Meeting of September 17th, 2025.

I will call the meeting to order at 701 p.m.

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 at Mountainview.gov by 4 30 p.m.

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.

Yep, speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak.

It is small text to 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.

Yes, uh Commissioner Dempsey.

Commissioner Donahue.

Here.

Commissioner Yin.

Here.

Commissioner Cranston.

Here.

Commissioner Pham.

Here.

Vice Chair Nunez.

Here.

And Chair Gutierrez.

All commissioners are present except for Commissioner Dempsey and Chair Gutierrez.

All right.

I'm gonna presume that Chair Fam would like to not be introduced as new for a third time.

So I will proceed uh with the approval of the minutes for which there is none.

And so uh we will speed this along to the oral communications uh item number four.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide 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?

Um there's no one present uh in person.

Uh no one online either.

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, a mixed use residential item.

Uh I would like to note that this item will be continued to October 15th, 2025.

It will not be heard at today's meeting.

There will be no formal staff presentation, but since the project was noticed at as a public hearing, EPC will still take public comments on this item.

Now we'll move to public comment.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can unmute, 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?

There is no one present in the room, but we have one person on Zoom, um Robert Cox.

Okay, we will we'll take that comment now.

Okay, give me one second.

Mr.

Cox.

Okay, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair Nunez and members of the Environmental Planning Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk on the redevelopment of the Chang Chase Bank site.

Tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf, but I do want to thank Mr.

Dibel, um Ms.

Thibodeau, and other members of the Grey Star 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 Richard Sonian arches and the architecture for the apartments 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 new apartments.

It is likely there will be multiple package deliveries per day.

When bike lanes were recently installed in 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.

Sagy 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.

Thank you, Mr.

Cox.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other speakers in the queue?

There's no one else in the queue.

Okay.

Having closed uh public comment on this item.

We need a motion to continue this item to October 15th, 2025.

Do we have a motion?

Okay.

Looks like we have a motion from Commissioner Yin and a second from Commissioner Fam.

Shall we call the vote?

Um the motion passes with five yes yes and two absent.

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'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 action.

Let's begin with a staff presentation from Rent Stabilization Division Manager Anki Van Dersen and the city's housing director, Mr.

Wayne Chen.

Thank you, Vice Chair Nunaz, and good evening, environmental planning uh commission, not committee.

Um be doing the presentation tonight.

I'm Wayne Chen, the housing director.

Um Anki Van Dursen, the 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, uh Nazanin Salehi, uh, and they'll be available to help us with questions 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.

That strategy started as a council work plan priority back in 2019.

There are various elements.

And for this particular piece of TRAO, 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 last November.

Uh the division and the rental housing committee oversees tenant protection programs and the community stabilization fair rent act, the CSFRA also overlaps and interacts with the um with the TRAO.

So the rental housing committee uh function as the advisory body to the um city council in this instance.

Um the rental housing committee unanimously supported the framework that council uh staff provided, and uh city council held a study session last December and also unanimously supported the recommendations, which again we'll talk about in a moment.

Um, tonight we're here in front of you because EPC oversees uh 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 because the TRAO includes various state law requirements related to SP 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 uh 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 are part of this uh displacement projects that were able to relocate within Mountain View.

Forty-one percent 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 and stay in Mountain View.

Um, there were six items, and just briefly in terms of the challenges, I'll start with that and go to the recommend recommendations is that the current TRAIO has a move out date that is uh earlier, that is allowed to be earlier than what SB330 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 SB330 uh move out date to the TRAO and modify that.

Um, the second piece is uh another uh notice or a notice.

Under our current TRAIO, 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 um an unintended consequence of uh a tenant looking at the information, thinking, oh, I have to leave, even though that's not the case.

And so the second recommendation is just to have the NOI be at a later date, maybe more consistent with some other cities that have a later date requirement.

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 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 not fit for um habit for habitation, that the city can come in, tag it, which would require uh tenants to move.

In this situation, relocation benefits are actually not required, and the recommendation was to remove this exemption so that the benefits would be applied in those situations.

The fifth one was the 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.

Um330 also has a first right of refusal for qualifying uh uh tenants, low-income tenants to move back to to move back to the site in a new unit.

And our trail doesn't have that.

And so the recommendation was to add that, and that would codify the state requirement.

Um 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 um 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 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 trail process is in the middle column, and the proposed amendments are in the right third column.

And uh well, you'll see there in the middle column, there is a vacate date, which essentially says the vacant date can be placed after a project is approved.

So in this illustrative example, the vacate date, the developer sets it right after the project approval, which is in 4A.

Um by adding the vacate date, um, which is at least six months before the construction date, so tying the vacate date to the construction date rather than the project approval date, shifts 4A down to 4B and extends the time frame by which 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 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 will 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 uh in 1B essentially replaces the developer notice in 1A.

Um, and then the 1A, the notice of intent by the developer is shifted down to 2B in red, and you can see how that comes later on in the process.

Um that one year termination notice is a state requirement, so that is um why it's in here as one year prior to the vacate date.

Um this essentially is sort of a summary of the various notices that would be part of these trail 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 provide sufficient time for renovations, it would allow the landlord to start 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 converted from a CSFRA project into a permanent uh DG restrictive housing project.

And in that one, I believe the renovations took uh yes uh between two to three months.

Um 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 amendments.

Um it also includes moving andor 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 it the renovations are complete.

And then there's a situation here where we're recommending that if it exceeds 90 days, tenants can have some option to either continue in their current situation or opt to leave and receive the permanent relocation.

Again, this was the effort to kind of balance giving enough time for the landlord to do the renovations, but 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 um uh or 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 formally protected units, this provision essentially codifies the state requirement and gives displaced tenants the first right to go back into the unit before it's offered on the market.

Uh staff is recommending that this remain consistent with SB 330 in terms of first right of refusal be offered to 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 SB330 requirements.

Um recommending that these uh pieces of 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 programs.

Um this requirement, the recommendation is also that these uh pieces of information information need to be provided and need to be followed, or otherwise the project could be at risk of um you know avoiding 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 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.

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 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.

Uh 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 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 owned third-party relocation consultant 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 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 uh uh recommendation that came after the council and RHC meetings um last year is to uh recommend that the trail 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 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 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 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 trail 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.

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.

Um sorry to interrupt, but maybe we should check if we have any EPC questions first.

Okay, yeah, that sounds good.

Cool.

All right.

Any questions from the commissioners?

Mr.

Donahue.

Yeah, I I have a couple questions.

Um is what's the history?

Why is this in chapter 36 to start with?

Uh yes, thank you for the question.

The ordinance was created in 2010, so before our time.

I think we've tried to dig into the history of it, and um that's just where it is.

Okay.

Yeah.

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 gonna be 5,000 indefinitely.

Uh yeah, so um one of the last times the trail 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 they'd been hearing and what staff had been hearing was that um in in redevelopment projects, um there would be households that just exceeded that 120% AMI uh limit, and council just wanted to provide some higher limit to increase the eligibility of those who could receive the benefits.

The 5,000 is not indexed, but the 120% AMI does fluctuate with the HCD income limit, so that's how that would go up in tandem.

Okay.

Okay.

Um actually those are all my questions.

Thanks.

Commissioner 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?

Yes, thank you for the question.

Um to staff's knowledge, um, since the beginning of TRAO, there's been one uh alternate 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 section.

The current TRAO does have the alternative mitigation section, and staff is just proposing to keep that.

Um we don't have a lot of examples to go off of, but one principle that we would envision using to evaluate um is whether the alternative mitigation provides an equivalent value as compared to the standard requirements.

Again, in reality, there may not really be many of these um require requests.

So I think part of this is to continue to monitor whether there are such requests.

What's in the proposed amendments is I think really capturing most of the situations that we are likely to see.

So I think we'll just kind of monitor and see whether alternative mitigations is something that becomes used, or maybe the standard uh provisions under the modified trail would really take care of things.

Okay, thanks.

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?

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 uh refusal to return to a unit and the uh development application submittal requirement for the unit inventory, um uh 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 SP330 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 uh 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.

Great.

Um had a question about the 50 miles for capping moving transportation costs.

What do other jurisdictions do?

Yeah, the um 50 miles is a pretty common standard that what uh we were able to find in the comparison jurisdictions, and then also in uh discussion with our relocation consultant who advises uh many other cities.

So that was the recommendation because it seemed to be the most prevalent standard where uh a jurisdiction has a moving cost provision.

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 I wasn't sure how that connected with all the notices.

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 trail amendments, which is the trail vacate date, but which is based off of the SB330 provision, a developer would essentially um 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 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 we 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, all of this would be part of information we would ask the developer to submit, and then we would track against those those dates.

So it is both something that should be in the application and information that the developer provides, and it's also based on an actual um demo permit issuance date as in terms of what staff is recommending as a as a clear as a clear standard.

Okay.

Um my last question is related to the city informational notice.

Um, what information would be in it?

Would they be 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.

Sure.

Um maybe working backwards, the outreach was done really just as part of the stakeholder outreach process that um we described at the beginning of the presentation.

Um, what we would envision for city informational notice um is uh simple ease of read um document, um, potentially translated into multiple languages, and it would include some some basic information.

You know, there's there's been a um uh a development application uh you know for for this apartment.

Um do not move.

Um you will get information from the developer at the appropriate time for when you would need to move, and that the the dates would be specified then.

So um hang tight, and then we give some information about the the trail program, where to find the information, and uh we would envision providing at least some some key um criteria uh 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 and the time frames for the project.

So that's what we would envision.

We would start producing it um uh if and one council uh uh approves staff's recommendation.

Got it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Yen.

Thanks.

Um actually uh like Commissioner Fam, I had uh a few questions and she covered a couple of them.

Um but I had additional ones and it was regarding here.

Where'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?

Yeah, I'm gonna take a first cut and draw my memory, but I would also like to see if um um Anki 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 SP 330 um construction, so there isn't a return back to a new unit yet.

Um, but we have seen a couple of examples where a project um were subject to both trail and SP330 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 SB330 vacate date particularly uh important and and that came up in the um in the 10 tenant stakeholder uh meetings.

Um let me pause there to see if that responded or if you liked some additional color.

I I think that's generally good.

Um the follow-up question would be if have 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.

Yes.

So this is something that is coordinated with the uh relocation consultant and with the developer.

Um I know that there's a list that is kept, and if 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 gonna be situations where folks are either not providing the information or not uh updating the city with the information.

I'm gonna pause there to see if um Anki Venderson or Andrea Kennedy have any additional information to provide.

Um hello uh committee.

This is Anki Venderson, Rent Stabilization Manager.

Um so under the current trail, um the 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 thinking that they're 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 trail and that we capture uh more tenants because in general all tenants uh would be uh covered for moving costs.

So we hope that all tenants will fill out their forms so we get a better uh return information from all the tenants.

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.

Yeah, I think that's right.

Yeah, and thank you, Anki.

Yeah, we 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 uh whether that has been a challenge.

So I think um 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 register and we have their information.

Um this process may um motivate all tenants to register because they all tenants would at least get something, i.e., moving costs.

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 the challenge is that the 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 I guess work that out with timing in terms of various projects having various timelines?

Yes.

Um this is just an illustrative example.

So um B and B in the left column and to B in the right column look like they're kind of around the same time, but um projects may vary.

I think the dates to really pin down are the estimated construction uh uh beginning start date, C, and then for B, the the six month, six months prior to the construction date, and then to B.

2B is a state requirement, it needs to be at least one year in advance of 4B.

And so those are the things that 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 in the process.

But the uh but to be is a requirement and and 4B is uh a recommended trayo uh time frame.

To try to address the fact that projects might change in the very small U, which is the update notice, so we try to fit it into the 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 you of the update notice.

Um that's been based on a um at least one uh project that had this happen multiple times, so this is getting built in as part of the recommendations.

Okay, okay.

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

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 would 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 the uncertainty.

In the project that I'm thinking of that had um multiple um dates getting shifted out, there were indeed um tenants that just continue to stay.

And there were tenants that didn't did move.

So you will have a mix of both uh for the tenants who stay, they would benefit from this um uh information being described to them.

Okay, and it's usually through a website or a phone number they can call.

There's something where they constantly can at any day can just refer to a schedule to see if it's been changed, or is it just that one date it's going to change 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.

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 would be coordinating with developer to ask if it's it's um happening or if it's going to be another extension.

And so prior to the the three months um concluding their 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 developer because the developer will have the best sense of whether the project is moving with the timeline is okay.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Cranston.

Yeah, that update notice was so tiny, I certainly didn't see it.

Um so it's it's not unusual to see requests going to the um ZA asking for extensions.

So would that automatically trigger those notices?

Well, if if a project does not need to go to council and it can be approved at ZA, then the that would be the B date for in the in the left column, and then the timing around the notices would still be the same.

Um it just needs to be um scheduled in a way that meets those those noticing time frames, whether it goes to council for approval or it can be approved um at a ZA.

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 a extent extending the development agreement.

Okay.

So that one year from intempt 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?

Got it.

That's a l we I've seen a lot of things when I say go into the ZA, it's can I extend my can I get extended my development rate?

Can I extend my development?

So it's been approved, but it's not a year.

Yeah, that that's where the update notices would would come in in the so that um I think it's in Big Rufon of the in the in the memo, but it is smaller.

Um if a project continues to be shifted, there would be continued update notices.

Um again, typically staff is in contact with a developer and tracking how things are moving, and as uh an extension is coming up, we would um reach out or the developers reaching out, um, but there would be some coordination before the extended time period expires in order to determine whether there needs to be another extension.

And so that's what would um occur in in any project if the the time frame for the project um continues to get delayed.

Um second question.

Um include fire in the force measure kind of things.

Um what if the fire is caused by you know improper electrical with the building?

Are are you 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 argue with natural disaster.

I get fire, that's different.

So how do you are you how are you incorporating what I call more the negligence kind of fires from a Sierras are burning every every building kind of a fire?

Yeah, that that's a good question.

Um there's a situation that has occurred pretty recently that is reflecting that where um where the there was a buyer.

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

Um so right now what we are proposing is including the situations.

Um we we probably um develop some criteria around being able to determine who is at a fault or or not at fault.

Um that's how we would envision, I think, implementing the the program.

But the fire is an example where um there are situations where a landlord is uh is not causing it.

There could be examples where because of um not upkeeping the building and um there's a short or it causes a fire, then that that may be attributable to um not keeping the property property maintained.

So we don't get into that level of detail here.

Um and we would develop some criteria around around that.

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 and fire.

Um, and I'm sure the city attorney has language on force majeure out there that could be used in this kind of thing.

Um the the change in the special circumstances.

So what that means is a single individual living in an apartment is gonna get the exact same benefit as a couple with dependent children in what you're proposing.

If they're below 80%, uh yes.

So yeah, you could have a um a household with um school age uh children, uh, whether or not that household is um if they're above 80%, but they're in the one 120% plus the 5,000 if they're in that category, um, they would get benefit 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.

Did you did you consider any other options more for more with more proportionality?

We we did take a look at what some of the other cities do.

Um some other options could be um rather than including low income into the special circumstance definition.

You we could say, well, instead of three months of comparable rent under the trail, which is what it currently is, maybe it's four months of comparable rent.

Um that's another way to um provide enhanced benefits for the 80% uh AMI group.

Um those were the options that really um came about during the due diligence is whether just providing more baseline requirements and not treating them as special circumstance or um including that group as special circumstance, which um is the way that uh many other cities handle that that situation and then um you said at the very beginning that one of the goals was to try to encourage more people to stay.

What in this accomplishes that well um having a temporary displacement provision can help so folks aren't um unnecessarily moving out of the city um in a renovation situation, for example.

Um the the other piece is just having some additional benefits if you are special circumstance and if you're low income, just having some additional benefits could could assist it that doesn't address the fact that housing is just expensive here, and and uh but having more benefits and more resources to be able to move um to be able to um have a higher dollar amount for the benefit could at least increase the likelihood that doesn't necessarily guarantee it, but it would increase the likelihood we we we believe um if it's a greater amount than what currently exists um then uh I don't know why it was originally put in section 36, but I certainly view is that part of what the planning commission looks at on projects is the overall impact of a project on the community, the neighborhood, the people that are there, and so the relocation assistance program is part of that.

Um why is that not a component that we should be considering as part of evaluating projects?

Land use is not just the dirt, it's impact in the community and this and 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.

It's really just the whether the any future amendments need to go through and come to EPC for amendments.

But as you are reviewing a project going forward, um you would still be evaluating the whole project, which has the relocation components.

It's um it's really the I think 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.

I hear your answer.

All right, I have a few questions.

Um I guess for Miss Van Derson or Miss Kennedy, um, I'm just curious.

It's it my understanding is that this did go before the um RHC.

And from uh all appearances, it appears that there was support for this.

I'm wondering if possible, um, could you characterize um briefly just kind of like the disposition of the RHC uh toward toward this uh these amendments and like the discussion and outcome?

I I could provide a response.

They they were um in unanimous support of the recommendations.

Um thank you.

Uh when it comes to the alternative mitigation, um, that is also something that I was thinking about.

Um yeah, that 660 Mariposa project uh was very interesting uh as it was happening, and um that was a very interesting circumstance available at that time, very specific, but um nonetheless, one thing I am curious about, and I think you um Mr.

Chen mentioned the word equivalent.

Um in that language, let me see, mitigation.

Um I'm wondering in the crafting of that, was there any explicit uh consideration or discussion uh when when drafting um for language that um to any extent or effect required um you know, or directed some equivalent value um within the alternative mitigation?

Um 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 council gets to decide that.

Um it doesn't seem to me, you know.

I mean, as much as we love our current council today, I'm sure, um it just I don't know that um council's always in the like best position always to know uh um even alternate mitigation works for the tenants.

Um and so I'm curious to what extent um was there any consideration around you know outreach to tenants um as part of this process, um getting their input on if the alternate mitigation meets their needs, um, some formal recommendation from staff as part of the process, whereby there's some um you know formal guidance included on hey, this is equivalent not just from a monetary perspective, but also from a 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 uh you know outside of just the raw three month plus five thousand dollar value.

Um so then along within that context, um, was it discussed explicitly to craft language in a way where um equivalent value is explicitly called for and with a formal process for staff to make that recommendation to council if not also including tenant um input as part of that process?

Uh thanks for that question.

Alternative mitigation itself wasn't specifically identified as a focus area.

However, if this is something that um EPC feels that it would be a good recommendation to make to council, we would we would include that in the summary um in our count in the council report, and um council could certainly um direct staff to to include certain provisions um that aren't currently in the alternate mitigation section.

Sounds good.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chen.

Um I also um seems a little minor, but yeah, with the move into um the uh chapter 46.

Uh I don't know if it's section chapter, um, whatever we call it, number 46.

Um is that red line where it's this just housing?

Is that like the working title or um it's part of the cleanup?

Just like is that what staff is thinking, like housing?

Or is there is it just a placeholder?

That's intended to be the actual modification, um, essentially housing related ordinances, but just housing.

Currently, chapter 46 in its entirety is the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance.

Um, by calling it housing broadly, then uh the MHR so would just be one um article underneath that chapter.

Okay.

Um does staff feel that um to the extent it does matter, it might not matter, but for all I know, we could call it chapter 46, like ice cream, I don't know, and it wouldn't make an impact, but I'm wondering um if there is uh some kind of like uh impact on on alignment.

Um, did staff consider like um some like tenancy or tenant protect like housing and tenancy or um something to affect because it feels like a lot of this happens to um align with um renting households if that makes sense versus just broadly like sorry versus just broadly like housing.

Yeah, I think I'm following what you're seeing here is um with the MHRSO that you know uh uh protection program with this one getting moved, that's another protection program, but we are envisioning other programs that are not specifically related to uh tenant protection programs, and that's why the intention is that this would be broader because there will be future um items that are not not related to those items.

Okay.

So there's no is there no impact by expanding the scope a little bit or not expanding the scope like housing and tenancy or housing and renting or something like that?

Yeah, I think it would be a little bit more narrow and having a broader will allow it to be the place for um various housing related items.

Okay, sounds good.

Um I also have a question uh relating to the right of return.

Um it's always it can always get confusing tracking between right of return, right of refusal.

Wait, did I um I guess I'm just curious, um can can you just speak to that a little bit more like in in a more streamlined manner?

I'm I'm particularly thinking of a couple scenarios.

Um being where a um a housing construction project, um, and maybe this is no longer the case under SB330, um, but where there's uh you know, like few rental units or few units that um get delivered on site above what was already existing there.

Um maybe even we could imagine uh like a hundred percent right, like for like, um, if if that right of return would apply.

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

I think I'm tracking with what you're asking.

Um let me try to respond.

Um so in the uh trail amendments, the terms temporary displacement has a particular meaning, which is 90 days or less.

Um in a redevelopment project, it's going to be permanent.

So they're in the permanent bucket.

Under program 3.2, there are other items that ask staff to evaluate alternatives to displacement under that one, which we um have not been able to really carve out the ability to 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 um that work item is uh is is a forthcoming one that we need to work on.

Some of the um ideas that have been um floated have been, for example, could there be a partnership with uh existing landlords who have um uh vacant units and they can house the displaced tenants in an alternative uh building.

Actually, part of the um permanent uh displacement provisions in the ordinance is to be able to relocate someone within another unit of a of a of the current project.

For example, if only part of the building is getting demolished and in 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 um uh replacement housing, those are all I think concepts of how do we deal with this interim situation?

Um, and so we'll we'll work on that a little bit more, but some of that is contemplated in the draft amendments by finding um uh 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.

Got it.

Thank you.

Um that does make sense then, um, because there is that distinction between tempor, yeah, temporary and then temporary temporary, yeah.

Um with the comparable units, um, does that include amenities?

Uh 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.

Um, does the comparable unit include access to amenities like common areas?

Um, you know, like washing, um, parking, uh, allotment, et cetera.

Yeah, um, we have recommended uh um creating a definition section that includes the term comparable.

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, uh, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, contain 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.

Okay.

And um, is that is that because the future of parking minimums is like hazy or um is amenities typically inclusive of parking?

Yeah, I think the idea is that we would just leave it broad and then evaluate the project um as it comes in.

Um in the situation where there is a relocation to another CSVR building, typically those buildings have existing parking.

So the situations where there might be lower parking ratios are really in the new projects.

Um that is helpful.

Um, I had one last question.

Might come back to me.

Okay, that's fine.

I might uh reprocess that.

Um oh, yep.

Um that table, we don't uh if if we need to go back to it, then we must um with the dates.

Um this might sound like a uh a paranoid um scenario, but um I've worked with tenants who you know had reason to wonder if that if this is a scenario that was happening um where by there is you know, like someone submits uh an uh application for redevelopment, people get spooked, people leave, and now I can you know effectively clear out um people and have that uh get raised up to market rate uh and then withdraw.

Um I guess that process, the the new noticing process, um what like I guess um how confident and why um you know, in terms of speaking to this confidence level, but what's the confidence level from staff of this new process being able to address um you know a scenario such as that or mitigate that overall we think this is gonna be an improvement to the TRAO because it uh 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 um provide information and allow the um tenants to know that it's coming from a um a source of information that they can they can trust.

Um and then on the development application side, the recommendation is to include information that needs to be provided, such as the unit inventory, uh tenant information, and there are implications with the development project if they don't provide that information.

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

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

Um is there any kind of like way of either flagging or just having some um situational awareness from the city's part uh you know when uh you know when applications for this property owner uh are submitted as as an extra kind of like attentiveness, if that makes sense, or or penalties of the kind that you've seen from other cities, like I'm just curious about that.

We don't uh we're not proposing any type of sort of a like three strikes and you're out type thing, or that we would um treat applicants differently.

Um staff is aware of the developers and aware of past projects, and so you know we would have that awareness, we would evaluate each project in compliance with the requirements and just ensuring each project is is following the requirements.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions from the commissioners?

No.

Okay, all right.

Seeing no more questions, uh, we will move this to public comment.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

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 any Zoom attendees with the raised hand in the queue?

Uh we do not have anyone present in the room, nor do we have any attendees with their uh hands raised on Zoom.

Okay.

Uh seeing no speakers then, uh, we will now take it back to the commission for deliberation and action.

Commissioner Yan.

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 those implications.

But um the idea when you do notice to have either a phone number that they can call at any time, and you just let them know in the notice that this is the phone number to reach.

We update it.

I don't know if it's daily, weekly, by the end of whatever by every Monday, at the end of every Monday, for the process 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?

Uh, so that they can find out.

Um, and then also when you get every time you notice that the full schedule get put back out in the notice, so they know what to expect and when I think that's probably key is to have a better understanding of what's expected, even if it will change, and when it might change.

So between those two, maybe there's just a little bit more comfort for the tenant to to feel like they can get information easier.

All right.

Commissioner Cranston.

So I'm amendments one through five.

I'm I get um it seem positive.

I am comfortable with the blanket change in the amendment six.

Um it seems it seems it should there should be some level of proportionality um associated with it.

And maybe it's uh also tied to amendment seven.

Um if somebody gets twenty thousand dollars to move to Tracy versus $20,000 to move to Sunnyville, and they're in the Barry and they're they're close.

I feel better about that.

Okay.

So maybe it's you know I'm I'm I'm I'm messing with this here, but I the the 50 mile distance seems excessive to me.

And maybe if it's if the if there's if the 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 I could say to Sunnyville, 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.

Certainly, Gilray, I guess maybe 50 miles away.

I don't think we got a big freaking county here.

I don't know what the distance is.

I didn't measure it.

But uh, but certainly Tracy falls into that.

And it seems like a long distance, and I I would I'd like I'd like at the very least on the on the benefits, something that's reflective of the the size of the household rather than just a blanket and um and maybe there's the 50 seems like a long way to me.

So those are my the two concerns I have of the individual amendments.

Um I am personally unpersuaded about the recommendation to move this into chapter 46.

Um I don't I'm I'm not I'm not getting it.

Um 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.

I feel there 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.

Commissioner Donna Hugh.

So on the um the proportionality thing, it seems to me that most that 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 gonna get more the the large family will will end up getting more benefits uh just naturally from that.

The relocation costs, you know, you're moving a three-bedroom apartment, so you're you're um you're gonna have more uh it's gonna cover the costs of the additional bedrooms and the additional people that are getting moved.

So to me that um it does seem somewhat proportional.

Not everything is um is proportional uh one thing that's not proportional, this is five thousand dollars.

I I that's very strange to me because it's not indexed 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 five thousand, but now some people are on the border of that.

So I mean what where does it end?

Um so I mean it raising it to 124% of AMI or something like that.

Seems like it could be achieved kind of the same thing, and and that would that would index that five thousand dollars, you know, assuming five thousand dollars is four percent.

I just made that up, but um uh and the five thousand is actually not proportional because it doesn't say anything about the number of of people, whereas AMI is actually uh 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, generally I'm I'm in favor of of these things.

I uh I like that the the initial notice, the city informational notice step comes from kind of a a neutral party.

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 uh usually go bad places, and I think it's it's useful to uh to kind of put correct information into people's hands and then they can make informed decisions.

Um so yeah, in general, I am uh in favor.

Commissioner FAM.

Um I had some thoughts.

So um definitely this is great work from staff.

I know that's tough to balance protecting tenants, but also having policies that help us maintain our housing stock and promoting um you know developers to redevelop and make improvements is also very important.

So this is a nice balance.

Um I had some thoughts about the amendments.

Um in general, I'm in favor of a lot of them.

I had a lot of the same thoughts as Bill Cranston regarding the 50 miles.

Um not suggesting really changing the 50 miles, but maybe there could be a different amount or threshold for moving costs if someone decides to stay in the city or in Mountain View.

So adding like a higher number or a higher percentage or um some sort of additional bonus for those who choose to stay in Mountain View might be something staff could consider.

Um also uh I agree with staff moving the section um out of chapter 36.

I I get what you guys are trying to do with um the other section and um continuing code improvements um in alignment with the council uh uh strategic plan.

So I appreciate that.

Um I guess that's all my main comments in general support of the amendments.

Thank you, uh Commissioner Fam.

Um I'll speak to this.

Uh yeah, I feel encouraged by this.

Um I very strongly agree with Commissioner Yin around the need for some updated, updatable and accessible um means for uh residents to be able to easily check on the status of their uh of their relevant uh uh potential displacement project, uh the status of that.

Um you know, there are things that um you know, I I guess this is also kind of potentially a question um before I go down this long commentary.

Um not too long.

Um right now is there a requirement for landlords to I don't know leave on tenant doors or call or notify however they do it, um, with things like hey, this is now going to ZA or hey, this is going to um DRC, this is the outcome of that.

Here's the next meeting.

Um is there any requirement like that?

I think it's a current requirement.

Maybe I would ask Anki or um or Andrea whether that sort of information is being implemented just by practice.

Uh so maybe I'll turn it over to one of them.

Uh thank you.

Um we currently have a very uh frequent contact between tenants and the consultant and staff um of the rent stabilization division.

Uh we um reach out on a regular basis on the status of the project, but that's not currently codified in Detroit.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I in terms of that friendly suggestion or amendment, I forgot how you phrase it, Commissioner Yan.

I mean, I I very strongly agree with that.

I think there if if I could you know have uh you know way to recommend this uh city council that you know the and and the burden on this really ought to be as much as possible on the developer.

Um you know, as wonderful as our uh city website is, it's not a you know, uh you know your development project dot mountainview.gov kind of easily to you know, like access website with milestones, key dates, you know, next steps, opportunities to engage, um, you know, that level of transparency.

Um, whether on a website or you know, required to be taped onto someone's door.

Um, you know, in my experience working with tenants, um, would go a very long way in helping people time a move, decide whether to move, or or even know I don't have to move, or even just at a more foundational level, um, not live scared.

Um, and so um I would very much strongly um support some accessible information clearing house.

I don't know what how how you might characterize that, Commissioner Yin.

Um personally, I'm fine with the 50 miles.

If it's a standard that other cities are doing, then there's no reason that we should like be more punitive.

Um along those lines, though.

Um yeah, I also like the idea of a of a of a bonus of um you know whether it's encouraging or or enabling um you know, closer kind of like level of of relocation.

I think that um is helpful uh you know, to Commissioner Fam's point.

Uh and also I think it kind of connects some of the dots on the reality that there's few housing units um you know to go around in this area and they tend to be more expensive than ones 40 miles out, 50 miles out.

Um the other thing I would um you know, in terms of you know, putting out for the commission in terms of um you know something that uh see if it gets support is in that alternate mitigation, another kind of like friendly just ideal recommendation is um you know, to ex to the extent that staff can take some like just broad um you know feelers out and kind of trying to craft some guided equivalency position on the alternative mitigation.

Um so we just you know, so councils can be equipped and informed with, hey, yeah, like this is equivalent in uh the monetary, but not in the functional, or it's you know, however staff you know would go off and and and do that.

Um I think future councils would benefit very much, and and and tenants would benefit very much as well from the transparency of um, hey, um if this is going around the usual uh codified uh you know uh kind of like regulation or ordinance, um, it just would be very good for for tenants to also be able to have the assurance and transparency that um that they're not getting a shorter end of the stick uh as an outcome.

Um so those are my uh commentaries and Commissioner Cranston.

Um just to follow up on your comments.

I I do like the idea of more noticing.

I would not recommend that it's the landlord doing it because my experience is I don't trust the landlord.

So if the if the notices are coming from the city, that's great.

I like I mean, I I agree with you, put something on the door, but it lets do it as part of those city notices.

Um because I've seen landlords put language in things that sounds like it's not wrong, but it's misleading.

And I think our goal here is to be more open and accurate and things.

So I like that idea.

Um, quite frankly, if the relocation costs are closer, it saves the landlord money than if they're moving 50 miles away.

So maybe there's something there.

Yeah.

Okay, so um, I'm hearing support for some information uh like noticing on the milestones, key dates, next steps, et cetera, as regard to project progress.

Um I'm also hearing it sounded like if I'm interpreting Commissioner Cranston's um comment correctly, some uh you know, support for the idea of like some some bonus something for uh individuals who are able or choosing or demonstrating that they're relocating within Mountain View or close to it.

Is that is that am I hearing that?

Are we able to make that recommendation?

Um staff is that within our scope for this.

I think so.

Um and then um, and then Commissioner Yin, I'll go to in just a minute, and then uh the other component um is there support for the uh equivalency um kind of like incorporation in the alternate mitigation for inclusion of language of that.

Yeah, yeah.

Is this just providing clarity for what those alternatives might be?

This is something that staff is already doing, it's just not codified as something they need to do, is it?

The um the the goal here is to explicitly uh state that there uh there must be some uh analysis of equivalency of the mitigation benefit.

So basically some however staff would determine this to make uh uh clear analysis that is formally submitted as part of the process to council saying we've assured this is an equivalent package and like in these XYABC ways.

If I could say it back, there's a section 46.2-3.10, which is the alternative mitigation, and it has language about uh alternative to providing the required assistance, so 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 uh equivalent value or some such yep, my hearing support for that, Commissioner Cranston supports I support Commissioner Yin.

Yep, okay.

Yep.

I I had a question.

So would that be staff providing additional guidance and uh like writing out procedures about how they would evaluate alternative mitigations and that's separate from any proposed change additional changes to the code?

Is that the approach we're going?

Uh just sort of thinking here um 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 um more specific criteria lives, and I would recommend that if this were uh uh information passed to the council and council wanted added that that's how we would implement um uh this provision.

Okay.

Yes.

Any other uh comments, Commissioner Yin, did you still have an additional comment or you're in the queue?

No.

Oh, I was uh I just wanted to clarify.

So I know there's concern about the uh of like um the 50 miles, and I think I'm with Commissioner Dunning, which is you know, if they have to pay rent closer in, 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, you get more money, gas money, whatever.

So um I'm okay with the 50.

The you know, you guys have evaluated the other cities have the same thing.

I'm not averse to that.

Um I I don't know about the bonus for staying in Mountain View, because Sunnyville's right there.

How well you know we have a lot of that are close by, they can still be around.

And I also want to ensure that um, you know, maybe they can't they have to move to Tracy, but then they're gonna do have the first rate of refusal, and they might take it up, so they might come back.

So I don't think that necessarily moving a little farther out means they're not coming back.

So I I'm a little torn on that.

I think if staff has already evaluated that this is the way to go, I I don't want to parse it out so many levels that you know you get bonus for that 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.

Um I know I do it for this particular one.

I'm saying I don't want to get too much in the weeds.

I know I could go either way on that, Commissioner Don Hugh Fan.

All right, let's do a quick straw poll.

Who who wants to keep the amendment to 50 miles as staff is proposing?

Straw poll in three, two, one.

Um I voting.

Um I will I'll I'll I'll agree to that.

Um think that um will that get some majority support.

Um cool.

Um it sounds like we've uh Commissioner Cranston's on the queue.

I guess I'm okay with the 50, but I like the idea of if there was some incentive if they there's 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 the range 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 I'm more interested in that in that than saying we're gonna take the 50 miles.

Is that um I know I could go either way on this?

Um I I think I'm hearing Commissioner Yin saying um you know it'd be good to not overcomplicate matters.

I am hearing Commissioner Pham and Commissioner Cranston trying to find a path toward um helping sustain local residencies even temporarily.

Um which there's merit in I guess like Commissioner Yin, I know that you mentioned you know, we have like Sunny Val Palto.

Um is your um kind of uh is is your view would it be more helpful to have like a radius, for example, like 10 mile, 25 miles, 50, some um proportional view on that, or um what are your what are your thoughts?

I I guess I assume the 50 miles was the sort of radius that they were going for.

I and I I get and unless there's um statistics that say people who you know stay within 15 miles tend to stay versus if you go out to 50, you know, or beyond, they don't come back.

Unless there's that, I'm just gonna I'm open to it, but I mean if it's not overcomplicating it for staff, I'm I guess I'm not suggesting that we put this in the code.

Like as staff has already said, there are guidelines that are provided.

Okay, and if part of the guidelines say, hey, if you do something in the way you're in your proposing for your relocation package, you're doing something that encourages people to stay, we will view that more favorably than if you don't.

So I'm not looking for that to be incorporated into the amendment.

I'm looking for it to be, hey staff, look at when you're developing your guidelines, think about this.

How do we make it more attractive for them to keep people here?

That's what I'm so I want to be clear.

I'm not suggesting a change to the code.

So then it seems like that previous straw poll will be able to stand.

And then um, Commissioner Cranson, are you is that just general like ideation for staff?

Um, or are you looking for just like your feedback on incorporated into the in the earlier and the earlier item that it gets incorporated and encouraged that it's being incorporated into the guidelines?

Yeah, any uh discussion on that.

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 so support?

I can support that.

The cost to move 50 miles away is gonna 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, then if they move them 50 miles away.

So in the total evaluation of the relocation costs, something that says, okay, I'm gonna get I'm not they're not just gonna 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 think meaning that because the developer might have been able to save some of the money from a farther move, they can give that difference to a household.

Yeah, I think we'll have to uh uh uh evaluate that there's one piece of um information that may be helpful.

These are um benefits for the TRAO, but SB 330 benefits also exist in parallel, and when staff is evaluating the total benefit package, it is a comparison between the TREA relocation amounts and SP330 amounts.

Um this was provided in more detail in the the council uh memo, but in perhaps the majority of the cases, the SB 330 benefits are likely to prov prevail, and they could be substantially higher than the trail amount.

So with the moving cost plus SP330, that is a that could be a much larger package, and it's really the S it's it's really the relocation benefits that would allow people to be able to stay in Mountain View.

Um I think we would probably have to do some analysis just to be able to better understand whether if there's some sort of conceptual cost savings from a from uh from a shorter move that there should be a requirement that they pass on the conceptual cost savings to a household that's that's moving closer.

I I think we probably just have to maybe analyze that a little bit more.

Um it may be a yeah, a little a little bit more more complicated, and we probably have to just look at some other factors.

Yeah, Commissioner Young.

So is the right you're recommending that just staff evaluate what can be done within this.

Okay, I'm I'm for that, so I'll change.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

Perfect, sweet.

Umanusness, miss unanimous support on that.

Um that uh works.

So then uh any other uh last minute commentary questions, yep.

So we um basically have um the uh recommendation from staff plus the uh recommendation for information noticing like enhancements and the alternate mitigation equivalency and the um the differential monies of uh relocation uh cost.

Uh so that would be what's uh potentially up for action.

Um we have a motion.

So none of those things though uh would amend the the the proposed code.

They're I think they're all just okay, got it.

They're all added guidance to staff to take the council um Ms.

Pancholi, do uh does that guidance um require any uh differentiation in language from the script or um what would suffice for anyone wanting to craft a motion?

So maybe you can, you know, when you're making the motion, we can say um this is the recommendation as modified by the planning commission.

Okay, then I guess I'll make a motion since I have the um since I have the paper.

Anyone want to second my motion?

All right, um Commissioner Fam.

Okay, sweet.

Um so then uh the motion on the floor is um that the environmental planning commission recommend the city council adopt an ordinance of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the Mountain View City Code to update review procedures for private development applications with legislative amendments to zoning general plan.

And nope, this is not it.

Different item, that's the next agenda item.

Wasn't staple.

That was my that was my failing.

This is all going everyone, everything's under comp full.

Um perfect.

Okay, sweet.

Um the motion is uh 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 no what here just says for you.

Yeah, it's uh okay.

There we go.

We're going off script.

Oh, it is okay.

Uh third times the charm.

Uh the motion is to recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View repealing chapter 36, Article 13, tenant relocation assistance of the Mountain View City Code, amending chapter 46 of the Mountain View City Code to change the title and add a new article governing tenant relocation assistance and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

And the recommendations that have been supported by the commission for including enhanced noticing and for uh explicit statement of equivalency analysis as part of the alternate mitigation programs, as well as a potential um payout of differential monies uh associated with relocation costs to tenants okay, cool.

Okay, cool.

We will take this to a vote.

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.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chen.

Sweet.

Uh okay, moving forward.

Uh we are now proceeding to item 5.3, request for amendments to chapter 36 zoning of the city code to implement council policy G9 regarding the gatekeeper process for legislative actions.

We'll first have a staff presentation followed by questions from the APC 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 Murdoch.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, honorable commissioners.

I'm community development director Christian Murdoch.

I'm joined on the dias 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 flow chart 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 application or evaluation rather of consistency with adopted council criteria.

Once that evaluation is completed, applications are brought forward to a council authorization hearing.

At that time, council will determine whether to allow a project to file a formal planning application and begin processing.

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 cities of notice of availability'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 geekeeper 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 to help formalize and standardize the city's gatekeeper process.

These are intended to clarify how the city will process and consider gatekeeper applications.

Of note, the policy includes a requirement for gatekeeper applicants to enter into a development agreement with the city to provide a mechanism to ensure provision of the community benefits offered by applicants during the gatekeeper process.

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 14th.

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.

All right.

Excellent.

Thank you, Director Murdoch.

Questions from the Commission.

Questions?

Going ones.

Okay, Commissioner Fam.

I had a few questions.

I read that there's a minimum waiting period, two years for substantially similar applications that were not authorized to resubmit.

Why two years and how does it compare with other jurisdictions?

Thank you for the question.

The two-year period is intended to ensure applicants don't come in and attend to uh 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 uh 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 uh criteria that we've benchmarked uh across other jurisdictions with gatekeeper or gatekeeper-like processes, so I don't have an answer to that specific question.

Okay.

Um I just had a general question about percentage of projects that go through the gate secret process versus the streamlined process.

Any sort of idea about the split?

Um it's difficult to speculate.

Um, there are trade-offs for uh projects that are looking to go through the new streamlined process, um, and it's hard to compare what might occur with that new streamline process compared to the prior streamline 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 uh authorization in 2024.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Donahue.

So policy G9 went through a big process and got adopted by the city council.

Um is the process for amending that policy, and how does that compare with the process that would have taken place with the if everything were actually in the ordinance to start with and we wanted to amend the the ordinance?

So with council policy G9 being adopted by resolution, a resolution of the city council can amend that policy.

So a single action by council could adopt um an updated policy.

That contrasts with amendments to the city code, which are uh effectuated by ordinance, which uh require a recommendation from the environmental planning commission and then a public hearing by the city council in order to enact those uh amended provisions.

And that action by council actually requires two steps.

There's the initial public hearing and then a second reading or adoption of the ordinance um at a subsequent meeting.

And so uh it's a much more intensive and time consuming kind time consuming process to adopt city code amendments by ordinance as compared to this more uh streamlined process to adopt um updated resolutions and policies that way.

Okay.

The um if the what was I gonna say?

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Yin.

Okay, this might be a dumb question.

Um I know in the housing element it says that we have to uh review one a year, and it seems like common sense.

If none come forward, you can't review the one, but just to just clarify and confirm.

If none come that's okay, you want me to I mean 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 can you know applications are just uh uh taken in just on a rolling basis, and they just have to come 90 days before the hearing, the authorization hearing.

So um they could come, you know, maybe six months before the hearing, but as long as they're in within that time frame.

So once we when we get an application, then we'll start to kind of figure out when that uh authorization hearing should take place and and then you know just work accordingly towards that.

And I want to clarify uh the obligation in the housing element is to hold at least one authorization hearing per year for residential or residential mixed use projects.

There's not an obligation um to hold um those hearings in the housing element for non-residential projects.

Okay, and do we have any?

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.

I see okay, thanks.

Oh, I had a Commissioner Found.

Oh, thanks.

I had a follow-up question based on uh 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?

Uh no, they would not be required to go through the council policy and procedures committee.

It's possible the council could refer it and seek the input, uh, but it's not a requirement.

Commissioner Donahue.

So kind of following on that, I remembered the question I was gonna ask.

Uh you said that uh to amend the uh the city ordinance, it would have to go through the EPC and council and second reading and all that stuff.

Uh then you talked about G9, and you didn't mention the EPC.

So would updates to that no longer need to go through the EPC?

Uh updates to council policy G9 would not require environmental planning commission review and recommendation.

Um change to city code provisions that pertain to the gatekeeper process would continue to require um environmental planning commission recommendation uh to city council.

Okay, so so this reduces our input that this action tonight would reduce our involvement in the in the process, basically.

Uh it it would change the role that the environmental planning commission has in um recommending gatekeeper related policy.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner?

No.

Okay.

Um my question, uh Commissioner Murdoch, could you characterize the change in the role of the EPC or other uh kind of like deliberative processes?

Um yeah, could you just characterize that just kind of pay backing off of Commissioner Donahue's?

Um how would the role change or be reduced or etc.

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.

That sounds good.

Um so then when it comes to projects that would be aligning to the business relocation, um, you know, historic preservation business uh you know the the the correct categories in the in the table that we saw as part of the presentation.

Um we would probably just uh in terms of that evaluate authorize part of the process, that would just um go straight to the review stage, right?

So we would still kind of like see or or know about these projects, right?

It it just wouldn't be as like intensive, is that fair to say well I think it's important to recognize the city council maintained a role for the environmental planning commission um in the review of projects submitted um that are authorized to submit.

So the policy requires a study session at the environmental planning commission for projects authorized to submit a formal planning application.

So um it's not as though the EPC will never have any interaction with gatekeeper projects um that are submitted through the regular process.

It's just that that initial authorization decision uh is one that council directly uh undertakes.

Thank you.

And uh I have no attachment because I won't be on the planning commission forever.

Um but uh along those lines though, I do have a a question on the um the category component.

Um is it all one like for example, um business retention, like if if a developer does just one of those bullet points say they provide lease subsidies?

Does that does that one criteria um or meeting that one specific criteria get them through, or um how would you characterize like the the number of the the like degree or extent of um adherence to some of these categories that um would warrant or um enable a uh uh a streamlined uh movement through the through the through the process?

Um so the the business retention uh component that you described is is part of the regular gatekeeper uh project criteria, and so that's not something that would be subject to the streamlining.

Um with that sort of uh established, the number of criteria, including business retention or others, um, is not defined.

Um an application can go forward with one, with all of them, with none of them, and that was a critical uh element of the city council's deliberation of this policy.

Um I think generally we've been accustomed to the gatekeeper process involving people coming with their A game and providing a lot of community benefits, but council um didn't want that to be a mandatory component, so that a project that made maybe doesn't have deep economic uh ability to provide more traditional community benefits, uh, could still come forward and seek authorization if it had some other sort of inherent value for the community that's not sort of a dollars and sense economic value, but had some sort of needed use or broader community benefits that's not recognized in that more traditional community benefit sense.

And so that's why there's broad latitude for projects to come in with all some or none of those um suggested categories.

Got it.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

No more questions for me.

Uh Commissioner Donahue.

Uh yeah, I'm just I guess I'm I'm just on one topic tonight.

But um the yeah, and and I I appreciate that, yeah, we would still be involved in any amendments to to uh chapter 36.

Uh but there are there are large sections that are removed from chapter 36 put into the policy, and now it just says see the policy.

Um so we would no longer be involved in amending what was previously in those sections and what is now in that policy.

That's that's kind of generally my question.

I think the the answer is yes, right.

That's correct.

To the extent there's something that is no longer in the city code, there will no longer be a role for EPC recommendation to city council uh on such matters.

Okay, and that fair enough, and that that may be uh appropriate.

I just I just want to be clear on that.

Thank you.

Other questions thoughts, considerations?

No.

Okay.

Uh seeing none from the commission, we will proceed to public comment.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any yellow speaker cards in the queue or anyone on Zoom with a raised hand?

Yes, we have one uh speaker in person, uh Peter Katz.

Uh you may now come up and speak.

Yeah, I think it's me.

Thank you, Vice Chair Nunez and members of the EPC.

I'm Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce.

And for several years, uh we at the chamber have been strong advocates for the return and revision of the gatekeeper process, especially with the need for more housing and meeting the requirements of the housing element.

I want to thank staff for working with us on many of these changes that include things like removing the barriers, reducing the barriers so that we can actually do projects that are new, bold, exciting.

Because let's face it, no one predicted what was going to be happening with COVID.

No one predicted what was going to be happening in the last few years.

No one predicted the shortage that we were going to have, and we need bold um uh bold projects to to take this uh forward.

We also appreciate um building in more versatility, um, my a wider range of projects, uh reducing the number of requirements or saying all or none of the requirements when you can go through because the whole objective here is to be creative, to be bold, and to be able to get in front of council to have your for lack of a better term, your day in court.

Um I do want to mention one thing, and that is we still do not see a reason to have a two-year minimum for resubmittal.

It slows the process and adds to the already significant costs.

Let's face it, every time we have to go uh well developer has to go back to the drawing board, if you will.

That's hundreds of thousands of dollars, that's several months, etc.

It just adds up very, very quickly for projects that are having difficulty penciling as it is.

So if satisfactory changes are made, uh a project should be allowed to come back in at the next opportunity rather than waiting for two years uh uh waiting for two years, even uh especially since gatekeepers are only being uh performed once a year at this point.

So I encourage you to uh consider that.

But other than that, um again, I just want to compliment uh the city staff on uh really uh taking into into um consideration very important elements.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Katz.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any speakers remaining in person or on Zoom?

Uh there are no no more speakers uh in person or on Zoom okay.

Uh seeing no more speakers, uh we will proceed to commission deliberation and action.

Any comments from our commissioners, Mr.

Cranston.

For those of you who are involved in the housing element, you probably recall my degree of cynicism about their fact that there was even a gate care process that exists.

So this I view as a major move forward, and I fully support the staff recommendation is is with no changes because there really hasn't been a gate care process process for years, and we need this.

So I'm all for it.

Thank you, Mr.

Cranson.

Any other thoughts from the commission?

Commissioner Donahue.

So can I ask a quick question based on the public feedback?

The the the two years my iPads having some problems.

That is that in the in the policy.

It is, and so that's not really uh within the purview of the ordinance recommendation this evening.

Got it.

Okay.

Um that okay.

Um and as far as comments go, um I'm you know a little concerned about uh as you might have gathered uh about kind of changing the the process and and kind of not I mean I'm not gonna be on the EPC forever either.

It's not like I want I'm power hungry or anything like that.

Um the but I do like having things vetted in in a in a more holistic way with uh you know lots of opportunities for public comment, things like that.

Um but then to some extent it does lead to uh burdensome like if you can't be more nimble in uh adopting regulations uh it just slows down the whole process.

So um I think all things being you know uh considered I I uh generally support support this thank you, Commissioner Donahue.

Any other commentaries?

No.

No, we don't have to.

Well, okay.

Um I support this as my comment.

Um it sounds like uh there's encouraging signs of support for this.

Um thank you for your question.

Uh Commissioner Donahue clarifying uh the scope of um the two-year waiting period um as pertains to G9 versus um 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 Fam has seconded.

Mr.

Cranson, would you like to read the So I move that the environmental planning commission recommend the city council adopt an ordinance of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the Mountain View City Code update review procedures for private development applications with legislative amendments to zoning, general plan and precise plans, and finding that amendments are exempt from review and environmental California Environmental Quality Act to be written only for the reading waived exhibit one of the staff reports?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Seems like we can take this to a vote.

The motion passes five.

Yay and two absent.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

All right.

Commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports.

No action will be taken on questions raised by the commission at this time.

Any commentary, questions, updates, requests?

Commissioner Cranston.

I don't know whether other commissioners would be in favor of this, but the comment on the speaker earlier today is not the first time we've had the question of new development not having locations for delivery vehicles on site.

And I would personally like to see staff look at that and evaluate how might our change 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 uh 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.

If I may, uh I'll just mention that um this issue has come up uh in the last two um major planning processes uh that we've uh initiated uh as of late, the downtown precise plan and the Moffat Boulevard precise plan updates.

So those provide our first two opportunities to really think through this from uh urban design and a regulatory standpoint, and so I think those will be the opportunities for um staff to develop their thinking about um ways to approach that challenge, and so um when those items come back, um that's probably the best time uh to explore that.

Commissioner Yin.

Um I I appreciate that.

I was going to just go ahead and reiterate the request 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 and it's hard to even get out from behind, and if that happens time and time again along the same street, it's just you know defeating the purpose of 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 urban, you know, in the urban design, is that something that can just be waived or conceded later on?

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.

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.

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.

For example, I I know 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 plan for, I think everyone will see that it's a win-win.

It's a place to get all the deliveries, to put the garbage, it makes the front of the street that much nicer, adds to the walkability, the bikeability, all of it, no curb cuts, or not as many.

Um that is one example of a way to get it locked in so that it is not something that can be waived or conceded, it's just part of the street grid.

It's not easy to do in a suburban development as Mountain View mostly is, but if there 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.

Thank you, Commissioner Yin.

Any other announcements, updates, requests, committee reports.

I just um thank you, Diana Poncioli, 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.

Thank you, Ms.

Pincholi.

Final Commissioner Cranson would like to know the next next meeting, likely, not likely.

Um I'm gonna double check that and uh circle back with the commission.

All right.

Well but um, to the best of my knowledge, it is on track in October, yes.

Yep, all right.

We'll be excitedly checking our inbox.

Um we will proceed to adjournment.

The meeting is adjourned at 9 20 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.