1 Schultz, Michal
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 10:23 PM
To: Kamei, Ellen; Clark, Chris; McAlister, John; Ramirez, Lucas; Hicks, Alison; Showalter, Pat; Ramos, Emily Ann
Cc: City Council; McCarthy, Kimbra
Subject: YIMBY Comment on Gatekeeper Update 2025-03-02
Attachments: YIMBY Comment on Gatekeeper Update 2025-03-02.pdf CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Councilmembers,
Mountain View YIMBY supports updating the Gatekeeper process, but the current proposal does not significantly improve it—it makes it harder to build the projects the City desires. We encourage the Council to pursue an alternative approach that more effectively clarifies expectations, streamlines approvals for good projects, and ensures that the process serves its stated purpose : enabling high- quality development that benefits the community to break through dated regulations.
Key Problems with the Proposal
1. The Process Remains an Unnecessary Barrier
o Requiring developers to seek pre-qualification just to submit an application adds further workload on all parties and doesn’t change the discretionary nature of the process. o The uncertainty in the process causes developers to pare back proposals that might otherwise work despite our current economic environment.
2. We Need to Codify What We Want
o The proposed update does not establish clear, predictable criteria for what makes a project “above and beyond.”
o The public benefit requirements are inconsistent—affordable housing benefits are far more difficult than adding a robust transportation demand management plan—making it difficult to compare projects fairly.
o Instead of discouraging discretionary projects, we should reward those that align with the city’s goals by making their approval process smoother.
3. Not Facing the Present
o Local land use regulations are slow to change, updating perhaps once a decade. Housing development is not as insulated, facing changing social and economic conditions. A benefit of Gatekeepers is to provide examples of what projects are feasible now, what regulations may be ripe for updates.
A Better Alternative
Rather than approving these restrictive changes, Council should:
2 Exempt projects that meet clear public benefit standards (e.g., projects with 20%+ BMR units, major public open space, or high-density near transit). Update menu of benefits to align with the Council’s vision and provide consistency among applications
Provide flexibility in meeting community goals, allowing feasible trade-offs instead of rigid minimums.
Gatekeeper should be a tool to inspire better projects, not one that crushes them at the start. The current update does not accomplish that—it adds restrictions without addressing the core issue: how to get the housing and public benefits we want. Instead, we urge the Council to adopt an update that makes the process clearer, more predictable, and more effective at delivering great projects.
Best Regards,
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY
Dear Councilmembers,
Mountain View YIMBY supports updating the Gatekeeper process, but the current proposal does not significantly improve it—it makes it harder to build the projects the City desires. We encourage the Council to pursue an alternative approach that more effectively clarifies expectations, streamlines approvals for good projects, and ensures that the process serves its stated purpose: enabling high-quality development that bene fits the community to
break through dated regulations.
Key Problems with the Proposal
1. The Process Remains an Unnecessary Barrier
○ Requiring developers to seek pre-qualification just to submit an application adds further workload on all parties and doesn’t change the discretionary nature of the process.
○ The uncertainty in the process causes developers to pare back proposals that might otherwise work despite our current economic environment.
2. We Need to Codify What We Want
○ The proposed update does not establish clear, predictable criteria for what makes a project “above and beyond.”
○ The public benefit requirements are inconsistent—affordable housing benefits are far more difficult than adding a robust transportation demand management plan—making it difficult to compare projects fairly. ○ Instead of discouraging discretionary projects, we should reward those that align with the city’s goals by making their approval process smoother.
3. Not Facing the Present
○ Local land use regulations are slow to change, updating perhaps once a decade.
Housing development is not as insulated, facing changing social and economic conditions. A bene
fit of Gatekeepers is to provide examples of what projects are feasible now, what regulations may be ripe for updates.
A Better Alternative
Rather than approving these restrictive changes, Council should:
● Exempt projects that meet clear public benefit standards (e.g., projects with 20%+ BMR units, major public open space, or high-density near transit). ● Update menu of benefits to align with the Council’s vision and provide consistency among applications
● Provide flexibility in meeting community goals, allowing feasible trade-offs instead of rigid minimums.
Gatekeeper should be a tool to inspire better projects, not one that crushes them at the start.
The current update does not accomplish that—it adds restrictions without addressing the core issue: how to get the housing and public bene
fits we want. Instead, we urge the Council to
adopt an update that makes the process clearer, more predictable, and more effective at delivering great projects.
Best Regards,
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY