June 17, 2026, Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: All righty, uh, good evening everyone. Uh, welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of June 17th, 2026. I will call the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, we... yeah, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to EPC@mountainview.gov by 4:30 PM on the meeting date. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them 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.

[00:02:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:02:23] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Here.

[00:02:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Pham.

[00:02:27] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:02:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Gutiérrez.

[00:02:29] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Here.

[00:02:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:02:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:02:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:02:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:02:41] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:02:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Chair Nuñez.

[00:02:43] Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:02:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, all commissioner pres- are present except for Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:02:51] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Uh, having done that, we will now move forward to item number 3, uh, 3.1, Minutes Approval of the Environmental Planning Commission meeting notes of January 21st, 2026, February 4th, 2026, and February 18th, 2026. I'll open the floor up for any EPC discussion on those minutes, if any. Nope. All right. Uh, public comment. If anyone would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. Mr. Clerk, do we have any yellow speaker cards or attendants in the queue?

[00:03:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, there are no speakers in person and there's no one raising their hand on Zoom.

[00:03:52] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. Thank you very much. Uh, I'll entertain anyone who wants to make a- any motion.

[00:04:05] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

[00:04:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Got a motion from our Vice Chair.

[00:04:12] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I'll second.

[00:04:13] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Alright, we've got a second from Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:04:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion carries with six yes and one absent.

[00:04:37] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Alright, having completed the minutes approval, we will proceed to item 4 on the agenda. This is the Oral Communications. The 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 a comment on non-agenda items, 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 anyone with a yellow speaker card or raise hand on Zoom?

[00:05:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, there are no members in person and no raised hands on Zoom.

[00:05:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Having no public comment, we'll proceed to new business. So, uh, this is item 5.1, the Environmental Planning Commission Work Plan for the fiscal year of 2026 through 2027. Uh, we'll first have a staff presentation, then questions by the EPC, and then followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the Commission will then deliberate and take action. Uh, before that, we'll begin with a staff presentation from our Principal Planner, Ms. Diana Pancholi.

[00:06:06] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Good evening, Chair and the Commission. Uh, tonight staff is presenting EPC Work Plan for Fiscal Year 26-27. Uh, my name is Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the city's planning division, and I am joined here tonight by Planning Manager Eric Anderson. Every two years, the City Council adopts a work plan that establishes Council's top priority uh, initiatives, which along with other special projects and ongoing core services contribute to the City Council's seven strategic priorities and fiscal year 2025-27 Council Work Plan. In addition, all Council advisory bodies are required to annually prepare work plans that are submitted to the City Council for review and approval tentatively scheduled for September 2026. Generally, work plan items are referrals from the City Council and uh, aligned with the City Council's adopted two-year work plan. The Environmental Planning Commission previously prepared its work plan for fiscal year 2025-2026 in the June of 2025, which was subsequently submitted to the City Council in September of 2025. In preparation for the fiscal year 2026-27, staff has updated the EPC Work Plan to reflect carryover items and revised schedules for ongoing projects consistent with the City Council's direction on the fiscal years 2025-27 Council Work Plan. So, as you can see, um, some of the items in the work plan are ongoing, uh, which include General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, General Plan Zoning Amendments, minor code cleanups, etc. Then there are several items, as I mentioned earlier, which are a carryover from the previous work plan, such as the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan, Downtown Precise Plan Comprehensive Update, and the R3 Zoning Update, along with Dark Sky Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update. The revised work plan includes estimated timelines for the key deliverables to track the progress of each project. Staff anticipates that most of these projects will be completed during the next two fiscal years. However, it is possible that certain projects may exceed the two-year timeframe due to the staff capacity constraints and the need for further public outreach or additional studies. So, staff is recommending the EPC submit the attached Fiscal Year 26-27 Work Plan to the City Council for their approval. After this action by the EPC, the work plan, along with the work plans of other City Advisory Bodies, will be coordinated by the City Manager's Office for submission to the City Council uh, in September of 2026. This concludes staff presentation. Staff including uh, Community Development Director Murdock and Assistant Community Development Director Blezinski are present here tonight if you have any questions.

[00:09:16] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much, Ms. Pancholi. Alright, we'll take it to the Commission for any relevant questions. Or non-relevant. It's been a few weeks. Alright, uh, Commissioner Donahue. Uh, Vice Chair Donahue. Vice Commissioner.

[00:09:44] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Thank you. Um, so is item 10, the SB 79 Implementation Standards Ordinance, is that the alternative plan?

[00:09:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, no. So the, uh, at the Council meeting back in January, the, uh, City Council directed us to actually take three separate actions related to SB 79. One was the alternative plan. The second was the Historic Property Exemptions Ordinance. And the third was to, uh, review, uh, for example, the R3 Zoning Update and other, um, uh, uh, ordinances that are applicable to the area for standards that could apply to SB 79 projects, uh, as the city's right to adopt local standards that, that would, uh, that don't conflict with the densities of SB 79.

[00:10:48] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. And so I saw the, the historic property, so that's, that's number 8. This is the third thing that you talked about. But is the alternative plan in here or is that further out than the timeline of this work plan?

[00:11:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, the, it, it could come to the, oh, go ahead, Director.

[00:11:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um, at the January Council meeting, uh, related to SB 79, um, the Council uh, expressed interest in potentially pursuing a local alternative plan for the downtown area, and also realized there may be um, uh, it might be desirable to prepare alternatives for other areas affected by SB 79. Um, where we ended up is likely support for a downtown, uh, focused plan, but a need for Council consideration during the work planning process for the next two-year work plan to consider whether local alternatives should be prepared beyond the downtown. So we don't know the scope of that effort yet, and therefore we haven't programmed it in the work plan. I think we really need to wait for further direction from Council before, um, understanding what that would look like and, and the potential timing for that.

[00:11:59] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Do, is there a timeline for, for getting that input from Council?

[00:12:05] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, the work planning, uh, process I think typically starts in February, and so maybe early conversations would begin then, but we wouldn't know until likely June, uh, when the budget and the work plan adoption uh, would be complete.

[00:12:19] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Um, the, okay, next question. Um, the, uh, Mountain View YIMBY and the League of Women Voters sent uh, letters regarding Housing Element, basically item 9 here, Housing Element Program 1.4 and 2.6, uh, that were, as they pointed out, as I'm sure you saw, they're supposed to be done by the end of 2024. Uh, this is, um, proposing to have them done by the end of 2027. We discussed it at, at the end of 2024 in the study session. Um, what is the status of that or why, why is this timeline what... here?

[00:13:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Uh, the, it's a conservative timeline. Uh, we are continuing to work on these projects, uh, as, uh, we have time available amongst our other obligations. Uh, but, um, our focus for the remainder of this year is on the, uh, very large and complex R3 Zoning Update project, uh, as well as, um, the Dark Sky Ordinance and the Historic Ordinance Update. Uh, in addition, there are several, uh, large and complicated development projects that we need to bring through the process, which also are using some of our long-range planning teams', uh, time and effort as well. Um, so, as I said, there's, this is something that we are continuing to work on. Uh, this is a conservative timeline. Um, but, uh, our ability to really focus effort on it really likely won't begin until, uh, we either, uh, we are planning on bringing more staff on board, but that likely won't happen until, uh, early 2027.

[00:14:21] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Right. The, so next year's budget has an additional person?

[00:14:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[00:14:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Okay. And, and, Vice Chair, I'll just add as well, um, specific to program 1.4, the scope of that program has expanded. Since the Housing Element was adopted, um, when this came to Council for discussion, Council asked us to look at removing single-family residential development potential for those sites to help take away other incentives for non-affordable housing development from those sites. So that's an additional branch of work that's taking additional time and staff resources. Council also asked us to look at a broader range of density alternatives, which is again more time and staff resources. So the scope of that program expanded, uh, making it difficult to rely on that originally adopted uh, Housing Element timeline, uh, as well.

[00:15:09] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, I, I guess the, the rest of my thoughts are, are, are more appropriate for the, for the comments period. Um, those are all my questions.

[00:15:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh, Commissioner Pham.

[00:15:28] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you. I had a few questions. Um, for item 1, the Historical Ordinance, um, I believe that was seen by EPC last October. Um, remind us uh, kind of where that ended and what the work would be between now and Q3 2026 regarding that.

[00:15:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so the, um, EPC provided recommendations and then Council provided direction to staff based on those recommendations. On, uh, the ordinance framework, uh, for the, um, for the ordinance that will ultimately be brought forward, um, we're planning tentatively in a couple of months here, the, the ordinance is, is quite far along, and we're, um, uh, really the, the remaining steps between now and, um, an early fall adoption meeting, uh, would be, uh, just some, uh, additional publicizing and outreach, especially to property, affected property owners. Um, as well as just kind of developing the final policy questions for the, for the staff reports.

[00:16:35] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, follow-up question for that. Will we expect to see a lot of different change in direction from what was discussed in October, or more along the same lines?

[00:16:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it, it's largely consistent with what was presented to the EPC and Council. I mean, as you're drafting ordinances, little things come up, uh, for sure. But, um, the, we have taken Council's direction as our North Star for, um, what the ordinance will ultimately contain.

[00:17:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I think the, the main thing that may be different or may feel different when this comes back, um, through for a recommendation is we likely will need to bifurcate the ordinance update from the register update due to some administrative and technical reasons. Um, the concern is that, um, the function of the ordinance concurrent with the register, there might be an intervening period where people could delist their newly listed properties, um, until the, the new opt-off provisions are effective, and then we can update the register subsequent to that. So it's not, it's not perfectly captured in here. Likely that register update would come back through to Council by, uh, December, uh, of this year.

[00:17:44] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thanks. I had, um, another question related to the Dark Sky Ordinance. Um, you also mentioned that there is going to be a lot of focus in terms of your work on that effort this year. Um, I noticed from the last work plan that there were a few more rows. Um, for example, outreach. Um, can you give an update on how that's been going?

[00:18:07] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you for the question. Yeah, so as presented in the last year's work plan, we actually did a lot of outreach in, starting in last summer, uh, and a little bit into the fall, after which the staff efforts have been more focused on, you know, digesting what, um, input we received, um, and then drafting an ordinance. So we are hoping to bring it to the City Council for adoption by the Q4 of this year.

[00:18:34] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Um, I'm curious of, um, who was targeted in the outreach efforts?

[00:18:40] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So, um, it was a mix of, uh, stakeholders. Uh, some of the stakeholders were the, uh, neighborhood associations. We, um, sent out invitations to a lot of neighborhood associations to participate. And then a lot of, uh, local advocacy groups and a lot of, uh, planning groups which are active in the city, such as, um, the Coalition of, uh, Sustainable Planning, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, um, and the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association as well. So, um, in addition to those, there were some stakeholders which are specifically interested in the topic of Dark Sky, who have been giving us input at various council meetings. Those were individually contacted as well to participate in the outreach efforts.

[00:19:34] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thank you. That's all my questions.

[00:19:37] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:19:42] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll start with item 7. Um, in our last meeting in April, staff had noted that a recommendation would be provided to Council in May, and then the code amendments would be effective 30 days after the second hearing, which was anticipated in June. So what's causing this delay and, um, I'll maybe tack on the second part to it just so you can answer it all. Does this mean that the administrative process that was recommended, uh, will be in place till the ministerial approval procedures get adopted, and does that expose us or open us to any other legal ramifications if the ministerial process isn't put in place just because that was what was leaving pushed by state law, right?

[00:20:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so just to clarify, the process by which these projects are approved is fully within the City of Mountain View's jurisdiction. Uh, the state law, uh, sets a, um, CEQA specific procedure. Uh, it's a CEQA exemption for a certain type of project. Um, and it sets a timeline by which those projects need to be acted on, um, because of that change in CEQA. So there is no, uh, legal jeopardy if we, uh, simply implementing this administrative approval, um, uh, ordinance that we that, that we adopted. Um, however, uh, the City Council made it very clear that their ultimate goal is, uh, ministerial approval for these projects that were, um, affected by AB 130. And, uh, so we are going to continue to work on that ultimate outcome, uh, which does require some, um, uh, a lot of little changes to the ordinance. Like, there's a lot of little things all throughout the ordinance that need to be teased out, uh, find solutions for it, you know, find ministerial objective solutions for, and, and rewrite. And so it is, um, a fairly laborious process to do so, uh, with a lot of potentially interconnected, um, uh, language and decisions. Uh, and so that's really the challenge in going from an administrative process which continues to allow some, some discretion to a purely ministerial process in which there is no discretion.

[00:22:25] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And for the public, uh, CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act.

[00:22:31] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Next question on item 8, the Historic Preservation. Um, so with the work on SB 79 on identifying sites that are non-compliant, when is that going to be ready along with the SB 79 project and when will you proba- will you bring that to present to EPC and then Council, or what is the process there?

[00:22:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, we have, uh, in our, in our internal draft ordinance for the historic update, we've included language to implement this, um, this provision, this exception provision. Uh, so it's, it's not particularly complicated, really, all you need to do is have language or looking at what other cities have done. They have basically adopted a paragraph in their zoning ordinance and then an op- adopted an iconography in their zoning map. And that's really the extent of the work, um, as far as we've seen what other communities have done. So, given the, um, overlap with the historic ordinance, uh, we think that there is an opportunity to, uh, do both of those with the same ordinance in the same project.

[00:23:58] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So somewhat tied to that, with item 10 and the SB 79 implementation standards, there was an earlier reference that that would refer to the R3 standards that would be adopted and use them as a baseline. Is that still what is being considered in terms of the work plan and the scheduling for the SB 79 work?

[00:24:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh, so I'll clarify, you know, as was, uh, put forward to Council, which Council supported, um, we were talking about building off of the R3 standards. The challenge is, uh, we are obligated as a city to allow development at the intensities, heights, floor area ratios, etc. that are provided in SB 79. But we don't have development standards for all of those types of development currently. Um, the R3 Zoning Update will get us as, as close as we've ever been, uh, in large part. And so the thinking and, and the process is to build off of what's adopted ultimately with R3 and then to craft standards that will allow SB 79 projects to be carried out in the best way for our community, so essentially to facilitate SB 79 projects in the best way for Mountain View. Um, not to just throw a bunch of additional standards at the projects. It's really to fill in gaps in a helpful way for the community and to allow the projects to have clarity, uh, to, to carry out the projects.

[00:25:18] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. That's helpful to understand. So just to, um, expand on that a little bit, um, it took us a long time to get to the R3 standards. Um, given that SB 79 requires such a quick leap forward, do you see that, um, the effort required to bridge that gap as you spoke of, can be achieved in that timeline?

[00:25:42] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, it's going to be challenging. We're going to have to be economical with the decisions we make and the standards we pursue. Um, we've learned a lot through the course of the R3 update process, and a lot of the time associated with the R3 zoning update wasn't necessarily related to development of the standards. It was bigger policy questions about whether and where to intensify, for example. And so, um, I think we'll, we'll manage it. Um, it's just we may not have every standard we would like, but getting some critical standards in place, uh, since the law will be in effect, uh, relatively soon, um, is really important for our community.

[00:26:21] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: One last question. Um, my colleagues had touched on, um, item 9 with the Housing Elements. Just wanted to understand a little bit more as to what has made this challenging in terms of adoption and what if anything have you learned that you think you might be able to go back and apply to making those feasible?

[00:26:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I think one of the big challenges we've had with this project is just, um, getting clear communication with the, the affected stakeholders. I mean, these, these religious organizations can have very complex leadership. They can be very hard to find the right person, uh, and so we've committed a lot of time and effort to trying to just trying to reach, you know, these, uh, you know, the right, the right people in these organizations. So that's been a big challenge. Um, the, uh, as the director said, the additional direction that we received from Council to, uh, prohibit single-family development has been a little bit challenging, uh, just because many of these sites are zoned R1. So it's not just a matter of saying churches can't build single-family because that's the whole point of the district. There are a lot of legal requirements there about having, um, principally permitted uses in every zoning district, and so what are the principally permitted uses in this zoning district? What's it for? Uh, and so that's been a little bit of a challenge to kind of tease out and, and develop. Uh, which we are making great progress on now. Um, the, um, as far as lessons learned, uh, moving forward, I think, you know, like I said, um, finding the right people to talk to on these sites. Uh, understanding what would help them move the needle on potential affordable housing projects. Uh, they often just are not thinking about this at all. It's just not not part of their, um, uh, their goals. Uh, so really thinking about it from kind of looking at what other communities are doing and what what projects have been successful in other communities. Uh, so those those are some of the I think lessons learned that we've been getting out of this process.

[00:28:49] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[00:28:52] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Gutiérrez.

[00:28:57] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Yeah, um, thanks. So help me to understand 5, just a basic question: why so many To Be Determined?

[00:29:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so when we took the, uh, item to Council that was kind of the overview of SB 79, um, the direction from that was to, as the director said, once the Council comes back, once there's a new Council in 2027, to look at a local alternative plan. Um, and that local alternative plan is really the big picture of density and intensity and we are constrained under state law about how much we can downzone certain areas or upzone certain areas because we have to ultimately reallocate density that is the baseline in SB 79. So we are highly constrained in the Downtown Precise Plan process by the ultimate direction that the City Council takes in this SB 79 local alternative plan implementation. So we really, as he, as the director said earlier, uh, we can't even really set a work plan for the SB 79 local alternative plan until we hear from Council next year. We can't even set a work plan for the Downtown Precise Plan because it's so deeply dependent on the form that that TOD local alternative plan takes.

[00:30:37] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Thank you. And then help me to understand number 9, the timelines Q4 2027, and in the big, big picture, how often do we give updates to the state about where we're at with the Housing Element plan?

[00:30:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, so until, you know, before Q4 2027 we'll have one, uh, housing element update that we'll we'll give to the state. Um, I will say that they're not shy about reaching out to us for updates if they hear things from the community or concerns about the pace of our implementation. Uh, so we, they are definitely watching and, and we it's not just at the, um, uh, at the, uh, annual progress report that we provide updates and information to them about our progress. Uh, so that's an ongoing, uh, relationship that we have and, um, so far in the past those conversations have been very positive about, um, the city's, um, efforts and our priorities.

[00:31:44] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Just a follow-up question to that. Being that we just don't give the state an annual progress report, but it seems like we have a relationship with them as well we should, how often do you think you've had updates with them this past year?

[00:31:56] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, we had one series of conversations. I think there were probably three or four conversations with them specifically about implementing certain housing element programs, uh, and whether we had, um, made sufficient progress on those programs.

[00:32:16] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Great. And then my final question: do you think that by having one more person the timelines will help you here, uh... well, that person will help you to meet the timelines a little bit faster, or do you really think you need more than one person? And have you brought that up with City Council? I don't really watch those meetings all the way through sometimes, so have you discussed that already with them? Bless your heart.

[00:32:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, so the addition of a a new staff member, uh, we can focus on long-range planning activities, which is the scope of work that we're talking about across this range of work plan items, um, will help greatly. Um, how much it will allow us to accelerate individual work plan items is difficult to say. Some of them have timelines that just require time to do the work. Um, but what it will allow us to do, um, is take on any new contingent work that comes up to respond to community needs, for example, without slowing down work in many cases. Which is one of the challenges we have now with our current staffing level is new things come up like Assembly Bill 130, Senate Bill 79, we're scrambling and redirecting resources to respond and react, impacting timelines for other work that's already been underway. So I think it will help accelerate in some cases and help avoid decelerating in other cases.

[00:33:35] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: And one person is enough, or do you need another person?

[00:33:39] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: More can often be better. I think in this case we're grateful to get, you know, one additional staff member. Um, we're looking for someone that's got a lot of experience and skills and can really make an impact right away when they join the team. That's our focus for right now.

[00:33:53] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Great. Thank you everyone.

[00:33:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:33:58] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Yeah, I have a a couple additional questions. So on the, following on to the the question about uh, giving updates to the state, what if we don't meet the timelines that we originally agreed to, uh, are there any downsides or are there any penalties? Could the state decertify our housing element, for example? That seems like that would be a pretty heavy hammer.

[00:34:31] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So there there absolutely can be consequences for a city's failure to um, effectively implement its housing element. Um, it is, it is not likely to be the result of a delay in implementing a single program or even a small number of programs. Typically this results from a broad record of failure to act. Uh, bad intentioned actions by a city, efforts to undermine the commitments in a housing element. None of which are applicable here in Mountain View. Um, I wanted to add in the course of these frequent conversations we have with the housing and community development department at the state, uh, it allows us to reiterate the broad range of actions that we take as good actors in the housing realm, and trying to work through solutions to harmonize state law requirements with local requirements in a way that's facilitative of housing. And so I value those opportunities to engage and sort of provide the other side of the story, um, to supplement what an applicant's engaged with the state on, for example. And we've, you know, knock on wood, been very successful in our engagements thus far with HCD, based on our demonstrated record of of pro-housing, you know, and housing-supportive actions.

[00:35:39] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Yeah, I'm glad, I mean I know that we're trying to do the right thing and I'm glad that that they that it sounds like they see that as well. As far as the um, implementing these these uh, these uh, actions, the 1.4 and 2.6, um, and then the layered on council direction to uh, related to the R1 zoning. Um, could that be done in phases? Could we could we uh, meet our uh commitments under the housing element and then as a second phase uh eliminate the the R1 option or...

[00:36:22] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think it's, I think it's difficult to do that in my mind. And I think it may be counterproductive. Um, the effect would be doing two scopes of work. Um, and they're to some extent apples and oranges what the minimum requirement is versus what Council's desire is. I'm not sure that it would be cost-effective across a range of resource considerations to do that. Could it technically be done? I think so, but for a variety of reasons I would very strongly recommend against pursuing that.

[00:36:53] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Just just thinking. Um, and one other thing is, so the Dark Sky Ordinance is uh, an important uh item, but it it's coming before the this uh, meeting our housing element uh obligations. Why is that? In the work plan it's just in in time it's it's happening earlier.

[00:37:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So I think, uh, you know, one of the interesting parts of my job is trying to maximize the output from the resources we have. And so given the stages and phases of work, and sort of uh ebbs and flows or peaks and troughs of active work periods and maybe consultant-driven analysis, um, we have the staff uh oriented in a way where they can focus on the Dark Sky work without having a detrimental impact on the Housing Element 1.4 program. So, they are structured in a way where it's not mutually exclusive where you have to, you know, stop doing one to do another, for example. Um, and we have the ability to finish this by the end of the calendar year and make progress on the Council's priority work plan, and so that's an opportunity that we're going to take advantage of, and not arbitrarily delay Dark Sky to signal focus on 1.4 for example.

[00:38:10] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. I I don't envy your balancing all the the requirements from the state and the council and all these things, so uh, thank you.

[00:38:20] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:38:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just one, one question. Um, it's not explicit in number 2 on the R3, but my expectation was that part of R3 will be um objective design standards. It's I guess I'm... can you clarify is item 4 gonna then go back and look at all those objective design standards? I thought it was the intention was that we were going to focus on the R3 objective design standards, kind of get those buttoned down as part of R3, and then that goes forward. But it's it's not item 4 doesn't say oh and we're not going to go back and re-look at all those all over again. So I'm just I'm and and that those standards under R3 were supposed to inform a lot of other things, so it's not it kind of looks like number 4 reopens the objective standards that we think we're going to be I think we're going to be working through on R3, and I want to make sure that's not the expectation.

[00:39:18] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right, it's absolutely not the intention to reopen uh what's being done with R3. Um, quite to the contrary, similar to the question from Commissioner Subramanian about um the SB 79 implementation standards, um the objective design standards are meant to build on the R3 standards. They're a significant platform, a great foundation, a lot of great body of work and a lot of time and thought being put into those, but they don't do everything. And there are a range of development types that we are intending to prepare objective design standards for that are not specifically addressed in the R3 standards, for example. So it's a yes and, uh, not a reopening type process.

[00:39:59] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Gutiérrez.

[00:40:04] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Yeah, one more follow-up question. I- just dawn on me, when you were mentioning when it was mentioned about local alternative plan to SB 79, is that a reference to SB 79 our local alternative plan that we wanted to propose sooner rather than later? Is that what you're referring to by the local alternative plan?

[00:40:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So SB 79 provides an option for cities to prepare what's called a transit-oriented development local alternative plan, or TOD alternative plan. And so um that allows us to reallocate density uh in a way that meets our local needs without uh falling below the overall development capacity that's increased by SB 79. That's different from the SB 79 implementation standards. Uh, and so the SB 79 implementation standards are meant to come first and then a longer-term solution with the alternative plan uh secondary to that.

[00:40:57] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: So it's not part of the same thing?

[00:41:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: No, they're different different items.

[00:41:03] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Okay, because that's important to clarify I think, for the most part because then I can just hear certain people say, 'well that's why we told them to do this sooner rather than later.' So thank you.

[00:41:12] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alrighty. Uh, are there any further questions from the commission? No? Cool.

[00:41:22] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um I guess I have some questions. Um when it comes to the milestone dates, um to what extent, aside from like staff's own inference um around kind of like direct or indirect inference around um kind of like how council views these work items, um I guess like I'm curious to what extent does the city council provide direct guidance, feedback, whether as a collective or maybe by proxy through the mayor um or or with the mayor as a conduit for um how these dates and milestones get um proposed by staff. Like yeah, can you describe for us the level of direct involvement from council or the mayor on this?

[00:42:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. Um, one of the key roles for council is to prioritize resources, right? Um, from a prioritization standpoint, uh this is more important than this other thing and so city manager and staff, please figure out how to deliver in that order, right? Um, it's not often that the council is looking at a work plan like this and says 'ah shift this here, shift this there.' But as items come to them and we lay out the broad framework in the context of a housing element timeline commitment, or an emergent legislative deadline or effective date, we provide that context to the council and ask them, you know, do you want us to prioritize this new thing and identify the things that would be deprioritized, or do you want us to take this on once we finish the things we already have in process. So it's more of that qualitative prioritization and then the staff has to work out the timelines over which these various work items can be completed.

[00:43:11] Chair Alex Nuñez: So um, can you describe a little more um add a little more color or specificity to that. When you say um if I'm hearing correctly um that yes the council does you know set the prioritization collectively as a body and then you guys say hey here's what we're hearing help prioritize this for us. Like can you describe either the formal or informal channel means method on which that happens? Is it like a closed session? Is it a every three month kind of update? Is it a mayor/city manager thing? Can can you just walk us through like how that happens specifically?

[00:43:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So uh most often um these major items will come to council at some intermediate stage uh as a new business item or as a study session item. And so it's a public process where the report describes the context, the staff presentation describes the context, and we answer a lot of questions from council about, you know, why is this difficult, you know, why would you need to stop this other item. Um, I think the SB 79 discussion in January is a good example of that, where uh there was community angst over the impending effective date of the legislation and a desire from some in the community to really drop everything and prioritize a local alternative plan. Um, the council weighed that course of action with the broad council work plan set of priorities that many of which had been in process for multiple years, and would have been meaningfully delayed had we prioritized as a city a local alternative plan. And so council weighed those factors and said, we're not going to stop everything else that we've been doing. Keep going on those, finish them as quickly as you can, do these incremental things for SB 79, like a historic resource protection ordinance, implementation standards, so we get the best projects we can, and then defer this big policy question about what an alternative plan could look like until you finish out your existing workload. So, it's it's those conversations to help staff kind of calibrate to direct the resources.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And then we may get around to doing these local alternatives, but let's talk again about that because that's going to be a significant draw on resources over the next 6, 12 months or more depending on the scope and extent of those local alternative plans. So I think that's a good case study, that the January 27th discussion about SB 79.

[00:45:20] Chair Alex Nuñez: So then if I'm hearing and playing that back correctly... it sounds like within study sessions or council feedback sessions... it sounds like there is an informal check-in... and that's kind of like the main mechanism for how staff receives, interprets, designates council prioritization. Am I hearing that correctly?

[00:46:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's correct. Yeah, by and large it's done in this public process through that new business or study session process, discussing one or more ongoing priority items or emergent priority items and asking council how they would order the priorities for staff to work on those items.

[00:46:17] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. And so then as we're moving over time, right, what's like the systematized manner in which that sentiment, direct feedback, guidance, or even like criteria for how you guys are over time kind of like saying, oh well, council knocked this one down a peg or elevated this... can you walk us through staff's system or procedure or repository of tracking this element over time such that when work plan prioritization and decision making comes up, you have like an agreed upon method, data pool, indicators, whatever that then you guys use to process and create the date prioritizations for work? If I made any sense, I hope I did.

[00:47:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So I'd say the main recalibration occurs every two years when Council adopts its two-year priority work plan. We do our best to provide the context of existing and ongoing work. It's often the case that priority items from prior work plans are not yet finished and are underway, and they may be continued, they may be discontinued. We lay out other key, non-discretionary items that staff feels it needs to work on due to legal requirements, or other key priority needs that we've assessed, and we present that information to Council in our recommendations in reaction to their work planning process. And so Council has that full information to then say, 'Great, we understand, and here are the things we want to put on our work plan.' And they may add more or fewer items based on the other background circumstances that I described of prior year work plan items or emergent legislative responses and what have you.

[00:48:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, so if I'm hearing correctly then, the approach that staff takes when determining what dates and milestones are going to get proposed on a work schedule like this, is a more qualitative, feedback-based approach where within meetings Council may express sentiment indicating that something is rising to some level of priority where staff then, under your prerogative, might say, 'Hey, if we do this then it impacts that, can you give us guidance on XYZ?' Staff kind of goes away and captures that, and as a collective staff has almost like a shared oral tradition... not to, but yeah, like a shared understanding of what is the Council priority level for different things. And is that, am I characterizing that kind of like operationally?

[00:49:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think that's a pretty fair summation. I think we combine qualitative and quantitative methods. So for instance, back to the January example for SB 79 and Assembly Bill 130, we described the work that we're doing but we also put in graphic form the estimated amounts of time and how those different periods of work overlayed with one another, and showed greater and lesser periods of intensity for staff work, and allowed us to focus on areas where we would have additional capacity to take on new work. And so we try to bring a variety of methods to tell the story about our existing capacity, our potential future capacity, and how that relates to additional demands that are desired to work on new things, and whether or not we think we can take them on and at what point in time.

[00:50:01] Chair Alex Nuñez: That's helpful. And so then this quantitative element that you're mentioning around the process, I'm hearing that it accounts for dates in the future, it accounts for current staff capacity, maybe skill level even. That quantitative part of the equation, does it also account for things like benefit to the city, perceived public good, the public sentiment? Can you describe the quantitative aspect of it, and to what extent the substance of impact like transformational benefit, moderate benefit, can you just help us understand if and to what extent that's part of how the timeframes that staff proposes get processed?

[00:50:56] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, it's a great question. I think it's hard to give you a very direct answer, but those are all the complex kinds of considerations that Council needs to consider when weighing the policy priorities. They're the elected representatives that are hearing from the community, they're getting expert opinion and recommendations from staff, from the City Attorney's office, and they have to weigh all of those in addition to budgetary considerations as well about what can be taken on and over what time span. Some of the ways that we try to look at quantitative impact is, some of these items in the housing element may be very high intensity work, but may only have the potential to yield a few dozen housing units. When you compare that to delaying the R3 zoning update for example, which can implement standards to actually unlock development capacity for 10 to 16,000 housing units, that's a factor that Council can weigh as to whether we should delay completion of R3 versus doing some other programmatic work.

[00:51:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, so if it's going back to Council then, and they're the ones that provide the sentiment and that quantitative, so it sounds like the quantitative aspect almost cycles back into Council, which if I heard correctly staff takes through a kind of qualitative, within-meetings kind of inferential approach. And so, I guess that's, I won't have to hammer that horse further, but I guess I am also curious about what we are able to do, discuss, or propose here. So for example, are these dates locked in stone? Are they coming from staff as proposals? Are they coming from Council as, you know, we had some formal process where they made the priority and these dates are in there? Are we able to say, hey, collectively we suggest to Council that maybe they move up item X up to like this... what are we able to actually suggest or propose when it comes to the dates of the work plan or the work items themselves?

[00:53:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, so I'd say it's uncommon for Council to say 'do this thing by this date'. Council says, 'this is really important and we would rather have this than something else,' and that allows us to lay out those work items across the range of actions and activities we have to undertake. As far as, you know, doing, are these dates set in stone? We do the work as quickly and efficiently as we can. We don't benefit from delaying completion of work items.

[00:53:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sorry, I guess I meant the proposed dates, as proposed... I guess what I'm trying to understand is more oriented around, is the commission able to say, hey Council, we think this should be moved down a year... or this should be moved up a quarter or something like that? Are we able to make those suggestions or recommendations, or another way of asking the question is like, what's our actual discretion around the dates, the work items, like what can we actually suggest here?

[00:54:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, so I don't know that the commission is in a good position to say this should be Q2 instead of Q3. You don't know all the considerations that me and my staff know that go into doing the work. What you could communicate is, 'we're concerned about the timeline that's shown for completion of this, and if there's a way to prioritize it we would strongly urge the Council to do that.' That may allow the Council to deprioritize something else that's on here, or something else that's not on here, and maybe allow us to do it faster. Within the body of work that's shown here, there's nothing we can do faster without something else being delayed or canceled. And so if there's an opportunity, something progresses more quickly in our work than anticipated, by all means we will bring it faster or sooner, but those opportunities tend to be few and far between. And so these are the estimates with our best judgment, with a little bit of conservatism, as to when we think we can realistically complete the work.

[00:55:14] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, sounds good. Thank you so much, I appreciate that insight. Any other questions? Nope. Okay, then I will go ahead and move this into the public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. Mr. Clerk, are there any yellow speaker cards or speakers on the queue?

[00:55:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, there are none in person, and there's no one raising their hands on Zoom.

[00:55:59] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, going once, twice, alright. Alright, then we will proceed to the next phase of this, the EPC deliberation and action. I guess the staff recommendation is to review the fiscal year 26-27 Environmental Planning Commission work plan and forward it to the City Council for approval. But yeah, I guess we'll take commission deliberation and action on that before any motions kinda thing. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:56:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: What's recommended, and ready to make a motion whenever everybody else is.

[00:56:37] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Gutiérrez.

[00:56:39] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Yeah, I'd like to deliberate. So I'll share my opinion. So when I looked at this, it said the EPC work plan for the upcoming year. And then I just heard something different mentioned to us in terms of like the prioritization of what these things are based on City Council's perspective. Which begs the question, why are we here? Why do we even bother to review this? If we don't have the ability to really per se move things ahead, what suggestions can we make that would be viable for City Council to listen what the EPC thinks of A, B, C, D, or E? The example back from January came back about SB 79. We prioritized that guys. We were the ones that got the feedback from the community. We shared the urgency. We saw Palo Alto take the initiative, regardless of how many members of staff they have compared to us, I don't care. They were on it. They submitted. So I ask you to just re-analyze why we're here and how we can make an impact. Because right now I just heard heard that it's very limited. Thank you.

[00:57:51] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Gutiérrez. Vice Chair Donahue.

[00:57:53] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: It does seem somewhat limited. I'm really a process guy. I really... okay, people are laughing I guess because they know it to be true. I really... if there's a process in place I like to follow the process. And one of those things is meeting, if we make an agreement to do something, that I think that we should do it. So I am concerned about the slippage of the schedule on meeting some of these housing element obligations. I understand that there are reasons, there often are, and I can't say that I've never had a job where I didn't slip the schedule, but that's me. But still there's processes to be followed. So that does concern me. One thing that I heard that the director say was that there are some programs that can yield thousands of units, and there are some that can yield dozens of units. So I went and looked at the housing element and it actually says that by the end of 2027, the goal for one of them is 65, and the goal for the other is 40. So we're talking about 100 units. And so I can see how that might not be the most important thing. Still, if we make a commitment I like to follow that, but all things other things being equal, I would like to at least express some concern to the City Council, but I am willing to move forward with the staff recommendation.

[01:00:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:00:08] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you Chair, and thank you staff, because I think I fully understand and appreciate all that all cities, not just ours, are dealing with, particularly with this big torpedo that was thrown into our laps with SB 79 and the dramatic shift that it has caused in work plans across the board for not just our city, but every city. So I appreciate the shift that you've had to make, it's pretty seismic. And I appreciate that you've been able to walk through and explain which threads are intertwined and hopefully what work we can use from one sort of work stream to address SB 79, and maybe use some of that to inform and speed up the delivery of other intertwined elements. With that said, I do ask, and I think you've heard it from several of my colleagues here, that you come to us with, at all the appropriate times not just this when coming up with a report, but questions as to how we can qualitatively inform and speed up maybe some of those work streams, and in turn provide guidance and recommendation to Council that's helpful for them to then make the hard decisions on helping you prioritize and figuring out which have like material impact. And again, as Commissioner Donahue pointed out, I think rather than sweating it out for a housing element that's going to impact 100 units, by all means please let us focus on the big alternative TOD plans and figure out how we can really set the wheels of development in motion. Thank you.

[01:02:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[01:02:02] Commissioner Tina Pham: I echo a lot of the comments that my colleagues here have mentioned. I also want to say it's great to see some of these items from previous work plans move forward. So I applaud staff for keeping with it and moving them to the finish line, a lot of them like earlier on the list. I also have some of the same concerns regarding some of the intertwined work for SB 79. It seems to me that additional study sessions or input from Council seems necessary to be able to move this forward, so even if you're not able to bring forth substantial recommendations, potentially more engagement may help, and so that may be something you want to highlight when this work plan and other work plans from other commissions go to Council in the future. It sounds like that's happening in the near future, say September, so that might be something highlighted. And then last thing I want to say is, happy to hear that there's another planning staff joining your team to help move some of this forward. That's all.

[01:11:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Gutiérrez.

[01:11:26] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Well, this is the strength and weakness of public policy, right? This is the way government works at the local level. I agree and disagree with Commissioner Cranston and everyone else on this dais. And that's fine. But the bottom line is that you're seeing the inherent tension between a policy making body and one that makes recommendations. We're all in with what we do when we have the chance to actually preside over something meaningful. And we actually give our input in terms of updates to zoning laws, land use regulations, our relationship with state governance in terms of a housing element plan, commitments that we adhere to because we were part of the process from day one. Not saying that the staff wasn't, I'm just talking about us here as a team. And so when you look at it from that perspective, and then when I hear from my perspective, a couple city council people tell me, this is your chance to be able to have input in terms of how your schedule is going to be for the upcoming year, but in reality it's not, then why am I here? Why are we here? This is why I begged the question for the team to analyze and ask yourselves, what's the meaning behind how we look at this. It's very limited in terms of what we can do and what we can change. And when it comes down to this, I look at it more as a simple symbolic act of, it's your turn to look at this document. Do you agree or disagree? Knowing that we have limited involvement with what we actually can make change. So, I don't want to read too much into this. It is structured this way because that's the way the charter works, it's structured this way because that's the way it's traditionally been. But during the last time when we had the work plan come to the EPC, I thought we had been able to make change on a couple of items. Here it doesn't seem like we are able to do that for whatever reason, and it's already been explained as to why. So it's just that vantage point between how we look at things that makes a big difference. So finally in conclusion, I agree with you Alex. I think this is one of the reasons why I brought up what I brought up. Now do I know if this will happen or not? I don't know. But here's my chance to do it, so I'm with you. I would like to move up number nine, and I would like to move up number seven. The things that are going to be realized in Q4 26, that's great. But I'm not saying don't do it. I haven't heard anyone say that. But if you look at the timelines for seven and nine, I think it could be a little faster. But why? Because I'm not part of the policymaking body of the City Council. I'm part of the EPC. And that's my right, and that's my opinion. So I'm with you Alex, I'd like to see that be moved up. How the staff, if it ends up being something that we can recommend, recommend on with the recommendation that's been presented to us, great. If not, no problem. But at least I've done my due diligence to participate and to say this is why and this is how. How you get it done is something else.

[01:14:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Gutiérrez. Do we have... I'd like to invite thoughts from other commissioners on the current line of thought.

[01:14:39] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I think I've made my point of view pretty clear but I will restate it to say that I'm in agreement with Commissioner Cranston because I do think this has been a much deliberated, thought-out work plan with explanation from staff as to like the key items that are taking up space and time, and with input from Council getting the right priority that they should. And therefore I'm inclined to not change anything in the recommended work plan.

[01:15:14] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Subramanian. Any thoughts Vice Chair, Commissioner Pham, that you'd like to share? I'm not sure, it's fine. Vice Chair.

[01:15:22] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: It is frustrating that the plan comes to us kind of fully baked and we can't really change anything, or seemingly so. So fundamentally, I think I stand by what I said earlier where I expressed some concerns, but I think that given the totality of the circumstances, that we should move forward with this work plan. And presumably some members of the City Council probably are watching this and have heard our thoughts and will take that into consideration informally.

[01:16:15] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Pham.

[01:16:17] Commissioner Tina Pham: I appreciate all the comments here with the fellow commissioners. I'm in line with Commissioner Cranston. I feel that staff based on council's advice and thoughts have put a lot of work into this work plan. And so I'm inclined to move it forward as is.

[01:16:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, thank you. Any other deliberations, thoughts?

[01:16:45] Commissioner José Gutiérrez: Thank you everyone for sharing, and for actually contributing to the discourse of how we agree to disagree and our roles as members of the EPC. That's what we're supposed to be doing. So thank you. Even though we don't agree, that's fine. But I'd rather deliberate and speak our perspectives on these things so that we can have a better understanding of how we can move forward and how we can make an impact further on. Thank you.

[01:17:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yay, verily. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:17:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Move that the Environmental Planning Commission approve the work plan as presented by staff and forward it to City Council for approval.

[01:17:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Do we have any seconders for that?

[01:17:23] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I can second that.

[01:17:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, Commissioner Subramanian has seconded.

[01:17:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion...

[01:17:48] Chair Alex Nuñez: Oh, I thought it, sorry. Well, I can, it was a tough one, it was like, do I vote Xavier or Tom Star? I couldn't tell. Took me a while.

[01:18:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The motion carries with four yes and two no and one absent.

[01:18:28] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alrighty, then we are moving forward with item number six, Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests, and Committee Reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the commission at this time. Does anyone have announcements, updates, requests, or committee reports, or dates of next meetings, etc.? Staff or commission?

[01:19:01] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Okay. So of course we're gonna go into the summer break, along with Council. EPC's next meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 19th, when we'll have the next agendas. I also wanted to just update EPC that a couple of things that came across EPC's this past year's agendas and where EPC has provided input, the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance got adopted by City Council on May 26th. The Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan was also adopted May 26th. And then the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan is scheduled for June 23rd, 2026 Council agenda for your reference. Thank you.

[01:19:54] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Any other announcements? No. Okay. I have some announcements. It's an El Niño year, it's going to be pretty crazy, so if anyone's watching, look out for like summer heat. It could get especially when it's humid, pretty dangerous really quickly. And then also the World Cup's going on for those of you who didn't know. And whoever out there has any rooting interest, may your team find success, unless they're playing Mexico or they are Argentina. So having said that, I believe I can now adjourn the meeting at 8:19 p.m.

Gap between 'Segment 2' and 'Segment 2'

[01:03:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, um, I'll make some comments. Um, I guess one thing that comes to mind is that, you know, 60 hundred units, um, I guess I'll um, put forward the idea or position that, you know, not all units are created equal. Uh, location matters.

[01:03:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If um, that wasn't the case, then you know, all the battles over, you know, like segregation in the 60s, like redlining, um, those concepts wouldn't be something that um, you know, we'd all be familiar with, nor would the actual fact that there is a housing element requirement called affirmatively furthering fair housing. And so, um, I do care about those 40, 6500 units in the south of El Camino.

[01:04:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, I know that the Dark Skies element has, you know, um, very strong champions uh around that. And, you know, I'm not here to like, you know, say that I know what the prioritization level is for um that or for um historic preservation or objective design standards. I think they're all important, um, to be quite honest with um, with everyone, I guess.

[01:04:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, and so for me, um, you know, when I read the uh housing element uh 2.6 program as well, um, you know, with very clear timelines. And um, I think with uh another indicator, another kind of like, I don't know what you would call it, like clause, text, commitment there, um, that says that if um 40 units or something like that aren't developed by 2024 or something, or 2027, um, that then we're just going to go back and get more feedback.

[01:05:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And that then will have uh, you know, uh incentivization, you know, framework or you know, zoning, whatever that you know, mechanism would be in place by December 31st, 2028. Um, I guess like, to be quite honest, um, and not in a cynical way but more in a just purely logistical way, like I don't really have faith that that will actually happen if, you know, the like first part of that commitment um is 3 years delayed.

[01:05:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, you know, by the time we get boots on the ground or you know, clipboards in front of doors and are knocking and you know, have all the feedback like that can be 3 to 6 months. And then we're going to cram that through, you know, a City Council priority like to be delivered by 2028. I just, I don't personally see that happening. That doesn't mean it can't, that doesn't mean it wouldn't, but I personally don't see that happening. And so, the only controllable moment I have to say something about that um, is right now.

[01:06:19] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And um, yeah, I actually um, you know, I don't know what the best practice is for quantifying uh the prioritization level of a municipal governing body such that staff has clarity on why what like like deep clarity, right? Like the line of sight and can you know clearly articulate and understand, you know, in a measured way which items are priorities and like the specific factors for why that's the case, right?

[01:06:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Like I don't know, I don't know what those models look like. I don't know if it's a thing that exists um in your line of work. Um, I'm not like trying to pretend like I I I do know. Um, but along those lines, um, I'm just going to get to the point here. I think that um, you know, based on my understanding of, you know, our very limited ability to say, you know, something here apparently around like this work item, like I I still think that, you know, I'm interested in exercising that.

[01:07:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I'm interested in saying um, you know, to the City Council, if if if there's any commissioners that agree with me that yeah, like I think they should, you know, like I don't know if it's go back to drawing board, you know, check in with, you know, themselves as a body um and think about directing staff to move item uh work item number nine upward on the priority list. I actually do um have that interest.

[01:07:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And so I'll toss it out to the commission for um... and again, understanding something will have to get moved down, something will have to like in prioritiza- that's not the call I'm here to make, that's not like that's for Council to decide um and to work with you guys on that. But I am interested in saying I think item number nine, um, if three or more other commissioners agree with me, should you know, be reconsidered by Council as something that should move up in terms of the um milestone date.

[01:08:26] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, so I'm also interested in moving forward with the um, with the motion that Commissioner Cranston has put forward, but um, with uh, but I'd like to see if the commission is interested um in appending that level of guidance um, or or you know appeal to the Council to please reconsider um item number nine uh in in terms of uh escalating up the priority timeline. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:08:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I've I've I've watched the commission or the Council's review of priorities...

• ← Previous
• Next →