[0:20] Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2024. I will call the meeting to order at 7 o'clock PM.

[0:31] For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern.

[0:38] Request to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to EPC at mountainview.gov by 430pm on the meeting date.

[0:47] Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers lined up to speak on an item.

[0:53] Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card.

[0:57] Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak.

[1:01] And the item number on which you wish to speak.

[1:05] Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak.

[1:10] And turn them into the EPC cleric as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you're speaking on.

[1:17] Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

[1:23] Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjected to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous

[1:32] collars during virtual public comments.

[1:35] The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial religious and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming

[1:41] safe and inclusive community for all.

[1:44] This advisory, this commission, welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding

[1:49] matters over which the commission has jurisdiction.

[1:53] Commons deemed otherwise pursuant to the council code of conduct and the government code

[1:57] may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's comment period.

[2:02] Now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with roll call.

[2:12] Madam clerk?

[2:16] Oh, okay. It appears that we have all seven of our members here, according to my screen.

[2:25] So we're going to say we're seven of seven. We've got everybody.

[2:27] All present. Thank you.

[2:29] All present. Thank you.

[2:33] Item number three minutes approval. There are none. Item four or all communications.

[2:39] This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not in the agenda.

[2:44] Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

[2:49] State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items.

[2:52] If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items,

[2:56] please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EBC clerk.

[3:00] If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items,

[3:04] please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone.

[3:08] Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6.

[3:11] Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers?

[3:15] Well, we have one in person speaker, Logan Herrera.

[3:19] All right.

[3:24] Okay.

[3:25] Not at this time.

[3:26] Gotcha.

[3:28] All right.

[3:29] They're being no speakers for oral communications on our item four.

[3:34] We will move to item five, public hearing.

[3:36] Item 5.1 specifically, eliminate minimum parking standards for residential uses and article

[3:43] 10 parking and loading of chapter 36 zoning, of the city code, and the P19 downtown

[3:48] precise plan, P38, El Camino Real, precise plan, P47, Antonio precise plan, and P41 East

[3:55] Wismen precise plan.

[3:58] First, could the commissioners with conflicts of interest related to this item please

[4:02] make your refusal statements now?

[4:06] Commissioner Clark.

[4:08] So, I'm recusing myself from discussion of the elimination of minimum parking requirements

[4:12] to the proximity of my personal residence to the El Camino Real-Psychs Plan area.

[4:18] Thank you, Commissioner.

[4:20] And I am recusing myself from discussion of the elimination of minimum parking requirements

[4:24] due to the proximity of my personal residence to the El Camino Real-Psychs Area Plan as well.

[4:30] Thank you, Vice Chair.

[4:31] We'll give them a moment to relocate and then we'll get started.

[4:45] We'll begin with the staff presentation from Associate Planner Hangzau and Principal Planner

[4:50] Diana Pantoli.

[4:53] Let's hold a second.

[4:54] We have a question for the City Attorney.

[4:58] I am within the half-mile radius of the twenty-nine-seven, maybe twenty-nine-seven,

[5:05] twenty-two of the prisoners.

[5:11] If I may, we're not proposing any changes for AB-297 as part of today's agenda.

[5:18] So that would not be quite.

[5:25] All right, to the staff presentation.

[5:27] Please take it away.

[5:29] Good evening, commissioners.

[5:30] My name is Hong Jo, Associate Planner with the Planning Division.

[5:33] I'm joined here by Principal Planner Dianna Pancholi.

[5:37] The item in front of you tonight is to consider amendments to the city code

[5:41] and a few specific precise plans to eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential uses.

[5:50] For background, since January, 2023,

[5:52] Assembly Bill 297 eliminated minimum parking requirements for most development projects within a half mile of a major transit stop.

[6:01] The state law allows developers to set their own parking needs based on specific conditions rather than following the city's minimum parking requirements.

[6:10] However, AB 297 is still allowed cities to require minimum parking spaces for electric vehicles and disabled persons.

[6:18] In the city of Montenville, there are currently six major transit stops, including four light rail stations and two counter train stations.

[6:27] These areas within half mile of the transit stations are highlighted in blue on this map here.

[6:37] Later in April 2023, the city council adopted the six cycle housing element, which covers the 2023-2031 planning period.

[6:47] As part of this housing element, program 1.2 was introduced to eliminate minimum parking

[6:54] standards in certain cases.

[6:57] This program included three sub-task.

[7:01] Sub-task A required eliminating the minimum parking requirements for 100% affordable housing

[7:07] development.

[7:08] This was completed as part of the zoning code update in December of last year.

[7:13] Subtask B calls for codeifying exemptions to parking requirements for residential developments

[7:20] in the Al Camino Real, San Antonio, downtown, and East Wismen Precise plans, as well as

[7:26] in the Muffet Boulevard General Plan Change Area.

[7:30] This subtask is due by December 31, 2024, and is the item presented to you tonight.

[7:36] Up tasks C requires codifying exemptions to parking standards for projects that meet enhanced

[7:44] transportation demand management criteria with a due date of December 31st, 2026.

[7:51] This will be addressed as part of the citywide TDM ordinance, which is currently being developed

[7:56] and have an anticipated adoption timeline of 2025.

[8:02] This program aims to provide greater flexibility in land use and site design, facilitating the development of diverse housing and mixed use projects that align with the city's long term vision.

[8:17] Housing Element Program 1.2 went above and beyond AB 2097 that further eliminates the minimum parking requirements for all residential developments and any residential component in mix use

[8:30] Developments in chapter 36 of the city code as well as four precise plan areas as highlighted in yellow here

[8:38] In the precise plan areas covered by AB 2097

[8:43] This means that although no minimum parking is required, electric vehicle parking and parking for disabled persons are only required if a developer chooses to include parking voluntarily.

[8:55] And it's calculated based on parking being provided instead of parking being required for building reach code.

[9:05] In precise one area is not covered by AB 2097, the proposed amendment will align residential parking requirements with those inside AB 2097.

[9:16] However, it works to note that the current amendment parking requirements for non-resident development will remain in effect in areas highlighted on this map.

[9:29] In line with the proposed amendments, there are other minor amendments which are proposed for internal consistency.

[9:36] This includes removing parking reduction option for multi-family residential development in Al Camino real precise plan and the San Antonio precise plan.

[9:46] Removing car share vehicle requirements for multi-family residential development in East Wismen precise plan.

[9:52] And finally, making it clear that if parking is not required but voluntarily provided,

[10:00] those spaces must still comply with standards for access, size, design and other safety-related requirements in the parking ordinance.

[10:08] This is to ensure parking is developed in a way that is usable for most good circulation on site,

[10:15] and will now create hazards for those using the spaces.

[10:20] In summary, the proposal amendments will eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential

[10:27] developments only, which aims to follow a law for greater flexibility in land use and

[10:33] site design, enabling the creation of diverse housing and mixed use projects.

[10:38] There is no change to the current requirements for non-residential developments.

[10:42] Although developers are no longer required to provide residential parking in those areas,

[10:48] They can still choose to provide parking based on market needs voluntarily.

[10:53] In such cases, required electric vehicle and 88 spaces will be calculated based upon the voluntary parking proposed for the building reach code.

[11:05] Additionally, the amendments to the precise plans include language clarifying reference to the city code for parking and access design development standards.

[11:17] The proposed amendments to parking requirements are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act as per Section 15061 Subsection B3.

[11:28] Staff has received three public comments on this item. One is in support, one is in objection, and one is just in theory only.

[11:37] In conclusion, staff recommends that EPC recommend to Council to adopt the ordinance

[11:43] of Mending Chapter 36 of the City Code and adopt the resolutions of Mending the Downtown

[11:48] Precise Plan, Al Camino Real Precise Plan, San Antonio Precise Plan, and East Wisdom

[11:54] Precise Plan.

[11:56] As the next step, City Council will review EPC recommendation on the proposed amendments

[12:01] at a public hearing, tentatively scheduled on November 12, 2024.

[12:07] This concludes the presentation and staff is available for questions.

[12:10] We also have the Assistant Community Director, Community Development Director,

[12:15] Amber Lensysky, Hearing Person, and Our Community Development Director,

[12:20] Christian, or Doc, joining the meeting virtually.

[12:23] To help answer any questions.

[12:27] Thank you, Mr.

[12:29] Questions from the Commission.

[12:31] I

[12:36] had one clarifying question from the presentation.

[12:40] Could you let us note, did you say that disabled parking is not required if they opt to not voluntarily provide parking?

[12:53] That's part of

[12:58] the number.

[12:59] So yes, the 3D and EV parking are calculated based on the number of parking spaces required or provided for the building code.

[13:11] And now that we're removing the required number of parking spaces in these areas.

[13:16] So it is only going to be required when parking provided voluntarily and calculated based on the parking provided voluntarily.

[13:27] legally that's the way it goes because of the way the state law is where did it okay yes.

[13:35] Yeah so yeah that's correct so it's it's so under AB 20 97 if that was the only you know

[13:46] state law that that you know regulated parking in our city then you would still be able to

[13:56] require ADA or EV parking based on the minimum parking requirement that used to be allowed.

[14:05] So let's say in a office development you needed one parking space per thousand square feet, right?

[14:13] And you needed like 40 parking spaces total.

[14:16] And then the building code calculated that out to like 10 EV or ADA parking spaces.

[14:22] The minimum that that applicant would have to provide are those minimum ADA and EV parking spaces period.

[14:33] However, the housing element is taking that a step further in stating that we will be removing minimum parking standards.

[14:42] And when you remove minimum parking standards then there's no basis to calculate those EV or ADA parking spaces.

[14:52] So if somebody is going to provide no parking, and we don't normally see that, and it will be rare.

[15:00] To see that, so I want to make sure we're all aware of that. If someone provided no parking under, you know, the modifications we're making to be in keeping with the housing element, they would truly be required to provide no parking.

[15:15] Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

[15:19] I know, everybody.

[15:21] Oh, wait till later. Thank you.

[15:24] I mean, we have other questions because I'll ask a couple more.

[15:30] It's not.

[15:32] Go ahead.

[15:34] I just have a question about how much discretion do we have in this decision.

[15:39] It seems like there's the state law, there's the housing elements.

[15:43] So it kind of seems like we pretty much have to approve this.

[15:52] Yes, I would say we don't have much discretion.

[15:54] here, because the housing element was a pro-Pestity Council, and it's a requirement by the state,

[16:00] and AB 2090, so it's also state law that we have to follow. Okay, that's what I thought, thanks.

[16:06] Yeah, I do want to say, though, I think, you know, I don't want to say that there's not any discretion at all.

[16:14] I mean, you know, this is our, you know, in our adopted housing element.

[16:19] It, we are following that to a T, could, you know, the council suggest some sort of alternative that still meets, you know, this requirement or this, what we've said we would do.

[16:36] I think that there's potential there, but we are as staff following this exactly how it's written, and that's what we're bringing into you today.

[16:45] Okay, thanks.

[16:49] Further questions for the commissioners?

[16:57] Yes, and I'll just start with questions.

[17:01] I think we exerted a lot of discussion as part of kind of coming together in the housing element and ultimately kind of like as a community kind of creating that as well.

[17:13] So I have three questions, and actually I have one follow-up to Joyce's to commissioning

[17:19] you into this question, just now run the ADA and the reach codes, I'm sorry, the EV parking

[17:25] spots.

[17:26] I think in the example I heard you mention around 10, I know is in this hypothetical total

[17:34] example, was that 10, was it like or or and or is it like, can someone do all EVs or all

[17:45] okay, it would be a combination of whatever the requirement is for both spaces, like it required

[17:52] a lot meant for both, I just want to make sure I understand that correctly, okay, I hope that was helpful

[17:58] In terms of my questions, and I think you kind of touched on this a little bit when you kind of started

[18:05] alluding to the rarity of kind of like no parking

[18:09] developments, but I am going to ask a kind of like a broad question because this is a change and I would want to kind of understand

[18:17] a little bit more around how that change ultimately kind of ends up looking like.

[18:21] And so my question to staff, to whoever feels, you know, is the best place to answer.

[18:30] So in what ways have developer behaviors, parking supply, you know, the transit network

[18:40] or flow, and resident behavior changed in other cities, areas, et cetera, where parking

[18:48] minimums have been eliminated for a residential development.

[18:55] What have we observed or what are the effects that generally could be anticipated?

[19:00] Thank you, Commissioner, for that question.

[19:03] We don't have any studies that are readily available, which have specifically studied this

[19:10] change since we came out of the pandemic.

[19:14] I think San Jose is the one city, which has eliminated their parking requirement and a

[19:19] one in very recent paths. So I think there's still time before we can actually tell what that

[19:26] difference is and what the impacts are or what are the benefits coming out of that in terms of

[19:31] people using different modes of transportation or the impacts on the residential neighborhoods

[19:36] surrounding it. In lieu of that then within your guys' realm of colleagues expertise on this,

[19:43] what are the anticipated benefits or impacts that we might expect to see?

[19:47] We definitely, and as a housing element, has intended to, we are trying to see how can we

[19:55] eliminate the barriers to encourage more housing development in the city.

[19:59] This policy and other policy programs are geared towards that.

[20:03] So definitely, we would like to see that as a benefit coming out of it.

[20:07] This can also result in shifting the mode, you know, making people choose more alternate modes of transportation,

[20:16] in rather than just depending upon cars.

[20:19] At least those are the benefits.

[20:20] They could be other impacts as well.

[20:22] In terms of people looking for parking spaces

[20:25] elsewhere, and we're working on other city-led programs

[20:30] which are trying to address that.

[20:32] Excellent.

[20:33] I appreciate that.

[20:35] My second question.

[20:38] So, and I think we're kind of touching

[20:40] on the kind of like discretion and question

[20:42] on the flip side of that.

[20:44] Let's assume that we did kind of like, you know,

[20:48] counsel at the end of the day, we're

[20:49] ultimately for whatever reason reject the proposed change.

[20:55] What would be the consequences or the impacts

[20:59] with regard to our, you know, our city's compliance

[21:02] to the housing element?

[21:06] So as we've mentioned in other hearings, you know,

[21:11] we're, you know, that's not completely known at this point.

[21:15] I think that what, you know, HCD from what we understand in our conversations with them are looking for ability to put forth their good faith effort and getting their projects and their implementation done.

[21:27] And, you know, that would require us to go have a conversation with them, right? If the, you know, if the council were to not, you know, move forward with the housing element program as prescribed.

[21:40] So I think that's a bit of an unknown and it would require more conversation to figure that out.

[21:48] And obviously we hope we're not in that position.

[21:51] And so we're trying to get this item in front of you in the council before the deadline, which is the end of the year.

[21:59] I really appreciate it.

[22:00] And within that spirit of hoping not to be in that position, or before December 31, 2024,

[22:06] or I'm just curious to understand a little bit more around.

[22:09] This is my last question too.

[22:11] What were the, and I might be missing something technical

[22:14] that I told the mis, and apologies, and events that I am.

[22:17] But what were the selection criteria

[22:20] under which the new kind of outside AB 2097,

[22:25] the orange stuff basically on the summary of proposed amendments?

[22:29] What was the selection criteria

[22:30] for those being the target areas for this?

[22:33] So that is geared, it is coming out directly from the Housing Element Program, which specifies

[22:40] for specific, sorry, for precise length, downtown, or Camino San Antonio, and East Wismen.

[22:47] And those areas, which are outside AB 297, are the parts of the precise length, which are outside AB 297.

[22:55] So how we selected those four precise length is just basically implementing how we decided to do it in the

[23:02] in the program language.

[23:08] Any further questions for the commissioners?

[23:10] I do.

[23:11] I have just a couple.

[23:14] One is just responding to the commissioners.

[23:18] The idea of communication and talking is the department of what does the community development,

[23:26] housing community development for the state, are they still open and able to have communication

[23:34] with you guys are the easy to reach.

[23:42] I wouldn't say that it's like extremely easy to reach them,

[23:47] but you know if we reach out for guidance or we you know submit requests through their you know

[23:53] they have a portal that you you submit you know questions you know they they do respond to us

[24:01] sometimes it's you know you know it takes a little while but you know I don't I think there is

[24:07] communication there and I think we know some people who we've had conversations with who

[24:13] maybe easier to reach out to, but you know, we are most of our conversations have come through

[24:21] something that's been submitted through the portal and then they reach out to us to have those

[24:26] conversations. Okay, thank you. And then the two other questions I had are

[24:34] Regarding, oh, if staff wouldn't mind just updating us on the downtown parking strategy

[24:41] and what surveys have been done, I believe Commissioner Nunes touched upon it as well.

[24:47] I know we haven't done much since COVID and that was a whole different environment.

[24:56] So, if you wouldn't mind doing that, and then I'll have another question afterwards.

[24:58] And thank you for the question commissioner, we adopted the parking strategy in 2021 and it identifies several implementation items specifically for downtown parking strategy.

[25:14] Since then, because of the staffing limitation and actually prioritizing other items, we haven't made any significant progress on that, there were some minor items which have been implemented, but nothing substantial.

[25:33] So, right now, we are in a process, we are actually going to go back to the City Council in October for securing some funding to get consultant on board to start the implementation process on those implementations.

[25:48] Okay, and in terms of the studies, that's why we have not done any studies yet.

[25:53] We do regularly do parking assessment of our parking garages and parking lots, and those

[26:02] are just in preparation of when we get to the step of implementing some of our strategies

[26:08] for the consultant.

[26:09] For the consultant.

[26:12] And then the second question was, could you remind us of the schedule for the TDM implementation?

[26:18] I know we reviewed it once it was sort of very high level and where we're at with that and the I guess second question

[26:27] Purpee would be whether or not any of this might affect either of those

[26:34] Mainly the TDM plans

[26:36] Yeah, so that we are prepared in the process of preparing a city-wide

[26:42] transportation demand management ordinance and at this point of time we're working with our consultants to figure out the thresholds based on the input that we received from EPC and city council

[26:53] and it is tentatively scheduled to be coming back for adoption in fall of 2025 as mentioned in the presentation

[27:02] AB297 had a very major impact on you know some of the related parking requirements that we discussed today

[27:10] So, that has already been, in effect, and we are taking that aspect of it into consideration as we prepare RTDM ordinance.

[27:19] When we will revisit our parking strategy and how we are going to implement it, it's definitely going to also impact the baseline of where we start.

[27:27] Because we did the study, we adopted the parking strategy in COVID, and since then things have changed a lot, so we'll have to do some studies again to see what the baseline is.

[27:38] Okay, great. Thank you so much.

[27:43] And just one last question from me.

[27:47] I understood there were three comment letters from the public about this project.

[27:51] I must have missed them in my packet.

[27:53] So could you just very quickly cover who sent them

[27:57] and what the general tenor of the letters were?

[27:59] I think we probably all looked like to know what was in them.

[28:03] So I will just make it clarify that.

[28:06] It was recent communication.

[28:07] that's why it was not in your packet, but they will be attached to the console. I don't

[28:13] when it will go as part of the package for sure. And we'll shortly just describe what

[28:19] the comments.

[28:19] Thank you.

[28:24] Actually, there is one coming from Charles Reakler. He emailed and asked about what the scope

[28:32] is, and I called him back, and he expressed concerns with the overflow parking on street,

[28:38] And also, he expressed concerns that developer would not use this opportunity as lowering

[28:46] housing cost but making more profit out of it.

[28:51] The other comment I received is also this afternoon is from Amel Abraham Hamm, she expressed

[29:02] full support of eliminating parking as she felt that it is always not a good idea to walk

[29:12] through the parking loss to get to the public transit. So she thinks eliminating all those

[29:17] parking near public transit is actually made public transit more accessible.

[29:28] The other one I

[29:29] need to find the name but he was asking about if his property is inside this change area and it

[29:33] is not, so there's no follow up on discussion about that.

[29:37] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[29:38] I appreciate that.

[29:38] Thank you.

[29:40] EPC questions being complete will now move to public comment.

[29:44] If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item,

[29:47] please throw out a yellow speaker card provided to the clerk.

[29:50] If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on the item,

[29:52] please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press start 9

[29:56] on your phone.

[29:57] Phone news is commuting on me as themselves with us.

[30:03] That we have one in person speaker, Logan Herrera.

[30:14] Hello, I appreciate being able to comment on this for thought you today. I'm in full support of the recommendations.

[30:22] I think that increasing the housing supply through the housing element is a key piece of work for the community.

[30:30] And I'm proud to live in a community that is a pro-housing designation from the state.

[30:38] I live in an affected area in an AB 2037 San Antonio station.

[30:44] And I'd like to hear.

[30:47] I think that it's important that our built environment reflect more than cars that reflect a diversity of transportation methods.

[30:59] and ways of living, and that this is key to accomplishing that.

[31:06] I also had a question. Can I ask a question?

[31:10] That's generally not how we do it.

[31:15] But you can understand rhetorical question.

[31:17] Okay, well then I'll just talk about my understanding from reviewing the documents and

[31:21] advance.

[31:22] My understanding from reviewing the documents and advance is that with respect to bike parking

[31:26] that it is required when parking is voluntarily provided.

[31:34] And I think that this makes sense.

[31:37] And it wasn't addressed any of the discussion today,

[31:40] but I think it's also a form of parking

[31:42] that I think is being handled well through this recommendation.

[31:47] Yeah, if my understanding is correct.

[31:50] Thank you.

[31:52] Thank you.

[31:56] Madam Clerk, any other comments?

[32:02] No comments on mine.

[32:03] Thank you.

[32:04] All right, EPC, deliberation, and action,

[32:10] comments for the commissioners.

[32:12] Mr. Mirdias.

[32:15] Thank you, Chair Dempsey.

[32:18] Yeah, I am a few thoughts on this.

[32:22] Number one, I very strongly support this for a few reasons.

[32:28] The first of which is that, you know, us being in arm, both of the public and, you know,

[32:36] as appointed to the City Council and given our City Council

[32:41] approving the housing element that this project is rooted

[32:48] into an out of, I would hate to be out of the lock step

[32:54] with regard to almost explicit direction from the City

[32:59] Council in that regard through the housing element,

[33:03] notwithstanding even kind of like how and in what ways the state would factor into that.

[33:11] And so to the extent that I'm approaching this item, the way I'm approaching it is by working

[33:19] within the direction given of and through the housing element towards assessing is this

[33:25] the best way to achieve what the housing element has been set forth through.

[33:31] And I think it does a great job.

[33:34] I really appreciate the target areas.

[33:37] I mean, just going through the city

[33:39] and kind of intuitively feeling, kind of like how

[33:42] Muffet might look like in the future.

[33:44] What's in Antonio has kind of ended up looking like today

[33:47] and may still turn into, it feels good to think

[33:52] of these change areas as enabling us to have a more experimental

[33:58] will kind of spirit towards how we approach development, all towards ultimately, you know,

[34:05] doing the things that we, you know, as a, you know, city and public have, you know, collectively

[34:13] put our hands up to say that we value, which is more housing, more affordability, more

[34:18] options for getting around, less reliance on cars, less submissions, and a more, you know,

[34:26] and I did kind of fabric for doing that.

[34:28] So I think this is fantastic in terms of the staff's work.

[34:36] I mean, there's nothing I can say that gives me any reason to doubt that this is the right approach.

[34:45] And so I just appreciate your guys' work in terms of getting this through.

[34:49] And again, I'm just looking forward to doing what we said we would do with regards to all

[34:56] that grilling work that led to our housing element. So, I support this.

[35:01] Mr. Cresson.

[35:04] So, what's come forward here is what we discussed in the grid and in the

[35:08] housing element. So, I don't have any fundamental issues with this. If I have a

[35:12] concern, it's not with this. It's a foundation underneath it. The assumption of

[35:20] AB-297 was that people would be using transit. There's a reason article in the

[35:27] actually getting back on transit. I drive it every day and Monday and Friday. I think it

[35:34] mentions before Monday and Friday. My business is in San Francisco. It's like

[35:38] driving on a weekend. Today my commute was a half an hour longer than normal and there

[35:42] were no accidents because people are not taking transit when when they go to work.

[35:49] Okay. There are companies that are beginning to require Amazon this week and

[35:54] they would be requiring people to come back into the office, but an underlying assumption of

[35:58] this is that the people would take transit if they were near transit, and it's not clear to

[36:05] me that at least the process that's in place today, and I don't know whether BTA and CalTrans have

[36:14] looked at this, but the requirement that you buy a pass this for a week instead of buying

[36:19] something that's for, to think, can be for three days so that somebody, you know, that somebody would take transit if they didn't have to buy a full month pass.

[36:28] I think that we as a city need to be advocating back to these groups to say, look, recognize that there is, you know, we want to do this, okay, this is the right thing to do.

[36:38] We want people back in transit, but if the structures are in place, a TDM isn't necessarily going to get people on to the trains, if, you know, if they're still not, if they're more comfortable just taking the car.

[36:49] the three days a week that they go to work.

[36:51] So I'm worried about the underlying assumption in this that says

[36:57] the people that in 2019 and before went to CalTrain

[37:02] every day took their train to work.

[37:05] They took VTA every day to work.

[37:07] They took their bus every day to work.

[37:08] There's not evidence that that's changing at this point.

[37:11] And COVID started 4, 15 years ago.

[37:15] And I don't go around with a mask on.

[37:18] that I'm going to get COVID to conscious of it, I don't sneeze on people and I'm worried about

[37:23] losing everything too, but it's I'm worried that the underlying assumption that we're

[37:27] counting on for this to actually deliver is not actually coming to pass. And I think so my comment is

[37:36] this is it's beyond kind of the scope of this but it gets it's a it's a comment to staff and

[37:41] a comment to counsel that we need to be able to be looking at what do we need to do to help

[37:46] encourage the people that would take advantage of this, to actually take advantage of it,

[37:52] given the fact that they're not being asked to work five days a week in the office whenever they're going.

[37:57] And so what else can we do to actually realize this, I don't think this doesn't address that.

[38:03] This is a piece, but an important piece of how do we get this to really turn into the

[38:10] reality. I think it's missing from this and it's not really in the housing element.

[38:14] I don't know whether it's a land use issue necessarily, even, but that's my, so I'm going to vote for this.

[38:22] But I am very concerned that the underlying assumption of this council is not coming to pass,

[38:29] and so we may not actually achieve the objective that we set out and housing on the state set up in this program.

[38:38] So that's my, that's my comment.

[38:50] This is not right on topic either, but it definitely touches on it and we're in it.

[38:59] Commissioner Cranston, you opened it, so I'm going to dive in.

[39:06] I don't fully disagree with what Commissioner New News has said.

[39:09] I understand that at this point legally, with the way things are worded.

[39:13] We have a timeline.

[39:14] We have to do this.

[39:15] I get that, but we're not hitting it yet, and I know that is not making you guys comfortable

[39:20] stuff to say we're close, but not right at the line. I feel like yes, it's rare, but this is something new.

[39:29] I don't think we've ever had a position or a time where we told developers, you don't have to build

[39:35] any parking, and so we don't have a lot of experience with developers coming back saying,

[39:42] we don't have to do any, but we're gonna, so,

[39:48] in that respect, I have concerns that we're losing

[39:53] disabled parking, even though even if transit, or ridership was up and we've got the majority

[40:03] of people writing transit, not everybody can move around with that. Some people have to drive

[40:10] are elderly who have wheelchairs, and if you're going to bike, thank you for the in person

[40:16] comment. We need bike parking as well. So I think going back to open Pandora's box here.

[40:25] Whenever we have like the housing element, the state coming down with the laws, it is, as

[40:34] I've been describing to a lot of people, heavy handed, I understand the goals. Whenever

[40:41] you're trying to make major changes that are extra complicated and involving lots of different

[40:47] players and lots of different complexities.

[40:57] When the state comes in, it's like using a

[41:00] sledgehammer. When, at some point, you need some tools that are a little bit more refined to do

[41:06] some of the finer tuning. And I think what we have before us is the sledgehammer and it's

[41:16] fully fleshed out. I think while we have time, we should reach out with whatever means we have

[41:22] to talk to people who can make a difference, whether or not is to give us a stay on this

[41:30] deadline to work out some of these kinks because I don't believe the intention of this

[41:37] flesh and repolacy was that disabled people may not be able to live here or work here, they won't

[41:45] be able to get here. I'm 100% sure that's not the intention. So I think we should flush that out.

[41:52] If council was willing, I would like to propose that we use whatever means necessary to

[41:58] reach out to somebody, maybe we can stay this deadline and see if something can be done.

[42:03] I don't know. Honestly, I don't have the answer at this point, but I feel like it's worth

[42:07] a try because I am concerned that by doing away with the parking regulations and the

[42:13] ability for the city to mandate some sort of parking that there's an opportunity there for

[42:22] developers to just say, I don't have to do it. Why would I do it? Because that's not unheard of.

[42:28] So I'm just putting that forward. Thank you.

[42:37] I think that the, I see your point that the state is often kind of a sledgehammer.

[42:45] Part of that, I think, is a reaction to the fact that a lot of cities are using the tools

[42:53] that they have to kind of oppose some of the goals that the state has, but they're not

[43:04] all, you know, pro housing cities like the City of Mountain View.

[43:07] So, sometimes we get caught in the crossfire with that.

[43:12] That being said, the housing element went through a long process, a lot of public input,

[43:21] and this is what came out of that process.

[43:26] So I generally think that this is the direction that the council wants, that the people

[43:36] I wanted through that entire process, so I'll be supporting it.

[43:42] Another comment on the public transit,

[43:48] it is unfortunate that ridership is still down.

[43:52] Maybe the new electric trains will help that maybe not having parking and force people to take public transit.

[44:04] I don't know, that seems, I don't know if that's really the right way to do things, but

[44:12] maybe that will happen.

[44:15] So anyway, I will be supporting it because I think that, for my question earlier, there's

[44:21] not a lot of discretion, and this is what we have collectively decided in April of 2023 when

[44:29] the housing element was adopted.

[44:34] So for my part, I'm not going to plow on a new ground here.

[44:39] I think on the whole, it's important that we respect the direction of council, that we honor

[44:46] our commitments in the housing element, and that we follow the law.

[44:51] And on the strength of that by itself, I will be voting in favor of this tonight.

[44:58] Maybe the one thing that I will ask.

[45:00] I don't want to, I myself don't want to get into second guessing some of the decisions made before, but let me make one comment about what we should do next.

[45:08] We should have good, qualitative metrics about traffic impacts and parking impacts, parking impacts for the folks that live here going forward.

[45:19] So that it is relatively easy for people to see what we've bought with policies like these and others.

[45:27] And if there is an easy, objective way to say, you know, parking impacts, they're real bad in this area of that area of the other.

[45:34] I think having that kind of data so that we can have a reasoned conversation about other places where there's just, it's not working.

[45:45] But we need data to do that. And so my plea going forward is simply that we, you know, we continue to invest in not only data collection but data presentation.

[45:55] in a way that the public can actually access easily and understand easily, and we can access and understand easily.

[46:03] So if there's places that are really getting crunched and people are suffering, we'll know.

[46:08] And we'll know why, and we'll know how big it is, and then we can talk about what to do with it,

[46:11] and maybe share that some of that data with the folks in Sacramento going forward.

[46:17] So I'll stop there.

[46:18] There's no further comments on when we need to entertain a motion.

[46:26] Oh, Miss Yuen.

[46:28] Miss Yuen?

[46:30] Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that, you know, I'm not playing fault.

[46:35] There was no fault.

[46:36] I understand the reasons how we got to where we are.

[46:39] My only point was that state laws tend to be sludge hammers.

[46:44] It's just the way it is.

[46:47] In addition to policy, I understand the direction of the policy and the reasons for it.

[46:51] not against that, but these are sledgehammer policies, and I'll find too, and so there's the concern.

[46:58] And I understand that we have to get things going, but just because we're not right there at the day.

[47:04] I'm just putting it out to council if they're listening.

[47:08] That we should use whatever means possible to go ahead and reach out and talk to someone in Sacramento to tell them that there are some concerns.

[47:15] and there might be unintended consequences, sometimes I do realize that you push farther beyond

[47:22] the limit in order to get what you want later and then you backtrack. That's another way

[47:27] to do it, but I don't. I'd prefer to, you know, get there in an efficient way. And Mountain View

[47:35] is not one of those cities that says, no, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do

[47:39] it. Mountain View is a city that is proven that we're willing to. So I think if we have any

[47:45] like to stand on, or if any city has a like to stand on, it is us.

[47:49] So I'm just putting that out there, I understand that we really have no choice in this

[47:55] matter.

[47:56] It's point,

[47:59] but I guess that's it.

[48:03] For now.

[48:05] Thank you, Miss Ian.

[48:06] Mr. Crescent.

[48:08] Mr. Chair, I recommend the environmental planning commission, recommend the city council

[48:11] to adopt an ordinance of the city council, the city of Mountain View, Mending, Chapter 36

[48:16] zoning of the city code, and the sub-test B of the housing element program 1.2.

[48:21] We need updates to the section 36.32.50 required number of practice spaces,

[48:28] to eliminate the number of parking requirements, certain areas,

[48:31] and making conforming and clarifying changes in other sections of chapter 36 zoning and

[48:35] finding the amendments to be exempt from California and ram at the Quality Act.

[48:41] We're so into a secret guidelines section 1, 5, 0, 6, 1, B, 3.

[48:46] We're written title only for the reading way of the exhibit.

[48:49] One of the staff report and number two.

[48:51] Recommend of the City Council adopt resolutions of the City Council,

[48:54] the City of Mountain View.

[48:55] Mending the P19 downtown, P38, El Camino, P40, San Antonio,

[49:01] and P41, East Miss from the precise plans.

[49:04] We'll eliminate many parking standards for residential developments.

[49:06] existing with the housing element 1.2 and finding the amendments to be exempt from California

[49:11] rental quality act, pursuant to seek what that line section 1, 5, 0, 6, 1, B, 3 to be

[49:17] written title only for the remaining waived exhibits to through 5 to the staff report.

[49:24] Thank you, Mr. Cranson.

[49:25] And Mr. Nenia, we have a second from you.

[49:28] Thank you, sir.

[49:30] The motion having been made and seconded.

[49:34] Madam clerk, I

[49:58] do not see, do you see, does anybody have their voting screen up?

[50:04] Madam clerk would it be possible to call the roll?

[50:13] Commissioner Clark is absent, Commissioner Cranston.

[50:17] Aye.

[50:18] Commissioner Donahue?

[50:20] Yes.

[50:21] Commissioner Gutierrez is absent or refuse to rather commissioner Nunes.

[50:28] Aye.

[50:29] Commissioner Dunsey, chair Dunsey.

[50:31] Hi.

[50:33] And Commissioner Yen.

[50:35] I'll have a stay.

[50:44] And the motion is passed for votes yes and one abstain.

[50:49] Thank you, Madam Court.

[50:51] All right.

[50:51] Item six.

[50:52] Commission staff announcements.

[50:55] Ms. Pencil, do you have anything?

[50:58] Or no action will be taken on any questions.

[51:00] Raise the equation at this time I might add.

[51:02] Will you just bring the commissioners back.

[51:06] Just right.

[51:06] Yes, please.

[51:12] You want me to go get him?

[51:26] Oh, that's a good point.

[51:27] Can you hear me about that?

[51:28] Yeah, so just for the record, for the vote,

[51:33] Commissioner Clarke recused from the item.

[51:36] I think it was previously incorrectly stated that he was absent.

[51:39] He was Commissioner Clarke and commissioned Gutierrez recused from this item.

[51:44] Wonderful.

[51:45] Thank you very much.

[51:46] And, Mr. Nernier, thank you for catching that.

[51:52] Any staff announcements?

[51:52] And thank you, this is just going to be a second reminder because we don't have any other upcoming meetings in September for EPC that we have the annual celebration of service awards on September 30 at Michaels in shoreline.

[52:10] So we hope to see everybody there. I hope everybody has received an invitation. If not, please let me know. And we will be doing a short presentation or our EPC work from past year.

[52:22] All right. Well, with any any comments or updates from the commissioners, once I'm just

[52:30] done here, I have a question. So, tonight's agenda under minutes approval, there was

[52:37] none. We haven't had minutes for any of the meetings so far in 2024. Yeah, I think the last

[52:45] meeting in the last meeting, there were two minutes that were approved with some comments

[52:52] then corrections right they were from 2023 that is correct so now we are working on 2024 it will be presented in the next meeting

[53:00] okay can I so I'll just add to that so we recently realized that there was this

[53:09] so all of the EPC and ZAA and just all of the minutes get loaded into laser fish and

[53:15] Unfortunately, we discovered meeting new our planning board clerk being relatively new, that

[53:22] that hadn't been done for a very long period of time.

[53:27] And so we shifted kind of priority in getting those back, that backlog of minutes loaded

[53:33] into the city's laser fish system, and so that impacted the speed to which she was able

[53:40] to work on the minutes, but we've just completed that task, and I know that she's working

[53:49] on the minutes.

[53:51] Okay, I just want to make sure that we're not like years in the rears.

[53:56] That's kind of what happens, though.

[54:00] Yeah.

[54:00] Thank you, Mr. Dunne here.

[54:02] Thank you for your interest.

[54:02] Hey, I'm just a quick follow question on that process, because I know when I'm

[54:07] and I saw what happened, right, but is there a timeline by when minutes should be presented

[54:13] to the board for approval or is there no timeline specific to that? So that we're not in any

[54:18] violation of anything. Yeah, I don't think there's any any specific timeline, but traditionally

[54:25] we try to get them to you quickly, and I think this was just an unforeseen issue that arose,

[54:31] and so I know that she was working on them today, actually, because I was talking to her about them.

[54:36] Great, and that's for you Steven Nelson, because I know you're a big brown-eyed fan, so I asked the question.

[54:42] And so just for clarification, at the next meeting, we will be caught up with all of our

[54:47] minutes. Is that no? No, no. When will we be caught up? I don't have an answer for you on when you'll

[54:53] be caught up, but hopefully you will see some at the next meeting. Yeah, it takes her quite a while,

[54:59] she has to re-listen to the meeting, and then write it into the document, so it just takes

[55:08] a little bit of time.

[55:11] All right.

[55:11] Well, thank you very much for that update, Mr. Crescent.

[55:15] I don't know whether you've looked at it, but people in my company have started using any

[55:20] I tool that actually captures meeting dialogue and turns it into the document.

[55:25] It seems to be quite good.

[55:27] So other than having to sit there and read through it and type it in, you may want to look at

[55:33] some of these tools that actually do the capture for you. It's kind of amazing. You actually

[55:41] get minutes within a day of some of the meetings I've been. So there's an app for that.

[55:55] Okay. Any further comments from the commission?

[55:59] All right, they're being non, we will adjourn this meeting at 7.56 pm. The next regular

[56:07] least scheduling PC meeting will be held on October 16th, 2024. Thanks everybody.

Environmental Planning Commission on 2024-09-18 7:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript