EPC backs code amendments to implement Council Policy G‑9 gatekeeper process, keeping Council authorization role

The Environmental Planning Commission on Sept. 17 recommended that City Council adopt ordinance amendments to Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code to implement Council Policy G‑9, the city’s updated gatekeeper process for applications that require legislative amendments (for example, changes to the general plan or zoning map).

Community Development Director Christian Murdoch, joined by Assistant Director Amber Brzezinski, summarized the adopted G‑9 policy and described why code changes are needed to remove conflicting provisions in Chapter 36 and reference the council policy where it now governs substantive gatekeeper criteria. The EPC recommendation is required because the changes are to zoning code provisions.

The policy creates two pathways for gatekeeper applications: a streamlined gatekeeper track for qualifying projects (including 100% affordable housing projects and certain small projects that provide mandatory and selective performance criteria such as affordable housing contributions, parks, trails, plazas or community facilities) and a regular gatekeeper track that requires an initial application and a council authorization hearing before a formal planning application can be filed. The regular gatekeeper criteria include eight broad categories applicants may address to demonstrate project quality or community benefit—affordable housing, business retention/expansion, parks and open space, community facilities, transportation, trees and biodiversity, historic preservation, and sustainability—but applicants may come forward with many, few, or none of those criteria; council retains discretion at the authorization hearing.

Murdoch told the commission that the policy includes administrative provisions to standardize processing, and that it requires gatekeeper applicants to enter development agreements if they offer community benefits as part of the justification for a legislative amendment. The policy also establishes a two‑year waiting period before a substantially similar application that was not authorized can resubmit; staff said the two‑year interval is intended to push applicants to bring a more complete package to authorization rather than repeatedly submitting incremental proposals, and staff said it did not benchmark that waiting period with other jurisdictions.

Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of the updated gatekeeper policy and urged against a two‑year re‑submission limit, saying it increases cost and delay for developers who are refining projects.

Commissioner Cranston moved and Commissioner Pham seconded a motion recommending that city council adopt ordinance amendments to Chapter 36 to implement the gatekeeper policy G‑9; the motion passed 5‑0 with two commissioners absent. Staff said the City Council public hearing to consider the code amendment is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 14, 2025.