Mountain View EPC Meeting on BMR Program Updates - March 4, 2026

The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) held a public hearing on March 4, 2026, to consider seven proposed amendments to the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program ordinance. Staff presented recommendations from the November 2025 City Council study session, covering accessibility, alternative compliance options, fee adjustments, and program cleanup. Commissioners deliberated, heard public testimony from four speakers, and voted 6-0 to recommend adoption to the City Council with two additional recommendations.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ben Tinklenberg (home builder and former Mountain View resident): Expressed concern that the high fee burden (approximately $350,000 per unit including parks fees) makes middle-class housing impossible to build. He urged the commission to consider that fees suppress production and exacerbate the housing crisis.
• Tom Tran: Stated that builders cannot profit in Mountain View due to high costs, leading to a lack of development. He argued that the city is becoming unaffordable for middle-income families, reducing tax revenue and community vitality.
• Andre Lind: (Speaker did not return; no comments recorded.)
• Jonathan (small-scale developer): Supported the graduated fee reduction but urged extending it to projects of up to 10 units (consistent with SB 684 and SB 1123). He also noted that the 25% BMR requirement for townhomes and row homes is unusual and financially challenging, and requested flexibility in concurrent delivery of on-site BMR units.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Ana Reynoso and Julie Barnard presented the seven amendments:

  1. Require 15% of BMR units (or one unit minimum) to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
  2. Strengthen alternative compliance requirements (land dedication, off-site development, and new acquisition/preservation option) with clearer criteria, feasibility analysis, and cost recovery fees.
  3. Change the INLU fee escalator from CPI to the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI).
  4. Cleanup items (clarify weighted average AMI, update administering department).
  5. Remove the HOA reserve fund requirement (deemed unnecessary due to state AB 572).
  6. Introduce a graduated fee reduction for small projects (up to 6 units) scaled to the maximum legally allowed density.
  7. Defer further analysis of extending the graduated fee reduction to projects of 7–10 units to the 2028 BMR review.

• Commissioner Questions and Deliberation:

  • Commissioner Dempsey asked about the interaction with density bonus law, noting that some requirements could be waived or conceded under state law. Staff clarified that alternative compliance is separate from density bonus.
  • Commissioner Donahue inquired about the applicability of accessible units and the perpetuity requirement for off-site development (in perpetuity unless financing prevents it).
  • Commissioner Pham asked about the popularity of alternative compliance options (staff noted recent trend toward off-site development) and the timing of such projects. Staff confirmed that administrative guidelines would allow flexibility for good-faith efforts.
  • Commissioner Subraman questioned the trade-off between INLU fees and alternative compliance, noting that fees have historically funded affordable housing. Staff explained that the equivalency methodology ensures no net loss.
  • Commissioner Cranston raised concerns about the city's ability to veto unqualified partners in alternative compliance proposals. The city attorney noted that the city has discretion to reject proposals but may need objective criteria. Commissioner Cranston later suggested adding a qualified partner requirement.
  • Commissioner Cranston also criticized the AFFH location criteria, noting that the HCD high-resource map covers nearly all of Mountain View, making other criteria (South of El Camino, El Camino Precise Plan) redundant. He also expressed concern that acquisition/preservation of existing CSFRA units may not add new housing units.
  • Commissioner Pham and others supported the graduated fee reduction and the change to CCCI.
  • Chair Nunes raised concerns about the HCD map not aligning with the housing element's more granular maps (figures 98–100) and suggested additional analysis to prevent exacerbating low-income concentrations.

Key Outcomes

• The commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Gutierrez absent) to recommend City Council adoption of the ordinance amendments as presented in the staff report, with two additional recommendations:
  1. Include language requiring that alternative compliance proposals involve qualified development partners, subject to objective criteria.
  2. Direct staff to conduct additional analysis and propose language to ensure that off-site alternative compliance does not exacerbate concentrations of low-income households in the city, potentially using the housing element's demographic maps for more granular scrutiny.
• The motion was made by Commissioner Cranston and seconded by Commissioner Cranson (or Vice Chair Donahue). The motion carried unanimously.
• The effective date of the ordinance is July 9, 2026, 30 days after the second reading.
• The next EPC meeting (March 18) was canceled; the commission will reconvene in April.