Sept. 17, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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 speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak. It is small text, you're right. On which you wish to speak and turn them into 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.

[00:02:02] EPC Clerk: Um, yes. Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Donahue.

[00:02:08] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:02:09] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Yin.

[00:02:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:02:12] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:02:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:02:16] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham.

[00:02:18] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:02:20] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Nuñez.

[00:02:21] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:02:22] EPC Clerk: And Chair Gutiérrez. Um, all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Dempsey and Chair Gutiérrez.

[00:02:35] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I'm going to presume that Chair Pham would like to not be introduced as new for a third time. So, I will proceed with the approval of the minutes for which there is none. And so, we will speed this along to the oral communications 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 comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Mr. Clerk, do we have any speakers offering yellow cards or on the Zoom attendee list with raised hands?

[00:05:07] EPC Clerk: Um, there is no one present, uh, in person and no one online either.

[00:05:20] 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 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?

[00:07:18] EPC Clerk: There is no one present in the room, but we have, um, one person on Zoom. Uh, Robert Cox. We'll take that comment now. Okay. Give me one second.

[00:08:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Mr. Cox.

[00:08:33] Robert Cox: Okay, can you hear me?

[00:08:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We can hear you.

[00:08:36] 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 Mr. Deibel, um, Ms. Theobald, 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 as 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 five to ten 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.

[00:10:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Cox. Mr. Clerk, do we have any other speakers in the queue?

[00:11:41] EPC Clerk: There is no one else in the queue.

[00:11:45] 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?

[00:12:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Looks like we have a motion from Commissioner Yin and a second from Commissioner Pham. Shall we call the vote?

[00:12:28] EPC Clerk: Um, the motion passes um with five yeas and two absent.

[00:12:38] 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 Anky Vandersun and the City's Housing Director Mr. Wayne Chen.

[00:13:58] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, thank you, Vice Vice Chair uh Nuñez and good evening Environmental Planning Commission, not committee. Um I'll be doing the presentation tonight. I'm Wayne Chen, Housing Director. Um Anky Vandersun, Rent Stabilization Manager will be joining uh via Zoom. Along with Andrea Kennedy, uh Senior Management Analyst with the Rent Stabilization Division, uh Legal Counsel to the Rental Housing Commission, Nazanin Salehi, uh and they'll be available to help assist with questions if if needed. Um as mentioned, this item is regarding uh uh proposed amendments to the Tenant Relocation um Assistance Ordinance. Um this item is one of the required elements under our Housing Element program 3.2. I'll just start with the recommendation first um uh which is to recommend that the City Council uh repeal the existing Tenant Relocation Assistance um Ordinance which is in Chapter 36. Uh amending Chapter 46 and um adding the Tenant Relocation Assistance there, and we'll talk about that um in just a moment. So the background on program 3.2 for the Housing Element is that it contains um the City's comprehensive tenant displacement response strategy. Um that strategy started as a council work plan priority back in 2019. Uh 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 what the requirement was which was to evaluate the efficacy of the TRAO in meeting anti-displacement goals. Uh in terms of the process, uh we have been doing stakeholder um 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 uh meetings with tenants, developers, and uh property owners as well. 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 uh functioned as the advisory body to the uh City Council in this instance. Uh the Rental Housing Committee unanimously supported the framework that 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. Um tonight we're here in front of you because EPC um oversees uh or is part of the process to amend chapter 36 and so that's why we're here tonight. We just um also wanted to provide a little bit of state law um because the TRAO includes various state law requirements related to SB 330, which is the Housing uh Crisis Act, um the Ellis Act, and also um 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 uh recommended amendments. 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 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. 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 are six items and just briefly in terms of the challenges, I'll start with that and go to the recommen recommendations is that the current TRAO has um a move out date that is uh 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 uh move out date to the TRAO and and modify that. Um the second piece is um another notice or a notice. Under our current TRAO, there is a notice of intent requirement which requires um 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 um unintended consequence of uh a tenant looking at the information thinking, oh I 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, uh maybe more consistent with some other cities that have a later date requirement. The third item is that um in our current program there are not provisions to deal with temporary uh displacement. For example, if a developer or landlord wants to make renovations, um depending on the situation, um 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 um talking about a a temporary situation and what the options would be for those. Um the fourth item was that under our current TRAO, there is an exemption that says if a city issues an enforcement order uh perhaps in a situation where um it comes to the city's attention that there are units that are not permitted or that they are um not fit for um habi- for habitation that the city can come in, tag it, which would require uh tenants to to move. In this situation relocation benefits are actually not required and the recommendation was to remove this exemption so that the benefits uh would be applied in that situation. The fifth one was the uh, so SB 330 has a provision that says in a demolition redevelopment project, uh 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 uh uh tenants, low-income tenants to move back to a 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. 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. Uh and so council supported all of these recommendations and provided uh some additional uh framing for number six, additional benefits. So by way of this chart, um amendment one seeks to illustrate how SB 330 adding the vacate date uh can help improve the situation. And this is just an illustrative example. Of course, an actual development may have different different timing or the developer might choose to do slightly different um 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 uh third column. And uh 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 developer sets it right after the project approval which is in 4A. Um by adding the vacate date, um which is at least 6 months before the construction date, so tying the vacate date to to the construction date rather than the project approval date, shifts 4A down to 4B and extends the time frame by which a a tenant can stay. Um amendment number two is uh putting that later notice of intent. As mentioned, the current requirement is uh submittal of a a 30-day uh a notice uh 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. It may feel like the same thing, but the idea is that um if it comes from the city, it may be uh possible to better communicate to the tenants that they they don't have to leave. And um the thinking is that uh information might still spread about the about a development application and folks might get worried, and so it would be helpful for uh 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 uh in red. And you can see how that comes later on in the process. Um that one year termination notice is a state requirement, so that is um why it's in here as as one year prior to the vacate date. Um and this essentially is sort of a summary of of the various notices that would be part of these TRAO amendments. Amendment three is to add a temporary displacement section which is what is uh proposed, it's in your attachment or exhibit number one. Um staff is recommending that temporary displacement be 90 days or less. Uh and reviewing um potential lengths of time for renovations, the the um the thought is that 90 days provides sufficient time for renovations, it would allow the landlord to to start a project and and complete it. Um longer than 90 days may start to drag out a bit and start to feel more permanent. Um this section was modeled off of a actual temporary um displacement situation uh that you may have heard of, the 660 Mariposa project, which was very successfully renovated and and converted from a CSFRA project into a permanent deed-restricted housing project. And in that one I believe the renovations took uh yeah exactly between 2 to 3 months. Um and in that version of that project there were three relocation options provided to tenants. Um council liked to have that many of options, so those options have been included here as 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 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 uh landlord to do the renovations but uh maybe mitigating some uh situations where it gets dragged out. Amendment four is the um exemption for city enforcement um actions as discussed a little bit earlier. And the amendment is simply just removing that exemption. However, staff is recommending um 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, um but that it was not caused by the landlord's doing or or uh or efforts. Um amendment number five is adding uh 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 um displaced tenants the first right to go back into the unit before it's offered um uh uh on the market. Uh staff is recommending that this remain consistent with SB 330 in terms of first right of refusal be offered to um low-income um tenants and not for tenants who are above that that threshold. Um this section also requires landlord to provide information so that the city can actually establish whether they're following SB 330 requirements. Um and we're we're uh recommending that these uh pieces of information information be part of a development application so that the city can actually start evaluating the information at the beginning. Um 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 um staff to be able to evaluate um compliance with city city programs. Um and so this requirement, the recommendation is also that these uh pieces of information information need to be provided, need to be followed or otherwise um the project could be at risk of um you know voiding their entitlements or their permits. Regarding amendment number six uh for increased benefits, council uh recommended last year to increase benefits for the low-income group up to 80% AMI um those households. And um staff did do due diligence across the comparison jurisdictions, how do other um cities maybe treat this 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. Um staff is recommending that the low-income household be included as a part of the current definition of those who qualify for additional payments under the special circumstance household definition. Um so currently the definition includes um a household with seniors or with school-aged um children, and the recommendation is to expand that definition and add low-income households. And this is um something that we see in other jurisdictions as well. Council also recommended a provision for moving costs for all tenants regardless of income, unlike the previous one which was limited limited to the uh low-income group, um under the notion that um 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 um own third-party relocation consultant uh who advises other cities and implements tenant relocation in other jurisdictions. And um the recommendation is to have moving costs within 50 miles of of their address currently. The thinking is that this provides a reasonable balance between uh 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 uh reimburse costs that tenants bear up front. And so finally this was um a uh uh recommendation that came after the council and RHC meetings um last year is to uh 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 is zoning. Um TRAO is also referenced in the CSFRA as mentioned and that is really overseen by the rental housing committee. And then finally, there is a council strategic priority uh to review and uh perform code cleanups. Um and the intention is chapter 46 would get expanded. Currently it's the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance, um should this move to chapter 46, it would start to bring that over. We are envisioning a couple of other um ordinances forthcoming that would get consolidated under this chapter 46 um um location. So that's uh an additional staff recommendation to make that move. So the next steps is uh 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 uh the first meeting in December. Uh so with that that concludes the presentation and happy to answer any questions you may have.

[00:26:10] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chen. We will proceed to public comment for this item. 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.

[00:26:37] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, sorry to interrupt, but maybe we should check if we have any EPC questions first.

[00:26:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Yeah. That sounds good. Cool. All right. Any questions from the commissioners? Mr. Donahue.

[00:26:55] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I have a couple questions. Um, one is what's the history? Why is this in chapter 36 to start with?

[00:27:07] 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 that's just where it is. Yeah.

[00:27:17] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. I mean because as you said it's not really zoning specific, so 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?

[00:27:41] 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 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 limit. So that's how that would go up in tandem.

[00:28:19] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Um, and the... actually those are all my questions. Thanks.

[00:28:35] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[00:28:37] 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?

[00:29:05] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, thank you for the question. Um to staff's knowledge, 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 alternate 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 alternate 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 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 will would really take care of things.

[00:30:19] 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?

[00:30:38] 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 uh relocation consultant to track the information, who's receiving the notices, who's opting to um you know take the benefits, etc. 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.

[00:31:43] Commissioner Tina Pham: Great. Um I had a question about the 50 miles for capping moving transportation costs. What do other jurisdictions do?

[00:31:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, um 50 miles is a pretty common standard that what we were able to find in the comparison jurisdictions and then also in uh discussion with our relocation consultant um who advises other cities and implements tenant relocation in other jurisdictions. So that was the recommendation because it seemed to be the most prevalent standard where uh a jurisdiction has a moving cost provision.

[00:32:15] 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.

[00:32:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Right. Yes. Um 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, but which is 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 six 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 a as a clear a clear standard.

[00:34:11] 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?

[00:34:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Sure. Um maybe working backwards, the outreach was done really just as part of the stakeholder outreach process that 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 a development application uh you know for for this apartment, um do not move, uh um you will get information from the developer at the appropriate time for when you would need to move and the the dates would be specified then then. So um hang tight. And then it would give some information about the the TRAO program where to find the 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 timeframes 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.

[00:34:55] Commissioner Tina Pham: Got it. Thank you.

[00:35:52] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[00:35:56] 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... let's see here where's 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?

[00:36:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I'm going to take a first cut and draw my memory, but I would also like to see if um um Anky or Andrea um 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 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 was subject to both TRAO and SB 330 at the time and 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 that came up in the um in the ten tenant stakeholder uh meetings. Um let me pause there to see if that responded or if you would like some additional color.

[00:37:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I I think that's generally good. Um the follow-up question would be, has it been difficult to get the contact info for people who move? If they're moving early, you know they make plans, they go. Is it easy for staff to get that info? Or for the developer?

[00:38:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. So this is something that is coordinated with the um relocation con- consultant and with the developer. Um I know that there's a list that is kept and folks are are moving that there is um contact information, addresses, potentially phone numbers or emails. Um but some might not provide that information or some might subsequently move and may not update the the city about that. Um so I think there's a good percentage of folks that remain connected, but there's going to be situations where folks are either not providing the information or not uh updating the city with the information. I'm going to pause there to see if um Anky Vandersun or Andrea Kennedy have any additional information to provide.

[00:38:50] Rent Stabilization Manager Anky Vandersun: Um, hello uh committee, this is Anky Vandersun, 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, um that we capture uh more tenants, um because in general all tenants uh would be uh covered for moving cost. So we hope that all tenants will fill out their forms so we get a better uh return information from all the tenants.

[00:40:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. So it hasn't been a huge issue of being able to contact people that are qualified to be able to receive benefits.

[00:40:09] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think that's right. And thank you, Anky. Yeah, we we believe that most of the folks who don't initially register and provide information have done a self-selection process. And if your question is about those who have selected in to try to get um the benefits and whether um that has been a challenge, so I think uh that that we have good information and then it's really maybe identifying some opportunities for folks who might change their contact information getting those updates, but those who qualify typically do do register and we have their information. As Anky mentioned, this process may may uh motivate all tenants to register because they all tenants would at least get something, i.e. moving costs.

[00:41:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. Um 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 the full time even if they even though they can go faster? I mean how did you guess work that out with timing in in terms of various projects having various timelines?

[00:42:04] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. Um this is just an illustrative example. So 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 may vary. I think the dates to really pin down are the estimated construction uh uh beginning, start date, C, and then 4B, the the 6-month, 6 months prior to the construction date. And then 2B. 2B is a state requirement, it needs to be at least one year in advance of 4B. 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, where the project gets approved just kind of falls somewhere somewhere in the process. But 2B is a requirement and and 4B is uh a recommended TRAO timeframe. 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, and but but by the time you get to U which is between 2B and 3B, there's uh 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 of the update notice. Um that has been based on a- at least one project that had this happen multiple times, so this is getting built in as part of the recommendations.

[00:43:44] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, okay. So, um, I'm just trying to put myself in the in the place of a tenant. And um, I would imagine then the notice that they're getting might also include the full schedule of when they get noticed and the fact that this can change and on this date you'll be getting an update as to whether it changes.

[00:44:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. 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, 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 will minimize um that uncertainty. 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 did move. So you we'll have a mix of both, uh for the tenants who stay, they would benefit from this um uh information being described to them.

[00:44:54] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. And it's usually through a website or a phone number they can call?

[00:44:58] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Well, right. Like Anky had mentioned, those who sign up, they are on a list

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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 that 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.

[00:45:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: What has occurred in practice with a project is a notice would be sent to the tenants, oh, here's the new date, and you have an additional three months. And then before the additional three months concludes, we'd 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 concluding, another notice gets announced, says you have another three months. 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, what the timeline is.

[00:46:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. Thank you so much.

[00:46:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:46:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, that update notice was so tiny, I certainly didn't see it. So it's not unusual to see requests going to the ZA asking for extensions. So would that automatically trigger those notices?

[00:46:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: If a project does not need to go to council and it can be approved at a ZA, then that would be the B date for in the left column. And then the timing around the notices would still be the same. It just needs to be scheduled in a way that meets those noticing timeframes, whether it goes to council for approval or it can be approved at a ZA.

[00:47:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know if that answered your question. 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. So how would somebody know that and what procedure would there be for that kind of thing to get communicated to people aren't moving ahead of time? That's, I've seen a lot of things when I see it going to the ZA it's, can I extend my, can I can I get extend my development agreement? Can I extend my development agreement? So it's been approved, but it's not a year.

[00:47:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah. That's where the update notices would come in. And so that, I think it's a very far, far on the, in the memo, but it is a small, there. If a project continues to be shifted, there would be continued update notices. Typically staff is in contact with a developer and tracking how things are moving and as an extension is coming up, we would reach out or the developer reaches out, 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 occur in any project if the timeframe for the project continues to get delayed.

[00:48:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Second question. You include fire in the force majeure kind of things. What if the fire is caused by, you know, improper electrical to building? 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 hard to argue with. Natural disaster, I get. Fire, that's different. So how 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.

[00:49:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, that's a good question. There's a situation that has occurred pretty recently that is reflecting that where there was a fire. And, you know, I think part of this is developing some criteria around being able to determine whether a landlord caused the situation. But basically the recommendation is it would include fire. There's situations where maybe a tenant is knocking over a candle or something that causes the fire. So right now what we are proposing is including the situation, probably develop some criteria around being able to determine who is at fault or not at fault. And that's how we would envision, I think, implementing the program. But the fire is an example where there are situations where a landlord is not causing it. There could be examples where because of not upkeeping the building and there's a short or it causes a fire, then that may be attributable to not keeping the property maintained. So we don't get into that level of detail here and we would develop some criteria around that.

[00:50:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Well, I would certainly suggest that if a fire is caused because a tenant started the fire themselves, they don't get any relocation benefits. Okay. They shouldn't be paid to move if they light their place on fire. And I'm sure the city attorney has language out forced measure out there that can be used in this kind of thing. The 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 percent?

[00:51:24] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. So, yeah, you could have a household with school -aged children, whether or not that household is, if they're above 80% but they're in the 120% plus the 5,000, if they're in that category, they would get benefits plus special circumstance. 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.

[00:52:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Did you consider any other options more for with more proportionality?

[00:52:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We did take a look at what some of the other cities do. Some other options could be, rather than including low income into the special circumstance definition, you know, we could say, well, instead of three months of comparable rent under the TRRO, which is what it currently is, maybe it's four months of comparable rent. That's another way to provide enhanced benefits for the 80% AMI group. Those were the options I really came about during the due diligence is whether just providing more baseline requirements and not treating them as special circumstance or including that group as special circumstance, which is the way that many other cities handle that situation.

[00:52:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then, you'd said at the very beginning that one of the goals was to try to encourage more people to stay. What in this accomplishes that?

[00:53:09] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Well, having a temporary displacement provision can help, so folks aren't unnecessarily moving out of the city in a renovation situation, for example. The other piece is just having some additional benefits. If you are a special circumstance, if you're a low income, just having some additional benefits could assist. That doesn't address the fact that housing is just expensive here. And but having more benefits and more resources to be able to move, to be able to have a higher dollar amount for the benefit could at least increase the likelihood, it doesn't necessarily guarantee it, but it would increase the likelihood, we believe, if it's a greater amount than what currently exists.

[00:54:03] 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. And so the the relocation assistance program is part of that. Why is that not a component that we should be considering as part of evaluating projects? Land use is not just dirt, it's impact in the community. And this... It's not apparent to me what how that gets addressed and how that connects back in to by removing it from something that we take a look at.

[00:54:51] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I believe the intention is not that EPC wouldn't have the ability to provide recommendations about the project. It's really just a whether the any future amendments need to go through and come to EPC for amendments. But as you are reviewing a project going forward, you would still be evaluating the whole project which has the relocation components. It's really the amendment process that 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.

[00:55:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I hear your answer.

[00:55:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right, I have a few questions. I guess for Ms. Vandersun if she's or Ms. Kennedy. I'm just curious, it's my understanding is that this did go before the RHC and from all appearances it appears that there was support for this. I'm wondering if possible could you characterize briefly just kind of like the the disposition of the RHC toward this, toward this, these amendments, kind of like the discussion and outcome.

[00:56:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I could provide a response. They were in unanimous support of the recommendations.

[00:56:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, thank you. When it comes to the alternate end mitigation, that is also something that I was thinking about. Yeah, that 660 Mariposa project was very interesting, uh, as it was happening. And that was a very interesting circumstance available at that time, very specific. But nonetheless, one thing I am curious about, and I think you, Mr. Chen mentioned the word equivalent in that language, let's see, mitigation. I'm wondering in the crafting of that, was there any explicit consideration or discussion when drafting for language that, to any extent or effect required or directed some equivalent value within the alternative mitigation. Because right now the way it reads to me is it seems like it says it may include these things, but it's not limited to these things, and then counsel gets to decide that. And it doesn't seem to me, you know, I mean, as much as we love our current counsel today, I'm sure, it just I don't know that counsel is always in the like best position to know even an alternate mitigation works for the tenants. And so I'm curious to what extent was there any consideration around you know outreach to tenants as part of this process, getting their input on if the alternate mitigation meets their needs, some formal recommendation from staff as part of the process, whereby there's some, you know, formal guidance included on, hey, this is equivalent not just from a monetary perspective, but also from a functional perspective, right, because there's a value in being able to either relocate physically or sustain tenancy for a period of time that's outside of just the raw three month plus $5,000 value. So then all along within that context, was it discussed explicitly to craft language in a way where equivalent value is explicitly called for and with a formal process for staff to make that recommendation to council if not also including tenant input as part of that process?

[00:59:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thanks for that question. Alternate mitigation itself wasn't specifically identified as a focus area. However, if this is something that EPC feels that it would be a good recommendation to make to Council, we would, we would include that in the summary in our in the Council report and Council could certainly direct staff to to to include certain provisions that aren't currently in the alternate mitigation section.

[00:59:45] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Chen. I also seems a little minor, but yeah, with the move into the chapter 46, I don't know if it's section, chapter, whatever we call it. Number 46. Is that read line where it says just housing, is that like the working title or is part of a cleanup just like is that what staff is thinking, like housing? Or is it just a placeholder?

[01:00:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: 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 civilization ordinance. By calling it housing broadly then the MHR SO would just be one article underneath that chapter.

[01:00:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Does staff feel that 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 if there is some kind of like impact on on alignment. Did staff consider like tenancy or tenant protect, like housing and tenancy or something to that effect? Because it feels like a lot of this happens to align with renting households, if that makes sense, versus just broadly like housing?

[01:01:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think I'm following. What you're seeing here is with the MHR SO that you a protection program with this one getting moved there's another protection program but we are envisioning other programs that are not specifically related to tenant protection programs and that's why the intention is that this would be broader because there will be future items that are not not related to those items.

[01:01:46] Chair José Gutiérrez: So so there's no is there no impact by expanding the scope a little bit or not expanding the scope like housing and tendency or housing and renting or something like that?

[01:01:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think it would be a little bit more narrow, and having a broader would allow it to be the place for various housing related items.

[01:02:04] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, sounds good. I also have a question relating to the right of return. It can always get confusing tracking between right of return, right of refusal, wait did I, I guess I'm just curious, can you just speak to that a little bit more in a more streamlined manner? I'm particularly thinking of a couple scenarios, one being where a housing construction project, and maybe this is no longer the case under SB330, but where there's few rental units or few units that get delivered on site above what was already existing there, maybe even we could imagine like 100% right, like like for like, if that right of return would apply. And then also if you could just kind of like, you know, assuming that, you know, we have one of the more common construction or 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, the interplay between temporary temporary relocation and whether or not there was some analysis done whereby it is deemed that the temporary relocation would enable the tenants to maintain residency in the area such that they could execute that right of return.

[01:03:43] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think I'm tracking with what you're asking. Let me try to respond. So in the TRAO amendments, the terms temporary displacement has a particular meaning, which is 90 days or less. In a redevelopment project, it's going to be permanent. So they're in the permanent bucket. Under program 3.2, there are other items that ask staff to evaluate alternatives to displacement. Under that one, which we have not been able to really carve out, the ability 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. And so that's how we've termed it in the past is is making it real. And though that work item is a forthcoming one that we need to work on, some of the ideas that have been floated have been for example, could there be a partnership with existing landlords who have vacant units and they can house the displaced tenants in an alternative building. Actually, part of the current displacement provisions in the ordinance is to be able to relocate someone within another unit of the current project. For example, if only part of the building is getting demolished 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, those are all I think concepts of how do we deal with this interim situation. So we'll work on that a little bit more. But some of that is contemplated in the draft amendments by finding replacement housing units rather than providing the benefits. And then a tenant could choose to live in this other unit on the interim basis and return, or they may just want to stay in that unit permanently.

[01:05:51] Chair José Gutiérrez: Got it. Thank you. That does make sense, Ben. Because there is that distinction between tempo, yeah. Temporary and then temporary temporary. Yeah. With the comparable units, does that include amenities? I know there's like discussion around like the future of parking minimums and things of that nature that might shift this a little bit, but to the extent possible, does the comparable unit include access to amenities like common areas, you know, like washing, parking allotment, etc?

[01:06:27] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We have recommended creating a definition section that includes the term "comparable," and I'll just read it: "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."

[01:06:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: Mm, okay. And is that is that because the future parking minimums is like hazy or is amenities typically inclusive of parking?

[01:07:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think the idea is that we would just leave it broad and then evaluate the project as it comes in. In the situation where there is a relocation to another CO vary building typically those buildings have existing parking so the situations where there might be lower parking ratios are really in the new projects.

[01:07:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, that is helpful. Um, I know I had one last question. Might come back to me. Nope. Okay, that's fine. I might reprocess that. Oh, yep. Um, that table, we don't ha- if we need to go back to it then we must, um, with the dates. This might sound like a paranoid scenario, but I've worked with tenants who had reason to wonder if that, if this is a scenario that was happening, whereby there is, you know, like someone submits an application for redevelopment. People get spooked, people leave, and now I can, you know, effectively clear out people and have that get raised up to market rate and then withdraw. I guess that process, the new noticing process. What like I guess, how confident and why you know, in terms of speaking this is this confidence level, but what's a confidence level from staff of this new process being able to address a scenario such as that or mitigate that?

[01:09:26] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Overall, we think this is going to be an improvement to the Trail because it first shifts developer required notices to a later date. Second, we are recommending a city informational notice, and the notion is that if the information comes from the city, that can help provide information and allow the tenants to know that it's coming from a source of information that they can trust. And then on the development application side, the recommendation is to include information that needs to be provided, such as the unit inventory, tenant information. And there are implications with the development project if they don't provide that information. So we think both from a noticing perspective, shifting it out, something from the city, plus the development application perspective, required information, impacts your project if that is not provided, in combination, constitutes overall improvement to the efficacy of Trale and mitigating situations where tenants are, for whatever reason, just leaving too early.

[01:11:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: And is there some way, like if this was a scenario that played out, say that, you know, there's a property owner that has multiple rental properties, and let's just assume we have like the one bad apple of landlords, where, you know, this has been observed that they've done this once, is there any kind of like way of either flagging or just having some situational awareness from the city's part, you know, when applications for this property owner are submitted as an extra kind of like attentiveness, if that makes sense, or or penalties of some kind that you've seen from other cities? Like, I'm just curious about that.

[01:12:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We don't, we're not proposing any type of sort of a three strikes and you're out type thing or that we would treat applicants differently. 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 and just ensuring each project is, is following the requirements.

[01:12:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right, sounds good. Thank you very much. Any other questions from the commissioners? No? Okay. All right. Seeing no more questions, we'll 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. 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 cards submitted or any Zoom attendees with the raised hand in the queue?

[01:13:31] EPC Clerk: Uh, we do not have anyone present in the room, nor do we have any attendees with their hands raised on zoom.

[01:13:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, seeing no speakers then, we will now take it back to the commission for deliberation and action. Commissioner Yin.

[01:13:58] 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. 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 if there was implications. But the idea when you do notice to have either a phone number that they can call at any time 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 by every Monday, the end of every Monday for the progress ongoing, we will have our updates, I don't know, 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. 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. 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 feel like they can get information easier.

[01:15:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:15:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm, amendments one through five, I'm, I get, and seen positive. I am uncomfortable with the blanket change in the in the amendment six. It seems it seems there should be some level of proportionality associated with it. And it maybe it's tied to amendment seven. If somebody gets $20 ,000 to move to Tracy versus $20 ,000 to move to Sunnyvale and they're in the barrier and they're close, I feel better about that, okay. So maybe it's, I'm, I'm messing with the system here, but a 50 mile distance seems excessive to me and maybe if it's, if it is 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. And if there was a way to say, okay, if you're if you're if you're moving to some place within 10 miles, because that's, you know, I could 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. And so I guess I don't know whether it's, the 50 miles seems excessive to me. It's certainly, Gilroy, I guess maybe 50 miles away, I don't know what the distance is, didn't measure it, but certainly Tracy falls into that, and it seems like a long distance, and I'd be like, I'd like, at the very least on the on the on on on the benefits of something that's reflective of the the size of the household, rather than just a blanket, and maybe there's the 50 seems like a a long way to me. So those are my two concerns I have of the individual amendments. I am personally unpersuaded about the recommendation to move this into Chapter 46. I don't... I'm not... I'm not getting it. It's not persuasive to me. So I'm... So that's kind of how I look at it. One through five, thumbs up, six, and he 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.

[01:17:12] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Donahue.

[01:17:15] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So on the proportionality thing it seems to me that most not everything but but many things in here are tied to three months rent and if you're renting a you know you have a large family you're renting a three bedroom versus renting a one bedroom you're going to get more the large family will will end up getting more benefits just naturally from that relocation costs you know you're moving a three-bedroom apartment so you're going to have more it's going to cover the costs of the additional bedrooms and the additional people that are that are getting moved so to me that it it does seem somewhat proportional not everything is is proportional uh one thing that's not proportional is just $5,000 I 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 who 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 um so I mean raising it to 124 percent 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 dollars, you know, assuming $5,000 is 4%, I just made that up, but, uh, uh, and the $5,000 is actually not proportional because it doesn't say anything about the number of people, whereas AMI is actually dependent on the, the number of, uh, people in the household. Um, anyway, that's in the existing ordinance, I guess, so it's not, um, it's it's just kind of a a weird thing to me. Um, the yeah broadly I'm I'm in favor of of these things. I I like that the the initial notice the city informational notice step comes from kind of a a neutral party. 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 gonna 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 usually go bad places and I think it's it's useful to 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.

[01:21:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Pham.

[01:21:03] Commissioner Tina Pham: I had some thoughts. So 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 developers to redevelop and make improvements is also very important. So this is a nice balance. I had some thoughts about the amendments. 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. 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, in Mountain View. So adding like a higher number, or higher percentage, or some sort of additional bonus for those who choose to stay in Mountain View might be something staff could consider. Also, I agree with staff moving the section out of Chapter 36. I get what you guys are trying to do with the other section and continuing code improvements in alignment with the Council Strategic Plan, so I appreciate that. I guess that's all my main comments, and generally support of the amendments.

[01:22:32] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. I'll speak to this. Yeah, I feel encouraged by this. I very strongly agree with Commissioner Yin around the need for some updated, updatable, and accessible means for residents to be able to easily check on the status of their relevant, potential displacement project. The status of that. You know, there are things that I guess is also kind of potentially a question before I go down this long commentary, or not too long. 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 with things like, hey this is now going to ZA or hey, this is going to DRC, this is the outcome of that, here's the next meeting, is there any requirement like that?

[01:23:57] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I don't think there's a current requirement. Maybe I would ask Anky or Andrea whether that sort of information is being implemented just by practice. So maybe I'll turn it over to one of them.

[01:24:14] Rent Stabilization Manager Anky Vandersun: Uh, thank you. Um, uh, we currently have a very, uh, frequent contact between tenants and the consultant and staff. Um, we uh reach out on a regular basis on the status of the project, but that's not currently codified in the trail.

[01:24:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I, in terms of that friendly suggestion or amendment or I forgot how you phrased it completely, but I mean, I, I very strongly agree with that. I think there if I could, you know, have a way to weigh to recommend a city council that, you know, the and the burden on this really ought to be as much as possible on the developer. You know, it's wonderful as our city website is, it's not a you know, yourdevelopmentproject.mountainview.gov, kind of easily to you know, like, access website, with milestones, key dates, you know, next steps, opportunities to engage. You know, that level of transparency, whether on a website or, you know, required to be taped on someone's door. You know, in my experience working with tenants would go a very long way in helping people time a move, decide whether to move, or even know I don't have to move. Or even just at a more foundational level, not live scared. And so I would very much strongly support some accessible information clearinghouse I don't know what how you might characterize that Commissioner Yin. 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. Along those lines though, I also like the idea of a bonus of whether it's encouraging or enabling a closer kind of like level of relocation, I think that is helpful, to Commissioner Pham's point. And also I think it kind of connects some of the dots on the reality that there's few housing units to go around in this area and they tend to be more expensive than ones 40 miles out, 50 miles out. The other thing I would, you know, in terms of you know putting up for the commission in terms of you know something that see if it gets support is in that alternative mitigation. Another kind of like friendly just idea recommendation is, uh, you know, to to explicitly stating 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 a clear analysis that is formally submitted as part of the process to counsel saying,

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We've assured this is an equivalent package. And like in these XYZ, ABC ways, this is what I'm saying.

[01:30:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: If I could say it back, there is a section 46.2-3.10 which is the alternative mitigation and it has language about, alternative to providing the required assistance a 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 equivalent value or some such.

[01:30:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yup, I'm hearing support for that, Commissioner Cranston supports, I support.

[01:30:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: I'm going to chime in, yep, okay. I had a question, so would that be staff providing additional guidance and like writing out procedures about how they would evaluate alternative mitigations? And that's separate from any proposed additional changes to the code? Is that the approach we're going?

[01:31:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Just sort of thinking here. There's an analogy with our BMR program, where there's alternative mitigation in the code, but we have guidelines to implement it, and that's where the more specific criteria live. And I would recommend that if this were information passed to the Council, and Council wanted it added, that that's how we would implement this provision.

[01:32:19] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay.

[01:32:22] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other comments, Commissioner Yin, did you still have an additional comment? Or are you in the queue?

[01:32:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was, and I just wanted to clarify. So I know there's concern about the, like, 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 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, get more money, gas money, whatever. So I'm okay with the 50, you know, you guys have evaluated the other cities have the same thing. I'm not averse to that. I don't know about the bonus for staying in Mountain View, because Sunnyvale's 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, you know, maybe they can't, they have to move to Tracy, but then they're going to 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'm a little torn on that. I think if staff has already evaluated that this is the way to go, I don't want to parse it out so many levels that, you know, you get bonus. But we already have... I'm trying to simplify. 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, though I know I do it. Just for this particular one, I'm saying, I don't want to get too much in the weeds.

[01:35:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I know I could go either way on that. Commissioner Donahue? Pham? Cranston?

[01:35:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, let's do a quick straw poll. Who wants to keep the amendment to 50 miles as staff is proposing? Straw poll in three, two, one.

[01:36:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: No? How am I voting? I will, I'll, I'll agree to that. So I think that will, that gets majority support. Cool. It sounds like, we've, Commissioner Cranston's on the queue.

[01:37:07] 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, there was some additional value if they stay in Mountain View, that, to me, encourages them, the goal here is to get them to stay. That's, to me, the goal. Okay, if they range, if they move 50 and come back, that's cool, but if it's... So if there's something that, 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 more interested in that, in that, than saying we're going to take the 50 miles out. Does that make sense?

[01:38:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I know, I know I could go either way on this. I'm hearing Commissioner Yin saying, you know, it'd be good to not overcomplicate matters. I am hearing Commissioner Pham and Commissioner Cranston trying to find a path toward helping sustain local residencies, even temporarily, which there's merit in. I guess, like, Commissioner Yin, I know that you mentioned, you know, we have, like, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, is your, kind of, is your view, would it be more helpful to have, like, a radius, for example, like, 10-mile, 25 miles, 50, some proportional view on that, or what are your thoughts?

[01:39:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I guess I assume the 50 miles was the, sort of, radius that they were going for. I get, unless there's 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 going to... I'm open to that, but I mean if it's not overcomplicating it for staff.

[01:40:28] 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 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 develop 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.

[01:41:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So then it seems like that previous straw poll will be able to stand. And then Commissioner Cranston, are you, is that just general like ideation for staff, or are you looking for just like your feedback incorporated into the, in the earlier item, that it gets incorporated into the...

[01:42:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: To encourage that to be incorporated into the, into the guidelines.

[01:42:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Yeah. Any discussion on that?

[01:42:19] 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... okay.

[01:42:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So, support? I can support that.

[01:43:27] 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, it should actually save the developer money if they move the 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 them... 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... 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 the household.

[01:44:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think we'll have to evaluate that. There's one piece of information that maybe might be helpful. These are benefits for the Treo, but SB 330 benefits also exist in parallel, and when staff is evaluating the total benefit package, it is a comparison between the Treo relocation amounts and SB 330 amounts. This was provided in more detail in the council memo, but in perhaps the majority of cases, the SB 330 benefits are likely to prevail and they could be substantially higher than the Treo amount. So with the moving cost plus SB 330, that is a, that could be a much larger package. And it's really the, it's really the relocation benefits that would allow people to be able to stay in Mountain View. 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 shorter move, that there should be a requirement that they pass on the conceptual cost savings to a household that's moving closer. I think we'd probably just have to maybe analyze that a little bit more and maybe a little bit more complicated and we'd probably have to just look at some other factors.

[01:47:12] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So is the re... you're recommending that just staff evaluate what can be done within this? Okay, I'm for that, so I'll change.

[01:47:20] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yeah, I agree with that.

[01:47:22] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Perfect. Sweet. Unanimous. Unanimous. Unanimous support on that. That works. So then any other last minute commentary? Questions? No. Yeah, yeah, so we basically have the recommendation from staff, plus the recommendation for information noticing, like enhancements, and the alternate mitigation equivalency, and the differential monies of relocation cost to tenants. So that would be what's potentially up for action. Do we have a motion? Yup.

[01:49:03] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So none of those things, though, would amend the proposed code. I think they're all just, okay, got it.

[01:49:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: They're all added guidance to staff to take to Council. Yup. Ms. Pancholi, do... Does that guidance require any differentiation in language from the script, or what would suffice for anyone wanting to craft the motion?

[01:50:23] Planning Manager Diana Pancholi: So maybe you can, you know, when you're making the motion, we can say this is the recommendation as modified by the Planning Commission.

[01:50:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, then I guess I'll make the motion. Since I have the, since I have the paper. Anyone want to second my motion? All right, Commissioner Pham. Okay, sweet. So then the motion on the floor is 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... No, this is not it. This is the next agenda item. Oh. That wasn't stapled. That was my, that was my failing. This is all going, everything's under control. Yup, perfect. Okay, sweet. Third time's a charm, perfect. The motion is, yep, that the Environmental Planning Commission 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 that have been supported by the Commission for, including enhanced noticing, and for explicit statement of equivalency analysis as part of the alternate mitigation programs, as well as a potential payout of differential monies associated with relocation costs to tenants.

[01:53:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Excellent. Thank you, Director Murdock. Questions from the commission?

[01:53:56] Commissioner Tina Pham: I had a few questions. I read that there's a minimum waiting period of two years for substantially similar applications that were not authorized to resubmit. Why two years, and how does it compare with other jurisdictions?

[01:54:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh, 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. 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 require them to come back after that waiting period to then re-envision the project at a later date, to ensure that again, we're encouraging applicants to submit their best proposals. As far as comparing to other jurisdictions, that's not a criteria that we've benchmarked across other jurisdictions with gatekeeper or gatekeeper-like processes, so I don't have an answer to that specific question.

[01:55:13] Commissioner Tina Pham: Second.

[01:55:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Cool. We will take this to a vote.

[01:55:30] EPC Clerk: The motion passes, with five yay and two absent.

[01:55:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Sounds good. Sweet. We'll move on to item 5.3. As you guys can tell, I do this all the time. So it's going well. Oh yeah. All right, thank you Mr. Chen. Sweet. Okay, moving forward. We are now proceeding to item 5.3, requests 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.

[01:55:39] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. I just had a general question about the percentage of projects that go through the gatekeeper process versus the streamlined process. Any sort of idea about the split?

[01:55:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It's difficult to speculate. There are trade-offs for projects that are looking to go through the new streamlined process, and it's hard to compare what might occur with that new streamlined process compared to the prior streamlined process, which had very different criteria. I can just compare to the number of regular gatekeeper applications versus streamlined applications over the last couple of years, and there were several streamlined applications versus just two regular applications submitted for the last year's authorization in 2024.

[01:57:03] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. All right, thank you.

[01:57:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Donahue.

[01:57:08] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So Policy G9 went through a big process and got adopted by the City Council. What is the process for amending that policy, and how does that compare with the process that would have taken place if everything were actually in the ordinance to start with, and we wanted to amend the ordinance?

[01:57:13] 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. 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. 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. And most recently, Council adopted Policy G9, establishing a new set of policies and procedures for processing gatekeeper applications in June of this year. 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. For standard or regular gatekeeper applications, an initial application must first be submitted to allow staff evaluation 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. 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. 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. 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. The categories continue with community facilities, transportation, and trees and biodiversity. And lastly, there are categories for historic preservation and sustainability. 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. The policy also includes a number of administrative provisions that 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. 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 G9 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. 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 14. 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.

[01:57:33] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So with Council Policy G9 being adopted by resolution, a resolution of the City Council can amend that policy. And wherever it's referenced 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 an updated policy. That contrasts with amendments to the city code which are effectuated by ordinance, which require a recommendation from the Environmental Planning Commission, and then a public hearing by the City Council in order to enact those 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 at a subsequent meeting, and so it's a much more intensive and time-consuming time-consuming process to adopt City Code amendments by ordinance, as compared to this more streamlined process to adopt updated resolutions and policies that way.

[01:59:12] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, the... if the... what was I going to say? Okay, thank you.

[02:00:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[02:00:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, this might be a dumb question. I know in the housing element it says that we have to 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. Am I reading that...

[02:00:35] 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 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 6 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'll start to kind of figure out when that authorization hearing should take place, and then, you know, just work accordingly towards that.

[02:02:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I want to clarify, 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 to hold those hearings in the housing element for non-residential projects.

[02:02:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, and do we have any?

[02:02:24] 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, right, rules, that are kind of working their way through right now.

[02:03:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I see, okay. Thanks.

[02:03:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: Oh, thanks. I had a follow-up question based on Commissioner Donahue's questions. Um, so if more of a clarification question, so if Council wanted to pass a resolution to alter City Council Policy G9 in the future, um, would those proposed changes need to go through CPPC?

[02:04:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: No, they would not be required to go through the Council Policy and Procedures Committee. It's possible the Council could refer it and seek the input, but it's not a requirement.

[02:05:01] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So kind of following on that, I remembered the question I was going to ask. You said that to amend the city ordinance, it would have to go through the EPC and Council and second reading and all that stuff. 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?

[02:05:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Updates to Council Policy G9 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 environmental planning commission recommendation to city council.

[02:05:45] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so this, this reduces our input. This action tonight would reduce our involvement in the process basically.

[02:05:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It would change the role that the Environmental Planning Commission has in recommending gatekeeper-related policy.

[02:06:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, thank you.

[02:06:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, my question, Commissioner Murdock, could you characterize the change in the role of the EPC, um, or other kind of like deliberative processes, um, yeah could you just characterize that just kind of piggybacking off of Commissioner Donahue's, how would the role change or be reduced or etc.

[02:07:14] 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, is not something that would typically come to this body.

[02:08:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: That sounds good. Um, so then when it comes to projects that would be aligning to the business relocation, um, you know, historic preservation, basically you know, the correct categories in the table that we saw as part of the presentation, um, we would probably just, in terms of that evaluate authorized 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 intensive, is that fair to say?

[02:09:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well, I think it's important to recognize that the City Council maintained a role for the Environmental Planning Commission in the review of projects submitted, 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, it's not as though the EPC will never have any interaction with gatekeeper projects that are submitted through the regular process. It's just that that initial authorization decision is one that council directly undertakes.

[02:10:27] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, and I have no attachment because I won't be on the Planning Commission forever. Um, but along those lines though, I do have a question on the category component. Is it all, some, one, like, for example, um, business retention, like if a developer hits just one of those bullet points, say they provide lease subsidies, does that one criteria... or meeting that one specific criteria get them through, or how would you characterize like the number of, the degree or extent of adherence to some of these categories that would warrant or enable a streamlined movement through the process?

[02:12:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So the business retention component that you described is part of the regular gatekeeper project criteria. And so that's not something that would be subject to the streamlining. With that established, the number of criteria including business retention or others is not defined. An application can go forward with one, with all of them, with none of them. And that was a critical element of the City Council's deliberation of this policy. 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 didn't want that to be a mandatory component, so that a project that may maybe doesn't have deep economic ability to provide more traditional community benefits, 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 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 suggested categories.

[02:14:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that. No more questions for me. Commissioner Donahue.

[02:14:08] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I'm just... I guess I'm just on one topic tonight. But the... Yeah, and I appreciate that, yeah, we would still be involved in any amendments to Chapter 36. But there are large sections that are removed from Chapter 36, put into the policy, and now it just says see the policy. So we would no longer be involved in amending what was previously in those sections and what is now in that policy. That's kind of, generally, my question. I think the answer is yes, right?

Segment 4

[02:15:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[02:15:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, I appreciate that. I was going to just go ahead and reiterate the request, um, because it has come up a couple of times. And, um, you know, 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.

[02:15:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And if that happens time and time again along the same street, it's just, you know, defeating the purpose of, of the street. And it's something that, you know, we used to design for. And I, I had a question actually, and that is whether or not, when you put it in the design of, you know, into the urban design, is that something that can just be waived or conceded later on?

Segment 3

[02:15:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's correct. To the extent there is something that is no longer in the city code, there will no longer be a role for EPC recommendation to City Council on such matters.

[02:15:38] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. And that... fair enough, and that may be appropriate, I just, I just want to be clear on that. Thank you.

[02:15:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Donahue. Any other commentaries? No? No. We don't have to. Well, okay. I support this is my comment. Um... Alright. I mean, it sounds like, uh, there's encouraging signs of, uh, support for this. Um, thank you for your question, uh, Commissioner Donahue, clarifying, uh, the scope of, um, the two-year, uh, waiting period. Um, 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 motion?

Segment 4

[02:15:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Quite possibly. Yes, I think that's the new reality that we, we operate within, which is that, um, despite our best planning, um, many types of regulations can be, um, waived or concessions sought from developers.

[02:16:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, 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.

[02:16:58] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sure. And, and in that case, then I, 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.

[02:17:07] Commissioner Joyce Yin: 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.

Segment 3

[02:17:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I move that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend that 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 precise plans, and finding that amendments are exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act, to be read in title only, further reading waived, exhibit 1 of the staff report.

Segment 4

[02:17:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: For example, I, 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.

[02:17:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: It's not easy to do in a suburban development as Mountain View mostly is. But if there is a way to get that in, I would recommend doing so. It helps a lot of the categories that we're trying to hit.

Segment 3

[02:17:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner. Seems like we can take this to a vote.

Segment 4

[02:17:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: It's a place to get all the deliveries, to put the garbage, it makes the front of, of the street that much nicer, adds to the walkability, the bikeability, all of it. No curb cuts or not as many.

[02:17:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Yin. Any other announcements, updates, requests, committee reports?

Segment 3

[02:17:44] EPC Clerk: The motion passes, five yay and two absent.

[02:17:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clark. All right. 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?

Segment 4

[02:17:51] 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.

[02:18:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Ms. Pancholi.

Segment 3

[02:18:09] Commissioner Bill Cranston: For those of you who were 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, is 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 for years, and we need this. So I am all for it.

Segment 4

[02:18:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston would like to know the next meeting.

[02:18:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Next meeting, likely, not likely?

[02:18:21] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Um, I'm going to double-check that and circle back with the commission.

[02:18:27] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: But, um, to the best of my knowledge, it is on track in October. Yes.

[02:18:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah. All right. We'll be excitedly checking our inboxes. Um, all right. We will proceed to adjournment. The meeting is adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Thank you, everyone.

Segment 3

[02:18:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Cranston.

[02:18:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know whether other commissioners would be in favor of this, but the comment from 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.

[02:20:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: 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 a 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.

• ← Previous
• Next →