Those joining us in Zoom, 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 EPCI 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.

Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak, and then turn them in to the APC 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 APC clerk to proceed with roll call.

Commissioner Subermerion.

Here.

Commissioner Pham.

Here.

Commissioner Gutierrez.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Here.

Commissioner Cranston.

Hair.

Vice Chair Donahue.

Here.

And Chair Nunes.

Present.

Here.

Okay.

All commissioners present with the exception of Commissioner Gutiers who is absent.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Okay.

We'll move on to item number three, minutes approval, of which there is none.

So we will then proceed to item number four, oral communications.

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

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

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

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

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on on 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?

There are none in person and none on Zoom.

Okay.

All right, seeing as how there are no speakers.

We will proceed to uh item five public hearing with uh 5.1 below market rate housing program zoning code updates uh being the agenda item for the night.

We will first have a staff presentation, then questions by the EPC, followed by public comment.

At the closure of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action.

So we'll begin with a staff presentation from our housing specialist Anna Reynoso and Affordable Housing Manager Julie Bernard.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Ana Reynoso, and I'm a housing specialist here at the city.

This evening I am accompanied by Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard and Housing Director Wayne Chen.

This evening we will be presenting on the ordinance amendments to the below market rate program, also referred to as BMR.

This evening's presentation will be divided into three main parts.

We will provide some background, which includes an overview of the current BMR program along with the BMR review process.

The second part of the presentation is focused on the seven proposed amendments to the BMR ordinance.

Finally, we will conclude with next steps.

The city's BMR program was originally adopted in 1999 and underwent its first major update in August of 2019.

The BMR program refers to inclusionary units that are integrated within market rate developments, not projects that are 100% affordable housing.

Some key components of the BMR program include any residential project that creates seven or more units, must include on-site BMR units.

Projects less than seven units are subject to a fractional in LU fee.

BMR units are set at different area meeting income, also known as AMI levels, and are required to be comparable to market rate units, and BMR units remain affordable in perpetuity.

Under the program, developers may pursue an alternative means of compliance, also referred to as alternative compliance, in place of providing on-site BMR units.

For existing BMR tenants, the maximum allowable rent increase is capped at 3%.

The city's housing element program 1.9 requires two reviews of the BMR program.

The first review was completed in December 2023, consistent with the required deadline.

The next review will be completed in 2028.

The December 2023 review included the five evaluation criteria in the housing element as outlined on the screen.

The review concluded that the BMR program is effective in increasing the supply and diversity of affordable housing.

Council approved the recommendation to further study specific amendments based on the housing element criteria and bring back recommended amendments for additional discussion prior to the actual ordinance amendments.

The ordinance amendments are implemented in a two-phase process.

Phase one of the ordinance modification process was completed in February 2025, where EPC and City Council held public hearings and approved the first set of BMR ordinance updates focused on criterion five cleanup items.

Phase two took place in November of 2025.

City Council approved recommended amendments for the remaining housing element evaluation criteria based on the direction given in the December 2023 study session.

The remaining seven amendments will be discussed in detail this evening.

The first amendment focuses on the second housing element evaluation criteria, improved physical accessibility of BMR units.

After further study, it was found that approximately 13 to 18% of low income households in California have a physical disability, and that existing state and federal building codes already require extensive accessibility features in designated accessible units.

It was determined that adding local accessibility requirements beyond those standards is difficult due to need, cost, and limited administrative capacity.

Developers indicated additional features would need to be optional and incentivized, though some developers voluntarily include adaptable units that can be modified later.

In November 2025, council supported staff's recommendation to require 15% of the BMR units or one unit minimum to be accessible.

This approach improves access to BMR housing without imposing additional local requirements.

Amendment number two adds requirements that an applicant must meet if they propose alternative compliance rather than building integrated on-site BMR units.

These changes provide greater clarity for applicants and require applicants to provide comprehensive information necessary to more effectively and efficiently review a development application for compliance with the BMR ordinance.

Based on council direction, the November 2025 meaning the general requirements being made include keeping land dedication and off-site development of BMR units on the list of allowable alternative compliance options, adding acquisition preservation of existing housing units to the list of alternative compliance options, clarifying that alternative compliance applies to both rental and ownership projects.

The value of an applicant's proposal be no less than the value of providing the units on site.

The applicant must contribute financial resources to facilitate the proposal, providing sitting oversight if the applicant proposes a partnership with another entity, and developers must submit a complete below market rate compliance plan as part of their development application.

Before reviewing the first compliant option, it's important to note that it incorporates lessons learned from previous city projects, which help to inform the development of these amendments.

Secondly, when evaluating a proposal, staff will use the INU fee to measure equivalency between the alternative compliance option and providing on-site BMR units.

The amendments to the alternative compliance approach addresses direction given by council relating to housing element criteria three and four.

With land dedication, there are no proposed changes to the current requirements.

The amendments include adding location requirements to integrate AFFH criteria, a feasibility and financing analysis, which demonstrate the project's alignment with the INLU fee equivalency and identifies any additional developer contribution.

In addition, there's also a cost recovery fee based on the cost analysis of city resources and staff time the city undertakes in a land dedication which spans several years.

The amendments relating to our second alternative compliance option, off-site development have been informed by city projects such as 777 Middlefield and 685 East Middlefield.

For off-site development, the location requirements align with the updated standards discussed in land dedication.

One of the new standards that has been added includes access to amenities.

That is, if the off-site development does not include equivalent amenities and it is within 750 feet of the primary project, the off-site residents must be granted access to shared amenities, such as a pool or gym at the market rate site.

Currently, off-site development includes a 20% requirement.

The amendment is reducing this to 15% to better align with the on-site BMR requirement.

Currently, alternative compliance for off-site development does not include an affordability term.

This amendment proposes aligning the term with our current BMR requirement of in perpetuity, except in cases where financing restrictions prevent it.

Often projects such as these involve multiple funding sources, each with its own requirements, so the amendment builds in flexibility to work with the applicants.

Most of these projects are undertaken by mission-driven developers who typically seek to maintain affordability well beyond 55 years.

Another new requirement is for the applicant to provide a feasibility and financing analysis.

This analysis will give the city assurance that the alternative compliance aligns with the INLU fee equivalency, clarifies developer financial contribution, and confirms that no additional city funding is required.

In the situation where the applicant opts to partner with another entity for off-site development, the applicant would need to outline what the partnership may entail, any financial contributions they are providing, the terms being offered, and the process for the partner selection.

The city will have some level of oversight over the developer partnership to ensure the terms align with the program requirements.

If the developer opts to secure a partner through an RFP, the city shall review the RFP to confirm compliant.

The amendments also revise the delivery timeline to include a provision that if the off-site development is not completed, the developer must comply with the 15% BMR objective standard.

And now I will pass it on to affordable housing manager Julie Barnard, who will present the remaining BMR ordinance amendments.

Thank you, Anna.

Our third and final alternative compliance measure is acquisition and preservation.

So the city does have one existing example that these measures have been modeled off of, and that is 660 Mariposa.

In order for an acquisition preservation project to be eligible, the acquired sites will need to be on a different site and also not subject to existing deed restrictions.

The locational requirements align with the other two alternative compliance approaches, with the addition of CSFRA units being eligible.

The affordability levels, oh I skipped ahead.

Staff recognize that this might be challenging for a developer to secure a building that has an exact match of bedroom and unit sizes, and therefore will allow a developer to exceed the number of units that would have been required, but at a 1.5 times threshold.

So this will provide the program with flexibility in while also balancing the unit sizes.

The first four standards here align with those that were discussed in the other in off-site development.

So if the acquisition preservation project requires relocation assistance, the developer or the applicant must remain consistent with the city's TRIO provisions.

Finally, both projects are to receive their certificate of occupancies concurrently.

Council accepted all of staff's recommendations.

For the third amendment, staff were instructed to review the INLU fee escalator index, which is currently CPI.

Staff found that the California construction cost index would be the beta index and therefore recommend making this change.

In order in doing our due diligence for the acquisition for the alternative compliance, we revisited the INLU fees and we have some updates.

Although construction costs have increased, incomes have which drive rents and sales prices have increased at a far greater rate over the past five years.

So therefore, you will notice that two of the fees have actually just decreased.

Conversely, non-Row home and town home ownership projects such as condos have seen construction costs increase faster than sales prices, which means that the gap between the construction cost and the revenue has increased, and this results in a higher fee.

So council accepted these recommendations.

The Fourth Amendment addresses the remaining cleanup items that were not incorporated into the February 2025 update.

These include clarifying the weighted average for the AMI limits and updating the administrating department from CDD to housing.

Council has accepted these recommendations.

The Fifth Amendment addresses the HOA reserve fund.

Currently, our ordinance requires that any developer that is providing units at 80% or below establish a fund that would cover increases in HOA fees for households that may be experiencing financial hardships due to the fee increases.

Since this was adopted by the city in 2019, the state has passed Assembly Bill 572, which restricts an HOA increase on deed restricted ownership units to 5% plus CPI capped at 10%.

Additionally, staff have received feedback from developers that the HOA reserve fund impacts project feasibility for low income homeownership units.

Staff conducted an analysis and found that AB 572 is generally sufficient to meet the intent of the HOA reserve fund and that the benefits of this fund do not offset project feasibility.

So therefore, staff recommend removing the program, and council was supportive of this recommendation.

Amendment number six, the graduated a graduated fee reduction.

As mentioned earlier in the presentation, the BMR program allows projects up to six units to pay the INU fee.

Once a project reaches seven units, a full BMR unit must be delivered with the project.

During the November 2025 council review, staff recommended incorporating a graduated fee reduction for small projects, meaning that the more units a developer builds up to a maximum of six, the lower the per unit fee.

The intent of this initiative is to incentivize developers of small projects to maximize their development potential, as well as to further housing element goal 2.2, which is the pilot ADU and SB9 Financial Incentive Program.

The graduated fee reduction could maximize the use or maximize and incentivize the use of SB9 and achieve incrementally more new housing supply than without the graduated fee reduction.

At the November 2025 City Council meeting, council passed a motion recommending that staff analyze two actions.

The first action was to analyze adjusting the graduated fee reduction to work proportionally with the maximum number of units physically possible for a project.

In order to determine how to calculate this, staff recommends using the base densities allowed under the general plan and zoning designations as well as the provisions of SB684 to establish the legally allowed the maximum legally allowed density.

The graduated fee reduction would then be scaled proportional to the number of units that are legally allowed.

This approach retains the original intent of the greater the density, the lesser the fee, but then it customizes the approach to site-specific densities.

This table compares two scenarios, the first being a project with the legally allowable maximum density of six units, and the second with four.

As you see here, the graduated fee reduction scales accordingly with the number of units that could have been built.

To illustrate, if the developer has a site with a maximum density of six units and opts to develop only four, they would be required to pay a fee of $8,855 per unit versus paying no fees if they were to maximize the density.

The second action was to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating the graduated fee reduction with maximizing the development potential of small sites up to 10 units and return to council with options.

Council directed staff to review projects of up to 10 units because there are state laws that allow buy rights subdivisions of up to 10 units under SB684.

Staff conducted a preliminary evaluation and have determined that the additional that additional analysis is required.

We propose doing this through the low and middle income homeownership strategy, since projects of up to 10 units are often oriented towards ownership models, and also to return with options during the 2028 BMR review.

This is also consistent with other guidelines throughout the city.

Council accepted this recommendation.

As a reminder, these are the seven general topics that the EPC is considering this evening.

And this results an effective date of July 9th, 30 days following the second reading.

So staff recommend that the EPC recommend council adopt an ordinance amending chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code as it relates to the BMR program amendments as discussed in this presentation.

And also find that these code amendments are not subject to CGRO.

So this concludes staff's presentation.

We are available for questions and we can turn it back to the chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Chairman Nunia.

So a few questions.

And this is getting back to one of my favorite topics, the density bonus law.

I'm interested in how that interacts with some of the changes that we're making here.

So let me just go through and hit a couple of these amendments kind of one by one.

So under amendment one, one of the if I understand it correctly, one of the changes that we're making is that a specified number of the units or a particular ratio of the units have to be disabled accessible in a way that regular units are not.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Is that waivable under the density bonus law as a concession?

Yes, I believe it would be.

Okay.

But they would have to use one of their incentives or concessions.

So they're usually limited depending on the project's provision of the BMR units.

So that we would require that they use one of their incentives and concessions rather than a waiver.

Okay, and incentives and concessions are limited by number of waivers are unlimited.

Is that remind me how it works?

Yeah, waivers are unlimited.

Okay and then incentives and concession concessions are limited based on the number, like the proportion of their density bonus that they are requiring.

Okay.

It's like a sliding scale.

How do you determine what is a waiver and what is a concession?

Who decides that?

That's a great question.

So a waiver, and maybe I can also help the city ask the city attorney to assist.

But a development waiver usually waives the development standards.

So put simply, think of something that's like physically possible or impossible to build versus an incentive and a concession is more like a like driven by your financing.

Okay.

Okay.

So the so under amendment one, that could be a concession.

That could.

Okay.

So for number two, uh similarly the requirement that an amenity has to be shared with an off-site.

So if there's a swimming pool at site A and then the BMR gets put over to an off-site, could that be could the developer request as a concession that no?

Because the developer couldn't use an alternative compliance and the density bonus.

They have to be to provide their density bonus, they have to be providing inclusionary units.

The intent of the alternative compliance is that they're not providing the units within the building.

It's being removed and being delivered in a separate way to comply with the city ordinance, not a state ordinance.

Okay, so the state legislation.

So the use of an amenity on site by off-site BMR units, that's not waivable.

No, not under DNC bull.

Oh, okay, good.

All right.

That's good news.

Um similarly, the perpetuity of the deed that is waivable, is it not?

They could come in and say it's too expensive to have it be in perpetuity, we'll we'll give you 35 years.

Yeah, Commissioner Dempsey, I can jump in here.

So the difference between concessions and incentives and waivers is that a waiver can be used when a development standard physically precludes development at the proposed density.

So think of open space requirement and not specific to affordable housing, but an open space requirement or um a setback requirement, something if if they stuck to it, they couldn't necessarily achieve the density that they are entitled to.

Whereas a an incentive or concession is um a development standard that's reduced or not applied because it because of financial impacts to the affordable housing that's being provided.

So if a developer comes in and you know they don't have to show a performa, but if they tell the city this requirement um is has direct financial impacts to our ability to provide affordable housing, then they're entitled to use their concession or incentive to change the development standard as it applies to that project.

Okay.

And I I don't I don't plan to belabor the point.

I think it's just important that as we're going through and we're talking about how do we make the BMR ordinance better.

I think it's important that we remember that these are increasingly advisory.

Um and that we shouldn't necessarily expect that it'll happen in every case.

If we're doing something that we think is good, uh a developer could easily come through with density bonus law and say, well, that's kind of expensive.

I don't want to do it.

And then we have to say, okay.

And that's just um something I think is important to keep in mind as we as we go and we and as we take on some of these changes.

The second question that I have is not on that.

It's actually related to the last recommendation, the one that staff does not recommend we take.

And it's this it's switching in the uh switching code.

It's uh the place that we were talking about putting it, I think in TREO.

Chapter 46.

Yes, changing the chapters.

The thing I was surprised by is it's there is no discussion really whatsoever as to why we don't think it's a good idea that we say there are it could expose the city to potential challenges that would not arise if the BMR program remained in chapter 36.

There was no discussion in the memo that I recall.

There was no discussion in the staff proposal.

Um I just kind of want to nerd out a little bit on why we think that's not a good idea uh good evening, uh Commissioners Wayne Chan, Housing Director.

So we did conduct some analysis, we um consulted with um city attorney's office, and it was more of a sort of a risk prevention measure.

There's not a lot of examples of this where um a city has moved it out or kept their BMR ordinance outside of the zoning code.

Most cities have it within the zoning code.

Um it was more of a uh if we moved it outside of the zoning code, would it uh expose a city to challenges to say we couldn't implement um the provisions?

And so it was more along those lines.

It wasn't uh too much more detail than that.

Um but part of the reason of moving it out into uh chapter 46 was perhaps making it easy for developers to find all the relevant housing codes, but we can certainly achieve that by just pointing them to chapter 36 and chapter 46.

So that's primarily the reason to rather not expose us to a potential issue rather than move it for um sort of streamlining consolidation purposes.

Okay, so the intent originally was make it a little bit easier to navigate, but to the extent that it would raise a technical sum the potential for technical legal challenge because it got moved out of the out of one chapter and into another, the risk wasn't worth the benefit.

Correct.

Okay, good enough for me.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, uh Commissioner Dempsey, Vice Chair Donna Hughes.

So but I do wonder um the accessible units.

Are they only available to people with physical disabilities or are they generally available to everyone?

Oh, that's a great question.

Um I think usually they would be it it would depend on the applicant pool, and it also depends on it's not an exact science.

It is sometimes hard to align like a reasonable accommodation.

Um right, Anna, you're gonna have to help me with this one.

Um, and as I know as our expert at things like this, um but they would they would be available to an interest list with a preference for those who have a need for the fully accessible.

Sometimes like if I go to a hotel, the the last unit to be to be rented as the or you know, the last room available is the the accessible unit.

But it yeah, okay.

I I I think I understand that makes sense.

Um another question.

Uh is this affordability being required in perpetuity unless a funding source requires otherwise, right?

And it it's a requirement, not a um funding sources.

It only needs to be accessible for 55 years to get this funding.

But if somebody uh that's a floor, not a ceiling, and the city would would require the the ceiling, right?

Right.

So um tax credits uh for at the federal level, I think are about 30 years, with the state level being a minimum of 55.

Um we obviously don't want to stand in the way of any well, it's not the tax credits necessarily themselves, it's the investors and the um finances on the other side of those tax credits that may have different regulations.

So our preference would be in perpetuity, but we wouldn't want to prohibit um any developer from securing their financing.

So we would just align with um with that, knowing that 55 years is always gonna be the floor.

What happens is usually around 55 years or soon sooner a developer will re-syndicate their loan and come and at that time we would extend it.

So often um affordable fully affordable housing developments end up being affordable in perpetuity anyway, because we just continue to extend the regulatory agreement.

Oh, it's so it's like you get a mortgage and you just refinance your mortgage and that kind of thing.

The term keeps going 100% exactly.

I see.

Okay.

Um, that's all I had.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Femme.

Um I had a few questions.

Um, first question had to do with the alternative compliance measures.

Um the ones that were listed um to me are very different from each other.

So land dedication, off-site development, and acquisition and preservation of existing housing units.

Does staff have a sense of what would of the options would be more popular or likely to occur versus others?

I know it's hard to know, but I was just trying to understand a little bit about the context of why these three were chosen and how how likely they would be.

I can I can take a shot at this.

Um I can tell you the trends that we've seen in the past year or two is that we have seen two alternative compliance measures with off-site development.

Um, at least two projects.

Um, but in the the past, the city has received a few land dedications also.

So um introducing the acquisition preservation provides a path for developers to um expand the portfolio of options.

But um so far those two have both been um successfully used, with um most recently two off-site developments being popular.

All right, thanks.

I have a follow-up question.

Um kind of has to do with I recall in November council had questions about timing of each of these alternative compliance measures, um, because they're so different to me.

I I think the question was really valid.

Um if you're working on your project and you're trying to also do some sort of means of alternative compliance, the timing may not work out completely, and council had asked staff to figure out if there could be some variance or some administrative leniency.

Was that considered?

Yes.

Um, and I think we will also rec uh requested to do that through the administrative guidelines.

So that will occur through the administrative guidelines, and we agree as staff, we wouldn't want to um prohibit a good player or a developer that's showing good faith, um, progress in the project.

Okay, great.

My last question had to do with the BMR housing fund.

It was good to get a description of that.

I just want to get a sense of how much of the INLU fees that were mentioned go into that fund, how much that fund is, and how that funding is ultimately used by the city.

Our INLU fee fund, or are you talking about the HOA the BMR housing fund?

I'm looking at the ordinance.

I think it's section 364040.

Wait, are you asking about our fund balances or just like our general cash flow?

Or like kind of both, just to get an idea of how much has gone into this fund over the years from the INLU fees, and then how do we have the information on hand?

Okay.

If you'll give us a minute, we'll take a look.

Wayne Chan Housing Director.

Over the past 10 years, I believe we've um now added over a thousand um affordable housing units fully affordable to the city.

So we have about 1700 units, and um I believe we've provided about 150 million dollars worth of funding, which is a combination of BMR inLU fees, which have been a primary source as well as our housing impact fees.

So I think um as Ms.

Barnard is looking at potential breakdowns, the number is quite high.

Um it's it's you know tens of millions of dollars of BMR inloom fees have been collected, um, leveraged for these um these thousand units.

Thanks.

The context is we do have a number for you.

Um since the project, oh sorry, since the BMR ordinance was program was implemented in 1999, the city's received 118 million dollars in fees.

Thank you.

In general, how are those fees used and what's the decision making process behind that?

Well, our fees are used in a number of different ways.

Um most of it, I'd say the lion's share of it is uh loans to developers for affordable housing projects.

We do have other things, um, things that are drawn down from like staff costs.

We have other programs like um uh some of our like uh we'll what do you call it?

So I'm sorry, I'm struggling with my words right now.

Um other housing programs, such as we're looking at the um low and middle income home ownership strategy.

We that we could potentially fund some of the um acquisition preservation um projects that we are um implementing through.

Wait, I think Wayne, you may be able to speak to our um speak to that four million dollars that we had allocated towards acquisition preservation.

Sure.

Uh Ms.

Barnard's right.

Um the vast majority of the funding is for 100% um fully affordable new construction projects.

Um there's been a small um allocation of four million dollars for our uh community ownership action plan acquisition preservation fund, and we're looking to uh potentially elaborate the funding for more homeownership um opportunities as well.

So mostly new construction, some acquisition preservation, some homeownership.

Thank you.

It's great to have the context of um you know the size and scale of this program.

All right, thanks, uh Commissioner Pham.

Commissioner uh Superman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you to my colleagues for asking some of the questions.

Certainly helped to clarify it.

I understand that at the directive of the council, the um intent is to remove the INLU fees going forward and to replace it with these other alternate compliance methodologies.

Um it's actually interesting to hear about the context of how much INLU fees has been drawn in over the years.

And per my understanding, um, I understand that in combination with the impact fees that are drawn in go to serve the city's sources of providing gap financing for many affordable housing projects.

So I'm a little struck by the fact that we are going forward, and I wondered if there was a thought about how some of that financing which might have been received through INLU will be now offset through other sources.

Um maybe it's a question for Director Chan.

Yes, thank you very much for the question.

There is certainly a trade-off.

In part the BMR program is seen as an alternative mechanism for delivery of units without the city needing to be involved or the city needing to invest in it.

But yes, there is a trade-off, and we've been very successful about using BMR fees over the years.

And we've been quite successful at that.

Measure P and Measure G, and the housing department gets some allocation of that.

And we continue to talk about external partnerships and funding partnerships as well.

So the hope is that we are still able to deliver 100% fully affordable projects that includes some city financing and separately through a different mechanism to have affordable units delivered through the BMR program.

Thank you.

So could you maybe provide an explanation of what the calculation methodology is for the INLU fee?

Because I read about the fee amount being a sum off or a difference off the cost to develop the BMR and the economic value.

What is the economic value of a BMR unit?

I can talk about it.

Do you mean the equivalency or the economic so could you maybe just elaborate on how the inlu fee is calculated?

Okay.

The inlu fee is really the delta between the revenue that a developer may receive after the unit is filled, they're getting rents or they've sold the property versus the cost to construct.

So let's say hypothetically the cost is $500 per square foot, and that would equate to hypothetically a hundred dollars in revenue, the fee would be 400.

So it's the delta between the revenue they would get and the cost.

So the purpose of that is to um assume that a developer is made whole that the fee itself isn't going to incentivize or disincentivize them from providing the units on site.

And um I think later on in the report, you had a table.

Um was it table five that lays out the INU fees?

Is there a comparison of how this compares with other jurisdiction, or do you have an understanding of that?

So there's a table in table five, there is a BMR in LU fee, which lays it out for rental ownership and other ownership units.

This one?

Yes.

Yeah, that's the one.

Um so what Ms.

Barnard was um describing is what we've been calling the equivalency methodology, which is to set the fee at a level that would be um economically equivalent for the developer to provide the units as a way to um help encourage the delivery of the units.

Um based on our um landscape analysis of uh surrounding cities, most cities do have per square foot fees that are lower than that.

The other cities do not use an equivalency methodology, but rather some other methodology, and usually they're set at levels that are often quite a bit lower than the actual cost of delivering the units.

And the notion of having it be equivalent is that if we were to receive fees, we would be at a deficit to make up um for that amount if the fees were not set at equivalency as well.

So for that purpose and um for the purpose of of making the uh decision of whether to move forward with on-site or propose on alternative mitigation to make it a more neutral decision.

Um that was the methodology that was taken back in 2019, which still applies.

And I guess by pegging it to the CCIs, it will continue to sort of keep up with market pricing.

Yeah, it would be we believe a more uh reflective index uh based on what developers are actually facing.

Thank you.

Sorry, my next questions are on um you include a list of options for siting um, both in a land dedication as well as an off-site or preservation strategy.

I won I was wondering why you may not have included like a housing element site in the list apart from the other options.

Would that make sense to include just so it also goes to fulfill our housing?

Do you mean for the locational requirements?

Yes.

Oh, um I they may already be included in the general um high opportunity areas, and um I can bring that up and you'll see.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if the high opportunity areas always coincided with the housing element site inventory that we have.

So I'm not exactly sure where all the housing element opportunity areas are, but um I did want to show you the slide that reflects um the HCD opportunity areas, um, high and highest resource areas, which is essentially most of the almost all of the city apart from maybe one little parcel there.

So um really our um AFFH requirements are very easily met.

Yeah, that's that's helpful to know.

Um so under land dedication, can you explain what happens to a dedicated parcel?

Does the city take control of it and maintain it over time?

And is the cost of the maintenance then calculated in that sort of financing that the developer provides and for what period of time is that envisioned?

Right.

Um, excellent question.

Um so the land would be conveyed um at some point in time that we would establish through the compliance plan.

Um it's conveyed to the city.

Um depending on the parcel, I'm not entirely sure about what that maintenance might look like.

But if an developer opts to give a land dedication, they also need to provide the city with the fee, which currently is about $950,000, which covers the cost of the RFP process, the developer selection, the entitlement, how long we anticipate it takes them to give financing all the way through construction.

So currently, as it stands, we would receive a fee.

The city takes title to the land while we um secur a developer partner.

I was wondering if the it might make sense to have an option to do a conveyance to a community land trust, which will also sort of help maintain the perpetuity of the affordability and maybe reduce some of like the carrying costs for the land.

I think what you are referring to would closely rather mirror an off site development rather than a land dedication to the city.

So that's a possibility through the other alternative compliance measures to partner with a community land trust or another entity that could then build it and maintain it, like you're mentioning.

Okay, and um next question.

Under the preservation option, what exactly is meant by CFO or like for an existing property that you're trying to preserve?

Can uh that would be your certificate of occupancy.

So what that's really the end of the improvements, so tenants would move out, the improvements on site would occur, and once um our building department goes in and says, great, everything's good, that's your can your certificate of occupancy and tenants can move back in.

So the reason I asked that question is I've seen um opportunities where perhaps buildings are in a state of being able to be occupiable right away with the idea of going after financing sources that might be available in the future and having a phased improvement program to update the occupancy.

So I was wondering if there was consideration for a more nuanced strategy such as that to be applicable without it being a day one rehabilitation and improvement that needs to be done to an acquired property.

I think I understand what you're saying.

Um I think that would be something we would need to work with the applicant in through their proposal through the compliance plan.

We would want to make sure that they've gotten to a stage of completion within their project that we feel like they've satisfied their requirements or they're working in good faith to um satisfy those requirements.

But I similarly with the as I mentioned earlier, and as we discussed, that we would want to not stand in their way of project completion.

But we would work with them through their entitlement process on item slice.

So it's something that can be sort of described in the administrative guidelines.

I think so.

Which Commissioner FAM touched on earlier and right the time period.

Okay.

For how that was calculated for like the single table six, the graduated fee reduction.

Yeah, yeah.

Um so we'd had to make some assumptions for illustrative examples.

And uh here we assumed a unit size of 2,000 square feet, which was roughly the average size of the units when we receive fees.

But is there uh a seven place um fee per square foot?

Yes.

The what the table that I had up earlier with the um we have a NLU fee per square foot, and then times that by 2,000 square feet.

Okay.

Got it.

So you had said that staff is continuing to analyze um the feasibility of looking at projects with seven to ten units.

Um as part of that analysis, have you been able to analyze the number of parcels that fit into that seven to ten unit capacity range?

Uh yes, we did make a start.

Um the data is incredibly difficult to get your hands around without like it's like substantial review and data cleaning, for example.

Um, like let's say you pull a GIS data set, it includes a number of things that aren't parcels and that sort of thing.

So um that's why we needed additional time to review um to at least evaluate the the number of parcels that may be eligible for at the seven to ten um parcel size, or sorry, uh project scale.

Um I think we did take a look at the number of projects that the city has seen in that range, and there's only about four in the last since 2015.

Okay.

Well, I think it'd be helpful to have that data just so we could sort of also put in place the guidelines to address those sites quickly.

Yeah.

Those were all my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Cranson.

Um first one was wasn't a question before.

Did you say that under the land dedication and off-site, the base product project would not be eligible for density bonus?

Yes.

Um the the purpose of the alternative compliance is if a developer does not want to provide the BMR units integrated into their market rate project, they can utilize the alternative compliance.

So you wouldn't be doing both.

You wouldn't have uh density bonus or um an alternative compliance measure at the same time.

So the hypotheticals that my colleague mentioned about these things going away wouldn't apply in those kind of situations because they wouldn't be density bonus eligible anyway.

Correct.

Okay.

That's interesting.

Um can you put the hide resource thing back up there?

I I thought that was a you should include that in the in the in the documentation provide to council because I felt like it was a big gap as I was looking at this.

Um I I one of my questions was I mean, I kind of get the South of El Camino as the AFFH, but is there any place that's not AFFH that's not high resource area?

I it I the reason I asked is it it felt like it was adding something into the criteria that was a basically a double count.

And I kind of questioned something that's specific including in there.

So was the was the inclusion of South of El Camino specifically said okay, because the AFH we have to do that?

And then we said that in a housing element.

I'm because I'm it looks like everything south of El Camino is in the highest or high um except whatever that perk is on where the little blue spot.

Um I can provide just a little bit of context too.

That south of uh El Camino is um part of another housing element program.

Uh I believe housing element program 2.6, which is related to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

And one of the goals or objectives under that separate housing element program is to facilitate affordable housing development south of El Camino.

So we thought this was a good opportunity to specifically connect that separate program opportunity to the alternative mitigations um locational um options there.

And so yeah, I think the HCD opportunity area is broader.

It has um it does cover a lot of the areas, and then pulling in um South of Alcomino was specific to um another housing element program.

Okay.

Um and the inclusion of the El Camino Precise Plan?

Why was that?

Yeah, that was as we were evaluating that separate program and in coordination with our uh planning colleagues that the South of El Camino and El Camino.

Um El Camino Real Precise Plan is a really key transit corridor, and um we thought it would be opportune to include um South of El Camino and El Camino as part of um opportunity areas for folks, especially as we're looking to do more sustainable transit-oriented development.

So, and if I may uh the housing element program says south of El Camino, so a portion of El Camino Real Precise Plan does include the southern portion uh of the city below Al Camino Real itself.

But El Camino Precise Plan was there more for the transit component of it.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

So the inclusion of the El Camino Precise Plan was because of the fact that it's a more heavily utilized transit corridor?

Uh yeah, um it touches on uh part of the actual South of El Camino, but then on the north side of El Camino is also part of the precise plan, and um that one was probably more along the lines of this is a really um resource area because of the amenities and the transit infrastructure.

Okay.

So don't get me wrong, I I like the high resource area.

I just I did it felt my my I didn't go back into the into the whole housing element, but it felt like damn, this covers pretty much everything.

Why is this other stuff here?

Was kind of my reaction and without a map to look at, um it was kind of hard to do that.

So I really recommend you include this in this the council report because it's they may have the same question on it.

Um the next question.

Um so you've uh when you include when you do something, they do something that has a partner.

Um does the city have a veto over the partner that's chosen.

No.

Um we have the ability if they issue an RFP um to review the RFP, but we um have no authority to um prevent a partnership at the end of the day.

Is that a legal issue?

The city attorney.

Part of my question is there I am familiar with projects up in San Francisco as well, and there are below market rate housing developers who are basically crooks, okay, and have eventually been banned from things by the city of San Francisco.

And it would be I I wouldn't want to have somebody come in and bring in a partner that we look at and says, Well, these people are perfect, so we don't want them.

Um it seems odd to me that we wouldn't have some ability to say, well, you know what?

We're not approving them as a partner.

I think I had to defer to the uh city attorney.

I think we have um good evening, can everybody hear me?

This is Jennifer Log, the city attorney.

Yes, we can hear you, Jennifer.

Excellent.

So um I the question you're asking is a complex question.

I think it would depend on the city's role in the project.

If you are talking about a strictly private development project and they wanted to work with uh a partner, I don't think the city would have any authority to prevent a particular partnership if the city was providing some sort of funding for it, if it was affordable, uh 100% affordable housing or something like that.

The city obviously has more of a role in that kind of development project, but if we're talking about a strictly private development project, I'm not aware of any authority the city would have to prevent a particular partnership.

Okay, clarifying question.

So if this is moved, so the administrative move to make this administrative is not changing regulations.

This is I thought we this is something that we would still ultimately have to approve.

So it's it's it's there is a discretionary component of this.

The city is taking on by allowing the off-site compliance option that we would be able to review.

And so it's we could choose not to approve that that option if they bring in somebody that doesn't look like they're gonna be a good partner.

Wouldn't we?

Because we're we're granting this as an alternative, and that we can just say, no, we're not gonna accept this alternative.

Couldn't we?

Yes, I believe the city has the discretion to reject the alternative compliance proposal.

But that's not I mean, I guess the question was can we reject their proposed partnership?

I think that yes, the city could reject the alternative compliance proposal if we didn't like the partnership, I suppose.

But that's sort of an end run around the question.

We're not we can't just say you can't partner with that person, but we could reject the alternative compliance proposal.

So that's okay.

So yes, we could do that if we included that as a component of the plan.

Right now it's not a component of the plan.

Yes, to the extent that we have reserved full discretionary authority to accept or reject up uh an alternative compliance proposal, but to the extent that it is objective criteria, and we've laid it out and said if you meet you know, one, two, and three, then the alternative proposal shall be you know accepted or approved, then we would, you know, we are depriving ourselves of discretion.

But if we have reserved full discretion, then yes, we could reject the proposal because we didn't like the partnership.

Do we have that right now, or do we have to change it to do that?

As proposed, do we have that full discretion?

I will I have to defer to staff.

I have not I don't recall.

Um so under the current program, it is set up to be discretionary.

The intent of these modifications and clarifying the requirements is to make it more by right, but there's more information that needs to be filled out.

Um, what I wonder um as a way to kind of respond to this inquiry, perhaps maybe a recommendation by the EPC would be to um maybe add a provision um under the partnership that they would need to demonstrate that the partnership or the partner is a qualified developer or some such.

Um, and you know, we we have some uh framework around that, but um perhaps adding that type of provision would um give us more ability to have oversight and determine whether the partnership is qualified.

Okay.

I'm have to think about how to word that because I I understand what you're saying.

I'm just if somebody's been in charges have been filed and there's a court case in another jurisdiction for somebody, I would be reluctant to adopt that partner in Mountain View when there's when they're under a lit something of litigation.

So uh I'm I'll I'll try to word my recommendation later.

I'll think about how to do that.

Um the something that was in the part of the response to uh um my other colleagues was on the the timing of things.

So I understood the timing for off-site development.

Um, but on land dedication, is there any requirement that something's built and put in place there at the same time as the other project?

Or is it just here's the land and you can and it doesn't there's no timing associated with it?

Um there's not there's no timing component for the completion of construction.

There would be a timing component for uh the conveyance of the land, and I would imagine that that would be at a maximum once they start construction on once they pulled pull the building permit um for the underlying site.

Okay.

So maybe the director knows this, but what's the typical time from when we have land until we actually find a partner, go out there, put a uh put something in place, and we actually have something built.

I mean, I've seen we have stuff that I know we've approved, it's still sitting there as vacant lots multiple years later, and it seems like on land dedication, it could be a really long time before something is actually turned into units.

Uh yes, um, thank you.

That's right.

We have two examples right now.

We have lot 12 across the street, which took several years to um have the developer uh get all of its financing.

Uh construction's about to start any moment now, so we're really excited about that.

Um we have another project that is um 87 East Evelyn, and um that is occurring at a much faster rate.

Um it is taking uh about three, three and a half years, but that's pretty quick.

Um but typically when we have a land dedication, it takes us a process to go to council to determine uh priorities for the site.

So that's one process.

Then we would issue uh request for qualifications, request for um uh proposals uh process.

That can take it can take nine to twelve months, and we've tried to find identify ways of streamlining it.

And then once the developer is selected, then they have to go through their process of entitlement and pulling their funding together.

And so that is one of the main reasons why BMR on site is so desirable.

Um, but um in this option, it would take uh usually three to five years to have uh a project get off the ground.

And in that calculation of the clock carrying cost, are you looking, are you assuming that five years of we're sitting there on that land until something happens?

I believe we've estimated a five to seven year amount of time where staff has to actively um either drive the project or manage a project or fully initiate the RFQRP process um all the way through um the construction um financing and construction completion.

Okay.

Um next one.

Walk through how it would work with a CSFRA unit.

Um I read through this multiple times, and I came away thinking, okay, so we've got a brand new building and I'll empty lot, and they're gonna basically buy something that's a CSFRA unit, and we're not actually getting any more units.

We're going from new units and BMR units and versus something and and and CSFRA units.

And I my colleague here may know more than me as to the equivalent value of a of a CSFRA unit versus a BMR unit, but it it didn't it came away thinking, well, do we actually get anything more if we do that?

So how does how do we actually get more units if they choose a CSFRA location that they're gonna acquire uh yes, uh so I think council is interested in adding this um third option because of the success of 660 Mariposa.

Um that was delivered by Prometheus in satisfaction of their BMR requirements at the Tillery, which was on uh Villa Street.

Uh I think the other interest that the council had was separately.

We have a tenant displacement response strategy, which has an acquisition preservation component.

So there was uh an overlap of of goals as well.

To um first, there was a 660 Mariposa project, and second, there's an overall acquisition preservation desire to preserve and not um have existing naturally affordable housing um get lost.

And so um part of the modification of the alternative compliance is that um we couldn't necessarily require a greater um benefit, but the benefit needs to be no less than the than the um on-site units.

So if a developer acquired a building that maybe provided more units just because that was um maybe uh building that was available at the time, that might be one way, and um it it made sense for the developer to pencil that project.

Um, but but otherwise we wouldn't uh require say more acquisition preservation units than would have been required on site for the BMR units, but but but it couldn't be less.

Um there is a requirement to have the developer um do uh physical needs assessment, make appropriate um upgrades as needed, so that will help at least bring um various amenities and features of the units um um uh to modernize it uh but um and making them as as desirable as possible and kind of close the gap between a new new unit versus a renovated unit.

Okay, I I'm familiar with I was involved in the original proposal on that when the Prometheus pressure.

I thought the the flat was basically almost ready to be condemned, that it had substantial violations and it was they either needed to tear it down or and rebuild it or something so that it was I quite frankly it may have been classified as a CSFRA unit, but I my recollection was that it was basically not valuable at all as it was.

Yeah, um we we had toured the site, you know, it was an older building.

That that that part is true, but there were tenants already living and it remained a um an ongoing concern and ongoing um operating project.

Um there uh was some uh temporary uh tenant relocation to make some extensive modifications and bring everything up up to sp up to speed.

Um but we're yeah, I don't recall anything about the uh project um the that is a very building having um sort of habitability um issues.

Um there were tenants there, um, and now all the units have been modernized.

Um in fact in this particular situation, um it was originally 48 units, they did convert, I think, um, like the sauna room and another room and added two units to make it 50 units on site.

Um yeah, so so they did actually add and create two additional units.

So I guess what it the shorter answer, short version of the answer to our question is if they take that approach, we may actually get no more units if you if you view CSF Area units and BMR units as equivalent, and I I would defer to my colleague on that.

But I we could end up with nothing more than what we have right now if we treat those as the same.

Yeah, it doesn't add to the overall city's housing stock, probably it it converts a portion of unrestricted housing to restrictive housing.

Um and and then it's it's it's preserving those units so they don't get lost.

Um those are probably some of the the main public policy goals for adding this to the list of menu um uh options.

Okay.

That's my question.

Um would you like to?

Thank you, Jerry.

I had one more clarifying question.

So, in sort of listening to this discussion and thinking about the alternate compliance strategies, I just want to repeat so I understand this clearly.

Um is it correct to say that you are using the indu fee calibration to come up with what the costs would be in these alternate compliance strategies?

Yes, that's correct.

So I understand that there are state laws that prevent you from charging more for off-site units, and basically it has to be equivalent to on-site units.

But it does strike me that in each of these scenarios, there's a slightly different cost factor depending on time and you know, maybe the state of prevailing conditions.

So is there a way to maybe create a prioritization of the between the three strategies to say this one first, if not this, or if not this, uh, because it does seem like if the goal is to create BMR units faster, um without having the option to do them on site, would it be fair to say that maybe doing um preservation of existing housing that's at the affordable realm or creating off-site units but building them faster is the way to deliver it because it does strike me that using the same equivalency for a land contribution does not necessarily a guarantee the production of BMR units anytime soon.

And if we're applying the same in new fee factor, may not even be bridging the costs to create those units in a timely manner.

I think I understand your question, but to sort of repeat it back to you.

I what I'm hearing is you're asking about whether or not we could create a priority order in terms across the three alternative compliance.

Um I may lean on the city attorney just to um verify, but these alternative compliance measures are in response to I think it's AB 1505, where we have to provide some alternative means of compliance to a BMR program.

Um it's a minimum of two.

Uh we're providing options for three to maximize flexibility.

I don't know whether or not we have the ability within that to provide a prioritized um list um or what count council's appetite for that is.

It's not um something we had actually contemplated.

So I'll pause there in case the city attorney has any conflicting um opinions on that.

I we would have to look that up.

I don't know off the top of my head, I was trying to quickly um get an answer to that, but it's if if that's something you were interested interested in us exploring, we could certainly do so.

But I'm sorry this evening, I don't have a direct answer to that question.

Okay, thank you.

I think it would be something worth exploring just to make sure that we are aligned with the ultimate goal of creating BMR units faster and in a timely manner.

Right.

Um I have a few questions.

I'll try to ask the simpler ones or the more direct ones first.

Um without needing to hear too much unless um uh you know staff feels like there's a need for it.

I guess I'm just uh curious to what extent, if it's either just yes or no, great.

Um, but uh to what extent uh when these changes were being looked at, um, were we just kind of checking with the trail, making sure it was like compatible and um no kind of like inconsistencies.

I'm sure that's part of the process.

I just want to make sure if that's the case, just get assurance.

Right, like there's elements of like um like TRAO and BMR are both policies meant to address and support low moderate income residencies in our city.

So um given that like um there's a relationship there.

I guess I'm just curious to what extent staff um explored that relationship as part of this.

Maybe it's a more um abstract question than I expected, but I'd definitely like to well, I think the the biggest overlap when it comes to the trail on the BMR program um relates to the acquisition preservation alternative compliance.

If they are existing tenants that need to be relocated, they would need to comply with our trayo.

So for example, um, in a scenario where a uh developer says, yeah, we're gonna do a uh total uh preservation of residencies and rehabilitation for um some other derelict building or what have you.

Um is there a mechanism like for example, right?

So you can imagine other similar scenarios, but um related.

Is there some mechanism where, for example, um the city is checking to make sure that um as part of that process um those active residents are in fact being, for example, given temporary housing, um, that they are um you know it's being done so within a reasonable distance, right?

Like is there some kind of like effectuating relationship between the two that was assessed just to make sure that both kind of hold up?

Oh yes, we did do some analysis and then um in table four, there's a uh reference to uh relocation assistance and first right um to return and it references needing to be consistent with the TRIO.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Um other one.

Um so if I'm reading it correctly, uh the uh on-site integrated BMR contributions have to build have to be built concurrently with the rest of the uh units being delivered, um, is my reading of it.

Uh I guess like I just want to make sure, because I think uh some of my colleagues kind of touched on this through the questioning, but uh excuse me if it just wasn't as clear in my brain, but um I guess like yes or no, is there a mechanism to enforce, for example, in an off-site scenario where I don't know, or recoup even, for example, if like developer builds their shiny all uh market rate project over here, and then said, hey, yeah, you know, during the um approval process, they were like, hey, yeah, we totally commit, we're gonna build this BMR, you know, building somewhere else, and it's gonna have more units, and it's gonna be the best BMR in the city, and then five, ten years later, nothing's there.

Is there some mechanism for controlling?

Can can I just hear that just really clearly one more time just to get a yes.

So we do have a little bit of discretion to move the timeline, but as it's written, um, if they are not able to deliver the the off-site units, they would have to use integrate those into the building that they've just built, the fully okay.

So thank you.

That was helpful.

And is there uh just to be clear, there's a time frame on that, or it's not as prescribed, or so there is.

Um in an ideal world, they would be receiving their certificate of occupancies at the same time.

So both buildings are ready to go, they're built ready for occupancy at the same time.

Um there was a motion made at council um that through the administrative guidelines, staff would have the discretion to adjust that somewhat if we see that the developers are both working in good faith.

Like we don't want to get in the way of a good thing, um, but we do have the discretion.

Um if there's been no progress on the off-site development to say, nope, sorry, you need to comply with our on-site requirement.

Sounds good.

Um next question.

When it comes to the uh off-site as well, um, if a and again, if these are you know, clear questions, apologies in advance.

But um if a developer constructs a market rate condo building or ownership uh you know uh project, the off-site that has to be also a similar like uh it would have to be ownership, BMR ownership.

It can't they couldn't just say okay, well, we're gonna do rental, right?

Right.

Okay, cool.

Um, and then next one uh for the AFFH.

So I think the staff report or the documentation mentioned that one of the criteria under which an alternate compliance or um mitigation like alternate compliance.

Alternate compliance would be acceptable, is if, for example, the the site, the land is in south of El Camino, right?

That that's like a criteria for acceptance.

Um inverse criteria where, for example, um, I know not a lot of development happens in in south of El Camino, but let's just say for example, um some large market rate project miraculously was gonna happen in Waverly Park, um, where they couldn't say, well, we're gonna do the alternate mitigation or we're gonna deliver our alternate compliance, but we're gonna shuttle that over to Castro City.

Does that make sense?

So it's it's not that we put the alternate mitigation in in opportunity area, it's that we put, I don't know, maybe more units even, but we like shuttled the opportunity out.

Am I making sense?

Um in a very clear sense, I guess.

Can a developer build a market rate project in a high income area and then satisfy the alternate mitigation by putting off-site units, their allotment of off-site units in a lower income area?

To what extent was that?

As long as they're they're meeting the high the AFFH high opportunity areas, as long as it was, I think within half a mile of the other project.

Um it's located south of El Camino, which is also an HCD opportunity areas, then yeah, they have the discretion to select a site that would be suitable for off-site development.

They still have to be meeting the criteria that we have very thoroughly vetted that are AFFH compliant.

So if I'm hearing correctly, um, because I thought those were not ands but ORs.

No, I think they should be and or or I mean in many cases it it could be they could meeting meeting multiple of those AFH requirements at the same time.

So they could meet one criteria and that would be enough.

So then I guess that's kind of what I'm trying to get a sense of like um so then exclusion means denial.

So for example, if I am saying, hey, I want to build a project in a rich part of town, 100 units market rate, I have to do I don't know, 100 uh 20 uh 25 of those, whatever have to be BMR, instead of putting them in the same building, I'm gonna take those and I'm gonna tell the city instead of giving you 25 BMR units, I'm gonna give you 50, but all those 50 are in the poor area of town.

Right?

Like to what how does that get handled in this uh proposal?

I don't um I don't know how to better answer your question, other than if they're in the opportunity areas, which the opportunity areas do take into consideration a number of different things.

I think the socioeconomic status of the demographics in the area, as well as like the access to amenities, access to transportation, access to it, like Mountain View is very, very fortunate in that almost the entire city is covered by the um high and highest resources.

So I don't I don't know if I have a better um description other than to say I don't know that there were any parts of the city where that are just a low income and poorly resourced.

Um yes, yeah.

Thanks for the question and thanks, Ms.

Barnard.

Yeah, I think um what you're trying to get at is as currently written, there isn't something that says if you're building your underlying project south of El Camino, you actually need to also build your BMR units south of El Camino.

That's currently written, they could find an alternative site that is north of El Camino, but still in a high resourced, you know, blue, blue colored census tract.

Um to Ms.

Barnard's point, um the city uh doesn't have low resourced areas.

We have, I think maybe you're just a couple that are sort of medium overall um uh we're we're pretty well resourced.

So yes, as currently written, it doesn't it doesn't prevent the inverse situation of what you're talking about.

Okay, because in our housing element uh on page 337, uh there's uh housing sites by share of low and moderate income households.

And just to be quite honest, and I don't know if my colleagues would agree, but when I saw that uh HDD opportunity map, I was like, that seems completely and if I had a role in completely missing that when we were watching or going through the housing element process, then bad on me.

But um, for example, like figure 99, figure 98, like I mean, that HCD map seemed extremely generous.

Um I think anyone who lives in our city would probably also find that to be very generous.

And so um, I don't know, to the extent that maybe there's uh a different mechanism that we can use, or I don't know if the commission has a discretion to suggest hey, um, instead of just going off of that map, also using which I believe these are official maps, right?

Like um with with findings like figure 99 in the housing element or uh figure 98 or what have you, right?

Like to really make sure that um at the end of the day, we're not just allowing developers to you know uh meet an alternate compliance by just like uh uh exacerbating segregation is really the goal, right?

Because we also have the AFFH as a requirement.

And so yeah, uh that's yeah.

So I guess that does answer the question, which is right now no, there's and but or yes, but it would rely on that HCD map of opportunity areas.

So okay, cool.

Um, and then let me see if I can find my other ones.

Uh integration required, yep, that one got covered.

Off-site ten year phasing got amenity.

Okay.

Um, last one, I think this one should be pretty simple.

Um, just amenities.

Is there some kind of like indication of um in terms of the equivalency?

Um kind of like the the amenities available to um to residents within the like the off-site scenario.

I think that would just entirely depend on um the op the amenities that the market rate developer is opting to provide.

Okay, all right, perfect.

So they're tied to the market rate and then equivalency, which is perfect.

Thank you so much.

Um those were my questions.

I guess we will be then, unless there's questions hanging for um the commission, any colleagues have any other questions?

No.

All right.

Um this is best part of each item, the public comment.

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

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

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

So I'll look to our Commission Clerk.

Are there any speakers having submitted yellow cards or on Zoom?

There are four speakers in person.

Okay.

Anyone on Zoom?

Uh none on Zoom.

Okay, cool.

All right.

Do you want to do our three minutes and just make sure we're three minutes?

Yeah, and hitting the timer.

Sure.

Uh, first speaker will be Benjamin Tinkelberg.

Tickleberg.

Hi there.

My name is Ben Tinklenberg.

I was a long-term resident of Mountain View.

My mother taught at Bub Elementary for many years.

And we could not afford to live here eventually and had to move out, which means I fully understand the housing crisis that Mountain View finds themselves in.

Um, but I'm actually here as a home builder, which is my profession now.

Um, and I've done projects in 15 different jurisdictions across the state.

None with the fee burden as high as the city of Mountain View, which in reality for the project sizes that I do under 10 units, um, just gets passed on to the housing cost.

So, in the case that we want to build middle class units, the fee burden in Mountain View tends to be around $350,000 per unit.

Not just the affordable units, but including parks fees, and those are the two largest ones.

Um, and the way I see it is that that makes middle class units impossible to build in Mountain View, because you must find a project that can support a luxury development which can subsidize the BMR requirements, but there's no world for a middle income unit because you're adding $350,000 to every single unit that's built in the city of Mountain View.

So I would say when you're considering these fees, particularly it was mentioned that the 118 dollar fee reduction, which is great.

It's great that it's being reduced.

I think it'll increase housing production.

Um a modest sized unit, 1200 square feet, that's gonna be 150,000 in fees to the BMR requirement.

Um what that does is it limits the developers' opportunity to deliver middle income units.

And you know, that's putting a lot of faith in developers necessarily to do that.

But the laws that I'm interested in using in Mountain View in particular are the Starter Home Revitalization Act, which was SB684, it was mentioned, which incentivizes developers to build smaller units that are more naturally affordable.

And when you add on the fee burden in Mountain View, there's projects still become something where you have to build a luxury unit and then a smaller BMR unit to somehow make that work.

And I've looked at lots of sites I really do want to build here, but I've not found a way to make it work because the fees here are much higher than everywhere else.

And I understand that there's an equivalency to delivering the unit, but I would say I would urge you to understand that these fees cause units not to be produced.

And so there is like a hidden number of units that were never produced in Mountain View, exacerbating housing by lowering supply because they never happened, because the fees were so so so high in this city.

And so when evaluating fees in general, I would urge you to look at positive ways to increase BMR production.

My background, I believe I've no one in my family owns housing.

I'm not a very rich developer.

Um we would love the affordable units, but we would want them to become financially viable so that we can create a lot more of them through positive, not negative mechanisms.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate your comment.

The commission does too.

Um, next speaker, please.

Mr.

Clark.

Next speaker is Tom Tran.

Okay.

Um the following speaker will be Andre Lind.

Lindy.

So just to go off what the previous person said, um you can't build here.

You look at San Jose, Matt or Matt Mahan has been.

I'm very sorry.

Can we get the timer to go, please?

Thank you.

Mayor Matt Mahan asks how many people or how many builders' units were produced when they had that requirement there?

And zero were built.

And why?

Because they're not affordable.

Builders go in and they look at and they say, can I make money here?

No, I can't.

So I'm not gonna build here.

So then what happens?

People like me that want to come and move the mountain view, they look for townhouses, they look for houses.

I went and looked at a house the other day.

It was a teardown.

You could not live in it.

There were water stains in the roofs, there were holes in the foundation.

How much did that cost?

1.8 million dollars.

Who's gonna pay 1.8 million dollars to live in a house you can't live in?

Okay, then let's look at townhouses.

There are three townhouses that are about a million dollars.

And those are two bedrooms, two baths.

How's a family gonna live in that if you have maybe two kids, right?

Are you gonna live in a two-bedroom, two-bath townhouse?

No, you're not.

If you want to go to a three-bedroom townhouse, how much is that gonna be?

At least 1.31.4 million dollars.

So cities run off revenue, right?

Cities run off people going in and go into stores, go into businesses, kids go into these schools.

What happens when you make it so people cannot live in your city?

People don't pay revenue, people don't pay taxes.

The city dies because you have made your city unaffordable.

So by what the previous person has said right here, if you are making it difficult for builders to come in and actually support the middle class, who's gonna move into your city?

Is it gonna be a software engineer that's probably making $500,000, $600,000?

Yes.

Is someone who's probably working at a school, working at a restaurant, are they gonna run to your city?

No.

They just can't afford to live here.

So then they have to go to Mountain House.

They have to go to Tracy and they have to commute probably an hour and a half each way.

So what I'm saying, not as a builder, because I'm not a builder, I'm just someone who wants to live in your city.

You need to make it more affordable for us to live here.

If you don't make it more affordable for us to live here, nobody's gonna live here, and then you're not gonna get tax money.

That's what I have to say.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

And the last speaker is Jonathan.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Jonathan.

I'm here speaking on the perspective of a small-scale developer who builds um in Silicon Valley, and um also looking at opportunities to build here in Mount View.

We do believe there are a lot of great opportunities to build small-scale infill housing here, but also do have concerns over some of the uh policy and the language in the BMR housing ordinance.

Um as far as the amendments being proposed, I think one of the comments I had would be um really wanted to see if you guys would strongly consider adjusting the um graduated fee reduction to apply from one to uh one to six to actually one to ten units.

Uh, one of the reasons being one of the bill uh the bills we're looking at, Senate Bill 684 and um the sister bill, Senate Bill 1123, Mysterio Lots subdivisions.

Um, they apply for sites half an acre or less and allow you to build up to 10 units.

So I'm not sure where the six unit cutoff um you know came from, but I think it it could be reasonable to consider that adjustment.

Um so that'll be one of the policy uh things that I identified and um furthermore, not being proposed as an amendment, but um just in the code, that's something I found a little bit different than some of the neighboring jurisdictions and a little bit unusual is how um specifically row and town homes are being targeted and treated a little bit differently as far as the requirements so they're being um we're being asked to provide 10% more than the standard project.

So I'm curious to understand like what went into that.

And uh, for example, if we were to um propose an eight-unit for sale town home project, we would have to designate two of those units as below market rates.

So given how challenging these uh smaller projects are from a financial perspective, I think um it'd be worth considering maybe um lowering that back down to 15% across the board, as um, like I've said, we really haven't seen that too often in um some of the other jurisdictions here in Silicon Valley.

But overall, um another point I wanted to cover is the concurrent development of on-site BMR with smaller projects, um, construction staging and logistics is always challenging.

So sometimes the BMR unit is in the later perhaps phase of the project.

So um for some flexibility around that uh would be appreciated.

I do understand that um it's always best to deliver all the units all at once to have an equal opportunity for it to go to market or things to be worked on.

But um, I think these are the three things I really wanted to bring to your attention today.

And I just appreciate the opportunity to speak and um all the work that you guys are doing to make these um ordinances and the city overall uh a better place.

So yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other speakers queued up or on Zoom?

No other speakers.

Okay, and our other person didn't return.

Okay.

We're gonna take it to the um commission for deliberation and action.

If I could ask um Commissioner Cranston um to uh I just want to check in.

I I presume we're gonna uh be hearing about your um the proposed addition that you were considering at some point.

So I don't know if you had just uh clear language work that's we can all just kind of have that in mind as we begin deliberation.

Am I on here?

Um I guess I would my recommended change would be that the city ultimately has final approval on the alternatives being proposed for uh land dedication and off-site development and um it's further review that the city makes the final decision.

Um I'm not necessarily suggesting that it's specific to um you know the partner that's chosen, but it should be clear that ultimately the acceptance of the alternative um is the city's decision, it's not something that's purely a recommendation, and I would recommend that change to the language.

All right, thank you.

Um can we uh let's see, uh anyone wants to line up in the queue?

It could be you again, Commissioner Cranson if you want, but anyone else um feel free, let's we can jump in for discussion.

I just want to make sure we all had it like top of mind before uh yeah, winding around.

Um, if it was gonna come up eventually.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um there any objective criteria that would need to go along with the commissioner's proposal to effectuate it, or do you have everything you need to write that?

And there's no no potential red flags you see in how it was uh laid out.

Thank you.

Um Jennifer Log, City Attorney.

I actually raised my hand because I wanted to get a little bit more clarification.

Um I did have an opportunity to pull up the statute just in looking at the question um related to whether or not we could prioritize and the state law is pretty crystal clear that the ordinance shall provide alternative means of compliance.

And so I'm not quite sure when you when you say that we have ultimate authority.

Uh I'm not sure that we have the authority to reject a proposal, an alternative means of compliance.

The ordinance has to contain these alternative means and they become valueless if the city could just say we don't want it.

Right.

So if we have to provide them, if we have to provide alternative means of compliance, which state law is crystal clear, there has to be some objectivity to this because you know, providing alternative means that we could for whatever reason we decide reject is not providing means alternative means at all, really.

So I think I need more clarification.

We have an obligation under state law to provide alternative means of compliance.

So I guess my and my thinking is we do have two.

Okay.

The on-site but separate is still there.

That doesn't go away.

The land indication is there and that doesn't go away.

This applies to the third option.

So if that opt if what they propose for that adoption is not acceptable, they still have two valid options that this meet the state's criteria.

Um it's this third option that's new and it goes beyond state law, that in my mind is is a extra potential benefit for the developer.

Um beyond what we're required to support what we're required to supply.

So what I that's what I'm talking about here is you know, we do I'm I'm not saying we take away the on-site separate, or we take off the land degreation.

It's when you get into some of these, this much more complicated option of the third one that it needs to be viable.

And in even the other two, you're required requiring to provide um evaluation financial performance, how it's gonna work.

Um if those aren't completed to your satisfaction, are you saying you don't have any right to say this isn't been completed or satisfaction?

I think you you do.

Um, and so that those don't think those don't go away.

So that's what I'm referring to here.

I'm not saying that we take away the two options that are that exist today and are there and available today, those don't change.

It's this third option that I'm saying it needs to include a provision that says that ultimately we need to we can evaluate it and determine whether it's actually equivalent and provide approval on whether that meets the criteria.

If not, you have these other two options that you can either you are available to use and have been available for since 2019 or whatever we put the program in place.

That help?

Okay.

It it it helps a little.

Do you have any more?

Um, can you provide any more clarity on evaluate?

I'm just a little bit concerned that we're getting into a realm of subjectivity that is not allowed these days, right?

We we have to provide a mechanism by which developers can understand how they comply, how they can comply.

So I think um uh the housing director made a good suggestion related to you know, qualified developers, right?

So if we're talking about a partnership and a proposed partner, maybe we could seek documentation, demonstrating that they are qualified developer or something along those lines.

I think then at least there's some level of objectivity to the compliance standard, right?

So if your concern is that you know you don't want developers partnering with crooks or people who have been found to be unscrupulous, right, in this in this development world, then maybe we need to um seek documentation, right?

Demonstrating um qualifications for you know private development.

Is it would that help if if it was something that's a good idea?

Yes, I mean I guess that's I guess I'm not expecting to write all the things that you have to review in order to get there.

One of the things that you listed in here is the the applicant must provide a feasibility analysis, the financial analysis, demonate the device with the inlou fee equivalency, identifies deliver contribution, the pro forma of the security financing, no fit, you know, no city financial contribution contributions.

The the partner is in in legal good standing in all jurisdictions in the state.

Um whatever you need to do, I I absolutely agree that it need to be objective.

I'm trusting that my wonderful city attorney and her assistant here can go off and look at these and say, what are the based on what you're asking?

How would you evaluate those create?

You're gonna look at it somehow.

You're asking for the developer to provide this.

So what how are you gonna evaluate it before?

If you if they're providing it and you're providing no way of evaluating, then why is it even in here for the proposal from from staff?

No, we can write it, and I'm certainly not asking you to write it.

I just want to make sure that I am understanding that whatever we go look at and and whatever we were research, we are seeking to accomplish the goal that you are trying to accomplish here.

So if your focus is on, you know, ensuring that any partner is qualified and is should not be otherwise disqualified, right?

Um, we can definitely do that.

We can do that and and include criteria.

I just wanted to be sure that that's what you're looking for.

I'm not asking.

If you review the performa, and it makes it doesn't, it's not consistent with current construction costs and things like that.

You should be able to evaluate that.

And that that's so it's not only those, it's all those criteria that are included in here that you're looking for that there should be some basis for evaluating those things.

Otherwise, don't ask.

So there's you're saying that you're gonna do these things, cool.

Put in those criteria, how are you gonna assess it?

So that's clear to the developer that these are the things they need to do and things they things they need to meet.

Okay.

You've said that you're gonna ask for more money to go off and do evaluation of this, because it does, it's more complicated.

So maybe it's you know, you're gonna look for the recommendation of the outside consultant you're hiring to do this work.

Um they come back with a specific recommendation to you know on approval or changes.

It doesn't mean that they is through that evaluation process.

You can't go back to them and say, okay, here's here is where you're your um missing, do something about it, and they come back with something that meets the criteria.

So I I would expect it to not just be a goes over the wall and they just get a no yes or a no, that there's a dialogue process through that, and hopefully they come back and they address any deficiencies in the proposal so that we do get there.

That's I just want to make sure that you have the teeth in the ordinance to say, I've looked at it, here's the gaps.

If they fail to meet the close those gaps, then we don't approve the project, approve that all that third alternative.

Okay.

If I may make a suggestion, is uh um probably the the the one item, for example, off site partner, we we might add a dash that says qualified developer partnership, and that uh might make the evaluation more comprehensive to your point.

It's very typical for us to work with a developer multiple times through the entitlement process to get the alternative compliance proposal in a place where they can bring it to council.

Um given the streamlined um requirements that the state has now, that's why we're really needing to have a compliance plan that's completed, but it would still typically require um an iterative process or talking to the developer to say in our evaluation it doesn't meet, you know, we we have our 30-day comment letters, we um list the deficiencies and it allows them an opportunity to to modify.

So I think that's already built into our process.

And if we just add um qualified partnership or developer to this, um, I think that can really make it more comprehensive in terms of the evaluation.

Looking to actually do it.

So that's that's what we want.

I mean, but you listen to your viable financing.

So do you it and I didn't go through and read every detail of the thing.

Okay.

Somehow you're gonna evaluate whether it's viable financing.

All right.

So you know, those kind of things all need to be there somehow.

Success.

Other commissioners.

Anyone else wants to make commentary?

Commissioner Subraman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you, staff for continuing to make progress on this very important um ordinance and the changes that you have recommended here.

And I think we need to really get to this soon.

We've uh I appreciate the speakers who showed up in person today and shared some um invaluable insights into what's really um getting in the way of bringing more housing and more affordable housing and certainly more like moderate income housing to Mountain View, and I think working on this and you know improving it sooner is what's really going to get us closer to that goal.

And particularly with that in mind, I urge staff to uh really work on the graduated P fee structure for the seven to ten units because I do think under SB is it 684 and 1123?

Did I get my numbers right?

Um there are going to be opportunities for smaller sites to create 10 unit um residences and housing.

And so I think putting that graduated fee in place sooner will really help speed up some of that production.

Um and outside of that, I think um I still I still think that there might be an opportunity to figure out some way of creating better equivalency in the land dedication model because I think using the same um fee structure for the INLU perhaps doesn't envision the longer time it might take to develop um just open sites, as we've seen, even with the case with two examples.

So other than that, I am in favor of the amendments being proposed today.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Um Vice Chair Donahue.

So the the public speaker brought up a an interesting point on the the seven units versus ten.

And my assumption on the choice of seven was that 15% of seven is is one 1.05.

Um but for something that's seven, eight or nine, uh that would require between one and one point five.

And my reading of the the ordinances that that would actually then round down to one.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Um so that seems like actually a more beneficial for the developer than to have a graduated fee that would actually extend if they wanted to build nine units, having them uh can you explain?

Well, they would still have to a 10-unit project would still need to provide one, even an eight-unit project would have to provide one BMR unit on site.

Um any graduated fee reduction, if you want to extend it up to 10, you're now asking us to waive our 15 or change the 15% on-site requirement.

So at seven units, we need an on-site unit.

If it's eight, it'll be um one unit plus the fractional fee.

So um that's sort of how the math is working right now.

So at nine units, one unit fractional fee in unit.

Yeah.

Oh, so today, if there's nine units, it's one unit plus a fractional fee.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I see.

Okay.

Um as usual, my the my fellow commissioners asked some interesting questions that got me thinking about various things.

Um lot 12 was mentioned as as a uh I mean it's not really a land dedication thing, because I guess it was the city owned it anyway, but um I was on the downtown committee in 2014 when we were deciding uh where to move the farmers market uh when there were games at the the then new stadium.

Um and somebody said, Oh, we can't put it at at lot 12 because that that's gonna be it's not gonna be a lot anymore.

And um, you know, then there were subsequently 11 football seasons, and so uh these things kind of can take a long time, um, which is unfortunate.

But I I don't know the history of that, and I guess maybe we don't need to get into that specific uh thing.

But um another thing that I heard was essentially redlining, which uh concerns me a lot.

Um I know that your your scenario was seemed highly speculative, um, so hopefully um that doesn't come to pass.

But I'm I uh that's not okay with me.

So um I'm not sure.

I'm not sure exactly what can how we can uh uh address that um through this process right now.

Um but I'm but I'm welcome to comments from other people about that.

That that's the I I throw these things out there as part of the deliberative process that that other people please uh please make comments that will help me deliberate.

Um as far as uh other things like uh physical accessibility, uh you know uh having an alternative means of compliance, you know, state law uh requires that.

That the construction cost index, I think is actually a a really good thing, uh especially if construction costs are uh outpacing normal inflation.

Uh we definitely need to be in line with that.

And um, yeah, these other uh other things I generally um support.

So um I'm generally in support, but I I welcome other comments.

Thanks.

Sounds good.

Uh Commissioner Fam.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Um I am generally in support of the staff recommendation.

I know it's not perfect, and I know that this has been done over multiple rounds of amendments, um, which I can imagine has been a lot of work, and I know that there are items in here that allude to future amendments in the future, maybe in 2028 or with some other efforts that were cited.

Um I do like how you guys laid out um you know the clarity in the staff report showing the alternative compliance measures.

I do agree with some of my commissioners that they seem very uneven.

Um I'm not sure how to um address that.

It seems like we have these options, and it may be that one or more of them will be much more um preferred than others, and so I'd be curious to see when additional amendments are going to be proposed in a couple years, how the what the popularity of these alternative compliance measures are at that point.

Um I do agree that changing from CPI to CCCI is a good approach.

Um in my work, we are considering some of that for some of the projects I work on because construction costs are changing more quickly than others.

Um I think that's all.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Crantsen had a hand up on the queue.

Um's in within scope and the other one may actually may not be.

Um so I think um the chair maybe articulated it more clearly than I did, but the way the right the location choice option right now, and the reason I was so frustrated not seeing the map is the reality is with the way that the word as one of these must be true, is the only one that has any teeth is the HCD designated high resource area.

I think you would have be hard pressed to find even something that's in one of the high, not the highest, but the higher the medium, it's not within a half a mile of a high resource area.

So if the expectation of council is that we are trying to make sure that we're addressing AFFH and we're trying to get people on transit, the by doing it as one and only item and including it as the HCD as an aid race area is something that we don't control, those are illusions in my mind.

The only one that matters is the HCD designated high-race area area, and we don't control that.

So I guess if that was one of the things that the council looked at, then I guess it's okay.

But I guess I would like to state in the record that in my view, there is no value in including south of El Camino as this item if the intention is to address AFFH and there's no value including the El Camino Precise Plan.

If the intention is to address transit, because everything is within that HCD designated high resource area.

And I don't know how often they change it, but when they do, then all this is gonna change.

But right now, that's the only criteria that's there that matters.

So I I'm I wasn't in that meeting.

If that was one of the things that council thought was okay, then I guess it's okay.

But I think it needs to be highlighted that given that map, there's nothing, none none of the rest matter.

Okay.

Um so I'll probably still support it, but I I miss because I'm assuming this is here because council said this is cool and we should include it.

But that's that's my concern.

Um the thing that I'm the other thing that I'm I'm worried about is in and my the chair didn't address this, but in my mind.

I I have I don't have a method of evaluating the equivalence of a CSFRA unit and a BMR unit, and I'm troubled by the fact that if something was inclusionary, we would have the CSFRA unit and a new unit.

And by inclusion and by allowing the inclusion of CSFRA units in the third option, we go to a situation where it's there's no additional units, which I thought from earlier company because that's what we're trying to do.

If that was, I don't know whether that was something that was discussed with council initially.

Um but I thought part of the goal of the of the BMRs was to was to get more units.

And the the option to include CSFRA in option the third option means that it's likely that we will not.

So maybe staff can tell me whether council understood that, but I just um I'm that's that's not what I my expectation was.

So that's a comment.

The third point is something that's not on the list here.

Uh, but I was on the commission when this came up.

The 25% BMR requirement for OHAMS came about before SP 330.

And we were seeing BMR units getting turned into town homes left and right.

Okay.

The lot changed.

And guess what?

All those town homes stopped being built.

The economic evaluation that was done at the time that said that the financial equivalent was 20 25% versus 15% was probably value uh valid at the time when they could just do whatever the heck they wanted.

Okay.

That's not true anymore.

So I think, and I don't, I mean, it's not in line with what we've discussed here, but I think it should be brought back to council and said um should this be changed to be the same thing?

Because I don't believe I would I find it hard to believe, and the developer in the room probably would agree with me that saying that that that financial equivalence for a 20 of 25% for for a townhome or row home is still true today with the state the change in state law.

So it it I think we should be looking at making that the same for everything.

Um again, it I I think it's outside of it's something new, I guess, in the scope of this.

So correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but I don't think I can promote that as a an amendment to this point.

But I think it should be raised back to council because I think that's it was like, oh yeah, we that that's why we did that, and that's that's changed.

So those are my three comments in addition to the one that I think you uh Commissioner Cranston, Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll simply say I'm gonna be supporting this tonight.

Um I appreciate that we've got fee reduction in this.

I think that that's always gonna be uh um valuable direction to go in.

I also appreciate that we're gonna be enabling sort of administrative changes to BMR going forward, so you don't always have to bring it here and listen to us for two hours.

So it's probably a smart thing to do.

Um just my last nitpick is in the staff report when you send it up to council, like please provide a little more explanation of the one piece that that you're not recommending and why, and you can do that in two sentences.

But otherwise, planning to support.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Dempsey, uh Vice Chair Donahue.

I just had one minor uh comment on what uh Commissioner Cranston said.

The um I think that it's still useful.

There is a portion that is not a high uh resource area that is in the El Camino precise plan on the north side of El Camino between Rangstorf and Ortega or something like that.

So keeping the El Camino precise plan in there.

I not to I'm not discounting like your general sentiment, but there's technically there's there's a small reason to keep that in.

Other comments?

Other comments, no.

Um okay, uh, I guess I'll go.

Um so I want to support this.

Um I have a big uh uh kind of issue with the HCD map.

Um my understanding is that the housing element, the final housing element is like legally considered findings.

I guess I don't want to just say that, but like it's based on findings.

Is it a finding?

I don't know, look to our say like is it itself a evidentiary document that can be relied on as like a finding or something?

I don't know.

Like, can someone help me out on the legal side?

Like, I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question.

Would you mind repeating that?

Yeah, uh I'll elaborate.

So for example, um in our published housing element, there are three figures, figure 98 on page 334.

It's called housing sites by share of non-white population.

It's a map.

Another map on uh page three 37.

Uh it's figure 99 called housing sites by share of low and moderate income households.

And then figure 100 housing sites by, I have no idea what a TCAC opportunity score is, but it's there and it's on page 340.

And you know, they're not perfect, but I think those maps, um, which presumably were based on like data submitted to HCD, um seem more in line with kind of how I would um suggest that uh you know uh at least a majority of of our residents would also kind of experience the economic distribution and situation.

And so I guess why I'm asking um is since those maps are in our housing element, and I'm struggling between this clash with um the it's not a huge clash, but it's a minor and meaningful clash to me around the AFFH and the uh current criteria for what we accept as an off-site alternate compliance, which is that there is no language in there right now, as far as I understood.

Um, from Mr.

Chen earlier today, there's no criteria that would whether it would preclude or at the very least invite significant scrutiny.

Um where there's a scenario where something that, for example, in figure 99 on the housing element where some project in the 30 to 39.9% population tract of low to moderate income could comply with their alternate mitigation uh or compliance, I'm sorry, by placing that off-site uh you know building in one of the tracks with you know the 50 to 59.9% moderate to low income.

Basically, like there's no language that I'm hearing that would say if you try to do your alternate compliance by putting an off-site building in a population tract that is lower income than the one where your market rate development will be that that there's I guess not more scrutiny or not more something there to either discourage that because of our AFFH, which is its own self, um part of the housing element, part of our city's uh you know, goals and commitments, values that you know uh our council has put forward.

And so what I would like to see, or here, I guess, you know, maybe yeah, whether it's staff, Ms.

Logue, whoever it is, um if we were to say, hey, it's not we're not just gonna use that HCD map, but we're going to look at you know, figure 99 in the housing element, and we're not gonna let you without more scrutiny or without a higher extraction of value, we're not gonna let you just put what would have otherwise been in the lower shade green into the darker shade green.

We're not just gonna let you do that.

Right.

So let me see if I can.

I I honestly I'm not quite sure I understand, but I would have to evaluate what those figures are that you're pointing to in the housing element.

You know, I'd have to go back and look at that.

Would you mind pulling it up?

I see a lot of our commissioners looking at it right now.

I can tell you that even if I'd pull it up, it's I I would still have to go back and do some research on what is the import of each one of those figures.

Where did they come from and what data was used to create them to determine whether or not they could be used as a basis for determining where the off-site housing could be built?

That sounds very good.

Yeah, that sounds like a very good thing to me.

Yeah, I'm not saying no.

I think if I'm understanding what you'd like us to look into, I I think we can look into that and explore that.

Um I would just like some time to sort of go back.

I've looked at the housing element many times, but it's very long.

And so I'd like to just go back and look at those maps and um compare them to the figures that um housing staff use tonight and see if we can't accomplish what you are asking us to accomplish.

And I don't know if Director Chen, I can't see, I can only see you on the screen.

I apologize if I don't know if he's standing up or if he has any thoughts.

Do you want me to there we go?

I can see him now.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, I can try to take a peek at the maps too.

Uh, and perhaps if I were to um also try to summarize, I think it's some version of notwithstanding the maps or some such an off-site delivery cannot cause further concentration within a um say a low-income census tract or some such.

Uh does it does that um capture the concept that you're trying to get at?

Yes, and in a way that's to I ideally at minimum more granular than that HCD map that we saw.

Okay.

I think we understand the concept, and um subsequent after this meeting, we we can do some additional uh evaluation of it.

Okay.

Um if that's the case, then um and and also um to the extent I do support the um additional kind of language clarification direction, what have you around the um uh proposal that uh Commissioner Cranston made earlier around qualification and scrutiny that that side um to the extent that I would definitely be supporting this with the addition of that additional um review of uh as Mr.

Wayne uh Chen put it, you know, off-site alternate uh compliances wouldn't uh exacerbate uh you know the concentration of you know, like low income um areas in our city uh to the extent that the rest of my commissioners as colleagues would also support that, then I'll put that forward.

Um I think we have uh Commissioner Subraman on the queue.

Chair, if I may um offer my thoughts on the three figures that you pointed out.

I believe what they're trying to do in my understanding of it, and certainly staff, please correct me, um, is that they are putting or demonstrating the housing element sites within the context of these three different sort of demographic study maps.

And as I understand it, these are demographic study maps at a given point in time, meaning that they might evolve.

And I think the one that perhaps changes the fastest is the third one of the three you you pointed out.

So the TCAC map is essentially pointing out what TCAC puts out as high opportunity or high resource rich areas, and I believe those are updated annually.

And so the reason that the third figure looks very different from the map that staff put up on the screen is because this map is from a few years ago, and I guess in the latest evaluation, um, the state has updated those to represent what they believe are resource-rich areas, which is sounding like it's all of the city.

Um, so that in my opinion, is just to say show us the context of the housing element sites via V, these different demographic status uh status across the city.

It doesn't in any way diminish the point you made about ensuring that there is not a concentration of uh BMR housing in a certain part of town.

Um so that's just the point I wanted to make.

Thank you, because um, you know, uh just to take a moment to respond to that.

Um always I would rather um give you know, like broader uh direction to staff than uh more specific, which me as a not expert, the more specific I get, probably the worst things would get.

And so to that extent, um, just to be clear, I was um referencing those maps as examples of um just the ability for more granularity in how we view uh concentrations of income in our city.

And so the current proposal that I'm adding on top of Commissioner Cranson's is um I believe as Mr.

Wayne Chen put it, that staff go explore additional opportunities to ensure that alternate mitigations as off-site would not lead to the furtherance of um low income concentrations in our city or take otherwise appropriate measures.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Cranson.

Sorry, but I just want to make it clear that I view that as an and.

Okay.

The rest of the things in here are one or the other or the other.

That's not an or.

What I would what he's suggesting, I think it's an and.

So it's not it needs to be part of whatever criteria, whether any of these here um, and I think he's seeing thumbs up.

So I just want to make sure it's not seen as a as a separate independent, it's it's an addition across the board for all these options.

Do you agree?

Okay.

Any other commentary, questions, points of deliberation?

Otherwise, um would we need to modify?

I'm done to make a motion to the extent um that we do or don't need to need to modify the language to reflect the current thinking around um qualification and um further analysis on um concentration of low-income tracks, or is that just like um added direction on top of the actual um text that is in the script if it's a majority decision, uh then somebody will have to make a motion uh state the recommendation and then we can take a vote on that.

Um so then it would be something just in terms of the logistical element of how that would go, it would be reading the whole text and then also saying, and we recommend that, etc.

Okay, cool.

Um, then in that case, unless there's other deliberation, like Commissioner Cranson.

Would you like to if the city attorney can suggest the language that I use, I'm happy to read it.

Okay.

Um we took debate talk for a while, but I'm how do you want me to word this?

Jennifer I don't I don't have a suggestion at the moment for your for your motion.

I mean, I think that I have a general understanding of what you want.

Um I'll make a motion and I'll take a crack at it and then um Ms.

Log, if things go haywire, then you can gently guide me.

Um and then I think there's do we have a second?

Or am I on an island?

Um Commissioner Cranson is seconding.

And then okay, cool.

All right.

Then I will make a motion that the environmental planning commission recommend the city council one adopt an ordinance of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 36 zoning article 14.

14 uh division two residential development below market rate housing program of the Mountain View City Code to modify the below market rate program and add section 36.40.32 governing graduated fee reduction for small projects and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act as recommended by the environmental planning commission to be read in title further reading waived attachment one to the staff report with the added recommendation that um language be included to assure the provision of qualified partners as part of uh alternate compliance proposals submitted by developers and that additional uh analysis evaluation um for the uh potential implementation or suggestion to council of uh assuring that uh off-site alternate compliance um uh tracks do not exacerbate low income concentrations in the city of Mountain View.

Is that okay?

No, that was clear.

Okay, thank you.

That is the motion on the floor, Mr.

Clerk.

Can we put that to a vote?

The motion carries uh six yay and one absent.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Okay, uh, we will proceed to item seven, commission staff announcements, update requests, and committee reports.

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

Uh staff or Ms.

Pincholi, do you have any or anyone else announcements, including potentially the next meeting meeting?

If nobody else has it, um the March 18th EPC meeting is going to be canceled because we don't have any items on the agenda.

So most probably EPC will reconvene in April.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, in that case, I oh sorry, question.

Yep, Commissioner Conson.

Question for staff.

Um it was my recommendation recollection.

There are attendance requirements for commissioners.

Do you recall what those are I don't recall, but we can bring it back.

Uh, but yes, you're right, there are attendance requirements for commissioners.

Okay.

Uh no more questions, announcements.

Uh this meeting is adjourned at 9:22 p.m.

Thank you.