Yeah, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern.

Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to EPC at Mountainview.gov by 4 30 p.m.

on the meeting date.

Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item.

Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card.

Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak.

Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them in to the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you're speaking on.

Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

Now I will ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with roll call.

Commissioner Suberman.

Here.

Commissioner Pham.

Here.

Commissioner Gutierrez.

Here.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Commissioner Cranston.

Here.

Vice Chair Donahue.

Here.

And Chair Nunez.

Here.

All Commissioner or President present except for Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Having done that, we will now move forward to item number three, 3.1.

Minutes approval of the Environmental Planning Commission meeting notes of January 21st, 2026, February 4th, 2026, and February 18th, 2026.

I'll open the floor up for any EPC discussion on those minutes.

Any uh public comment.

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

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

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any yellow speaker cards or attendance in the queue?

Uh there are no uh speakers in person, and there's uh no one raising their hands on Zoom.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh I'll entertain anyone who wants to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Okay.

Got a motion from Vice Chair.

I'll second.

Okay.

All right, we've got a second from Commissioner Subramanian.

The motion carries with six yes and one absent.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Alright, having completed the minutes approval, we will proceed to item four on the agenda.

This is the oral communications.

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

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

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

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

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

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have anyone with a yellow speaker card or raise hand on Zoom?

Uh there are no members in person and no uh raised hands on Zoom.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Having no public comment, we'll proceed to new business.

So uh this is item five point one, the environmental planning commission work plan for the fiscal year of 2026 through 2027.

Uh we'll first have a staff presentation, then questions by the EPC, and then followed by public comment.

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

Uh before that, we'll begin with a staff presentation from our principal planner, Miss Diana Pancholi.

Good evening, Chair and the Commission.

Uh, tonight staff is presenting EPC work plan for fiscal year 26 27.

Uh my name is Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the city's Planning Division, and I'm joined here tonight by planning manager Eric Anderson.

Every two years, the city council adopts a work plan that establishes council's top priorities initiatives, which along with other special projects and ongoing core services contribute to the City Council's seven strategic priorities and fiscal year 2025 27 council work plan.

In addition, all council advisory bodies are required to annually prepare work plans that are submitted to the City Council for review and approval tentatively scheduled for September 2026.

Generally, work plan items are referrals from the city council and uh aligned with the city council's adopted two-year work plan.

The Environmental Planning Commission previously prepared its work plan for fiscal year 2025-2026 in the June of 2025, which was subsequently submitted to the City Council in September of 2025.

In preparation for the fiscal year 2026-27, staff has updated the EPC work plan to reflect carryover items and revised schedules for ongoing projects consistent with the city council's direction on the fiscal year's 2025 27 council work plan.

So as you can see, some of the items in the work plan are ongoing, which include general plan and housing element annual progress reports, general plan zoning amendments, minor road cleanups, etc.

Then there are several items, as I mentioned earlier, which are a carryover from the previous work plan, such as the Moffat Billiward Precise Plan, Downtown Precise Plan Comprehensive Update, and the R3 zoning update, along with Dark Sky ordinance and the historic preservation ordinance and register update.

The revised work plan includes estimated timelines for the key deliverables to track the progress of each project.

Staff anticipates that most of these projects will be completed during the next two fiscal years.

However, it is possible that certain projects may exceed the two-year time frame due to the staff capacity constraints and the need for further public outreach or additional studies.

So staff is recommending the EPC submit the attached fiscal year 26-27 work plan to the city council for their approval.

After this action by the EPC, the work plan along with the work plans of other city advisory bodies will be coordinated by the city manager's office for submission to the city council in September of 2026.

This concludes staff presentation.

Staff, including uh community development director Murdoch and Assistant Community Development Director Blazinski are present here tonight if you have any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Pincholi.

All right, we'll take it to the commission for any relevant questions or non-relevant.

It's been a few weeks.

Thank you.

Um is item 10, the SB 79 implementation standards ordinance.

Is that the alternative plan?

Uh no, so the uh at the council meeting back in January, the uh city council directed us to actually take three separate actions related to SB 79.

One was the alternative plan, the second was the historic property exemptions ordinance, and the third was to uh review uh for example the R3 zoning update and other um uh uh ordinances that are applicable to the area for standards that could apply to SB 79 projects uh as the city's right to adopt local standards that that would uh that don't conflict with the densities of SB 79.

Okay, and so I saw the the historic properties, so that's that's number eight.

This is the third thing that you talked about but the is the alternative plan in here or is that further out than the timeline of this work plan.

The it could come to the oh go ahead director.

Vice chair commissioners Christian Murdoch community development director um at the January council meeting uh related to SB 79 the council uh expressed interest in potentially pursuing a local alternative plan for the downtown area and also realized there may be um uh it might be desirable to prepare alternatives for other areas affected by SB 79 um where we ended up is likely support for a downtown uh focused plan but a need for council consideration during the work planning process for the next two year work plan to consider whether uh local alternatives should be prepared beyond the downtown so we don't know the scope of that effort yet and therefore we haven't programmed it in the work plan I think we really need to wait for further direction from council before understanding what that would look like and the potential timing for that okay do is there a timeline for for getting the that input from council um the work planning uh process I think typically starts in February and so maybe early conversations would begin then but we wouldn't know until likely June uh when the budget and the work plan adoption uh would be complete okay okay um the okay next question um the uh Mountain View Yemby and the League of Women Voters sent uh letters regarding housing element basically item nine here housing element program 1.4 and 2.6 uh that were as they pointed as I'm sure you saw they're supposed to be done by the end of 2024 uh this is um proposing to have them done by the end of 2027 we discussed it at at the end of 2024 in the study session um what is the status of that or why why is that taking why is this timeline what uh here sure uh the it's a conservative timeline uh we are continuing to work on these projects uh as uh we have time available amongst our other obligations uh but um our focus for the remainder of this year is on the uh very large and complex R3 zoning update project uh as well as um dark sky ordinance and the historic ordinance update uh in addition there are several uh large and complicated development projects that we need to bring through the process which also are using some of our long range planning teams uh time and effort as well um so as I said there's this is something that we are continuing to work on uh this is a conservative timeline um but uh our ability to really focus effort on it really likely won't begin until uh we either uh we are planning on bringing more staff on board but that likely won't happen until uh early 2027 okay right that so next year's budget has an additional person yes okay and and vice chair I'll just add as well um specific to program 1.4 the scope of that program has expanded since the housing element was adopted when this came to council for discussion council asked us to look at removing single family residential development potential for those sites to help take away other incentives for non-affordable housing development from those sites so that's an additional branch of work that's taking additional time and staff resources council also asked us to look at a broader range of density alternatives which is again more time and staff resources.

So the scope of that program expanded uh making it difficult to rely on that originally adopted uh housing element timeline uh as well.

Okay.

Um I guess the the rest of my thoughts are are more appropriate for for the comments period.

Um, those are all my questions.

Thank you, Vice chair.

Uh Commissioner fam.

Thank you.

I had a few questions.

Um for item one, the historical ordinance.

Um, I believe that was seen by EPC last October.

Um, remind us uh kind of where that ended and what the work would be between now and Q3 2026 regarding that.

Uh so the um EPC provided recommendations and then council provided direction to staff based on those recommendations on uh the ordinance framework uh for the um for the ordinance that will ultimately be brought forward.

Um we're planning tentatively in a couple of months here.

The the ordinance is is quite far along, and we're um uh really the the remaining steps between now and um an early fall adoption meeting uh would be uh just some uh additional publicizing and outreach, especially to property-affected property owners, um, as well as just kind of developing the final policy questions for the staff reports.

Um follow-up question for that.

Will we expect to see a lot of different change in direction from what was discussed in October or more along the same lines?

No, it it's largely consistent with what was presented to the EPC and council.

I mean, as you're drafting ordinance, little things come up uh for sure, but um the we have taken council's direction as our North Star for um what the ordinance will ultimately contain.

I think the the main thing that may be different or may feel different when this comes back um through for recommendation is we likely will need to bifurcate the ordinance update from the register update due to some administrative and technical reasons.

Um the concern is that um the function of the ordinance concurrent with the register, there might be an intervening period where people could delist their newly listed properties until the new opt-off provisions are effective, and then we can update the register subsequent to that.

So it's not it's not perfectly captured in here, likely that register update would come back through to council by uh December this year.

Thanks.

I had um another question related to the Dark Sky ordinance.

Um you also mentioned that there's going to be a lot of focus in terms of your work on that effort this year.

Um I noticed from the last work plan that there were a few more rows, um, for example, outreach.

Um, can you give an update on how that's been going?

Thank you for the question.

Yeah, so as presented in the last year's work plan, we actually did a lot of outreach in starting in last summer uh and a little bit into the fall, after which the staff efforts have been more focused on you know, digesting what um input we've received um and then drafting an ordinance.

So we are hoping to bring it to the city council for adoption by the Q4 of this year, okay.

Um I'm curious of um who was targeted in the outreach efforts.

So um it was a mix of uh stakeholders.

Uh some of the stakeholders were the uh neighborhood associations.

We um sent out invitation to a lot of neighborhood associations to participate, and then a lot of uh local advocacy groups and a lot of uh planning groups which are active in the city, such as um the coalition of uh sustainable planning, mountain view coalition for sustainable planning, um, and the old Mountain View Neighborhood Association as well.

So um, in addition to those, there were some stakeholders which are specifically interested in the topic of Dar Sky, who have been giving us input at various council meetings, those who are individually contacted as well to participate in the outreach efforts.

Okay, thank you.

That's all my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Fam.

Commissioner Subraman.

Thank you, Jen.

Um I'll start with item seven.

Um, in our last meeting in April, staff had noted that a recommendation would be provided to council in May, and then the code amendments would be effective 30 days after the second hearing, which was anticipated in June.

So what's causing this delay and um maybe tack on the second part to it just so you can answer it all.

Does this mean that the administrative process that was recommended will be in place till the ministerial approval procedures get adopted?

And does that expose us or open us to any other legal ramifications if the ministerial process isn't put in place just because that was what was really being pushed by state law, right?

So just to clarify, the process by which these projects are approved, is fully within the City of Mountain View's jurisdiction.

Uh the state law sets a um CEQA specific procedure.

Uh it's a CEQA exemption for a certain type of project, and it sets a timeline by which those projects need to be acted on because of that changing CEQA.

So there is no uh legal jeopardy if we uh for uh simply implementing these administrative approval um uh ordinance that we that uh we adopted.

Um however, uh the city council made it very clear that their ultimate goal is uh ministerial approval for these projects that were um affected by AB 130, and uh so we are going to continue to work on that ultimate outcome, uh, which does require some um uh a lot of little changes to the ordinance.

Like there's a lot of little things all throughout the ordinance that need to be teased out, uh, find solutions for, you know, find ministerial objective solutions for and rewrite.

And so it is um a fairly laborious process to do so uh with a lot of potentially interconnected um language and decisions.

Uh and so that's really the challenge in going from uh an administrative process which continues to allow some discretion to a purely ministerial process in which there is no discretion.

And for the public uh CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act.

Thank you.

Next question on item eight, the historic preservation.

So with the work on SB 79 on identifying sites or on compliance, when is that going to be ready along with the SB 79 project?

And when will you probably will you bring that to present to EPC and then council, or what is the process then?

Um we have uh in our in our internal draft ordinance for the historic update, we've included language to implement this um this provision, this exception provision.

Uh so it's it's not particularly complicated.

Really, all you need to do is have language or looking at what other cities have done, they have basically adopted a paragraph in their zoning ordinance and then an opt adopted an iconography in their zoning map, and that's really the extent of the work, um, as far as we've seen what other communities have done.

So, given the um overlap with the historic ordinance, uh, we think that there is an opportunity to uh do both of those with the same ordinance and the same project.

So, somewhat tied to that with item 10 and the SB 79 implementation standards.

There was earlier reference that that would refer to the R3 standards that would be adopted and use them as a baseline.

Is that still what is being considered in terms of the work plan and the scheduling for the SB 79 work?

Uh so I'll clarify, you know, as was uh put forward to council, which council supported, um, we were talking about building off of the R3 standards.

The challenge is uh we are obligated as a city to allow development at the intensities, heights, floor area ratios, etc.

that are provided in SB 79.

But we don't have development standards for all of those types of development currently.

The R3 zoning update will get us as close as we've ever been, uh, in large part.

And so the thinking and the process is to build off of what's adopted ultimately with R3 and then to craft standards that will allow SP 79 projects to be carried out in the best way for our community.

So, essentially to facilitate SP 79 projects in the best way for Mountain View, um, not to just throw a bunch of additional standards at the projects, it's really to fill in gaps in a helpful way for the community and to allow the projects to have clarity to carry out the projects.

Thank you.

That's helpful to understand.

So, just to um expand on that a little bit.

Um, it took us a long time to get to the R3 standards.

Um, given that SB 79 requires such a quick eat forward, do you see that the effort required to bridge that gap as you spoke of, can be achieved in that timeline?

Um it's going to be challenging.

We're going to have to be economical with the decisions we make and the standards we pursue.

Um we've learned a lot through the course of the R3 update process, and a lot of the time associated with the R3 zoning update wasn't necessarily related to development of the standards.

It was bigger policy questions about whether and where to intensify, for example.

And so I think we'll we'll manage it.

Um it's just we may not have every standard we would like, but getting some critical standards in place uh since the law will be in effect uh relatively soon is really important for our community.

One last question.

My colleagues had touched on um item nine with the housing elements.

Just wanted to understand a little bit more as to what has made this challenging in terms of adoption, and what if anything have you learned that you think you might be able to go back and apply to making those feasible?

I think one of the big challenges we've had with this project is just um getting clear communication with the affected stakeholders.

I mean, these these religious organizations can have very complex leadership, they can be very hard to find the right person.

Uh, and so we've committed a lot of time and effort to trying to just trying to reach you know these uh, you know, the right the right people in these organizations.

So that's been a big challenge.

Um the uh as the director said, the additional direction that we receive from council to uh prohibit single family development has been a little bit challenging uh just because many of these sites are zoned R1, so it's not just a matter of saying churches can't build single family because that's the whole point of the district.

There are a lot of legal requirements there about having principally permitted uses in every zoning district, and so what are the principally permitted uses in this zoning district?

What's it for?

Uh and so that's been a little bit of a challenge to kind of tease out and and um and develop, uh which we are making great progress on now.

Um the um as far as lessons learned uh moving forward, I think you know, like I said, um finding the right people to talk to on these sites, uh, understanding what would help them move the needle on potential affordable housing projects.

Uh, they often just are not thinking about this at all.

It's just not part of their um uh their goals.

Uh so really thinking about it from kind of looking at what other communities are doing and what what projects have been successful in other communities.

Uh so those those are some of the I think lessons learned that we've been getting out of this process.

Thank you.

Those were all my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Guterres.

Yeah, thanks.

So help me to understand five.

Just the basic question why so many to be determined.

Uh so when we took the uh item to council that was kind of the overview of SB 79.

Um, the direction from that was to, as the director said, once the council comes back, once there's a new council in 2020 uh 2027, to look at a local alternative plan.

Um, and that local alternative plan is really the big picture of density and intensity, and we are constrained under state law about how much we can down zone certain areas or upzone certain areas because we have to ultimately reallocate density that is the baseline in SB 79.

So we are highly constrained in the downtown precise plan process by the ultimate direction that the city council takes in this SB 79 local alternative plan implementation.

So we really, as he's as the director said earlier, uh we can't even really set a work plan for the SB 79 local alternative plan until we hear from council next year.

We can't even set a work plan for the downtown precise plan because it's so deeply dependent on the form that that TOD local alternative plan takes.

Thank you.

And then help me to understand number nine, the timelines Q4 2027.

And in the big picture, how often do we give updates to the state about where we're at with uh housing element?

Sure, so until you know, before Q4 2027, we'll have one uh housing element update that we'll we'll give to the state.

Um I will say that they're not shy about reaching out to us for updates if they hear things from the community or concerns about the pace of our implementation.

Uh so we they are definitely watching, and and we uh it's not just at the um at the uh annual progress report that we provide updates and information to them about our progress.

Uh so that's an ongoing uh relationship that we have, and um so far in the past, those conversations have been very positive about um the city's um efforts and our priorities.

Just a follow-up question to that.

Being that we just don't give the state an annual progress report, but it seems like we have a relationship with them as well, we should.

How often do you think you've had updates with them this past year?

Um we had one series of conversations.

I think there were probably three or four conversations with them, specifically about implementing certain housing element programs, uh, and whether we had um made sufficient progress on those programs.

Great.

And then my final question.

Do you think that by having one more person the timelines will help you here?

Well, that person will help you to meet the timelines a little bit faster, or do you really think you need more than one person?

And have you brought that up with city council?

I don't really watch those meetings all the way through sometimes, so have you discussed that already with them?

Bless your heart.

Um, so the addition of a new staff member uh we can focus on long-range planning activities, which is uh the scope of work that we're talking about across this range of work plan items, will help greatly.

Um, how much it will allow us to accelerate individual work plan items is difficult to say.

Some of them have timelines that just require time to do the work.

Um, but what it will allow us to do um is take on any new contingent work that comes up to respond to community needs, for example, without slowing down work in many cases, which is one of the challenges we have now with our current staffing level is new things come up, like Assembly bill 130, Senate Bill 79.

We're scrambling and redirecting resources to respond and react, impacting timelines for other work that's already been underway.

So I think it will help accelerate in some cases and help avoid decelerating in other cases.

And one person is enough, or do you need another person?

More can often be better.

I think in this case, we're grateful to get, you know, one additional staff member.

Um we're looking for someone that's got a lot of experience and skills and can really make an impact right away when they join the team.

That's our focus for right now.

Okay, thank you, everyone.

Let's try Donahue.

Yeah, I have a couple additional questions.

So on the following on to the the question about uh giving updates to the state, what if we don't meet the timelines that we originally agreed to?

Uh, are there any I I've I've actually asked this question before, but uh are there any uh downsides or are there any penalties that could the state decertify our housing element, for example?

That seems like that would be a pretty heavy hammer.

Sure.

So there absolutely can be consequences for a city's failure to effectively implement its housing element.

Um it is it is not likely to be the result of delay in implementing a single program or even a small number of programs, typically this results from a broad record of failure to act, uh, bad intentioned actions by a city, efforts to undermine the commitments in a housing element, none of which are applicable here in Mountain View.

Um I wanted to add in the course of these frequent conversations we have with the housing and community development department at the state, uh, it allows us to reiterate the broad range of actions that we take as good actors in the housing realm and trying to work through solutions to harmonize state law requirements with local requirements in a way that's facilitative of housing.

And so I value those opportunities to engage and sort of provide the other side of the story to supplement what an applicant's engaged with the state on, for example.

And we've uh you know, knock on wood been very successful in our engagements thus far with HCD based on our demonstrated record of pro housing, you know, and housing supportive actions, okay.

Yeah, I'm glad I mean I know that we're trying to do the right thing, and I'm glad that that they that it sounds like they see that as well.

As far as the um the implementing these these uh these uh actions the 1.4 and 2.6 um and then the the layered on council direction to uh related to the R1 zoning.

Um, could that be done in phases?

Could we could we do meet our uh commitments under the housing element and then as a second phase uh eliminate the the R1 option or do you see what I'm saying?

I think it's I think it's difficult to do that in my mind, and I think it may be counterproductive.

Um, in effect, we'd be doing two scopes of work.

Um, and there are to some extent Apples and Orgers what the minimum requirement is versus what council's desire is.

I'm not sure that it would be cost effective across a range of resource considerations to do that.

Could it technically be done?

I think so, but for a variety of reasons, I would very strongly recommend against pursuing that.

Okay.

Just just thinking.

Um and one other thing is so the dark sky ordinance is uh an important uh item, but it it's coming before the this uh meeting our housing element uh obligations why is that in the work plan, it's just in in time it's happening earlier.

Sure.

So I think uh, you know, one of the the interesting parts of my job is trying to maximize the output from the resources we have, and so given the stages and phases of work and sort of uh ebbs and flows or peaks and troughs of active work periods and maybe consultant-driven analysis, um, we have the staff uh oriented in a way where they can focus on the dark sky work without having a detrimental impact on the housing element 1.4 program.

So they are structured in a way where it's not mutually exclusive, where we have to stop doing one to do another, for example.

Um, and we have the ability to finish this by the end of the calendar year and make progress on the council's priority work plan, and so that's an opportunity that we're going to take advantage of and not arbitrarily delay dark sky to signal focus on 1.4, for example, okay.

I I don't end the year.

Balancing all the the requirements from the state and the council and then all these things.

So uh thank you.

Commissioner Cranston.

Just one question.

Um it's not explicit in number two on the R3, but my expectation was that part of R3 will be um objective design standards.

It's I guess I'm can you clarify is our is item four gonna then go back and look at all those objective design standards?

I thought it was the intention was that we were gonna focus on the R3 objective design standards, kind of get those buttoned down as part of our three, and then that goes forward, but it's it's not item four doesn't say, oh, and we're not gonna go back and relook at all those all over again.

So I'm just I'm and then and that those standards under R3 we're supposed to inform a lot of other things, so it's not it kind of looks like number four reopens the objective standards that we think we're gonna be, I think we're going to be working through in R3, and I want to make sure that's not the expectation.

Right, it's absolutely not the intention to reopen uh what's being done with R3.

Um quite to the contrary, similar to the question from Commissioner Subermanian about um the SB 79 implementation plan, um, or standards rather.

Um, the objective design standards are meant to build on the R3 standards.

They're a significant platform, a great foundation, great body of work and a lot of time and thought being put into those, but they don't do everything, and there are a range of development types that we're intending to prepare objective design standards for that are not specifically addressed in the R3 standards, for example.

So it's a yes and uh not a reopening type process.

Commissioner Gutierrez?

Yeah, one more follow up question.

I it just on I mean, when you were mentioning when it was mentioned about local alternative plan to SP 79, is that a reference to SP29 R local alternative plan that we wanted to propose sooner rather than later?

Is that what you're referring to by the local alternative plan?

So SB 79 provides an option for cities to prepare what's called a transit oriented development local alternative plan or TOD alternative plan.

And so that allows us to reallocate density uh in a way that meets our local needs without uh falling below the overall development capacity that's increased by SB 79.

That's different from the SB 79 implementation standards.

Uh and so the SP 79 implementation standards are meant to come first, and then a longer term solution with the alternative plan uh secondary to that.

So it's not part of the same thing?

No, they're different different items.

Okay, because that's important to clarify, I think, for the most part, because then I can just hear certain people say, Well, that's why we told them to do this sooner rather than later.

So thank you.

All righty.

Uh, do you have one question?

No, cool.

Um I guess I have some questions.

Um, when it comes to the milestone dates, um, to what extent aside from like staff's own inference, um, around kind of like um direct or indirect inference around um kind of like how council views these work items.

Um, I guess like I'm curious to what extent does the city council provide direct guidance feedback, whether as a collective or maybe by proxy through the mayor, um or or with the mayor as a conduit for um how these dates and milestones get um proposed by staff, like, yeah.

Can you describe for us the level of direct involvement from council or the mayor on this?

Sure.

Um one of the the key roles for council is to prioritize resources, right?

Um, from a prioritization standpoint.

Uh this is more important than this other thing, and so city manager and staff please figure out how to deliver in that order, right?

Um it's not often that the council's looking at a work plan like this and says, ah, shift this here, shift this there, but as items come to them and we lay out the broad framework in the context of a housing element timeline commitment or an emergent legislative deadline or effective date, we provide that context to the council and ask them, you know, do you want us to prioritize this new thing and identify the things that would be deprioritized, or do you want us to take this on once we finish the things we already have in process?

So it's more of that qualitative prioritization, and then the staff has to work out the timelines over which these various work items can be completed.

So can you describe a little more um at a little more color specificity to that when you say um if I'm hearing correctly, um, that yes, the council does you know, set the prioritization collectively as the body, and then you guys say, Hey, here's what we're hearing, help prioritize this for us.

Like, can you describe either the formal or informal channel means method in which that happens?

Is it like a closed session?

Is it uh every three month kind of update?

Is it a mayor city manager thing?

Can you just walk us through like how that happens specifically?

Sure.

So uh most often um these major items will come to council at some intermediate stage, uh, as a new business item or as a study session item.

And so it's a public process where the report describes the context, the staff presentation describes the context, and we answer a lot of questions from council about you know why is this difficult, you know, why would you need to stop this other item?

Um I think the SB 79 discussion in January is a good example of that, where uh there was community angst over the impending effective date of the legislation and a desire from some in the community to really drop everything and prioritize a local alternative plan.

Um the council weighed that course of action with the broad council work plan set of priorities that many of which had been in process for multiple years and would have been meaningfully delayed had we prioritized as a city a local alternative plan.

So council weighed those factors and said we're not gonna stop everything else that we've been doing, keep going on those, finish them as quickly as you can.

Do these incremental things for SB 79, like a historic resource protection ordinance, implementation standards, so we get the best projects we can.

And then we may get around to doing these local alternatives.

Uh, but let's talk again about that because that's gonna be a significant draw on resources over the next six twelve months or more, depending on the scope and extent of those local alternative plans.

So I think that's a good case study that the January 27th discussion about SB 79.

So, if I'm hearing uh and playing that back correctly, or and correct me if I'm um mistaken, it sounds like um within study sessions or um council feedback sessions just uh you know that are specific to some of these um meety uh items or or or maybe even not, it sounds like um there is an informal check-in or you know, raising of the hand that staff might do and say, hey, just so you know, if we do this, it's gonna impact this and that is and that's kind of like the main mechanism for um how staff um receives interprets designates um council prioritization?

Is that am I hearing that correctly?

That's correct.

Yeah, by and large, it's done in this public process through that new business or study session process, discussing one or more ongoing priority items or emergent priority items, and asking council how they would order the priorities for staff to work on those items.

Thank you.

And so then um as we're moving over time, right?

Um, what's like the systematized manner in which that sentiment, direct feedback, guidance, um, you know, or or even like criteria for um how you guys are over time, kind of like saying, Oh, well, you know, council knocked this one down a peg or elevated this, you know, like can you walk us through like um staff's like system or you know, procedure or like repository of um tracking the segment over time, such that when work plan um, you know, prioritization and decision making um comes up, um, you have uh, you know, like uh agreed upon method, data pool um indicators, whatever that then you guys use to process and create the um the date prioritizations for work.

If I made any sense, I hope I did.

Sure.

So I'd say the main recalibration occurs every two years when council adopts its two-year priority work plan.

Um we do our best to provide the context of existing and ongoing work.

Um, you know, it's often the case that priority items from prior work plans are not yet finished and are underway, and they may be continued, they may be discontinued.

Um we lay out other key, you know, non-discretionary items that staff feels it needs to work on due to legal requirements or other you know key priority needs that we've assessed, and we present that information to council in our recommendations in reaction to their work planning process.

And so council has that full information to then say, great, we understand and hear the things we want to put on our work plan, and they may add more or fewer items based on the other background circumstances that I described of prior year work plan items or emergent uh legislative responses and what have you.

Okay, so if I'm hearing correctly, then um it the the approach that staff takes when um determining kind of like what dates and milestones are going to get proposed on a work schedule like this is a um more qualitative um feedback-based approach where um within meetings, um, you know, council um may express sentiment indicating that um something is um you know rising to some level of priority where staff um then um you know under your prerogative might say, hey, um if we do this, then it impacts that.

Um can you give us guidance on XYZ?

Um staff kind of goes away and kind of like captures that and as a collective kind of like staff um has almost like a, you know, like a shared um, you know, almost like oral tradition, uh not to, but yeah, like a shared understanding, um, you know, of kind of like what is the council priority level for different things, um and is that am I characterizing that kind of like I think that's a pretty fair summation?

I think we we combine qualitative and quantitative methods.

So for instance, back to the January example for SB 79 and assembly bill 130.

We described the work that we're doing, but we also put in graphic form the estimated amounts of time and how those different periods of work overlaid with one another and showed greater and lesser periods of intensity for staff work and allowed us to focus on areas where we would have additional capacity to take on new work.

And so we try to bring a variety of methods to tell the story about our existing capacity, our potential future capacity, and how that relates to additional demands that are desired to work on new things, um, and whether or not we think we can take them on and uh at what point in time.

That's helpful.

And so then this um quantitative element that you're um mentioning around the process, um, I'm hearing that it accounts for kind of like um dates in the future, accounts for um current staff um, you know, capacity, um, maybe like something like skill level even um that quantitative a part of the equation, does it also um account for things like um, you know, like benefit like to the city, perceived public good, um, you know, the public sentiment, um, you know, um, like, yeah, can can you kind of like describe the quantitative aspect of it and to what extent um, you know, the like the substance of you know, impact, like, you know, transformational benefit, um, you know, moderate benefit.

Like, can you just help us understand if and to what extent that's part of how the time frames um that staff proposes get um you know processed?

Sure, that's a it's a great question.

I think it's hard to give you a very direct answer, uh, but those are all the complex kinds of considerations that council needs to consider when weighing the policy priorities.

They're the elected representatives that are hearing from the community, they're getting expert opinion and recommendations from staff, from the city attorney's office, and they have to weigh all of those in addition to budgetary considerations as well about what can be taken on and over what time span.

Um some of the ways that we try to look at sort of quantitative impact is some of these items in the housing element may be very high intensity work, but may only have the potential to yield a few dozen housing units.

When you compare that to delaying the R3 zoning update, for example, which can implement uh standards to actually unlock development capacity for 10 to 16,000 housing units.

That's a that's a factor that council can weigh as to whether we should delay completion of R3 versus doing some other uh programmatic work.

Okay, so if it's going back to council, then um and they're the ones that you know provide a sentiment and that quantitative, so it sounds like the quantitative aspect almost cycles back into council, which if I heard correctly, like staff takes through a kind of qualitative within meetings kind of inferential approach, and so um yeah, I guess that's uh I I won't have to hammer that horse um further.

But I guess I am also um kind of like curious about what we're able to kind of like do, discuss or or propose here.

So for example, um, you know, um I guess A, are these dates locked in stone?

Um are they um coming from staff as proposals?

Are they coming from council as you know, you know, we like some formal process where they made the priority and you know these dates are in there?

Are we able to say, hey, um, you know, collectively we suggest to council that maybe they move up item X up to you know, like this?

Like what are we able to actually um suggest or propose when it comes to the dates of the work plan or or the work items themselves?

Sure.

So I'd say it's it's uncommon for council to say do this thing by this date.

Um council says this is really important, and we would rather have this than something else, and that allows us to lay out those work items across the range of of actions and activities we have to undertake.

Um, as far as you know, doing or are these dates set in stone?

Um, we do the work as quickly and efficiently as we can, and we don't benefit from delaying completion of work items.

Sorry, I guess I meant the proposed dates as proposed, like um, I guess what I'm trying to understand is more oriented around is the um you know commission able to say, hey, council, um, we think this should be, you know, moved down a year.

Like a crazy example here, but um a quarter, or this should be moved up uh a quarter or something like that.

Like, are we able to you know make those suggestions and recommendations?

Or um another way of asking the questions like what's our actual discretion around um the dates, the um work items, like what can we actually suggest here?

Sure.

So I don't know that the commission's in a good position to say this should be Q2 instead of Q3.

You don't know all of the considerations that me and my staff know that go into doing the work.

What you could communicate is we're concerned about the timeline that's shown for completion of this, and if there's a way to prioritize it, we would strongly urge the council to do that.

That may allow the council to deprioritize something else that's on here or something else that's not on here, and maybe allow us to do it faster.

Within the body of work that's shown here, there's nothing we can do faster without something else being delayed or or canceled.

And so um, if there's an opportunity, something progresses more quickly in our work than anticipated, by all means we will bring it faster or sooner.

Um, but those opportunities tend to be few and far between, and so these are the estimates with our best judgment with a little bit of conservatism as to when we think we can realistically complete the work.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that insight.

Any other questions?

No, okay.

Then I will go ahead and uh move this into the public comment.

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

Mr.

Clerk, are there any yellow speaker cards or uh speakers on the queue?

Um there are none in person, and there's no one raising their hands on Zoom.

Okay, going once, twice, all right.

All right.

Uh then we will proceed to uh the next phase of this, the EPC deliberation and action.

Um I guess the staff recommendation um is to review the fiscal year 26, 27 environmental planning commission work plan um and forward it forward it to the city council for approval.

But um, yeah, I guess we'll take um commission deliberation and action on that before any motions kind of thing.

Oops, uh Commissioner Cranston.

It's what's recommended and ready to make a motion when everybody else is.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Gutierrez.

Yeah, no, I like to deliberate, so I'll show my opinion.

So when I looked at this, it said the EPC work plan for the upcoming year.

And now I just heard something different mentioned to us in terms of like a prioritization of what these things are based on city council's perspective.

Which begs the question, why are we here?

Why do we even bother to review this?

If we don't have the ability to really per se move things ahead, what suggestions can we make that would be viable for city council to listen what the EPC thinks of A, B, C, D, or E.

The example back from January came back about SB 79.

We prioritize that guys.

We were the ones that got the feedback from the community.

We share the urgency.

We saw Palo Alto take the initiative, regardless of how many members of staff they have compared to us.

I don't care.

They were on it, they submitted.

So I ask you to just reanalyze why we're here and how we can make an impact.

Because right now I just heard that it's very limited.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gutierrez, Vice Chair Donahue.

Yeah, it does seem somewhat limited.

Um I'm really a process guy.

Uh I really are laughing, I guess, because they they know it to be true.

Um I really like to have if we if there's a process in place, I like to follow the process.

Um, and one of those things is meeting uh if we make an agreement to do something that I I think that we should um do it.

Um, so I am concerned about the slippage of the schedule on meeting some of these housing element obligations.

I understand that there are reasons that um there often are, and and I can't say that I've never had a job where we, I mean, I don't know if I've ever had a job where we didn't uh slip the schedule, but um uh but that's me.

Um but but but still there's there's there's processes to be followed.

So that does concern me.

One thing that I heard the director say was uh that there are some programs that can yield thousands of units, and there's some that can yield dozens of units.

So I went and looked at the housing element, and it actually says that by the end of 2027, the goal for one of them is 65, and the goal for the other is 40.

So that's we're talking about a hundred units.

And so, um, I can see how that might not be the most important thing.

Uh still we make a commitment, I like to to follow that, but all things uh other things being equal.

I would like to at least express uh some concern to the city council, but uh I am uh willing to to move forward with the staff recommendation.

Commissioner Subramanian.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, staff, because I I think I fully understand and appreciate um all that all cities, not just ours are dealing with, particularly with this big torpedo that was thrown into our labs with SB 79, and the dramatic shift that it has caused of work plans across the board for not just our city but every city.

So I appreciate the shift that you've had to make.

It's pretty seismic.

And I appreciate that you've been able to walk through and explain which threads are intertwined and hopefully what work we can use from one sort of work stream to address SP 79 and maybe use some of that to inform and speed up the delivery of other intertwined elements.

With that said, I do ask, and I think you've heard it from several of my colleagues here, that you come to us with at all the appropriate times, not just this when coming up with the report, but um questions as to how we can qualitatively inform and speed up maybe some of those work streams and in turn provide guidance and recommendation to council that's helpful for them to then make the hard decisions on um helping you prioritize and figuring out which have like material impact.

And again, as um Commissioner Donahue pointed out, I think rather than sweating it out for a housing element that's going to impact 100 units, by all means please let us focus on the big alternate TOD plans and figure out how we can really set the wheels of development in motion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pham.

I echo a lot of the comments that my colleagues here have mentioned.

Um I also want to say it's great to see some of these items from previous work plans move forward.

So I applaud staff for keeping with it and um moving them to the finish line, a lot of them like earlier on the list.

I also have some of the same concerns um regarding some of the intertwined work for SB 79.

Um it seems to me that uh additional study sessions or input from council seems necessary to be able to move this forward.

So even if you're not able to bring forth um, you know, substantial recommendations, um potentially more engagement may help, and so that might be something you want to highlight um when this work plan and other work plans from other commissioners' commissions go to council um in the future.

Uh it sounds like that's happening in the near future, say September.

So that might be something highlighted.

Um, and then last thing I want to say is happy to hear that there's another um planning staff joining your team to help move some of this forward.

That's all.

Alright, um, I'll make some comments.

Um I guess one thing that comes to mind is that, you know, 600 units.

Um, I guess I'll um put forward the idea or position that, you know, not all units are created equal.

Uh location matters.

If um that wasn't the case, then you know, all the battles over, you know, like segregation in the 60s, like redlining, um, those concepts wouldn't be something that um, you know, we'd all be familiar with, nor would the actual fact that there is uh housing element requirement called affirmatively furthering fair housing.

And so um I do care about those 40, 6500 units in the south of Elcamino.

Um, I know that the dark skies element has, you know, um very strong champion uh around that and you know I'm not here to like you know say that I know what the prioritization level is for um that or for um historic preservation or objective design.

I think they're all important um to be quite honest with um with everyone, I guess.

Um and so for me, um, you know, when I read the uh housing element uh 2.6 program as well, um, you know, with very clear timelines.

And um I think with uh another indicator, another kind of like I don't know what you would call it, like clause text commitment there, um, that says that if um 40 units or something like that aren't developed by 2024 or something or 2027, um that then we're just gonna go back and get more feedback, and that then we'll have uh, you know, uh incentivization you know, framework or you know, zoning, whatever that, you know, mechanism would be in place by December 20 uh 31st, 2028.

Um I guess like to be quite honest, um, not in a in a cynical way, but more in a just purely logistical way.

Like I don't really have faith that that will actually happen if you know the like first part of that commitment um is three years delayed.

Um, you know, by the time we get boots on the ground or you know, clipboards in front of doors and are knocking, you know, have all the feedback like that can be three to six months, and then we're gonna cram that through, you know, a city council priority like to be delivered by 2028.

I just I don't personally see that happening.

That doesn't mean it can't, that doesn't mean it wouldn't, but I personally don't see that happening.

And so the only controllable moment I have to say something about that um is right now.

And um, yeah, I actually um you know I don't know what the best practice is for quantifying uh the prioritization level of um municipal governing body such that staff has clarity on why what like like deep clarity, right?

Like the line of sight and can you know clearly articulate and understand, you know, in measured way which items are priorities and like the specific factors for why that's the case, right?

Like I don't know, I don't know what those models look like.

I don't know if it's a thing that exists um in your line of work.

Um I'm not like trying to pretend like I I do know.

Um but along those lines um I'm just gonna get to the point here.

I think that um, you know, based on my understanding of, you know, our very limited ability to say, you know, something here, uh apparently around like this work item, like I still think that, you know, I'm interested in exercising that I'm interested in saying um, you know, to the city council.

If if if there's any commissioners that agree with me that, yeah, like I think they should you know, like, I don't know if it's go back to drawing board, you know, check in with you know themselves as a body um and think about directing staff to move uh work item number nine upward on the priority list.

I actually do um have that interest.

And so I'll toss it out to the commission for um I and again, I understand something will have to get moved down, something will have to like in prioritize it.

That's not the call I'm here to make.

That's not like that's for council to decide um and to work with you guys on that.

But I am interested in saying I think item number nine, um, if three or more other commissioners agree with me, should you know be reconsidered by council as something that should move up in terms of the um milestone date.

Um so I'm also interested in moving forward with the um with the motion that Commissioner Cranston has put forward, but um with uh, but I'd like to see if the commission is interested um in appending that level of guidance um or or you know appeal to the council to please reconsider um item number nine uh in terms of uh escalating it up the priority timeline.

Commissioner Cranson.

So I've I've watched the commission, the council's review of priorities and and ultimately council's responsibility is to say city manager go do this, and then staff does that.

So the staff has brought us how they're going to implement like what council has brought to them as the as the priorities.

Um I think they've looked at and tried to make those trade-offs, and I think this work plan reflects those trade-offs.

Um a couple of commissioners have asked about the dark spy plan.

It's two months away from being done for God's sake.

Okay.

If I was putting new resources in it today versus something else, would I put it on it?

No.

But it's two months away from being done.

So let's just finish it.

Okay.

So I I don't I don't disagree that all things being if we had a clean slate, maybe you'd do something differently, but it's two months away from being done.

So let's finish it.

Um I am not in support of looking more closely, going back to council and saying to reprioritize things.

I think they've done that diligence and they've provided that guidance to staff and to the city manager and her team, and they're they've brought to us what they believe is the best way to accomplish those goals that were communicated by council, and I'm comfortable that what they've shown will accomplish what they've communicated as a priorities.

So I am I would not be supportive of asking council to go back and reconsider priorities at this point.

Um that's why I'm comfortable with what's been staff has proposed.

I think it's a reasonable, there's it's never perfect.

We we don't have the ability to go to the city manager and say say change this item.

That's that's her job and her staff's job to do that, not ours.

It's if so, I don't I and I don't believe council looked at the the church's situation lightly, they asked for things to make it quite frankly stronger, which makes it more complicated.

So they I'm sure that was part of the discussion.

I'm sure they understood that.

So I don't uh I've watched them, none of the members of council take this stuff lightly.

I don't believe the prioritizations they provided are in any way misguided or or you know, they're they're they're well thought out, and I am comfortable with that, so I am comfortable with what staff has proposed as an approach, and I support the work that they've done to get to this point.

So I I guess again, I I support what's presented here as is, and with no other recommendations, at least from my standpoint.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cranson, Commissioner Guterres.

Well, this is the strength and the weakness of public policy, right?

This is the way government works at the local level.

I agree and disagree with Commissioner Cranston and everyone else on this dice, and that's fine.

But the bottom line is that you're seeing the inherent tension between a policy making body and that one that makes recommendations.

We're all in with what we do when we have the chance to actually preside over something meaningful, and we actually give our input in terms of updates to zoning laws, land use regulations, our relationship with state governance in terms of a housing element plan, commitments that we adhere to because we were part of the process from day one.

Not saying the staff wasn't, I'm just talking about us here as a team.

And so when you look at it from that perspective, and then when I hear from my perspective, a couple city council people tell me this is your chance to be able to have input in terms of how your schedule is going to be for the upcoming year, but in reality it's not.

Then why am I here?

Why are we here?

This is why I beg the question for the team to analyze and ask yourselves what's the meaning behind how we look at this.

It's very limited in terms of what we can do and what we can change, and when it comes down to this, I look at it more as a simple symbolic act of it's your turn to look at this document.

Do you agree or disagree?

Knowing that we have limited involvement with what we actually can make change.

So I don't need too much into this.

Um it is structured this way because that's the way the charter works, it's structured this way because that's the way traditionally it's been, but during the last time when we had the work plan, um, come to EPC.

I thought we had been able to make change on a couple of items.

Here it doesn't seem like we are able to do that for whatever reason, and it's already been explained as to why.

So it's just that vantage point between how we look at things that makes a big difference.

Um, so finally, in conclusion, I agree with you, Alex.

I think this is one of the reasons why I brought up what I brought up.

Now, do I know if this will happen or not?

I don't know, but here's my chance to do it.

So I'm with you.

I would like to move up number nine, and I would like to move up number seven.

The things that are going to be realized in Q426, that's great.

But I'm not saying don't do it.

I haven't heard anyone say that.

But if you look at the timelines for those seven and nine, I think it could be a little faster.

But why?

Because I'm not part of the policymaking body of the city council.

I'm part of the EPC.

And that's my right, and that's my opinion.

So I'm with you, Alex.

I'd like to see that be moved up.

How the staff, if it ends up being something that we could recommend and recommend, uh with the recommendation that's been presented to us, great.

If not, no problem.

But at least I've done my due diligence to participate and to say this is why and this is how.

How you get it done is something else.

Thank you, Commissioner Gutierrez.

Do we have uh I'd like to invite thoughts from other commissioners on the current line of thought?

Commissioner Subraman.

Um I think I've made my point of view pretty clear, but I will restate it to say that I'm in agreement with Commissioner Cranston because I do think this has been much deliberated, thought out work plan with explanation from staff as to like the key items that are taking up space and time, and uh with input from council getting the right priority that we should, and therefore I'm inclined to not change anything in the recommended uh work plan.

Thank you, Commissioner Subraman.

My thoughts.

Vice Chair, Commissioner Fam, if they'd like to share.

No, sure, that's fine.

Vice Chair.

It it is frustrating that the plan comes to us kind of fully baked, and we can't really change anything, or seemingly so.

Um so fundamentally, I think I stand by what I I said earlier where I expressed some concerns, um, but I think that uh given the totality of the circumstances that we uh should move forward with this uh this work plan.

And and presumably the so I know at least some members of the city council probably are watching this and and have heard our thoughts and and will take that into consideration informally.

Thank you, Commissioner Fam.

Um I appreciate all the comments here with the fellow commissioners.

Um I'm in line with Commissioner Cranston.

I feel that staff based on council's advice and thoughts have put a lot of work into this work plan, and so I'm inclined to for it as is.

All right, thank you.

Any other deliberations, thoughts?

Uh Commissioner Guterres.

Thank you everyone for sharing and for actually contributing to the discourse of how we agree to disagree and our roles as members of the EPC.

That's what we're supposed to be doing, so thank you.

Even though we don't agree, that's fine, but I'd rather deliberate and speak our perspectives on these things so that we can have a better understanding of how we can move forward and how we can make an impact further on.

Thank you.

Yeah, barely.

Uh Commissioner Cranston.

The environmental planning commission approve the work plan is presented by staff and forward to the city council for approval.

Do we have any second or I can second that?

Alright, Commissioner Subraman is second.

Oh, I thought it's sorry.

Um, I can go.

It was a tough one.

It was like, I was like, do I vote Xavier or Tom Stark?

Can tell.

It took you know took me a while.

All right.

Yeah, I'm gonna go.

All right.

Um, the motion carries with four yes and two no and one absent.

Alrighty.

Then we are moving forward with.

Item number six, commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports.

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

Does anyone have announcements, updates, requests, or committee reports or dates of next meetings, et cetera?

Staff or commission.

Okay.

So of course we're gonna go into the summer break along with council EPC's next meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 19th, when we'll have uh the next agendas.

I also wanted to just um update EPC that a couple of things that came across APC's um uh this past year's agendas and where EPC has provided input.

The uh transportation demand management ordinance got adopted uh by city council on May 26th.

The parks and uh recreation strategic plan was also adopted May 26th, and then the biodiversity and urban uh forest plan is scheduled for June 23rd, 2026 council agenda um for your reference.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other announcements?

No, okay.

I have some announcements.

Um it's an El Nino year, it's gonna be pretty crazy.

Um so if anyone's watching and um look out for like summer heat, um, it could get um, especially when it's humid, pretty dangerous really quickly.

Um, and then also um the World Cup's going on.

Um, for those of you who didn't know, um and uh whoever out there has any reading interest, may your team find success unless they're playing Mexico or they are Argentina.

So uh having said that, I believe I can now adjourn the meeting at 8 19 p.m.