the retreat. The recommended action is for the EPC to adopt the norms attached to the staff report with a change to the month of initial adoption to December of 2024. If adopted tonight, uh the norms would take effect immediately and guide interactions among commissioners and between commissioners and participants in the EPC hearing process. Thank you.

[02:53:46] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Murdock. Uh we'll take questions from the commission. And I cannot see uh... my screen is not giving me what I need... hold on... There is nobody. If there are no questions from the commission, then we'll take uh public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with a star six. Madam Clerk, do we have any public commenters on this item?

[02:54:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: There are no commenters at this time.

[02:54:33] Chair Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Uh that means EPC deliberation and action. We have a staff recommendation here. Um but is there commentary from uh our colleagues? Going once... going slowly twice... um no questions or comments from the commissioners? Ah, Commissioner Yin.

[02:55:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was just gonna make a motion.

[02:55:06] Chair Hank Dempsey: Duly noted. Uh do we have a second?

[02:55:10] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Second.

[02:55:12] Chair Hank Dempsey: Boom. Let's go. Uh Madam Chair, uh Madam Clerk if you would be so kind as to call the roll.

[02:55:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Nuñez?

[02:55:22] Commissioner Alex Nuñez: Aye.

[02:55:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue?

[02:55:24] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[02:55:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Gutiérrez?

[02:55:27] Vice Chair José Gutiérrez: Si.

[02:55:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Chair Dempsey?

[02:55:29] Chair Hank Dempsey: Uh aye.

[02:55:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin?

[02:55:32] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes.

[02:55:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston?

[02:55:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[02:55:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh Commissioner Clark?

[02:55:37] Commissioner Chris Clark: Aye.

[02:55:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh the motion passes all commissioners in favor.

[02:55:42] Chair Hank Dempsey: All right. Thank you Madam Clerk. Uh item 7 Commissioner and staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the commission at this time. Are there any uh announcements, updates, requests, or reports? Okay, so there may be an announcement at the end. Um we have nothing left to do but adjournment. Uh Ms. Pancholi?

[02:56:23] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Okay. So I just wanted to say the next EPC meeting for December 18th is going to be canceled. That is our last meeting. We don't have anything on the agenda uh based on what we heard tonight. Uh and then our next meeting will be January 15th, based on the calendar that was just adopted as the first meeting in January.

[02:56:44] Chair Hank Dempsey: That's fantastic. Thank you very much Ms. Pancholi.

[02:56:47] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Um but we also wanted to just acknowledge um Commissioner Clark as this might be his last meeting on the EPC for this year.

[02:56:58] Chair Hank Dempsey: Let the record reflect that we all clapped and that we will miss him very much.

[02:57:04] Commissioner Chris Clark: Thank you for clapping. They're starting to clean the room so I've got background noise. They're starting to clean the business center. They haven't kicked me out yet, but...

[02:57:14] Chair Hank Dempsey: All right. Uh uh Mr. Cranston, did you have something further? Ah. Let the record reflect we really, really are going to miss Chris. And with that, item 8, adjournment. This meeting is hereby adjourned at 10:00 PM. Uh exactly. Thank you everyone for staying up late. We're adjourned.

Segment 1

[00:05:20] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: A little bit about SB 4, the Senate bill effective since January 1st, 2024, allows for affordable housing by right on religious sites. SB 4 applies to all religious sites in the city, while the particular focus of the housing element program 1.4 is on the high resource areas south of El Camino Real, but provides affordable housing development rights that align with the objectives in the program.

[00:05:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Staff conducted outreach to eight congregations located south of El Camino Real. While some expressed support for the initiative, none indicated that they were interested or prepared to pursue a housing development on their property. Staff also conducted outreach to affordable housing developers to gain an understanding of what type of densities are needed for a project to be feasible. As it turns out, the density is not as important as the total number of units. Developers indicated that they typically need at least 50 units for a project to be feasible and to operate.

[00:06:31] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Based on the estimate of buildable area, there were two religious sites south of El Camino Real that could accommodate at least 65 units at the densities prescribed under SB 4, that is 30 dwelling units per acre plus density bonus application. Each of these sites would accommodate the housing on portions of the site with parking on open area that is underutilized. The remaining sites have fewer than half acre available on portions of the site not occupied by existing buildings.

[00:07:05] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So the goal that we have for the program is 65 units, and as you can see the density, sorry, the unit yield that can be achieved on these two sites that have been identified.

[00:07:18] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Neither of these two sites have proposed housing development on their property at this time, nor expressed interest in pursuing a new housing development. The use of the properties for religious and community assembly is allowed under the residential zoning and there is no obligation to build housing at this time.

[00:07:39] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Now moving on to program 2.6, it is focused on commercial properties south of El Camino Real and has a goal of producing at least 120 affordable units by 2027. The intent is to affirmatively further fair housing by improving access to affordable housing in the city's high opportunity neighborhoods. Like program 1.4, the housing element specifies a deadline of this coming December 31st, 2024 for completion of the zoning amendments. As with that program, amendments will not be ready by that date, but much of the analysis to implement this program has been completed and possible approaches have been identified for further direction from the decision makers. Meanwhile, potential projects may still proceed under certain state laws such as Senate Bill 35 and Assembly Bill 2011.

[00:08:37] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Several recent state laws, including SB 35 and Assembly Bill 2011, allow residential development by right, subject to affordability and other requirements. Senate Bill 35 allows for streamlined by right review of affordable housing developments and Assembly Bill AB 2011 allows housing on commercially zoned properties, even if they are not zoned for residential use.

[00:09:06] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Staff conducted outreach to the five groups of non-religious properties located south of El Camino Real. None indicated that they were interested or prepared to pursue housing on their properties.

[00:09:19] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Based on the estimate of buildable area, there are two non-religious sites south of El Camino Real that could accommodate at least 50 units at the densities allowed under current zoning. Each of these sites would accommodate the housing on portions of the site with parking that is underutilized.

[00:09:40] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Neither of these sites have proposed housing development on their properties, nor expressed interest at this point in time. The use of the properties for their current use is allowed under existing zoning, and there is no obligation to build housing. This is strictly for just analysis purposes.

[00:10:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Based on the analysis that was presented here and in the staff report, it is clear that the application of existing state laws and city code provisions to religious and non-religious sites would accommodate the number of units prescribed in the housing element for these two programs. However, the EPC and City Council may wish to take additional steps to allow more affordable housing in this area and to ensure the housing element goal is achieved. The staff report outlines three options for updating the density, standards, and procedures for sites south of El Camino Real to provide additional approaches to achieving the objectives of these housing element programs beyond existing state law and city code provisions.

[00:10:43] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The first approach would adopt standards pursuant to the state law. The second approach would implement the state mandated density and existing density standards, but would explore relaxing some additional objective development standards to incentivize housing further. The third approach would aim to achieve higher intensity and density on specific sites, and there will be above the state mandated thresholds to incentivize housing development above and beyond the targets in the housing element programs. This approach would focus on a few sites which have a higher potential of development based on the lot size and existing settings, but would require the greatest amount of staff resources as well, compared to the other approaches.

[00:11:32] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Table 2 in the staff report provides the summary and comparison of various aspects of these three approaches that were just described. Other incentives and opportunities being considered by the City Council may apply to any of these approaches. This includes the consideration of off-site BMR units, increased density bonus for NOFA projects, and promotional materials and outreach.

[00:11:59] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: This analysis indicates there is adequate zoning capacity south of El Camino Real to accommodate the number of units prescribed by housing element programs 1.4 and 2.6 through existing zoning and state law alone. This is due in large part to SB 4, which was adopted by the state after the city adopted its housing element. In addition, the streamlining provisions provided by various other state laws also reduce the barriers to the development of affordable housing. However, EPC and City Council may wish to take additional steps to allow for more affordable housing in the area and ensure the housing element program goal is achieved. Therefore, staff is seeking recommendation from the Planning Commission on the following questions.

[00:12:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Following the EPC's recommendation tonight, this analysis along with the EPC recommendations will be presented to the City Council at a study session tentatively scheduled for Q1 2025. After that meeting, staff will carry out Council direction and bring back a draft ordinance for final action from the decision makers.

[00:13:13] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And staff received two comment letters related to this item prior to the meeting, which have been provided to the EPC via email and also available on Legistar. Both the commenters suggested EPC consider version of approach 2 when considering the density options. And this concludes staff presentation. Staff, including the Community Development Director Christian Murdock, Assistant Community Development Director Blezinski, and our consultant staff Kevin Garnier are also present here tonight and available for any questions.

Segment 3

[01:59:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: would that would mean like being without those two grocery stores for quite a while. And being that Ranch 99 is one that serves um a cultural sort of need, I think you'd hear a lot of feedback from the public to be without that for a couple years or more, especially if it's not coming back in its full capacity. So that's where I have sort of just a very practical hesitation. Uh not to say that, you know, one day redesigning it to be a big mixed-use area with housing and grocery stores wouldn't be a great idea. I'm not sure practically that's going to get what we want, really.

[02:00:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, approach two, my concern there is what I had asked about earlier. Just the state laws already incentivized greatly affordable housing. The more affordability you provide or a better mix of affordability, here are the incentives you get. You get more, you know, more waivers and concessions on development standards if you provide more affordability. I am a little unsure of what we're going to gain by giving by-right development standards away. I think we're going to get less affordability. If we just want, you know, closer to market rate stuff, okay, but I am not sure that's our goal. It's not what I perceived this effort to be. I thought we were trying to get affordability south of El Camino. So I hesitate with approach two.

[02:01:49] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'm leaning very strongly towards approach one. However, I'm also thinking, since this is a study session, I'm going to toss it out there. Is there another approach if we're really trying to get That's why I was asking about the ADUs and things like that. Um, and I understand that we're trying to do this outside of ADUs. But in a sense we kind of have to look at human nature and what's there, who's there south of El Camino. What would they want, you know, what would drive someone or motivate someone to say, hey, I would like to redevelop. If it's not these big parcels, it's smaller parcels, then that's where, you know, R3 came to mind. Like are we going to gain a lot more just by doing R3? I'm going to assume that we're doing this in addition to R3 as well. Maybe, maybe not. If not, then we kill two birds with one stone with R3.

[02:02:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so the the the way that the uh program 2.6 is written, I would say that any upzoning that's done through R3 could be considered implementation of 2.6. Uh, there is some question of whether um, you know, it would result in 40 units by the near-term date and 100 units by the end of the cycle. Uh, but that is, uh, it could certainly be one of many tools in the toolbox to implement program 2.6.

[02:03:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. Um, I'm just trying to think of, you know, let's go backwards instead of setting policy and waiting for people to show interest. Maybe we just, I don't know, it's a lot of outreach and I don't know if it's feasible, but what would motivate smaller parcels, since it's mostly single family, um, what would motivate people who own property to put in affordable housing? Um, and then maybe craft something that approach to incentivize that in order to get real buildings built and real affordability in place.

[02:04:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I'm not sure what that would be. Maybe it's a combination of helping out the, uh, it's escaping my mind, the community land trust, the community ownership, coming together, yeah. Yeah, maybe it's, you know, incentivizing that, um, and doing it in a physical form that is uh going to be something that the community embraces and says, you know, this isn't so bad. If you if you feel like there are a bunch of NIMBYs south of El Camino, which I know that's a stereotype, that once you show that this is doable and not so bad, you're you're being a good physical neighbor, like in terms of built form, then okay, let's do more of that. But if you put a nine-story tower next to a one-story house, everyone in the community will just rail on that and say, this sucks, no more of this. We hate it. And you've been more divisive than helpful. So I'm just trying to think of an approach that works in a practical sense. I don't know if that's helpful, but there it is.

[02:05:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

Gap between 'Segment 3' and 'Segment 3'

[02:08:16] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, so, uh, here's what I, like Commissioner Yin, totally share in terms of, um, concerns. Number one, um, is affordability. Above, you know, um, I guess like, I don't want to say above market rate necessarily, but I think, you know, in terms of our need, um, as a city being probably closer towards affordable than market rate, you know, if I'm hearing your concern around, you know, wanting to make sure we are getting affordability, um, you know, that's something I agree with.

[02:08:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Another thing that I, you know, um, very strongly agree with, um, is not having any, um, to the greatest extent possible, ideally none, to be quite honest, um, disruption to the community's ability to, you know, enjoy these, um, retail sites, especially grocery. Um, you know, as, as a member of the Hispanic community, I can absolutely tell you that I, you know, understand how much a grocery store can mean to a community. Um, and for that to go away, um, it, it is not something that, um, yeah, it hurts, right? It kind of sucks.

[02:09:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and then in terms of the other kind of question that I think, um, it was, it might have been rhetorical, but I, I think I kind of heard something like, you know, how can we, how can we actually kind of like, you know, persuade people to, to kind of, um, create these buildings and, and, you know, ideally affordable ones. Um, for, for me, um, the way I'm seeing this, um, you know, we have what we have today, um, and we are conducting outreach and it isn't seeming that there's the interest there with, you know, what we have, at least thus far.

[02:10:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, the way I'm reading approach two, um, and I think, um, Commissioner Cranston in our earlier discussion kind of actually helped clarify this for me, um, and I appreciated it, um, you know, where it says, you know, there's like, um, a, a relaxation of, of development standards, um, it, it, and unless I'm understanding it incorrectly, it's like, hey, you know, if there's like setback requirements or, you know, kind of like, um, minor or, you know, opportunities to modify, you know, those kind of standards to, to, to make it a little bit more easy, a little bit more streamlined, um, for some of these, um, you know, projects to, to move forward and to comply, um, that's kind of the, the thought I'm, you know, hearing.

[02:10:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, but also, you know, I think the other area of like persuading is, you know, these are businesses that, um, you know, whoever owns these properties, they're, they're commercial sites. Um, ostensibly these, um, you know, entities that own these sites today, um, didn't acquire the property because, you know, they thought, you know, I want to have it turn into something residential. Um, I'm sure they're happy having a, a thriving commercial, um, operation there. So like, you know, in terms of what would it mean for those people to be persuaded, hey, you know, no one would want to have some operational disruption to their business or their revenue line. Um, so that would be a, I imagine a non-starter, um, but most people like to have additional revenue.

[02:11:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and so when it comes to, you know, opportunities that I'm hearing, you know, the council is also interested in, um, you know, to, to kind of create other mechanisms that aren't just, um, you know, kind of like, um, land use designations or standards, um, you know, whether it's like financial incentive or what have you, you know, there's like a whole like plethora of other things that, um, that we're not discussing here today, but that, you know, approach two, by just like creating more options, more opportunity to kind of like, um, you know, streamline some of this development, could potentially result, um, in these, you know, units being built.

[02:12:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and, and so I just want to emphasize, you know, you know, I got ahead a little bit on answering question four, but I absolutely, in terms of my additional feedback, I also want to be clear, I would like, um, to the extent possible, you know, under approach two for staff, and I, and I know you guys are, you know, like, this is not easy, you guys aren't like, you know, wizards, um, although I kind of see you guys that way sometimes, um, you know, you guys work really hard and, but you are the experts, um, and so we do have to rely on you.

[02:12:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and so, you know, for me, like a big part of, um, 2.6 is, if there are opportunities or if staff can have like a deliberative approach to, um, you know, um, encouraging or, um, incorporating to the greatest extent possible, ways for these retail sites to be able to, um, provide these units in ways that don't disrupt that commercial operation or create the least disruption to that, um, operation as possible, um, that is something that I would like, um, to, to emphasize. Um, and I know it's not easy, um, but it's, it's, none of this is easy, right? That's, that's why we have seven of us. So, um, and, and staff. So, that's, that's how I'm seeing, um, option two, and that's how I would like also to, um, in terms of additional, um, feedback around business operation and disruption.

• ← Previous
• Next →