Environmental Planning Commission recommends rezoning for emergency shelters in Mountain View

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

To comply with state law, Mountain View is taking steps to change its zoning regulations and standards to allow emergency homeless shelters in certain parts of the city, although not without some controversy.

The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC), in a 3-2 split vote, supported a staff recommendation to amend the El Camino Real Precise Plan to add emergency shelters as a permitted use. The vote also included a recommendation to amend development standards and permitting processes for emergency shelters.

Commissioners Joyce Yin, Hank Dempsey and Paul Donahue voted in favor of the recommendation while Commissioners William Cranston and Alex Nunez voted against it. Commissioners Chris Clark and Jose Gutierrez were recused from the discussion because of the proximity of their residences to the El Camino Real Precise Plan.

The commissioners were divided largely on the question of whether the recommendation was adhering to state law, AB 2339, which requires local jurisdictions to plan for emergency shelters in their housing elements and that these shelters be located in residential areas.

When the city adopted its housing element last year, it identified the El Camino Real Precise Plan “as a zoning district to permit emergency shelters by right,” according to the staff report presented to the commission Wednesday evening.

But it was unclear to the commissioners whether this meant the entire precise plan should allow for emergency shelters, or whether a partial rezoning in the near future would suffice. The lack of clarity rested on the state’s use of an undefined term, “zoning designation,” in its drafting of AB 2339.

For City Attorney Jennifer Logue, the intent of the law could be read either way. “As I was trying to figure out what ‘zoning designation’ means is, does that mean an entire zoning district? Does that mean a portion of it? And I don’t have an answer to that question,” she said.

Another complication to AB 2339 is that if the city modified the El Camino Real Precise plan to add emergency shelters, it would mean the shelters would be a permitted use “by right” and would not need to take into consideration historic resources on the site. Normally, developers would need to obtain a historic preservation permit.

Staff already have identified eight potential historic properties in the precise plan area, creating a potential conflict with the city’s desire to preserve historic resources and its housing element proposal for emergency shelters, said Senior Planner Krisha Penollar.

For these reasons, staff suggested that the commission approach the precise plan rezoning in phases, starting with the Castro and Miramonte area. This would give the city more time to identify historic resources while also meeting the state’s compliance deadline of March 31 for the emergency shelters.

Two sites in the Castro and Miramonte area, 1098 West El Camino Real and 836 West El Camino Real, were identified as meeting the minimum land requirement for AB 2339, Penollar said, adding that these sites were not being developed as emergency shelters at this time.

The staff report also recommended allowing emergency shelters in other subareas of the precise plan with a conditional use permit that would protect historic resources.

For Commissioners Nunez and Cranston, the application of the state law to a portion of the El Camino Real Precise Plan was cause for concern. In their view, the housing element called for a rezoning of the entire precise plan. They also saw the housing element as a legally binding contract with the state, based on the input of hundreds of community members, and was something they were committed to carrying out fully as city commissioners, they said.

Public comments also expressed disappointment with the subarea plan for the emergency shelters. “This proposal reduces the scope of ‘by right’ emergency shelters by 95.4%,” said Mountain View resident Salim Damerdji. “If this wasn’t illegal, it would obviously be plainly immoral and worth rejecting on policy grounds. How are we even asking the question whether it should be legal to build shelters for the homeless?”

Other public commentators took exception with how the city identified certain areas for emergency shelters, and how residents were notified of the process. Mountain View resident Louise Katz raised concerns about how the shelters would be implemented and monitored.

“The emergency shelters obviously are of great necessity for our city and our society,” Katz said. “But the efforts by Sacramento to strip away local control leaves us with questions that we have no transparency to, to obtain answers such as exactly who is going to be in these shelters? Who’s making the referrals? How long will they stay?” she said, asking for more transparency about the rezoning process.

Although split on the scope of the rezoning, commissioners aligned on the issue of putting emergency shelters in accessible areas with public services. Currently, there are no year-round emergency shelters in Mountain View, according to Housing Director Wayne Chen, who noted that emergency shelters differ from other kinds of housing options largely based on the length of stay.

Commissioners Dempsey, Donahue and Yin, while supporting the recommendation for a phased approach to the rezoning, also encouraged staff to communicate directly with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for more clarity about its expectations, particularly around the definition of “zoning designation.”

“I would humbly suggest that we reach out to HCD,” Dempsey said. “And see, how do they understand this, because we want to be in a good cooperative relationship with them. That’s what the whole housing element is for, and we want to stay on the right side of those guys.”

“I think by the time it gets to council, there should be a good answer for that because otherwise we’re just sort of charging into the great unknown,” he added.