Sept. 17, 2025 Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:03:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of September 17th, 2025. I will call the meeting to order 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. Wait. Yep. Please complete one yellow speak... yep, speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak. It is small text, you're right. Uh, 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. Now I will ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with roll call.

[00:04:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, yes. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:04:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, Commissioner Donahue?

[00:04:37] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:04:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, Commissioner Yin?

[00:04:40] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:04:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, Commissioner Cranston?

[00:04:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:04:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, Commissioner Pham?

[00:04:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:04:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Nuñez?

[00:04:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:04:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Gutiérrez. Um, all commissioners are pre... are present except for Commissioner Dempsey and Chair Gutiérrez.

[00:05:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I'm going to presume that Chair Pham would like to not be, uh, introduced as new for a third time. So, I will proceed, uh, with the approval of the minutes, for which there is none. And so, uh, we will speed this along to the oral communications, uh, item number four. 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 comments on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Mr. Clerk, do we have any speakers offering yellow cards or on the Zoom attendee list with raised hands?

[00:06:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, there's no one present, uh, in person. And, uh, no one online either.

[00:06:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Seeing none, I think we can close item four, oral communications, and proceed to item 5.1. And this being for 749 West El Camino Real, mixed use residential item. Uh, I would like to note that this item will be continued to October 15th, 2025. It will not be heard at today's meeting. There will be no formal staff presentation. But, since the project was noticed at... as a public hearing, EPC will still take public comments on this item. Now we'll move to 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 a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Mr. Clerk, do we have any yellow cards submitted or anyone on the Zoom attendee list with a raised hand?

[00:07:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: There is no one present in the room, but we have, um, one person on Zoom. Uh, Robert Cox.

[00:07:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. We will take that comment now.

[00:07:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Give me one second. Mr. Cox?

[00:08:21] Robert Cox: Hey. Can you hear me?

[00:08:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We can hear you.

[00:08:26] Robert Cox: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Nuñez and members of the Environmental Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to talk on the redevelopment of the Chase Bank site. Tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf, but I do want to thank, um, Mr. Deibel, um, Ms. Thebedo, and other members of the Greystar team for reaching out to the Mountain View Historical Association and Livable Mountain View to share their plans to preserve key pieces of artwork from this historic site and integrate it into their new development. I also appreciate their adopting the theme of Richardsonian arches in the architecture for the apartments that they will develop. This design element will lend a sense of historic continuity to the site. I would also like to raise one concern about the project. I understand that there is no dedicated parking for Amazon and Amazon-like delivery vehicles on the site. The project is 299 apartments. It is likely there will be multiple package deliveries per day. When bike lanes were recently installed on El Camino, street parking was removed in front of the Prometheus Montrose complex. Three times in the last month, my driving was blocked for 5 to 10 minutes by Amazon delivery vehicles parked in the traffic lanes. Such Amazon vehicles should have had dedicated parking within the complex so they do not block other drivers and create a safety hazard on the road. Let's plan ahead for this development before any problems occur at this new site. Thank you for listening to my views.

[00:10:02] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Cox. Mr. Clerk, do we have any other speakers in the queue?

[00:10:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: There is no one else in the queue.

[00:10:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Having closed, uh, public comment on this item, we need a motion to continue this item to October 15th, 2025. Do we have a motion? Okay. Looks like we have a motion from Commissioner Yin and a second from Commissioner Pham. Shall we call the vote?

[00:10:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, the motion passes, um, with five yeas and two absent.

[00:11:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Excellent. Uh, 5.1 is now closed. We will proceed with item 5.2, which is the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance Amendments Housing Element Program 3.2. We will first have a staff presentation followed by questions from the EPC and public comment. At the conclusion of public comment, the commission will deliberate and take action. Let's begin with a staff presentation from Rent Stabilization Division Manager Ankie Vandersien and the City's Housing Director, Mr. Wayne Chen.

[00:29:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um... Sorry to interrupt, but maybe we should just check if we have any EPC questions first.

[00:29:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. That sounds good. Cool. All right. Any questions from the commissioners? Mr. Donahue.

[00:30:04] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I, I have a couple questions. Um, one is, what's the history, why is this in Chapter 36 to start with?

[00:30:17] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, yes, thank you for the question. The ordinance was created in 2010, so before our time. I think we've tried to dig into the history of it and, um, that's just where it is. Um, yeah.

[00:30:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. I mean because, as you said, it's not really zoning specific, so it, yeah, I was just curious. Um, another question is, uh, one of the, the cutoffs is 120% AMI plus 5,000, and I just wonder where the 5,000 came from, if that's indexed to inflation or anything like that, or if it's going to be 5,000 indefinitely?

[00:30:51] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, yes. So, um, one of the last times the TRAO was amended was in 2020 and it was in 2020 where, um, council wanted to add this 5,000 boost on top of the 120. What, what they had been hearing and what staff had been hearing was that, um, in... in redevelopment projects, um, there would be households that just exceeded that 120% AMI, uh, limit, and council just wanted to provide some higher limit to increase the eligibility of those who could receive the benefits. The 5,000 is not indexed, but the 120% AMI does fluctuate with the HCD income limits, so that's how that would go up in tandem.

[00:31:29] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Um... And the... actually those are all my questions. Thanks.

[00:31:44] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[00:31:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: I had a few questions. Um, first question was, uh, section 46.2-310 allows landlords to propose alternative mitigation strategies. Um, these, as per the staff report, say that they are submitted to the housing director and then subject to City Council approval. Can you speak more about that process and in general how will those mitigation strategies be evaluated?

[00:32:13] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, thank you for the question. Um, to staff's knowledge, um, since the beginning of TRAO, there has been one, uh, alternative mitigation request, and it's actually the 660 Mariposa project. And what we've done with that is that we've actually now incorporated that framework into the new temporary displacement, uh, uh, section. The current TRAO does have the alternative mitigation section, and staff is just proposing to keep that. Um, we don't have a lot of examples to go off of, but one principle that we would envision using to evaluate, um, is whether the alternative mitigation provides an equivalent value, um, as compared to the standard requirements. Again, in in reality, there may not really be many of these, um, requ... um, requests, so I think part of this is to continue to monitor whether there are such requests. Um, what's in the proposed amendments is, I think, really capturing most of the situations that we are likely to see. Um, so I think we'll just kind of monitor and see whether alternative mitigations is, is something that becomes, uh, used or maybe the standard, uh, uh, provisions under the modified TRAO would, would really take care of things.

[00:33:28] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thanks. Um, I also had a more general question, since I'm interested in tracking outcomes and I know you guys brought up some great statistics, which is great. Um, but in general, can you describe how staff plan to monitor the effectiveness of the program, like going forth, and how that data is collected?

[00:33:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, it's a... it's a really good question. It's, um, that question in part informed the, um, amendment under the SB 330 first right of refusal to return to a unit, and the, uh, development application submittal requirement for the unit inventory, um, uh, tenants and tenant incomes, and whether a unit was vacant or not. Those pieces of information are actually really critical and necessary to determine SB 330 compliance and what the replacement requirements are. And so those provisions would be a way for us to get information from the applicant so we can evaluate it. So that's one way, we can get the baseline information. Um, the second piece is that we would continue to work with the developer and our, um, our relocation consultant to track the information. Who's receiving the notices, who's opting to, um, uh, you know, take the benefits, et cetera. Um, and that's been the way that we've been tracking the information to date, and we would, uh, continue to track it that, that way as well.

[00:34:52] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, great. Um, I had a question about the 50 miles for capping moving, transportation costs. What do other jurisdictions do?

[00:35:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, the, um, 50 miles is a pretty common standard that what, uh, we were able to find in the comparison jurisdictions, and then also in, uh, discussion with our relocation consultant, who advises, um, many other cities. So that was the recommendation because it seemed to be the most prevalent standard where, uh, a jurisdiction has a moving cost provision.

[00:35:24] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Um, my last question is more of just a clarification question. I noticed in the staff report, um, it was mentioned about the demolition permit date of issuance, and then I wasn't sure how that connected with all the notices.

[00:35:38] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Right. Yes. Uh, maybe it would be helpful for me to just kind of go back to that, um, chart. So, with 4B now part of the proposed TRAO amendments, which is the TRAO vacate date, based off of the SB 330 provision, a developer would essentially, um, work, work backwards. So I would actually first start with the first column, um, the green C, which is the construction begins. And a developer in putting together their project schedule would estimate when that would start, and do some estimating of when, uh, the project would be entitled, submit for a building permit application, and when the, the demolition permit would be issued. And then essentially working backwards from C, so, um, C establishes the estimated construction begin date, we're proposing the demolition permit to be the, um, sort of the clear criteria for that, um, and then 4B is 6 months before the estimated construction date. And so as you establish C and 4B, um, the other notices really just kind of fall into place. Um, so for example, 2B is just based off of 4B. But 4B is based off of C. Um, so all of this would be part of information we would ask the developer to submit and then we would track against those, those dates. So it is both something that should be in the application and information that the developer provides, and it's also based on an actual, um, demo permit issuance date, as, in terms of what staff is recommending as a... as a clear standard.

[00:37:19] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Um, my last question is related to the city informational notice. Um, what information would be in it, would the city be informing tenants of this program, and then also what kind of outreach has been done with small to medium sized landlords as well?

[00:37:38] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Sure. Um, maybe working backwards, the outreach was done really just as part of the stakeholder outreach process that, um, we described at the beginning of the presentation. Um, what we would envision for a city informational notice, um, is a simple, easy to read, um, document. Um, potentially translated into multiple languages. And it would, um, include some... some basic information. You know, there's, there's been a, um, uh, a development application on, you know, for, for this apartment. Um, do not move. Um, uh, you will get information from the developer at the appropriate time for when you would need to move and the dates would be specified then. Then... so, um, hang tight. And then we would give some information about the, the TRAO program where to find that information, and, uh, we would envision providing at least some, some key, um, criteria. Such as there will be these notices that will come to you, these notices will be determined based on these timelines. And it gives them, uh, tenants a sense of the overall trajectory, uh, of a project and, and, and the time frames for the project. So, that's what we would envision. We would start producing it, um, if and when Council, uh, approves staff's recommendation.

[00:38:58] Commissioner Tina Pham: Got it. Thank you.

[00:39:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[00:39:06] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Um, actually, uh, like Commissioner Pham, I had, uh, a few questions and she covered a couple of them. Um, but I had additional ones. And it was regarding... here, where is the first one... When you had your stakeholder meeting, did you find that most of the reasons people would leave and not come back was due to noticing issues? Were there enough tenants there to be able to give you that feedback?

[00:39:44] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I'm going to take a first cut and draw on my memory, but I would also like to see if, um, Ankie or Andrea, uh, have some additional color to add. The tenant stakeholder meetings were very well attended. Um, and based on some of that input there was identification of early notices being a reason that folks might, uh, move out sooner than, than, than they needed to. We haven't had a situation where a project has made it through an SB 330, um, construction, so there isn't a return back to a new unit yet. Um, but we have seen a couple of examples where a project, um, were subject to both TRAO and SB 330 at the time and folks did leave a lot sooner than they needed to. Um, but the project actually just kept getting extended, extended, extended by, um, quite a long time. Um, and so that made the SB 330 vacate date particularly important. And, and, and that came up in the, um, in the ten... tenant stakeholder, uh, meetings. Um, let me pause there to see if, um, Ankie Vandersien or Andrea Kennedy have any additional information to provide.

[00:41:59] Rent Stabilization Division Manager Ankie Vandersien: Um, hello, uh, committee. This is Ankie Vandersien, Rent Stabilization Manager. Um, so under the current TRAO, um, only tenants that, uh, consider themselves eligible will fill in the form that has been sent to all the tenants of a specific property that is going to be redeveloped. And we usually only get the information back from the tenants that are... think that they are eligible or they are eligible. So most tenants under the 120% AMI plus $5,000, um, AMI. Um, so for those people we usually have all the information. For people that disqualify themselves without sending in a form, uh, we don't have that information. So we hope with the new TRAO, uh, that we capture, um, more tenants, um, because in general, all tenants, uh, would be, uh, covered for moving costs, so we hope that all tenants will fill out their forms so we get a better, uh, return information from all the tenants.

[00:43:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. Um, and and regarding the scheduling, I know it's very complicated. Uh, it took me a minute to understand everything, however, um, the challenge is that the final date is sort of a little bit of a moving target. So working backwards from a moving target, it can be hard. But you're asking the developer to name a target, which is their date of construction. But your notice has to be when the project's approved. I guess that's when it goes out. The Notice of Intent goes out during project approval. So is there a minimum amount of time then that's... between project approval and construction date? So if it's a small project and it goes pretty fast, then you don't have the full amount of time. Does that mean that, uh, developers have to wait?

Segment 2

[00:45:14] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, um, this is just an illustrative example. So B and B in the left column and 2B in the right column look like they're kind of around the same time, but um projects may vary.

[00:45:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think the dates to really pin down are the estimated construction uh beginning start date C and then 4B, the six month, six months prior to the construction date.

[00:45:43] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And then 2B, 2B is a state requirement, it needs to be at least one year in advance of 4B.

[00:45:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And so those are the things that are just not um, there's no flexibility around. So the developer just needs to really track 2B and 4B and sync it up with C.

[00:46:03] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Where the project gets approved just kind of falls somewhere, somewhere in the process. But 2B is a requirement and 4B is a recommended TRAO timeframe.

[00:46:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: To try to address the fact that projects might change in the very small U, which is the update notice, we try to fit it into this chart, is the notion that projects may change.

[00:46:27] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And by the time you get to U, which is between 2B and 3B, there's um much greater clarity and there's, uh and so if the date has indeed changed and tenants don't have to move out because construction has been delayed, that's the intention of um, of U, of the update notice.

[00:46:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, that has been based on at least one project that had this happen multiple times, so this is getting built in as part of the recommendations.

[00:46:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, okay. So, um, I'm just trying to put myself in the place of a tenant, and um, I would imagine then the notice that they're getting might also include this full schedule of when they get noticed and the fact that this can change and on this day you'll be getting an update as to whether it changes.

[00:47:18] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. So if a tenant wanted to just continue to stay for as long as they can, and some tenants even after receiving this information will just say, well, I would just rather relocate now. And that's up to them.

[00:47:32] Housing Director Wayne Chen: But those who really want to stay through the full period would at least have the visibility of what they can expect through the process, which has some uncertainty to it, but these recommendations um hopefully will minimize um that uncertainty.

[00:47:46] Housing Director Wayne Chen: In the project that I'm thinking of that had um multiple dates getting shifted out, there were indeed um tenants that just continued to stay, and there were tenants that did move. So you'll have a mix of both.

[00:47:58] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh for the tenants who stay, they would benefit from this um, uh information being described to them.

[00:48:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. And is it usually through a website or a phone number they can call? Is there something where they constantly can at any day can just refer to a schedule to see if it's been changed, or is it just that one date it's going to change, the update date where they say, okay, it's been postponed two months or three months, and then that's the last update they get until the notice of termination?

[00:48:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: What has occurred in practice with a project is a notice would be sent to the tenants, "Oh, um here's the new date," and you have an additional three months.

[00:48:41] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And then before the additional three months concludes, we would be coordinating with the developer to ask if it's happening or if it's going to be another extension. And so prior to the three months um concluding, another notice gets sent out saying you have another three months.

[00:48:56] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So that's what has occurred in practice. I think what we could do is see if there's any other way of providing information, but we are really coordinating with the developer because the developer will have the best sense of whether the project is moving and what the timeline is.

[00:49:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you so much.

[00:49:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, that update notice was so tiny I certainly didn't see it. Um, so it's not unusual to see requests going to the um, ZA asking for, you know, extensions. So would that automatically trigger those notices?

[00:49:44] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Well if a project does not need to go to Council and it can be approved at ZA, then that would be the B date in the left column.

[00:49:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And then the timing around the notices would still be the same. Um, it just needs to be scheduled in a way that meets those noticing time frames, whether it goes to Council for approval or it can be approved at a ZA. I don't know if that answered your question.

[00:50:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the Avalon Bay project on corner Middlefield and Castro was approved. It's still not started, and they've asked for extending the development agreement, okay? So that one year from intent to develop to the date is fictitious.

[00:50:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So how would somebody know that, and what procedure would there be for that kind of thing to get communicated so people aren't moving ahead of time?

[00:50:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's, we've seen a lot of things, when I say going to the ZA, it's 'can I extend my, can I get extend my development agreement, can I extend my development agreement?' So it's been approved, but it's not a year.

[00:50:56] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, that's where the update notices would come in. And so that... I think it's a bit buried on the in the in the memo but it is small there.

[00:51:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, if a project continues to be shifted, there would be continued update notices.

[00:51:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, again, typically staff is in contact with the developer and tracking how things are moving, and as an extension is coming up, we would reach out or the developer's reaching out.

[00:51:22] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, but there would be some coordination before the extended time period expires in order to determine whether there needs to be another extension. And so that's what would um occur in in any project if the the the time frame for the project um continues to get delayed.

[00:51:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, second question. Um, you include fire in the force majeure kind of things. Um, what if the fire is caused by, you know, improper electrical with the building?

[00:51:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I didn't try to go through and read all your language. I get earthquake, that's pretty hard to argue with, flood that's pretty arguable, natural disaster I get, fire that's different.

[00:52:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So how do you, are you, how are you incorporating what I call more the negligence kind of fires from a, the Sierras are burning, every every building kind of a fire?

[00:52:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, that's a good question. Um, there's a situation that has occurred pretty recently that is reflecting that where um where there was a fire.

[00:52:34] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And you know, I think part of this is developing some criteria around being able to determine whether the landlord um caused the the situation, but um, basically the recommendation is if it would include fire. Um, there's situations where maybe a tenant is knocking over a candle or something that causes the fire.

[00:52:59] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So right now what we are proposing is including the situations, um, we we'd probably develop some criteria around being able to determine who is at fault or or not at fault.

[00:53:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And that's how we would envision I think implementing the the program. But the fire is an example where um there are situations where where um a landlord is is not causing it.

[00:53:27] Housing Director Wayne Chen: There could be examples where because of um not upkeeping the building and um there's a short or it causes a fire, then that may be attributable to um not keeping the property property maintained.

[00:53:41] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So we don't get into that level of detail here, um and we would develop some criteria around around that.

[00:53:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Well I would certainly suggest that if a fire's caused because a tenant started the fire themselves, they don't get any relocation benefits. Okay? They shouldn't be paid to, to move if they light their place on fire.

[00:54:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, and I'm sure the City Attorney has language on force majeure out there that could be used in this kind of thing.

[00:54:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, the change in the special circumstances... so what that means is a single individual living in an apartment is going to get the exact same benefit as a couple with dependent children in what you're proposing here. If they're below 80%.

[00:54:33] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, yes. So yeah, you could have a um a household with um school age children whether or not that household is um...

[00:54:44] Housing Director Wayne Chen: If they're above 80% but they're in the 120% plus the 5,000 if they're in that category, um they would get the benefit plus special circumstance.

[00:54:58] Housing Director Wayne Chen: You could also have a situation where you have a single individual who is 80% but without school-age children, and they would also get the benefit plus the special circumstance benefit.

[00:55:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Did you consider any other options more, with more proportionality?

[00:55:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We, we did take a look at what some of the other cities do. Um, some other options could be um, rather than including low income into the special circumstance definition, we could say well instead of three months of comparable rent under the TRAO which is what it currently is, maybe it's four months of comparable rent.

[00:55:38] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, that's another way to um provide enhanced benefits for the 80% AMI group.

[00:55:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, those were the the options that really um came about during the due diligence is whether just providing more baseline requirements and not treating them as special circumstance or um including that group as special circumstance, which um is a way that many other cities handle that, that situation.

[00:56:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then um, you said at the very beginning that one of the goals was to try to encourage more people to stay. What in this accomplishes that?

[00:56:18] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Well um having a temporary displacement provision can help, so folks aren't um unnecessarily moving out of the city um in a renovation situation for example.

[00:56:34] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, the the other piece is just having some additional benefits if you are special circumstance and if you're low income, just having some additional benefit could could assist.

[00:56:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: It doesn't address the fact that housing is just expensive here and and uh, but having more benefits and more resources to be able to move, um to be able to um have a higher dollar amount for the benefit could at least increase the likelihood.

[00:57:02] Housing Director Wayne Chen: It doesn't necessarily guarantee it, but it would increase the likelihood we believe, um if it's a greater amount than what currently exists.

[00:57:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, and then uh, I don't know why it was originally put in Section 36, but certainly my view is that part of what the Planning Commission looks at on projects is the overall impact of a of a project on the community, the neighborhood, the people that are there.

[00:57:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And so the relocation assistance program is part of that. Um, why is that not a component that we should be considering as part of evaluating projects?

[00:57:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Land use is not not just the dirt, it's the impact on the community. And this, I'm it's not apparent to me what how that gets addressed and how that connects back in um to by removing it from something that we take a look at.

[00:58:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah I believe the intention is not that um EPC wouldn't have the ability to provide uh recommendations about the project. It's really just whether the any future amendments need to go through um and come to EPC for amendments.

[00:58:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: But as you are reviewing a project going forward, um you would still be evaluating the whole project which has the relocation components.

[00:58:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: It's really the I think the amendment process that the the EPC wouldn't need to be a part of, but you would still be evaluating a whole project that includes relocation benefits going forward.

[00:58:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I hear your answer.

[00:58:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I have a few questions. Um, I guess for Ms. Vandersien or Ms. Kennedy, um, I'm just curious, it's, my understanding is that this did go before the um RHC and from all appearances it appears that there was support for this.

[00:59:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm wondering if possible um could you characterize um briefly just kind of like the the disposition of the of the RHC uh toward toward this uh, these amendments. Kind of like the discussion and outcome.

[00:59:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I I could provide a response. They they were in unanimous support of the recommendations.

[00:59:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, thank you. Uh, when it comes to the alternative mitigation, um, that is also something that I was thinking about. Um, yeah, that 660 Mariposa uh project uh was very interesting uh as it was happening and um, that was a very interesting circumstance available at that time, very specific.

[01:00:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: But um, nonetheless one thing I am curious about and I think you um Mr. Chen mentioned the word "equivalent".

[01:00:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um in that language let me see alternative mitigation... Um, I'm wondering in the crafting of that was there any explicit uh consideration or discussion um for drafting um language that um to any extent or effect required um you know or directed some equivalent value um within the alternative mitigation?

[01:00:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, because right now the way it reads, reads to me is it seems like it says it may include these things but it's not limited to these things and then Council gets to decide that.

[01:00:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and it doesn't seem to me, you know, I mean, as much as we love our current Council today, I'm sure, um, it just I don't know that um, Council's always in the like best position always to know um if an alternate mitigation works for the tenants.

[01:01:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and so I'm curious to what extent um was there any consideration around, you know, outreach to tenants um as part of this process, um getting their their input on if the alternate mitigation meets their needs, um some formal recommendation from staff as part of the process whereby there's some um, you know, formal guidance included on 'hey this is equivalent not just from a monetary perspective but also from a from a functional perspective,' right?

[01:01:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Because there's a value in being able to either relocate physically or sustain tenancy for a period of time, um that's uh you know outside of just the raw 3 month plus $5,000 dollar value.

[01:02:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um so then along within that context, um was it discussed explicitly to craft language in a way where um equivalent value is explicitly called for and with a formal process for staff to make that recommendation to Council, if not also including tenant um input as part of that process?

[01:02:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh thanks for that question. Alternative mitigation itself wasn't specifically identified as a focus area, however, if this is something that um EPC feels that it would be a good recommendation to make to Council, we would we would include that in the summary um in our in the Council report and um Council could certainly um direct staff to to include certain provisions um that aren't currently in the alternative mitigation section.

[01:02:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. Uh, thank you Mr. Chen. Um, I also, um it seems a little minor, but yeah, with the move into um the uh chapter 46, uh, I don't know if section, chapter. Um, number 46, um, is that red lined where it says just "Housing", is that like the working title or um part of the cleanup, is that what staff is thinking like "Housing" or is it is it just a placeholder?

[01:03:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah that's intended to be the actual modification. Essentially, housing related ordinances, but just "Housing". Currently Chapter 46 in its entirety is the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Um by calling it "Housing" broadly, then uh the MHRSO would just be one um article underneath that chapter.

[01:03:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um, does staff feel that um... to the extent it does matter, it might not matter, for all I know we could call it chapter 46 like "Ice Cream", I don't know, and it wouldn't make an impact, but I'm wondering um if there is uh some kind of like uh impact on alignment.

[01:04:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, did staff consider like um some like tenancy or tenant protection, like housing and tenancy, or housing and renting, or something to that effect, because it feels like a lot of this happens to um align with um renting households, if that makes sense, versus just broadly like housing.

[01:04:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah I think I'm following. What you're seeing here is um with the MHRSO that you know a protection program, with this one getting moved is another protection program. But we are envisioning other programs that are not specifically related to uh tenant protection programs and that's why the intention is that this would be broader because there will be future um items that are not not related to those items.

[01:04:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. So, so there's no... is there no impact by expanding the scope a little bit or not expanding the scope like "Housing and Tenancy" or "Housing and Renting" or something like that?

[01:05:04] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah I think it would be a little bit more narrow and having a broader will allow it to um be the place for um various housing related items.

[01:05:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, sounds good. Um I also have a question relating to the right of return. Um, it's always, it can always get confusing tracking between right of return, right of refusal, wait did I... um I guess I'm just curious, um can you just speak to that a little bit more, like in in a more streamlined manner?

[01:05:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm I'm particularly thinking of a couple scenarios. Um one being where a um a a housing construction project um, and maybe this is no longer the case under SB 330, um but where there's uh you know like few rental units or few units that um get delivered on site above what was already existing there.

[01:06:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, maybe even we could imagine uh like 100% right like like-for-like, um if if that right of return would apply.

[01:06:10] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um and then also if you could just kind of like assuming that you know we have one of the more I guess common construction or or um projects where you have maybe like a 20-unit building and now there's like an 80-unit building, just in that common scenario if you know what I mean, um the interplay between temporary temporary relocation and whether or not um there was some analysis done whereby it is deemed that the temporary relocation would enable uh the tenants to maintain residency in the area such that they could execute that right of return.

[01:06:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think I'm tracking with what you're asking. Um, let me try to respond. Um, so in the TRAO amendments, the term temporary displacement has a particular meaning which is 90 days or less. Um, in a redevelopment project, it's going to be permanent, so they're in the permanent bucket.

[01:07:14] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Under Program 3.2, there are other items that ask staff to evaluate alternatives to displacement. Under that one, which we um have not been able to really carve out the ability to to work on those pieces, would be what happens in the interim in a redevelopment project where folks might need two years of time in order to make first right of refusal real.

[01:07:41] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And so that's how we've termed it in the past is "making it real". And though um that work item is a is a forthcoming one that we need to work on, some of the um ideas that have been um floated have been, for example, could there be a partnership with uh existing landlords who have um uh vacant units and they can house the displaced tenants in an alternative building.

[01:08:09] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Actually part of the um permanent uh displacement provisions in the ordinance is to be able to relocate someone within another unit of of a of the current project. For example, if only part of the building is getting demolished and and there's two buildings and the second building is vacant, so there could be that option, or if the landlord has another building somewhere else in the city, or if the landlord wants to partner with another landlord and find replacement housing.

[01:08:36] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Those are all I think concepts of how do we deal with this interim situation. Um, and so we'll we'll work on that a little bit more but some of that is contemplated in the draft amendments by finding um replacement housing units rather than providing the benefits. And then a tenant could choose to live in this other unit on an interim basis and return, or they may just want to stay in that unit permanently.

[01:08:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it. Thank you. Um, that that does make sense then, um, because there is that distinction between temporary, yeah, temporary and then temporary, temporary. Yeah.

[01:09:11] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, with the comparable units, um, does that include amenities? Uh, I know there's like discussions around like the future of parking minimums and things of that nature that might shift this a little bit, but to the extent possible, um, does the comparable unit include access to amenities, like common areas, um, you know, like washing, um, parking, uh, allotment, etc.?

[01:09:36] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, um, we have recommended um creating a definition section that includes the term "comparable", and I'll just read it.

[01:09:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: A residential unit is comparable to the existing unit if it is located in the city, is reasonably comparable in size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, contains similar accessibility features, proximity to services and institutions upon which the displaced tenant depends, and amenities, including the allowance of pets should the tenant have pets.

[01:10:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, okay. And um, is that, is that because the future of parking minimums is like hazy or um, is amenities typically inclusive of parking?

[01:10:21] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think the idea is that we would just leave it broad and then evaluate the project um as it comes in.

[01:10:32] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, in the situation where there is a relocation to another CCRI building, typically those buildings have existing parking. So the situations where there might be lower parking ratios are really in the new projects.

[01:10:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, that, that is helpful. Um, I know I had one last question, it might come back to me. No. Okay, that's fine. I might re-process that. Oh, yep.

[01:11:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, that table, if we need to go back to it, then we must. Um, with the dates. Um, this might sound like a paranoid um scenario, but um, I've worked with tenants who, you know, had reason to wonder if that this is a scenario that was happening.

[01:11:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, whereby there is, you know, like someone submits a an application for redevelopment, people get spooked, people leave, and now I can, you know, effectively clear out um people and have that uh get raised up to market rate uh and then withdraw.

[01:11:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, I guess that process, the the new noticing process, um, what like, I guess, um, how confident and why, um, you know, in terms of speaking to this confidence level, but what's the confidence level from staff of this new process being able to address, um, you know, a scenario such as that or mitigate that?

[01:12:14] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Overall we think this is going to be an improvement to the TRAO because it uh first shifts developer required notices to a later date.

[01:12:25] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Second, we are recommending a City informational notice, and the notion is that if the information comes from the City, that can help um provide information and allow the um tenants to know that it's coming from a a source of information that they can they can trust.

[01:12:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, and then on the development application side, the recommendation is to include information that needs to be provided such as the unit inventory, uh tenant information, and there are implications with the development project if they don't provide that information.

[01:13:01] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So we think both from a a noticing perspective, shifting it out, something from the City, plus the development application perspective, um required information impacts to your project if that is not provided, in combination uh constitutes a overall uh uh improvement to the efficacy of of TRAO and um mitigating the situations where tenants are for whatever reason just leaving too early.

[01:13:25] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And is there some way, like if if this was a scenario that played out say that you know there's a property owner that has multiple rental properties, um, and let's just assume we have like the one bad apple of landlords, um, where you know this has been observed that they've done this once.

[01:13:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um is there any kind of like way of either flagging or just having some um situational awareness from the City's part you know when uh you know when applications for this property owner uh are submitted? Is there an extra kind of like attentiveness if that makes sense or penalties of some kind that you've seen from other cities? Like I'm just curious about that.

[01:14:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We don't, we're not proposing any type of sort of a like three strikes and you're out type thing, or that we would um uh treat applicants uh differently.

[01:14:21] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um staff is aware of the developers and aware of past projects and so you know we would have that awareness, we would evaluate each project in compliance with the requirements, um and just ensuring each project is is is following the requirements.

[01:14:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, sounds good. Thank you very much. Any other questions from the commissioners? No? Okay. All right.

[01:14:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Seeing no more questions, uh we will move this to 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.

[01:14:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

[01:15:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Mr. Clerk, do we have any yellow cards submitted or any Zoom attendees with their raised hand in the queue?

[01:15:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We do not have anyone present in the room nor do we have any attendees with their hands raised on Zoom.

[01:15:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Uh seeing no speakers then, uh we will now take it back to the Commission for deliberation and action. Commissioner Yin.

[01:15:46] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um thank you. All the all the amendments seem to make sense to me. I think if Council has the goal to try to ensure that tenants have the appropriate information before them before they make decisions and to keep them in place as long as possible so that they can stay in the city, I think these move in that direction.

[01:16:12] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So I'm I'm going to be for it. I would just go ahead and make a friendly suggestion, I don't know if this costs money so I don't know those implications, but um the idea when you do notice to have either a phone number that they can call at any time, and you just let them know in the notice that 'this is the phone number to reach, we update it', I don't know if it's daily, weekly, by the end of whatever... the end of every Monday for the process ongoing, we will have our updates, I don't know.

[01:16:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Or on the website, wherever it is, it's easy for the tenant to at any time, because you know you're juggling things, you're trying to make decisions quickly, you don't know if it's been updated, 'do we have another two months, do we have another month, who knows?' So that they can find out.

[01:16:58] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um and then also when you get every time you notice, that the full schedule get put back out in the notice so they know what to expect and when.

[01:17:08] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think that's probably key is to to have a better understanding of what's expected, even if it will change, and when it might change. So between those two maybe there's just a little bit more comfort for the tenant to to feel like they can get information easier.

[01:17:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So amendments one through five I am I get um seem positive. I am uncomfortable with the blanket change in amendments six.

[01:17:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, it seems... it seems that there should be some level of proportionality um associated with it. And it may be it's also tied to amendment seven.

[01:17:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, if somebody gets $20,000 to move to Tracy versus $20,000 to move to Sunnyvale and they're in the Bay Area and they're close, I feel better about that. Okay.

[01:18:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So maybe it's, you know, I'm I'm I'm messing with this here, but the 50-mile distance seems excessive to me, and maybe if it's, if the if the if one of the goals here was to encourage people to stay, I don't know that that, I don't know that this as it is right now accomplishes that enough.

[01:18:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And if there was a way to say, okay, if you're if you're moving to someplace within 10 miles, because that's like I can see to Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, you know Redwood City, okay those that's close, okay? 50 miles, that's Marin! Okay, that's not here, that's not staying here.

[01:18:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And so I guess I don't know whether it's, the 50 miles seems excessive to me, certainly Gilroy I guess is maybe 50 miles away, I don't know, we got a big freaking county here I don't know what the distance is. But certainly Tracy falls into that, and it seems like a long distance, and I I would I would like at the very least on the on the benefits something that's reflective of the the size of the household, rather than just a blanket, and um and maybe there's the 50 seems like a long way to me.

[01:19:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So those are my the two concerns I have of the individual amendments. Um I am personally unpersuaded about the recommendation to move this into Chapter 46. Um I don't... I'm not... I'm not getting it. Um it's not persuasive to me.

[01:19:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm so that's kind of how I look at it. One through five, thumbs up. Six, I feel it needs to be some kind of proportionality. I'd be more comfortable if the distance was different. And I'm not persuaded of the move to Chapter 46.

[01:20:21] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So on the um the proportionality thing it seems to me that most, not everything but but many things in here are tied to 3 months rent, and if you're renting a, you know, you have a large family, you're renting a 3 bedroom versus renting a 1 bedroom, you're going to get more... the large family will will end up getting more benefits uh just naturally from that.

[01:20:51] Commissioner Paul Donahue: The relocation costs, you know you're moving a 3-bedroom apartment so you're you're um you're going to have more uh it's going to cover the costs of the additional bedrooms and the additional people that are getting moved. So to me that um, it does seem somewhat proportional.

[01:21:11] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Not everything is is proportional, uh one thing that's not proportional is this $5,000. I, that's very strange to me um because it's not indexed to to inflation because it's kind of an arbitrary number, it... some people are on the border, and so we get them in with the 5,000, but now some people are on the border of that. So I mean where where does it end?

[01:21:37] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, so I mean r- raising it to 124% of AMI or something like that seems like it could be achieve kind of the same thing and and that would that would index that $5,000 you know assuming 5,000 is 4%, I just made that up, but um uh and the 5,000 is actually not proportional because it doesn't say anything about the number of people, whereas AMI is actually uh dependent on the the number of uh people in the household.

[01:22:09] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um anyway, that's in the existing ordinance I guess, so it's not um it's it's just kind of a weird thing to me.

[01:22:18] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um... the yeah generally I'm I'm in favor of of these things. I uh I like that the the initial notice, the City Informational Notice step comes from kind of a a neutral party.

[01:22:33] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um, and I think you mentioned something earlier about, you know, the rumor mill and uh you know people are like 'oh I hear they're going to tear this place down' and you know we we better move and we don't really know what's going on, I think it's rumors uh usually go bad places and I think it's it's useful to uh to kind of put correct information into people's hands and then they can make informed decisions. Um, so yeah, in general I am uh in favor.

[01:23:09] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um I had some thoughts. So um, definitely this is great work from staff. I know that it's tough to balance protecting tenants but also having policies that help us maintain our housing stock and promoting um developers to to redevelop and make improvements is also very important, so this is a nice balance.

[01:23:36] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um I had some thoughts about the amendments. Um in general I'm in favor of a lot of them. I had a lot of the same thoughts as Bill Cranston regarding the 50 miles.

[01:23:49] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um not suggesting really changing the 50 miles, but maybe there could be a different amount or threshold for moving costs if someone decides to stay in the city or in in Mountain View. So adding like a a higher number or a higher percentage or um some sort of additional bonus for those who choose to stay in Mountain View might be something staff could consider.

[01:24:15] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um also, uh I agree with staff moving the section out of Chapter 36. I I get what you guys are trying to do with um the other section and um continuing code improvements um in alignment with the council uh strategic plan so I appreciate that.

[01:24:36] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um I guess that's all my main comments, generally support of the amendments.

[01:24:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you uh Commissioner Pham. Um I'll speak to this, uh yeah I feel encouraged by this. Um I very strongly agree with Commissioner Yin around the um need for some updated, updatable, and accessible um means for uh residents to be able to easily check on the status of their uh of their relevant uh potential displacement project uh the status of that.

[01:25:16] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um you know there are things that um, you know, I guess this is also kind of potentially a question, um, before I go down this long commentary, um well not too long.

[01:25:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um right now is there a requirement for landlords to I don't know, leave on tenant doors or call or notify however they do it um with things like 'hey this is now going to ZA' or 'hey this is going to um DRC, this is the outcome of that, here's the next meeting'? Um is there any requirement like that?

[01:26:04] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I don't think there's a current requirement. Maybe I would ask Ankie or Andrea whether that sort of information is being implemented just by practice. So maybe I'll turn it over to one of them.

[01:26:23] Rent Stabilization Division Manager Ankie Vandersien: Uh thank you. Um, we currently have a very uh frequent contact between tenants and the consultant and staff um of the rent stabilization division.

[01:26:37] Rent Stabilization Division Manager Ankie Vandersien: Uh we um reach out on a regular basis on the status of the project, but that's not currently codified in the TRAO.

[01:26:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Yeah I mean I in terms of that friendly suggestion or amendment, I forgot how you phrased it, Commissioner Yin, I mean I I very strongly agree with that.

[01:27:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I think there, if if I could you know have uh you know wait to recommend a uh city council that you know the and the burden on this really ought to be as much as possible on the developer.

[01:27:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um you know as wonderful as our uh city website is, it's not a, you know, yourdevelopmentproject.mountainview.gov kind of easy to you know, like access website with milestones, key dates, you know, next steps, opportunities to engage, um you know, that level of transparency, um you know, whether on a website or you know required to be taped onto someone's door, um you know, in my experience working with tenants um would go a very long way in helping people time a move, decide whether to move, or even know, 'yeah I don't have to move, or even just at a more foundational level um not live scared.

[01:28:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and so um I would very much strongly um support some accessible information clearing house, I don't know what how how you might characterize that, Commissioner Yin.

[01:28:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, personally I'm fine with the 50 miles. If it's a standard that other cities are doing then there's no reason that we should like be more punitive.

[01:28:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, along those lines though, um yeah I also like the idea of a of a of a bonus of um you know whether it's encouraging or or enabling um a closer kind of like level of relocation, I think that um is helpful uh, to Commissioner Pham's point.

[01:28:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh and also I think it kind of connects some of the dots on the reality that there is few housing units um to go around in this area and they tend to be more expensive than ones 40 miles out, 50 miles out.

[01:29:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: The other thing I would um you know in terms of you know putting out for the commission in terms of um you know something that uh to see if it gets support is in that alternative mitigation, another kind of like friendly just idea recommendation is um to to the extent that staff can take some like just broad um feelers out and kind of try and craft some guided equivalency position on the alternative mitigation, um, so we just you know, so councils can be equipped and informed with 'hey yeah like this is equivalent in the monetary but not in the functional or its you know' or however staff you know would go off and and and do that, um I think future councils would benefit very much and and and tenants would benefit very much as well from the transparency of 'hey um if this is going around the usual uh codified uh you know uh program, here is an explicit metric uh that we're going to hold ourselves to'.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: like regulation or ordinance, um it just would be very good for for tenants to also be able to have the assurance and transparency that um that they're not getting a shorter end of the stick uh as an outcome. um so those are my uh commentaries. and then Commissioner Cranston.

[01:30:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: um I just to follow up on your comments. I I do like the idea of more noticing. I would not recommend that it's the landlord doing it because my experiences I don't trust the landlord. So um if the if the notices are coming from the city that's great. I like I mean I agree with you put something on the door but let's do it as part of those City notices um because I've seen landlords put language in things that sounds like it's not wrong but it's misleading and I think our goal here is to to be more open and and accurate in things. so I like that idea. um and you know quite frankly if the relocation costs are closer it saves the landlord money than if they're moving 50 miles away so maybe there's something there. Okay.

[01:31:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. So um I'm hearing support for some information uh like noticing on the milestones key dates next steps etc. as regard to project progress. Um I'm also hearing it sounded like if I'm interpreting Commissioner Cranston's um comment correctly some uh you know support for the idea of like some some bonus something um for uh individuals who are able or choosing or demonstrating that they're relocating within Mountain View or close to it. Is that is that my hearing that? Are we able to make that recommendation? um staff is that within our scope for this?

[01:32:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think so.

[01:32:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um and then um and then Commissioner Yin I'll go to you in just a minute. And then uh the other component um is there support for the uh equivalency um kind of like incorporation in the alternate mitigation for inclusion of language of that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[01:32:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just providing clarity for what those alternatives might be? This is something that staff is already doing it's just not codified as something they need to do, is it?

[01:32:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: The um the the goal here is to explicitly uh state that there ought there must be some uh analysis of equivalency of the mitigation benefit. So basically some however staff would determine this to make a uh clear analysis that is formally submitted as part of the process to council saying we've assured this is an equivalent package and like in these x y a b c ways. is what I'm saying.

[01:33:22] Housing Director Wayne Chen: If I could say it back, there's section 40 46.2-3.10 which is the alternative mitigation and it has language about um alternative to providing the required assistance. the landlord may propose a strategy that aligns with the goals and purposes of this article but somewhere in that section to incorporate the concept of of of uh equivalent value or some such.

[01:33:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yep. My hearing support for that Commissioner Cranston supports. I support. Commissioner Yin? Yep. Okay. Yep.

[01:34:00] Commissioner Tina Pham: I had a question. So would that be staff providing additional guidance and uh like writing out procedures about how how they would evaluate alternative mitigations and and that's separate from any proposed change additional changes to the code is that the approach we're going?

[01:34:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh it's just sort of thinking here. um there's an analogy with our BMR program where there's alternate mitigation in the code but we have guidelines to implement it and that's where the um more specific criteria lives. And I would recommend that if this were uh information passed to the council and council wanted to add it that that's how we would implement um uh this provision. Okay. All right. Yes.

[01:34:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other uh comments Commissioner Yin did you still have an additional comment? Or you're in the queue. No?

[01:35:01] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh I I just wanted to clarify. So I know there's concern about the the 50 miles. And I think I'm with Commissioner Donahue, which is, you know, if they have to pay rent closer and it's more expensive if they have to go out, then these people then they have to commute which is sucky and if the intention is that they still get to you know go to the schools here moving out is not a great thing. So I feel like sure you know you get more money gas money whatever. So um I'm okay with the 50. The you know you guys have evaluated the other cities have the same thing. I'm not averse to that. Um I I don't know about the bonus for staying in Mountain View because Sunnyvale is right there. Palo Alto, you know we have a lot of cities that are close by they can still be around. And I also want to ensure that um you know maybe they can't they have to move to Tracy but then they're gonna just have the first right of refusal. And they might take it up. So they might come back. So I don't think that necessarily moving a little further out means they're not coming back. So I I'm a little torn on that. I think if staff has already evaluated that this is the way to go I I don't want to parse it out so many levels that you know you get a bonus for that. We already have I'm trying to simplify. And and if we can keep it simple and if staff feels comfortable with the way it is then I'm comfortable saying okay to that. Not that it was a bad idea I just don't want to get too much in the weeds with policy. Um no I know I do it. For this particular one I'm saying I don't want to get too much in the weeds.

[01:36:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I know I could go either way on that Commissioner Donahue Pham Cranston. All right. Let's do a quick straw poll. Who who wants to keep the amendment to 50 miles as staff is proposing? Straw poll in 3, 2, 1. Go. Go. No? Um how am I voting? Uh I will I'll I'll I'll agree to that. Um so I think that um we'll that gets majority support. Um cool. Um it sounds like we're Commissioner Cranston's on the queue.

[01:37:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm okay with the 50 but I like the idea of if there was some some incentive if they they some additional value if they they stay in Mountain View that to me encourages the goal here is to get them to stay. That's to me the goal. Okay. The range if they move 50 and come back that's cool but if it's so if there's something that if they can find someplace here and it makes it easier for them to stay I think that's a good thing. So I that's what I would I'm I'm more interested in that in that than saying we're going to take the 50 miles out. Is that make sense?

[01:38:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um I know I could go either way on this. Um I think I'm hearing Commissioner Yin saying um you know it'd be good to not overcomplicate matters. I am hearing Commissioner Pham and Commissioner Cranston um trying to find a path toward um helping sustain local residencies even temporarily. um which there's merit in. I guess like Commissioner Yin I know that you mentioned you know we have Sunnyvale Palo Alto um is your um kind of uh is is your view would it be more helpful to have like a radius for example like 10 mile 25 miles 50 some um proportional view on that? Or um what are your what are your thoughts?

[01:39:06] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I guess I assume the 50 miles was the sort of radius that they were going for. And and I I get unless there are um statistics that say people who you know stay within 15 miles tend to stay versus if you go out to 50 you know or beyond they don't come back. Unless there's that I'm just gonna yeah I'm open to it but I mean if it's not overcomplicating it for staff then I'm fine.

[01:39:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm not suggesting that we put this in the code. Because as staff has already said there are guidelines that are provided okay and if part of the guidelines say hey if you do something in the way you're in you're proposing for your relocation package you're doing something that encourages people to stay we will view that more favorably than if you don't. So I'm not looking for that to be incorporated into the amendment. I'm looking for it to be 'hey staff, look at when you're developing your guidelines think about this. How do we make it more attractive for them to keep people here?' That's what I'm so I want to be clear I'm not suggesting a change to the code.

[01:40:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So then it seems like that previous straw poll will be able to stand. And then um Commissioner Cranston are you is that just general like ideation for staff um or are you looking for just like your feedback on incorporating it into the in the earlier in the earlier item. that it gets cop incorporated in to encourage that it to be incorporated into the guidelines. Okay. Any uh discussion on that?

[01:40:48] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I just had a quick clarification. Is the incentive concept intended to be within the total moving cost of 50 miles or is it on top of...

[01:41:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So, support? I can support that. What do you mean within?

[01:41:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The cost to move 50 miles away is going to be higher than the cost of moving a block away. So within the overall cost of relocation there should be a it should actually save the developer money if they move people a block away than if they move them 50 miles away. So in the total evaluation of the relocation costs something that says okay I'm going to keep I'm not they're not just going to pocket that if they get people to stay then that's a good thing and that they should put that into the evaluation of the relocation packages. That's what I mean.

[01:41:51] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Meaning that because the developer might have been able to save some of the money from a farther move they can give that difference to a household. Yeah I think we'll have to evaluate that. There's one piece of um information that may might be helpful. These are um benefits for the Trio but SB 330 benefits also exist in parallel. And when staff is evaluating the total benefit package it is a comparison between the Trio relocation amounts and SB 330 amounts. Um this was provided in more detail in the council memo but in and perhaps the majority of the cases the SB 330 benefits are likely to prevail and they could be substantially higher than the Trio amount so with the moving cost plus SB 330 that is a that could be a much larger package. And it's really the res it's really the relocation benefits that would allow people to be able to stay in Mountain View um and I think we would probably have to do some analysis just to be able to better understand whether if there's some sort of conceptual cost savings from a from a from a shorter move that there should be a requirement that they pass on the conceptual cost savings to a household that's that's moving closer. I I think we'd probably just have to maybe analyze that a little bit more um and it may be yeah a a little bit more more complicated and we'd probably have to just look at some other factors.

[01:43:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So the recommendation you're recommending that just staff evaluate what can be done within this. Okay I'm I'm for that. So I'll change. Yeah I would agree with that.

[01:43:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah. Perfect. Sweet. Unanimous support on that. Um that uh works. So then uh any other uh last minute commentary questions? Yeah. Yep. okay. Yep. So we um basically have um the uh recommendation from staff plus the uh recommendation for information noticing like enhancements um and the alternate mitigation equivalency and the um the differential monies of uh relocation uh cost. Uh so that would be what's uh potentially up for action. Um do we have a motion?

[01:44:52] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So none of those things though would amend the proposed code they're I think they're all just... okay got it. they're all added guidance to staff to take to Council.

[01:45:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yep. Um Ms. Pancholi do uh does that guidance um require any uh differentiation in language from the script or um will it suffice for anyone wanting to craft a motion?

[01:45:34] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So maybe you can, you know, when you're making the motion we can say um this is the recommendation as modified by the Planning Commission.

[01:45:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Then I guess I'll make a motion since I have the um since I have the paper. Anyone want to second my motion? All right. Um Commissioner Pham. Okay sweet. Um so then uh the motion on the floor is um that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 zoning of the Mountain View City code to update review procedures for private development applications with legislative amendments to zoning General plan and... nope. This is not it. Oh my god here it is. Yeah it's... okay. There we go. I'm reading from the script guys. We're going off script. Oh it is okay. Uh third time's the charm. Uh the motion is to recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View repealing Chapter 36 Article 13 Tenant Relocation Assistance of the Mountain View City Code amending Chapter 46 of the Mountain View City Code to change the title and add a new article governing tenant relocation assistance and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. And the recommendations um that have been supported by the commission for uh including enhanced noticing and for uh explicit statement of equivalency analysis as part of the alternate mitigation programs as well as a potential um payout of differential monies associated with relocation costs to tenants. Second? Okay. Perfect. Okay. Cool. Uh we will take this to a vote.

[01:48:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: The motion passes uh with five yea and two absent. All right sounds good. Sweet. We'll move on to item 5.3. As you guys can tell I do this all the time. It's going well. Oh yeah. All right um thank you uh Mr. Chen. Sweet. Uh okay moving forward. Uh we are now proceeding to um item 5.3 request for amendments to Chapter 36 zoning of the city code to implement Council policy G9 regarding the gatekeeper process for legislative actions. We'll first have a staff presentation followed by questions from the EPC and public comment. At the conclusion of public comment the commission will deliberate and take further action. Let's begin with a staff presentation from Community Development Director Christian Murdock.

[01:55:45] Commissioner Tina Pham: I had a few questions. Um I read that there's a minimum waiting period of two years for substantially similar applications that were not authorized to resubmit. Uh why two years and how does it compare with other jurisdictions?

[01:56:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you for the question. Um the two-year period is intended to uh ensure applicants don't come in and intend to explore the minimum amount of community benefits or project components that they can propose and get through the gatekeeper process. Um the two-year period is intended to encourage applicants to come with their best project proposal and to seek City Council authorization at that time and to then uh require them to come back after that waiting period um to then uh re-envision the project at a later date to ensure that again we're encouraging applicants to submit their best uh proposals. Um as far as comparing to other jurisdictions that's not a criteria that we've benchmarked uh across other um jurisdictions uh with gatekeeper or gatekeeper-like processes. So I don't have an answer um to that specific question.

[01:56:48] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Um I just had a general question about percentage of projects that go through the gatekeeper process versus the streamlined process. Any sort of idea about the split?

[01:56:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um it's difficult to speculate. Um there are trade-offs for uh projects that are looking to go through the new streamlined process. Um and it's hard to compare um what might occur with that new streamlined process compared to the prior streamlined process which had very different criteria. Um I can just compare to the number of regular gatekeeper applications versus streamlined applications uh over the last couple of years and there were um several streamlined applications uh versus just two regular applications um submitted for the the last year uh authorization in 2024.

[01:57:30] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. All right thank you.

[01:57:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Donahue.

[01:57:36] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So um policy G9 went through a big process and got adopted by the City Council. Um what is the process for amending that policy and how does that compare with the process that would have taken place with if everything were actually in the ordinance to to start with and and we wanted to amend the the ordinance?

[01:58:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So with Council policy G-9 uh being adopted by resolution a resolution of the City Council can amend that policy and whatever its reference to govern a particular aspect of gatekeeper in the city code that updated resolution and policy adopted with the resolution would govern those provisions. So a single action by Council could adopt um an updated policy. Um that contrasts with amendments to the city code which are uh effectuated by ordinance which uh require a recommendation from the Environmental Planning Commission and then a public hearing by the City Council in order to enact um those uh amended provisions. And that action by Council actually requires two steps there's the initial public hearing and then a second reading or adoption of the ordinance um at a subsequent meeting. And so um it's a much more intensive and time-consuming time-consuming process to adopt City Code amendments by ordinance as compared to this more uh streamlined process to adopt um updated resolutions and policies that way.

[01:59:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. The um if the I was gonna say. Okay thank you.

[01:59:21] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:59:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay this might be a dumb question. Um I know in the housing element it says that we have to uh review one a year and it seems like common sense if none come forward you can't review the one but just to just clarify and confirm if none come that's okay I mean.

[01:59:44] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah. So um in the housing element it actually just requires us to have one hearing a year. Um so uh in theory if we don't get any applications then we wouldn't have to have that hearing. Um and so you know we we would just have to assess. And so now the way that the new kind of you know new model works with the policy it's um you know applications are just uh taken in just on a rolling basis. And they just have to come 90 days before the hearing the authorization hearing. So um they could come you know maybe six months before the hearing but as long as they're in within that time frame. So once we when we get an application then we will start to kind of figure out when that authorization hearing should take place and and then you know just work accordingly towards that.

[02:00:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I want to clarify uh the obligation in the housing element is to hold at least one authorization hearing per year for residential or residential mixed use projects. There's not an obligation um to hold um those hearings in the housing element for non-residential projects.

[02:00:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. And do we have any?

[02:00:53] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Uh so we haven't actually opened the gate I guess you would say um because we you know we were waiting for the ordinance modifications to go into place so then that fully effectuates that new Council policy that was adopted. So shortly after we finish you know this part of the process then we will send out our e-notification to that group that subscribes to the gatekeeper page and put the information up on the website and open that gate and and we'll see what we get. But at this point um the only gatekeeper applications we have are three streamlined gatekeepers from the previous rules that are kind of working their way through right now.

[02:01:33] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I see. Okay. Thanks.

[02:01:36] Commissioner Tina Pham: Oh thanks. I had a follow up question based on Commissioner Donahue's questions. Um so if Council wanted to pass a resolution to alter City Council policy G9 um in the future um would those proposed changes need to go through CPPC?

[02:01:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh no they would not be required to go through the Council Policy and Procedures Committee. It's possible the Council could refer it and and seek the input uh but it's not a requirement.

[02:02:09] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So kind of following on that I remembered the question I was going to ask. Uh you said that uh to amend the city ordinance it would have to go through the EPC and council and second reading and all that stuff. Uh then you talked about G9 and you didn't mention the EPC. So would updates to that no longer need to go through the EPC?

[02:02:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh updates to Council policy G-9 would not require Environmental Planning Commission review and recommendation. Any change to city code provisions that pertain to the gatekeeper process would continue to require um Environmental Planning Commission recommendation uh to City Council.

[02:02:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay so so this this reduces our input. This action tonight would reduce our involvement in the in the process basically.

[02:03:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh it would change the role that the Environmental Planning Commission has in um recommending gatekeeper related policy.

[02:03:13] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Thank you.

[02:03:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um my question uh Commissioner Murdock could you characterize the change in the role of the EPC um or other uh kind of like deliberative processes um yeah could you just characterize that just kind of piggybacking off of Commissioner Donahue's um how would the role change or be reduced or etc.

[02:03:43] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: If I could um attempt to respond I think to respond to your question the role of EPC is not changing with this policy. The code amendments are coming to you for your recommendation because they're part of chapter 36 of the city code the zoning code. Um so any further and future amendments to chapter 36 including this provision would come to you. Um but the gatekeeper policy itself the City Council policy um is not something that would typically come to this body.

[02:04:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: That sounds good. Um so then when it comes to projects that would be aligning to business relocation um you know historic preservation the the correct categories in the in the table that we saw as part of the presentation um we would probably just in terms of that evaluate authorize part of the process that would just um go straight to the review stage right? So we would still kind of like see or know about these projects right it just wouldn't be as like intensive is that fair to say?

[02:05:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think it's important to recognize the City Council maintained a role for the Environmental Planning Commission um in the review of projects submitted um that are authorized to submit. So the policy requires a study session at the Environmental Planning Commission for projects authorized to submit a formal planning application. So um it's not as though the EPC will never have any interaction with gatekeeper projects um that are submitted through the regular process it's just that that initial authorization decision uh is one that Council directly uh undertakes.

[02:05:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. And uh I have no attachment because I won't be on the Planning Commission forever. Um but uh along those lines though I do have a question on the um the category component. Um is it all, some, one, like for example um business retention like if if a developer does just one of those bullet points say they provide lease subsidies does that does that one criteria um or meeting that one specific criteria get them through or um how would you characterize like the the number of the the like degree or extent of um adherence to some of these categories that um would warrant or um enable a uh streamlined uh movement through the through the through the process?

[02:06:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um so the the business retention uh component that you described is is part of the regular gatekeeper uh project criteria and so that's not something that would be subject to the streamlining. Um with that sort of uh established the number of criteria including business retention or others um is not defined. Um an application can go forward with one with all of them with none of them. And that was a critical uh element of the City Council's deliberation of this policy. Um I think generally we've been accustomed to the gatekeeper process involving people coming with their A game and providing a lot of community benefits but Council um didn't want that to be a mandatory component. So that a project that may maybe doesn't have deep economic uh ability to provide more traditional community benefits uh could still come forward and seek authorization if it had some other sort of inherent value for the community that's not sort of a dollars and cents economic value but had some sort of needed use or broader community benefit um that's not recognized in that more traditional community benefit sense. And so that's why there's broad latitude for projects to come in with all, some, or none of those um suggested categories.

[02:07:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any more questions for me? Uh Commissioner Donahue.

[02:07:56] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah I'm just I guess I'm just on one topic tonight but um the yeah and I I appreciate that yeah we would still be involved in any amendments to to uh chapter 36. Uh but there are large sections that are removed from chapter 36 put into the policy and now it just says see the policy. Um so we would no longer be involved in amending what was previously in those sections and what is now in that policy. That that's kind of generally my question I think the the answer is is yes right?

[02:08:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's correct to the extent there's something that is no longer in the city code there will no longer be a role for EPC recommendation to City Council uh on such matters.

[02:08:48] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. And that fair enough and that that may be appropriate I just I just want to be clear on that. Thank you.

[02:08:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Other questions? Thoughts? Considerations? Nope. Okay. Uh seeing none from the commission we will proceed to 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 a comment on this item please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. Mr. Clerk do we have any yellow speaker cards in the queue or anyone on Zoom with a raised hand?

[02:09:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, we have one uh speaker in person, um Peter Katz. you may now come up and speak.

[02:09:42] Peter Katz: Yeah I think it's me. Thank you Vice Chair Nuñez and members of the EPC. I'm Peter Katz CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. And for several years uh we at the chamber have been strong advocates for the return and revision of the gatekeeper process. Especially with the need for more housing and meeting the requirements of the housing element. I want to thank staff for working with us on many of these changes that include things like removing the barriers, reducing the barriers so that we can actually do projects that are new bold exciting because let's face it no one predicted what was going to be happening with COVID, no one predicted what was going to be happening in the last few years, no one predicted the shortage that we were going to have and we need bold um uh bold projects to to take this uh forward. We also appreciate um building in more versatility a wider range of projects uh reducing the number of requirements or saying all or none of the requirements when you can go through because the whole objective here is to be creative to be bold and to be able to get in front of Council to have your for lack of a better term your day in court. Um I do want to mention one thing and that is we still do not see a reason to have a two-year minimum for resubmittal. It slows the process and adds to the already significant costs. Let's face it every time we have to go a developer has to go back to the drawing board if you will that's hundreds of thousands of dollars that several months etc it just adds up very very quickly um for projects that are having difficulty penciling as it is. So if satisfactory changes are made uh a project should be allowed to come back in at the next opportunity rather than waiting for two uh uh waiting for two years even uh especially since gatekeepers are only being uh performed once a year at this point. So I encourage you to uh consider that but other than that um again I just want to compliment uh the city staff on uh really uh taking into into um consideration very important elements. Thank you.

[02:12:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Mr. Katz. Mr. Clerk do we have any speakers remaining in person or on Zoom?

[02:12:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh there are no no more speakers uh in person or on Zoom.

[02:12:16] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Uh seeing no more speakers uh we will proceed to commission deliberation and action. Any comments from our Commissioners Mr. Cranston?

[02:12:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: For those of you involved in the housing element you probably recall my degree of cynicism about the fact that there was even a gatekeeper process that exists. So this I view as a major move forward and I fully support the staff recommendation as is with no changes because there really hasn't been a gatekeeper process gatekeeper process uh for years and we need this. So I am all for it.

[02:12:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Mr. Cranston. Any other thoughts from the commission?

[02:13:09] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So can I ask a quick question based on the public feedback. The the two years my iPads having some problems. Is that in the in the policy?

[02:13:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It is. And so that's not really uh within the purview of the ordinance recommendation this evening.

[02:13:29] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Got it. Okay. Um that okay. Um and as far as comments go um I'm you know a little concerned about uh as you might have gathered uh about kind of changing the process and and kind of not I mean I'm not gonna be on the EPC forever either it's not like I want I'm power hungry or anything like that. Um the but I do like having things vetted in in a in a more holistic way with uh you know lots of opportunities for public comment things like that. Um but then to some extent it does lead to uh burdensome like if you can't be more nimble in uh adapting regulations uh it just slows down the whole process. So um I think all things being you know considered I I generally support support this.

[02:14:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Donahue. Any other commentaries? No? No we don't have to. Well okay um I support this is my comment. Um all right I mean it sounds like uh there's encouraging signs of support for...

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: this, um, thank you for your question. Commissioner Donahue clarifying the scope of the two-year waiting period as pertains to G9 versus the zoning. Do we have a motion on the floor to move this forward? Commissioner Cranston has a motion on the floor. Any seconders? Commissioner Pham has seconded. Mr. Cranston, would you like to read the

[02:15:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I move that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 Zoning of the Mountain View City Code, update review procedures for private development applications with legislative amendments to zoning, general plan, and precise plans, and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act. To be written, title only, further reading waived. Exhibit one of the staff report.

[02:16:02] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner. Seems like we can take this to a vote. The motion passes 5 ayes and 2 absent. Thank you Mr. Clark. Alright. We will now proceed to Agenda Item 6: Commission, Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests, and Committee Reports. No action will be taken on questions raised by the Commission at this time. Any commentary, questions, updates, requests? Commissioner Cranston.

[02:16:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know whether other commissioners would be in favor of this, but the comment on the speaker earlier today is not the first time we've had the question of new development not having locations for delivery vehicles on-site. And I would personally like to see staff look at that and evaluate how might our codes be changed, and standards be changed, to address the fact that a large amount of activity around sites, particularly with less parking, are delivery vehicles. And we don't adequately account for that in our, I don't believe we adequately account for that in our current requirements. So I would like to see that, and if others would support that, then I would ask that staff look at that and come back to us with something on how that might be addressed.

[02:18:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If I may, I'll just mention that this issue has come up in the last two major planning processes that we've initiated as of late. The downtown precise plan and the Moffett Boulevard precise plan updates. So, those provide our first two opportunities to really think through this from an urban design and regulatory standpoint. And so I think those will be the opportunities for staff to develop their thinking about ways to approach that challenge. And so when those items come back, that's probably the best time to explore that.

[02:19:13] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I appreciate that. I was going to just go ahead and reiterate the request, because it has come up a couple of times. And I've been in the situation where there's just a truck in the middle of the road and everyone then has to like, move around it. And it's hard to even get out from behind. And if that happens time and time again along the same street, it's just, you know, defeating the purpose of the street. And it's something that, you know, we used to design for. And I had a question actually, and that is, whether or not when you put it in the design of urban, you know, into the urban design, is that something that can just be waived or conceded later on?

[02:20:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Quite possibly. Yes, I think that's the new reality that we operate within, which is that, despite our best planning, many types of regulations can be waived or concessions sought from developers. I don't think that means we should not do our best planning and encourage people to design their projects and to behave in the appropriate manner. And so I think we're coming at it with that intention.

[02:20:26] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sure. And in that case, then I would recommend definitely looking at the urban design in a way that makes it most natural to allow for that to happen. So that it's a win-win situation for everyone involved. For example, I know I bring it up a lot: I love alleys. Alleys serve a purpose. They don't take up much room. And if that is already in the street grid, or planned for, I think everyone will see that it's a win-win. It's a place to get all the deliveries, to put the garbage, it makes the front of the street that much nicer, adds to the walkability, the bikeability, all of it, no curb cuts or not as many. Um, so that is one example of a way to get it locked in, so that it is not something that can be waived or conceded. It's just part of the street grid. It's not easy to do in a suburban development as Mountain View mostly is, but if there's a way to get that in, I would recommend doing so. It helps a lot of the categories that we're trying to hit.

[02:21:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Yin. Any other announcements, updates, requests, committee reports?

[02:21:58] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I just, um, thank you Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the Planning Division. Just wanted to remind everybody we have the Celebration of Service Awards coming up on September 30th at 5:30 p.m. It's a Tuesday.

[02:22:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Ms. Pancholi. Final...

[02:22:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Next meeting... likely, not likely?

[02:22:30] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Um, I'm gonna double check that and circle back with the commission.

[02:22:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. We'll look...

[02:22:37] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: But, um, to the best of my knowledge, it is on track in October, yes.

[02:22:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yep. Alright. We'll be excitedly checking our inbox. Um. Alright. We will proceed to adjournment. The meeting is adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Thank you everyone.

Gap between 'Segment 1' and 'Segment 1'

[00:11:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you, Vice Chair Nuñez, and good evening, Environmental Planning Commission, not Committee. Um, I'll be doing the presentation tonight. I'm Wayne Chen, Housing Director. Ankie Vandersson, Rent Stabilization Manager, will be joining via Zoom along with Andrea Kennedy, Senior Management Analyst with the Rent Stabilization Division.

[00:12:09] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Legal Counsel to the Rental Housing Commission, Nazanin Salehi, and they'll be available to help us with questions if needed. Um, as mentioned, this item is regarding proposed amendments to the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. This item is one of the required elements under our Housing Element Program 3.2.

[00:12:37] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I'll just start with the recommendation first, um, which is to recommend that the City Council repeal the existing Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, which is in Chapter 36, amending Chapter 46 and adding the Tenant Relocation Assistance there. And we'll talk about that, um, in just a moment.

[00:13:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So the background on Program 3.2 for the Housing Element is that it contains the City's Comprehensive Tenant Displacement Response Strategy. Um, that strategy started as a Council Work Plan priority back in 2019. There are various elements. Program 3.2 has multiple elements, and reviewing the TRAO is one of them, and you'll see it verbatim here, um, on the screen, um, what the requirement was, which was to evaluate the efficacy of the TRAO in meeting anti-displacement goals.

[00:13:34] Housing Director Wayne Chen: In terms of the process, uh, we have been doing stakeholder outreach throughout the process, um, ever since 2019, uh, but then we also hold specific stakeholder meetings for individual pieces of Program 3.2. And for this particular piece of TRAO, um, we had stakeholder outreach meetings in the summer last year, which included meetings with tenants, developers, and property owners as well.

[00:14:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, we brought this item to the Rental Housing Committee as a study session, um, last November. Uh, the division and the Rental Housing Committee oversees tenant protection programs, and the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act, the CSFRA, um, also, um, overlaps and interacts with the, um, with the TRAO. So the Rental Housing Committee functioned as an advisory body to the, um, City Council in this instance.

[00:14:26] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, the Rental Housing Committee unanimously supported the framework that Council, uh, staff provided, and, uh, City Council held a study session last December and also unanimously supported the recommendations, which again we'll talk about in a moment. I'm tonight we're here in front of you because EPC, um, oversees or is part of the process to amend Chapter 36, and so that's why we're here tonight.

[00:14:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We just, um, also wanted to provide a little bit of state law context, um, because the TRAO includes various state law requirements related to SB 330, which is the Housing Crisis Act, um, the Ellis Act, and also other health and safety code requirements. Many of these requirements or several of these requirements include various noticing requirements, that's why you'll see them reflected in the charts, and, um, is part of the recommended amendments.

[00:15:18] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So just as a summary of what was discussed last year with the RHC and the Council, there were six areas that staff brought forward as ways to increase the efficacy of the TRAO. Um, with the data that we presented last year, uh, there were 43% of the tenants who were part of, uh, displacement projects that were able to relocate within Mountain View. 41% of the displaced tenants were able to, uh, relocate outside of Mountain View but within the Bay Area, and there were other folks who had to leave the state or, uh, relocated to other parts of the state.

[00:15:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And so that was part of the notion of, could the 43% be increased to be able to allow tenants to stay in, stay in Mountain View? Um, there were six items, and just briefly in terms of the challenges, I'll start with that and go to the recommendations, is that the current TRAO has a move-out date that is earlier, that is allowed to be earlier than what SB 330 allows. We'll talk about that in the chart in a moment, and that could cause tenants to move out sooner than they need to. So the recommendation was to add the later SB 330 move-out date to the TRAO and modify that.

[00:16:30] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, the second piece is another notice or a notice. Under our current TRAO, there is a Notice of Intent requirement, which requires an applicant, a developer to send information about the project to tenants within 30 days of filing a development application. That could also have an unintended consequence of a tenant looking at the information, thinking, oh, I have to leave, even though that's not the case. And so the second recommendation is just to have the NOI be at a later date, maybe more consistent with some other cities that have a later date requirement.

[00:17:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The third item is that in our current program, there are not provisions to deal with temporary displacement. For example, if a developer or landlord wants to make renovations, depending on the situation, they may be subject to permanent relocation costs, even though it's just a temporary situation. And so the recommendation was to add a new section specifically talking about a temporary situation and what options would be for those.

[00:17:34] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The fourth item was that under our current TRAO, there is an exemption that says if a city issues an enforcement order, perhaps in a situation where it comes to the city's attention that there are units that are not permitted or that they are not fit for habitation, that the city can come in, tag it, which would require tenants to move. In this situation, relocation benefits are actually not required, and the recommendation was to remove this exemption so that the benefits would be applied in those situations.

[00:18:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The fifth one was, so SB 330 has a provision that says in a demolition/redevelopment project, protected units need to be replaced, and they need to be replaced at certain levels. Um, SB 330 also has a first right of refusal for qualifying tenants, low-income tenants, to move back to the site in a new unit, and our TRAO doesn't have that. And so the recommendation was to add that, and that would codify the state requirement.

[00:18:41] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, finally, there was discussion about whether there should be an evaluation of increased benefits to increase that 43% essentially, whether it's greater benefits or some other criteria. So we'll talk about that in a moment. And so Council supported all of these recommendations and provided some additional framing for number six, additional benefits.

[00:19:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So by way of this chart, um, Amendment 1 seeks to illustrate how SB 330 adding the vacate date can help improve the situation. And this is just an illustrative example. Of course, an actual development may have different timing or the developer might choose to do slightly different things, but the illustrative example is in the left column. The current TRAO process is in the middle column, and the proposed amendments are in the right third column.

[00:19:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And what you'll see there in the middle column, there is a vacate date which essentially says the vacate date can be placed after a project is approved. So in this illustrative example, the vacate date, the developer sets it right after the project approval, which is in 4A. Um, by adding the vacate date, which is at least six months before the construction date, so tying the vacate date to the construction date rather than the project approval date, shifts 4A down to 4B and extends the timeframe by which a tenant can stay.

[00:20:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Amendment number two is putting that later Notice of Intent. As mentioned, the current requirement is a submittal of a notice of intent 30 days after the applicant files a development permit. And the recommendation is to move it to one year prior to the vacate date, which is concurrent with some other notices. Uh, we're also recommending that instead of this early Notice of Intent that would be submitted by the developer to the tenants, the City would come in with a City letterhead giving information to the tenants.

[00:20:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: It may feel like the same thing, but the idea is that if it comes from the City, it may be possible to better communicate to the tenants that they don't have to leave, and the thinking is that information might still spread about a development application, and folks might get worried, and so it would be helpful for information to come from the City. So the way this shows up is that the informational notice in 1B essentially replaces the developer notice in 1A. Um, and then the 1A, the Notice of Intent by the developer is shifted down to 2B in red, and you can see how that comes later on in the process.

[00:21:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, that one-year termination notice is a state requirement, so that is why it's in here as one year prior to the vacate date. Um, and this essentially is sort of a summary of the various notices that would be part of these TRAO amendments.

[00:21:49] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Amendment three is to add a temporary displacement section, which is what is proposed in your Attachment or Exhibit Number 1. Staff is recommending that temporary displacement be 90 days or less. In reviewing potential lengths of time for renovations, the thought is that 90 days provides sufficient time for renovations. It would allow the landlord to start a project and complete it. Um, longer than 90 days may start to drag out a bit and start to feel more permanent.

[00:22:24] Housing Director Wayne Chen: This section was modeled off of a actual temporary displacement situation that you may have heard of, the 660 Mariposa project, which was very successfully renovated and converted from a CSFRA project into a permanent deed-restricted housing project. And in that one, I believe the renovations took between two to three months. Um, and in that version of that project, there were three relocation options provided to tenants.

[00:22:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Council liked to have that many options, so those options have been included here as amendments. Um, it also includes moving and/or storage costs, which the 660 Mariposa provided. And also a first right of return for the original tenants to go back to the same unit once the renovations are complete. And then there's a situation here where we're recommending that if it exceeds 90 days, tenants can have some option to either continue in their current situation or opt to leave and receive the permanent relocation. Again, this was the effort to kind of balance, giving enough time for the landlord to do the renovations, but maybe mitigating some situations where it gets dragged out.

[00:23:38] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Amendment four is the exemption for City enforcement actions, as discussed a little bit earlier, and the amendment is simply just removing that exemption. However, staff is recommending having an exemption for if there is a situation where City red tagging needs to occur because the unit has been damaged or it's not habitable, but that it was not caused by the landlord's doing or efforts.

[00:24:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Amendment number five is adding the SB 330 Right of First Refusal. So essentially this is what we were talking about before. In a redevelopment project, when a new project replaces formerly protected units, this provision essentially codifies the state requirement and gives displaced tenants the first right to go back into the unit before it's offered on the market.

[00:24:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Staff is recommending that this remain consistent with SB 330 in terms of Right of First Refusal be offered to low-income tenants and not for tenants who are above that threshold. Um, this section also requires landlords to provide information so that the City can actually establish whether they're following SB 330 requirements. Um, and we're recommending that these pieces of information be part of a development application, so that the City can actually start evaluating the information at the beginning.

[00:25:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Oftentimes we do find information where we're not getting it at the beginning, and it really does come in on the back end, and it makes it very difficult for staff to be able to evaluate compliance with City programs. Uh, and so this requirement, the recommendation is also that these pieces of information need to be provided and need to be followed, otherwise the project could be at risk of voiding their entitlements or their permits.

[00:25:37] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Regarding Amendment number six, for increased benefits, Council recommended last year to increase benefits for the low-income group, up to 80% AMI, those households. And staff did due diligence across the comparison jurisdictions, how do other cities maybe treat this population and maybe provide some enhanced benefits for those most in need. And that was the intention for Council, that the 80% low-income group are the ones who are most in need.

[00:26:05] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, staff is recommending that the low-income household be included as part of the current definition of those who qualify for additional payments under the Special Circumstance Household definition. Um, so currently the definition includes a household with seniors or with school-aged children, and the recommendation is to expand that definition and add low-income households. And this is something that we see in other jurisdictions as well.

[00:26:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, Council also recommended a provision for moving costs for all tenants, regardless of income, unlike the previous one which was limited to the low-income group. Under the notion that, although there are higher-income folks, everyone is impacted to some extent, and so that, um, having at least moving costs for everyone would be, would be reasonable. Um, again, staff did a lot of due diligence, looking at other cities, talking with the City's own third-party relocation consultant, who advises other cities and implements tenant relocation in other jurisdictions.

[00:27:10] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And the recommendation is to have moving costs within 50 miles of their address currently. The thinking is that this provides a reasonable balance between being able to keep folks within the Bay Area, but it doesn't leave it open-ended and folks are maybe relocating to some distant place with a much higher cost. Um, and landlords have options here where they can either provide it directly or they can reimburse costs that tenants bear upfront.

[00:27:44] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And so finally, this was a recommendation that came after the Council and RHC meetings last year, is to recommend that the TRAO be shifted from Chapter 36 to Chapter 46. There are a few reasons for this. One is that just reviewing the projects and reviewing the ordinances that this is really not related to zoning, and Chapter 36 is zoning. Um, TRAO is also referenced in the CSFRA, as mentioned, and that is really overseen by the Rental Housing Committee.

[00:28:17] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And then finally, there is a Council strategic priority to review and perform code cleanups. And the intention is Chapter 46 would get expanded. Currently, it's the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Should this move to Chapter 46, it would start to bring that over. We are envisioning a couple of other ordinances forthcoming that would get consolidated under this Chapter 46 location. So that's an additional staff recommendation to make that move.

[00:28:49] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So the next steps is we currently have a public hearing scheduled for Council next month on the 28th of October. That would constitute the first reading of the TRAO amendments, and given the holidays, we're looking at the second reading the first meeting in December. So with that, that concludes the presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Segment 3

[01:49:42] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you Chair. Good evening honorable commissioners. I'm Community Development Director Christian Murdock. I'm joined on the dais this evening by Assistant Community Development Director Amber Brzezinski for this item.

[01:49:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We're here this evening to discuss City Code amendments to align with a City Council policy on Gatekeeper applications adopted in June of this year. A Gatekeeper application is a development project that requires a legislative amendment, such as a change to the City's General Plan or zoning map or standards, because the project as proposed would not comply with the City's adopted regulations.

[01:50:17] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The City's Gatekeeper policy stems from 2001 when Council determined a mechanism should exist to manage staff resources expended on processing applications that require legislative amendments. In June 2023, Council placed an update to the Gatekeeper policy on its two-year priority work plan. Council held study sessions and other discussions of the policy in 2023 and 2024. Staff brought a draft Gatekeeper policy to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee, or CPPC, for consideration in March 2025.

[01:50:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And most recently, Council adopted Policy G-9, establishing a new set of policies and procedures for processing Gatekeeper applications in June of this year.

[01:51:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The flowchart here helps to visualize the processes for the two types of Gatekeeper applications. The Streamlined Gatekeeper Application process allows an applicant to directly file a formal planning application and begin project processing. Staff will determine compliance with adopted criteria for Streamlined Gatekeeper applications at that time. No Council authorization hearing is required.

[01:51:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: For Standard or Regular Gatekeeper applications, an initial application must first be submitted to allow staff evaluation, rather, of consistency with adopted Council criteria. Once that evaluation is completed, applications are brought forward to a Council authorization hearing. At that time, Council will determine whether to allow a project to file a formal planning application and begin processing.

[01:51:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The Gatekeeper policy includes two categories for Streamlined Gatekeeper projects. The first is for 100% affordable housing projects. This expanded the affordable housing project category beyond the previous limitation to projects seeking funding through the City's notice of availability, City's Notice of Funding Availability, or NOFA process.

[01:52:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The second category is for projects of limited size that provide substantial community benefits. This replaces the two previous categories for projects on sites up to two acres that involved either an industrial to residential conversion or a site with split zoning. For a project to qualify in this category, it must meet the eligibility criteria based on project type and location, and also meet the mandatory performance criteria. The project must then also choose at least one of the selective performance criteria related to affordable housing, parks, trails, and plazas, or community facilities.

[01:52:46] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We'll now shift to discussing the Regular Gatekeeper application criteria. These criteria include eight categories that a project can address to demonstrate high-quality project design, alignment with Council policies and priorities, or provision of substantial community benefit. In general, the theme across these categories is to exceed any adopted City requirements. The policy provides examples of ways an applicant can incorporate characteristics from each category into a project. The first three categories are affordable housing, business retention and expansion, and parks and open space.

[01:53:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The categories continue with community facilities, transportation, and trees and biodiversity. And lastly, there are categories for historic preservation and sustainability.

[01:53:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Importantly, none of these categories are required for a regular Gatekeeper project. An applicant can propose a project addressing many or all of these categories, or none at all, and still be able to move forward to a Council authorization hearing. However, the policy encourages maximum alignment with the identified categories to increase the chances of favorable consideration by City Council.

[01:53:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The policy also includes a number of administrative provisions to help formalize and standardize the City's Gatekeeper process. These are intended to clarify how the City will process and consider Gatekeeper applications. Of note, the policy includes a requirement for Gatekeeper applicants to enter into a development agreement with the City to provide a mechanism to ensure provision of the community benefits offered by applicants during the Gatekeeper process.

[01:54:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Now that Council has established the substantive components of the Gatekeeper policy, it's necessary to amend the City Code to remove conflicting provisions and also to make reference to City Council Policy G-9, where it governs aspects of the Gatekeeper process. City Code amendments to Chapter 36 Zoning are necessary to achieve consistency with the Gatekeeper policy. And because these are zoning provisions, an Environmental Planning Commission recommendation is necessary before City Council can consider an ordinance amending the City Code.

[01:54:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Following the EPC's recommendation, City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the ordinance amending the City Code, and the City Council public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 14th.

[01:55:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Staff recommends that the EPC recommend City Council adoption of the draft ordinance included in the agenda packet, based on the recommended motion provided on screen, and in the agenda packet. Thank you very much.

• ← Previous
• Next →