April 15, 2020 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: He, there's a couple things he needs to do to get started.

[00:01:09] City Staff: Okay, we're live.

[00:01:10] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Chair Cox, we are live.

[00:01:11] Chair Robert Cox: Can you hear us?

[00:01:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[00:01:13] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We're live, you can go.

[00:01:14] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, cool. Um, this is the 15th of April, 2020, and this is the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission meeting, which I will be calling to order as the chair of the commission. May I have a roll call please.

[00:01:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Excuse me, Chair Cox. Can you read the language from the script that I sent?

[00:01:35] Chair Robert Cox: Oh. I wish you had mentioned that earlier. Okay. Is the script in a separate mail or is it in...

[00:01:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh, sorry. Yeah, it's in the, um, I sent it... I don't know, probably around 3:00 or 4:00 this afternoon.

[00:01:51] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. I'm going to need to look for it then, unless you want to read it. I could get it open. Okay. I see presentations from you. I see script for tonight. Okay. So here, let me open that up. It's opening up. All right. Okay. So you want me to read the part in red at the beginning?

[00:02:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, please.

[00:02:38] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So, prior to the roll call, the chair will announce: this meeting is, will be conducted in accordance with the State of California Executive Order N-29-20, dated March 17th, 2020. All members of the EPC are participating in this meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for an item by signing up at mountainview.gov/epc_speakers. Emails and voicemail messages received by 5:00 PM today were forwarded to the EPC. Emails received after 5:00 PM and prior to the close of the public comment period for the agenda item will be read into the record by city staff, and any voicemail messages received will be played by city staff. All votes will be taken by roll call vote. Now I will ask Planner Whitehill to proceed with the roll call.

[00:03:59] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Holbrook will be filling in for Commissioner Capriles, and all other commissioners are present.

[00:04:07] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Thank you. All commissioners are present. All right. Moving on to item number 3, the minutes. First we will ask whether anyone from the commission has any comments or amendments they would like to make on the minutes. Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:04:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, is this kind of a question for staff? I noticed that on the, the votes for, under section 5, um, it just included the votes of the people who were present. But in the vote for the residential development, um, it listed Commissioner Capriles as absent in addition. Um, is that, is that just a... is it because of the nature of that particular item, or... I just... it looks like there would have been eight votes if she was present. That's all. That's my question.

[00:05:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I think that was just an oversight in terms of the inconsistency. We are, um, supposed to include Commissioner Capriles on all actions as being absent.

[00:05:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So we should add that in. I'd suggest that we add her into the items on voting for chair and vice chair.

[00:05:41] Chair Robert Cox: All right. Any other comments from commissioners on the minutes? Okay. Not hearing any. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the minutes? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Planner Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Are there any people there, Planner Whitehill?

[00:06:17] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We do not have any people wishing to speak from the public.

[00:06:23] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So emails received by 5:00 PM were forwarded to the EPC. Planner Whitehill, have you received public comment on this item by email since 5:00 PM or by voicemail?

[00:06:37] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We have not received any public comment by email or by voicemail.

[00:06:40] Chair Robert Cox: Planner Whitehill, are there any additional members of the public on the line who have indicated they want to speak on this item?

[00:06:41] Chair Robert Cox: Planner Whitehill, are there any additional members of the public on the line who have indicated they want to speak now?

[00:06:50] Planner Brittany Whitehill: There are not.

[00:06:54] Chair Robert Cox: Ah. So not having any more public comment to add, would anyone like to make a motion to approve the minutes with Vice Chair Cranston's additions? I see Commissioner Hehmeyer with her hand up and I see Commissioner Lowe with her hand up. So maybe that's a motion and a second.

[00:06:57] Planner Brittany Whitehill: No, we have not.

[00:07:05] Planner Brittany Whitehill: There are not.

[00:07:25] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Yes, please. I'll second Commissioner Lowe's motion to approve the minutes as amended by Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:07:31] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. All right. And then, it looks like... okay. And then Planner Whitehill will conduct the roll call vote.

[00:07:38] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:07:41] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Aye.

[00:07:42] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Holbrook.

[00:07:45] Commissioner Holbrook: Aye.

[00:07:47] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Lowe.

[00:08:12] Commissioner Lowe: Aye.

[00:08:14] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Schmiesing.

[00:08:15] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Aye.

[00:08:17] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Yin.

[00:08:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[00:08:21] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Cranston.

[00:08:22] Chair Robert Cox: So, okay. So anyway, emails received by 5:00 PM were forwarded to the EPC. Planner Whitehill, have you received public comment on this item by email since 5:00 PM or by voicemail?

[00:08:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[00:08:24] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Chair Cox.

[00:08:25] Chair Robert Cox: Aye. So that makes seven.

[00:08:27] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Capriles is absent.

[00:08:28] Chair Robert Cox: Yes. Okay. So the minutes are approved and we will move on to... Thank you, Planner Whitehill. And we will move on to Oral Communications from the public. This is the portion of the meeting that 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. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on non-agenda items? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Planner Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. So... I don't think we have anyone.

[00:09:17] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We do have an attendee currently. They have not indicated that they wish to speak on this topic. So it seems as though we do not currently have any members of the public wishing to speak.

[00:10:02] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Having heard none, I will close this section 4 and we will move on to section 5, which is item 5, Public Hearing, item 5.1, Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance Modifications. Is there a staff presentation?

N/A

[00:17:02] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: requirement is $3,000, which is adjusted annually by CPI, so I believe now it's 35 or 3900 somewhere in that range. And then the proposed modification is to increase the benefit by an additional 2000 for a total of $5,000 to a special circumstance household.

[00:17:25] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: The third, the third modification would be enhanced rental services. So currently right now there's a 60-day subscription to a rental service, and what this modification would allow is for unlimited access to a subscription service up to time of move-out, so that could exceed 60 days. In addition, you can see a list of services that these enhanced services would include. They are much more proactive services to provide assistance, more so than a 60-day subscription. It's more personalized, and with greater accessibility to different rental areas. So that would be the third proposed modification.

[00:18:25] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: The fourth modification is the payment of the second TRAO payment sooner than later. So currently right now the TRAO requirement says that the tenant would receive the second half of their TRAO payment upon vacating the unit, and so the modification would be they would receive their second half payment at time of documentation that they have secured a replacement rental. This way they would get the funds sooner than later to, so that potentially they would be able to use those funds to help pay for the deposit for their next rental unit if that's the case.

[00:19:15] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: And then the fifth modification is to waive the move-out notice, but at this point, the state law requires that tenants provide a 30-day move-out notice to the landlord if they are on a month-to-month lease. And if the city were to enact an ordinance or a law that would require the landlords to waive their right, if it was a month-to-month lease, then that would conflict with state law, and local law cannot do that. So as a staff recommendation, instead of making the modification in the ordinance itself, staff will include this request for, to waive, the landlords to waive that right as a consideration to be included in the TRAO administrative guidelines.

[00:20:17] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: In addition to the council-directed modifications, staff is also proposing a couple additional modifications. Number one, a county recording notice of TRAO requirements. This would just notify successor owners of that particular property that there are TRAO requirements associated with the property. And then from an administrative standpoint, if you will, the second recommendation is to add general language specifying that the stricter of TRAO or state relocation law shall prevail. So whichever of the two is more strict or, in other words, more beneficial to the tenant, that relocation requirement would apply.

[00:21:12] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: And so there are, this is staff's recommendation to the EPC that the EPC adopt a resolution recommending the city council adopt an ordinance amending article 13 of chapter 36 related to tenant relocation assistance, with the following modifications: One, increase the income eligibility by $5,000. Increase the additional relocation for special circumstance households from 3,000 to $5,000. Require enhanced assistance by a relocation agency in searching for replacement housing. Require a county recording of the notice of TRAO requirements. And lastly adding that language in to specify that if there are two relocation benefits requirements that apply, whichever provides the greatest benefit to the tenant will apply. So that concludes staff's presentation regarding the TRAO modifications, and Anky and I are here to answer any questions that the commission may have.

Segment 1

[00:22:36] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you very much. We will do things in the normal order. We will have the clarifying questions for the EPC, and then we will go to public comment, and then back to the EPC for deliberation and action. So let's start with questions from the commission. Raise your hand and I'll recognize you. Commissioner Holbrook.

[00:23:10] Commissioner Holbrook: I have a few questions on this. Thank you for the presentation. One question that occurred to me as you were presenting is that the $3,000 for special circumstances households has been adjusted for inflation presumably from the date of 2010 or some date a fair number of years in the past. Is the intent of the change in wording that staff had proposed that the $5,000 should be adjusted for inflation from that same date, or is the intent that the $5,000 should be as of now, and would the $2,000 delta be adjusted for inflation from that date?

[00:24:15] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: That's a very good question, and I would think that it would be starting to be adjusted by inflation starting when it gets adopted. It wouldn't be retroactive, if that would be my opinion. But that is certainly a policy question that can be vetted at the council level also. And or if...

[00:24:46] Commissioner Holbrook: If I may, you mentioned that the amount currently was I think you said 3600 or 3900. Could you check that amount and tell us what it is?

[00:25:11] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Well, I'm checking. Would you like to go on and have...

[00:25:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It's on page 5 of the staff report.

[00:25:33] Chair Robert Cox: I'm not hearing Commissioner Holbrook.

[00:25:40] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay, so it is currently about 3500. Correct, yeah. I missed that, thank you. Which is to say that if we were going with 5000 now, we would be looking at a $1500 increase, not a $2000 increase.

[00:25:58] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: That is a good point, and yes, staff can bring that up with the council, but staff can also make that adjustment. Take that recommendation. I have some more questions. Chair Cox, would you like me to continue asking or would you like to ask someone else?

[00:26:17] Chair Robert Cox: Yes, please continue.

[00:26:19] Commissioner Holbrook: I'm trying to get my head around some language that showed up in a question asked by at least one other commissioner that was addressed in the comments from staff a few hours ago, and that is regarding the language of up to 42 months. And this is the time period contemplated under SB 330 for providing a rental benefit that bridges the rent that the tenant is currently paying with the market rent, I believe it is. And the... one of the things that was cited in staff's response was that a cap of $5,250 was mentioned and that it was hypothesized that that could reduce the benefit to something less than 42 months. But then again, the answers to questions also said that that wasn't really clear from the law. I took a look at the law, at least as I understand it, and I found that reference to 5,250 in section 7264 of the code, which says 'the payment not to exceed 5,250 shall be the additional amount which is necessary to enable the person to lease or rent a comparable replacement dwelling for a period not to exceed 42 months'. Continuing to the next section, 7264.5 says 'if a program or project undertaken by the public entity cannot proceed on a timely basis because comparable replacement housing is not available and the public entity determines that comparable replacement housing cannot otherwise be made available, the public entity shall take any action necessary or appropriate to provide the dwellings by use of funds authorized for this project. This section shall be construed to authorize the public entity to exceed the maximum amounts which may be paid under section 7263 and 7264 on a case-by-case basis for good cause as determined in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the public entity.' I recognize that this is a lot of legal text to get your head around, but it suggests to me first of all that... Am I correct to infer from this that the relocation is an action undertaken by a public entity as interpreted under this statute? Or is this too hard to address here?

[00:29:56] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Yeah, it's a little more complex. Understanding that SB 330 is, we're still working through the analysis because it's not the clearest of bills, and we're working with legal counsel to try to clarify some of these items, as you pointed out, the 5250 versus the 42 months. But I don't think staff is at the point to answer...

[00:30:30] Commissioner Holbrook: Right. So, that's to my mind not surprising. My reading of this was it was very complicated, and we received a comment letter today from the community that they also viewed it as complicated. So I guess my follow-up question is if we don't understand SB 330, how can we be sure that we'll know whether the package that would be offered under TRAO versus under SB 330 would be preferred by a tenant? Because, for example, if this 42-month thing is a variable amount depending on something that we don't really appreciate, it could be that the tenant would see that they would get a greater benefit from TRAO even though it's only three months of full rent versus 42 months that may be handicapped by stuff that we haven't figured out yet. So I guess what I'm questioning, what I'm probing here is the answer that was provided to the commissioners a couple hours ago that the tenant would not see a choice of options, they would see a single option as determined by some party.

[00:32:10] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: That is correct in that we would have to weigh both requirements. And speaking to our legal counsel, they have determined that our outside legal counsel has determined that the 42-month requirement is what would apply. Therefore, as staff, we have been moving forward when it comes to evaluating relocation benefits, we are using that 42-month requirement as the more beneficial or stricter of the two in evaluating those two.

[00:32:54] Commissioner Holbrook: So am I hearing you say that landlords will be obligated to pay 42 months of differential?

[00:33:03] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: If they are displaced, then the developer, not potentially not the landlord, but the developer or the landlord could be responsible for that... and that 42-month period is independent of any decision that the tenant would make going forward? It's 42 months. Correct.

[00:33:32] Commissioner Holbrook: I didn't hear the answer.

[00:33:39] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Oh, correct. Thank you. Okay, I think that concludes my questions.

[00:33:49] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you Commissioner Holbrook. I saw Commissioner Hehmeyer raise her hand.

[00:33:59] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: I'll yield the floor. I think all my colleagues bear on one thing.

[00:34:08] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Then I see Commissioner Cranston.

[00:34:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes. Question Tim. I don't have a fundamental issue with the Ellis Act change. I just quite frankly don't understand what recording it with the city... what that does for somebody. How it protects them going forward. So could you just elaborate on why recording it with the county, excuse me, relating to the Ellis Act, is going to make a difference in this?

[00:34:42] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Commissioner Cranston, if you will, I'll defer that to Anky who had actually had an experience with that. Therefore making that recommendation.

[00:35:00] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Yes. So we are... our staff team is tasked with day-to-day administration of the current TRAO and in the future if these get changed, as well as SB 330. The county recording came about when one developer sold the property to another developer before the tenants were displaced. They were in the middle of the project. And there was an extensive discussion whether the new developer had to take on the responsibilities under the TRAO from the old developer. So by us recording it in the county, that makes it clear when a new developer buys a property that there is this TRAO lien on it.

[00:36:00] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, Commissioner Cranston, do you have other questions?

[00:36:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: No.

[00:36:07] Chair Robert Cox: Alright, then I see Commissioner Schmiesing.

[00:36:14] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Hi. My question kind of has to do with the right of first refusal and sort of some of the... is that was something I noticed that SB 330 had some detail on and was asked by one of the commissioners kind of where different income levels lie and how that impacts right of first refusal and what is actually an affordable... affordable apartment, affordable rent. Like looking at that 30% margin, that was one of the things that is not being updated in the current TRAO and was not being looked at. I know that the current TRAO provides some guidance around right of first refusal. I was just hoping to get some more clarity on what your understanding of SB 330 is around right of first refusal for tenants returning to that location.

[00:37:20] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: It is my understanding that actually in SB 330 if you go ahead and demolish a protected unit you have to replace it. And in terms of right of first refusal, the existing tenant living in that unit that was replaced can return to that protected unit. And it would be priced at affordable to their income. And that unit would either be subject to rent stabilization or deed restricted depending on the type of development. So SB 330 in my understanding has a stronger right of refusal when it comes to potentially displacing tenants.

[00:38:14] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: That was my only question, thank you.

[00:38:22] Chair Robert Cox: Thank you Commissioner Schmiesing. And I see Commissioner Lowe.

[00:38:30] Commissioner Lowe: Hi. My question has to do with one of the letter comments that we received which was from the League of Women Voters. I wanted to follow up on what they're asking in that letter and get a better understanding on the overlap between SB 330 and TRAO and whether in the proposed TRAO, how far are we from being consistent with SB 330 or compliant? Are we considered to be in compliance with SB 330 as we stand with the proposed updates?

[00:39:22] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: I would say SB 330 is stronger in other areas, such as right now in our current TRAO, we do have a requirement to pay benefits for up to three months or the three months equivalent of a median rent of a comparable unit. While TRAO is, or this SB 330 implementation is 42 months. So SB 330 could have substantially more in regards to relocation benefits. And TRAO does not address preservation of units. Again it does look at right of first refusal, but it's not as strong when it comes to preservation of units. Those are those are a couple examples that I can think of at this point.

[00:40:25] Commissioner Lowe: Okay, thank you.

[00:40:54] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Excuse me this is Nicole.

[00:40:59] Chair Robert Cox: Go ahead Nicole.

[00:41:02] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Chair Cox, sorry about that. This is Nicole, Assistant City Attorney. So I just wanted to chime in as well and Tim can correct me if I misstate anything here, but just to kind of clarify, SB 330 applies separate and apart from our TRAO ordinance. So our TRAO would apply to units that aren't covered by SB 330. So while we're talking about differences between the two, it's not that we have to bring our TRAO ordinance up into compliance with SB 330.

[00:41:40] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, any other questions, Commissioner Lowe?

[00:41:48] Commissioner Lowe: No. Thank you.

[00:41:50] Chair Robert Cox: Alright, I see Vice Chair Cranston has another question?

[00:41:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, just a follow up. In page 9 of the staff report, item number 6, it says add general language specifying that the stricter of TRAO or state law state law will prevail. Doesn't that address Commissioner Lowe's concern that... the language that's been folded into the actual proposed ordinance would address that issue, that that shouldn't be a concern? I'm assuming that you're intact going to have that language in there some place.

[00:42:37] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: To understand your question... that because TRAO and SB 330 could apply to the same property because of those two not competing... those two requirements, this statement just clarifies that yeah the more beneficial for the tenant would apply in that instance.

[00:43:02] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yes, this is Nicole again. That's true. So there is some, there is some overlap. So just to clarify, Tim, yeah there is some overlap between the two. And in the instances where there is that overlap, the more beneficial would apply. Which is what Tim was indicating, and why that language was included.

[00:43:27] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. One of the things that also I... thought I read in the letter from League of Women Voters is they were asking us to consider the concept of making the maximum of the things that SB 330 gives and what the TRAO gives as an alternative to the staff recommendation of an either or. And I mean that's something that we can talk about, but that wouldn't be the same thing as what staff is recommending. I don't know if anybody else has wants to comment on that. I do have some thoughts on that myself, but... uh, first I'd rather go to other commissioners. So, Commissioner Lowe, did that answer your question or...

[00:44:19] Commissioner Lowe: Yes. Thank you.

[00:44:23] Chair Robert Cox: And then I also see Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:44:28] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Thank you. Just a little bit of a follow up to what the Chair was just mentioning in terms of public comment, did we receive, or maybe staff has received and it wasn't provided to the commission, any feedback from landlords or organizations representing property owners?

[00:44:47] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Staff did not receive any letters other than those that the commission saw.

Segment 2

[00:44:56] Tim Wong: or from any landlords or or developers or or any any uh yeah. So...

[00:45:04] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: at any point in the future we would be able to see like the financial impacts to um for some of these enhanced benefits or would that go to the um the rent stabilization commission instead of us

[00:45:29] Tim Wong: pardon me your your comment kind of broke up could you please repeat

[00:45:35] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: sure I I was just trying to understand the I I don't think it's in the purview necessarily of the EPC but I'm surprised that we didn't receive comments about the financial implications of how much this would burden some of our our landlords and property owners. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the scope of that could be. Um but I understand that's not really a planning and land use decision. Would that go to the the um the Housing Stabilization Board instead of us?

[00:46:06] Tim Wong: Um I I will say that these these modifications were are were proposed by developers from previous projects so I think that since it was from previous projects that developers are okay with these uh proposed modifications. I won't

[00:46:36] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Okay thank you.

[00:46:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay let's see um Commissioner Schmiesing.

[00:46:49] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Um something I was trying to wrap my head around is so SB 330 only applies for the next five years is that correct?

[00:47:01] Tim Wong: That is correct.

[00:47:03] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Um what is staff's understanding of say in 5 years because development projects take a while um is it when the development projects start so if like if it starts while SB 330 is still enacted does does SB 330 apply to it or is it when the project finishes that SB like the process of applying for all the different permits and things is there any clarity within the law of because development projects take a while and SB 330 is time limited what that interaction looks like?

[00:47:44] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: I can answer that. Um what we're currently taking because there are some projects in the works and the question really was raised are we still grandfathering in the old TRAIO for for current projects or are all projects all of a sudden become uh subject to SB 330 and so what the planning department has adopted is that only new projects that um where the application of which was completed by January 1st 2020 will be subject to SB 330. So we haven't discussed yet what happens at the end of the five years.

[00:48:30] Chair Robert Cox: Okay let's see I don't see ah but I haven't heard yet from Commissioner Yin. Did you have any questions Commissioner Yin?

[00:48:41] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I don't have any questions as of now thank you.

[00:48:45] Chair Robert Cox: Okay and then I guess I have a few questions so let me just check to make sure I'm not on mute okay um so my first question was kind of a general one back to staff I mean before SB 330 was passed you know and you mentioned in the staff report that the council was going through a process of trying to figure out a general anti displacement uh policies that would be adopted for the council and I guess what I'd like to know is you know has the passage of SB 330 um changed that in any way? Um has it I mean is there any sense now that SB 330 takes care of it and so there's less urgency there or is the plan to go on with the city's own anti displacement policy um you know still going ahead um you know regardless of what what happened with SB 330?

[00:49:54] Tim Wong: Um staff is still moving forward with the city response to displacement uh SB 330 as mentioned only uh is only for five years. Yes it does help uh displacement prevent displacement during this time but we are still looking at different uh strategies to um respond to displacement whether it be acquisition uh an acquisition preservation program or such as this greater um TRAIO benefit. So yes staff is moving forward with those um

[00:50:33] Chair Robert Cox: Okay thank you and then another question um you mentioned about the subscription agency service and uh what I was wondering was what was it that motivated staff and council to ask for changes in that and how did you determine what the right changes were?

[00:50:53] Tim Wong: Um again those added benefits were something offered by a developer for a certain project which the the council felt was um an added benefit to to that project uh for for those for those tenants. So that's how that particular those enhanced benefits uh are are um that the council uh directed staff to include those enhanced benefits in these modifications.

[00:51:33] Chair Robert Cox: And then a third question is so I have been talking to you know I have been in rather regular communication with people at 777 West Middlefield um as an apartment complex I used to live in so I know a lot of people there they're going through the process of um you know I guess they know now that the plan was that they would vacate uh that property within the next um within the next year and what I was wondering is um one of the comments that I heard back from uh a employee of the developer was that she was having difficulty trying to um locate all of the people to at least get some idea from them uh whether or not they're going to apply for TRAIO benefits. Um has this been a discussion uh item for staff? And I saw in the staff report that there was the idea that um the belief is that if somebody hasn't applied it's because you know he believes he's over the limit and won't get any money but that could be true but often times I mean you know we come up against people who maybe have difficulty understanding what all this is about and um are you know maybe need more assistance in in that way. And I don't know do you have any thoughts on that are we really doing everything we can to reach out to you know people who might be challenged at understanding the complications of all of this and what they have coming to them?

[00:53:17] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Yeah I can provide an answer to that because we're on a daily basis monitoring the current redevelopments that are subject to TRAIO. 777 Middlefield is a very um well um well managed uh process um besides that Middlefield hiring their own consultant to communicate with the tenants. Our relocation agent first sends out letters then follows up with phone calls to see if people have any questions and if they see that by a certain time certain people still have not applied they are reaching out to them again to see if there are any difficulties or if there is any way they can assist these people better. So we're keeping track of all the tenants and original tenants in the building that um might be able to benefit from the TRAIO um relocation assistance.

[00:54:13] Chair Robert Cox: But when this is all said and done um will you know for each person who lived there and might have been you know um had some money coming to them whether they know or not because like do we actually say that each one of these places should be signed off on or we just just leave it to the option of somebody to whether they're going to get anything done?

[00:54:39] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Um we don't leave it to them. We put several um efforts in place to try and reach them. If we leave phone calls we leave um um notices. If we can't reach them then after a certain amount of calls and notices they still don't contact us we have no way of making certain why these people were not uh reaching out to us.

[00:55:09] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. But I mean I think it's fair to say from your answer that you're being persistent. Is that fair?

[00:55:16] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: We want to yes we really really want to because it's out there for everybody and we really want everybody to understand the benefits that they're entitled to.

[00:55:25] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And then my last question has to do with the letter that we received from the MVYST where uh one of the members of their board raised the issue of you know uncertainty to developers not knowing how much you know they would be on the hook for if they put a project up because you know they don't know you know like you know for each person whether they're going to get the TRAIO benefit whether they're going to get SB 330. We have these questions where we're not completely sure about it. Um can you say something to that question about you know providing a reas- well I wouldn't say maybe a dollar figure down to the dollars and cents but a reasonable degree of certainty of what their commitment will be?

[00:56:11] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: So we're currently developing guidelines for the developers um so that means we have to fully understand SB 330 and then that needs to be vetted by our legal uh department and legal counsel um but we're in the middle of trying to put those guidelines together as detailed and um understandable as possible.

[00:56:36] Tim Wong: Exactly. So yeah there are a number of moving parts when it comes to SB 330 and as Anky had said we're we're trying to uh kind of navigate our way through those um those moving parts to help provide greater um greater direction for developers how the city will implement SB 330.

[00:56:58] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. All right then um do I oh there's a follow-up question from Commissioner Holbrook.

[00:57:15] Commissioner Holbrook: Um goes very much along the lines of what you just asked Chair Cox um so I'm hearing the city say that the city will be the responsible party for interpreting SB 330. And um I presume that as necessary the city will inform um the uh uh the the involved parties about the um about what is required and that they will uh well and I guess I guess what I'm hearing you say is that that this is going to be fairly formulaic so that um the benefit that a uh tenant would receive would be um determined by the guidance that you provide. I guess I'm tightening the screw down a bit more on Chair Cox's question.

[00:58:01] Tim Wong: Yes we will try to the the city is strongly uh will make sure that any developer in any redevelopment project adhere to the requirements of SB 330 and we are working through as Anky mentioned working through those guidelines to provide as clear guidance as possible for those developers on how the city will approve approach implementing SB 330. And that could include a formulaic approach to how to calculate relocation benefits and other items that are required by SB 330.

[00:59:00] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay then I have a follow-up question on that one which is um you know in order to be able to calculate what is due the tenant you need to know the tenant's income. And so I mean I don't know that I mean is that information actually is the developer actually entitled to know that or just or it only becomes known when the person applies for the benefit right? So so there will be an it's not like you can calculate it without without knowing that additional information.

[00:59:30] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: That's correct um and what will happen in the under the new guidelines is that the relocation agency will contact all parties first to do an intake um discussion and find out what the income is. Once they have figured that out then they're going to calculate um and let the developer know what the uh total obligations are and then so that's an extra part what's not happening right now under the TRAIO but what needs to start happening under SB 330.

[01:00:05] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay that's really great that's what I was hoping. Okay are there any other commissioners that have uh initial questions before we go to public comment? All right I don't see any. So um let me pull up the script.

[01:00:17] Chair Robert Cox: Okay so uh would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment uh on this item? If so please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine on your telephone. Planner Whitehill will start the timer and will let you know when your time is up. Planner Whitehill do we have any people?

[01:00:55] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We do have one speaker Cliff Chambers you can go ahead.

[01:01:01] Cliff Chambers: Uh thank you very much this is Cliff Chambers resident of uh Mountain View and an active member of Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. Um so I wasn't going to speak until uh Commissioner Holbrook raised a number of questions and had responses that evidently were provided from my staff a couple hours before the meeting. And I'm wondering if those responses from staff are publicly available. Usually if we're meeting in the council chambers or somewhere else there's a little notebook in the back that you can look these things up but I don't have access to those. And I'm wondering if that can be made available to the public that would be appreciated. The second comment is um the interface between the TRAIO proposed changes and SB 330 are definitely complex and certainly something that staff is grappling with and mentioned to one of the planners that they're still working with legal counsel on. And I guess my main comment is is that I want to make sure between both TRAIO and SB 330 and the Venn diagram of what applies to which particular action that the renter that is being impact impacted under both is going to get the maximum benefits available to them. And it's really unclear in terms of the staff report whether or not that's the case or not. So uh those are my two main uh comments. Thank you very much.

[01:02:51] Chair Robert Cox: Okay thank you. Are there other members of the public that want to speak now?

[01:02:56] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We do have one more member of the public wishing to speak.

[01:02:59] Mitch Mankin: Hi Mitch Mankin from Silicon Valley at Home here. I just want to say that we are in support of the staff recommendation um to go forward with these modifications. Uh and that also I mean realize the staff is still uh figuring out the implications of SB 330 but it might make sense if SB 330 turns out to be more generous than the current proposal to bring that in line when the anti-displacement strategy is finalized or before that as appropriate um when staff figures that that out. Uh thank you very much.

[01:03:44] Chair Robert Cox: Are there thank you. Are there other members of the public that would like to say something?

[01:03:49] Planner Brittany Whitehill: There are no members of the public wishing to speak.

[01:03:54] Chair Robert Cox: Okay um emails received by 5:00 p.m. were forwarded to the EPC. Planner Whitehill have you received public comment on this item by email since 5:00 p.m. or by voicemail?

[01:04:07] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We have not received any email comments.

[01:04:10] Chair Robert Cox: Okay thank you. And Planner Whitehill are there any additional members of the public on the line who indicate that they want to speak now?

[01:04:19] Planner Brittany Whitehill: There are not.

[01:04:21] Chair Robert Cox: Okay so uh having done that I will thank Planner Whitehill and we will go back to the commission for deliberation and action. Um are there members of the commission that would like to uh speak to the item before someone suggests a motion?

[01:04:45] Commissioner Holbrook: Um I have um several suggestions I'd like to um put forward for consideration regarding um the proposed resolution. Um let's see. The first one uh is on page three I'll go through it sequentially uh of the draft resolution. Um and these are quite minor. Um I'm looking at uh F1 C and um I note that uh earlier under F1A we refer to a tenant and in C we uh refer to household preferences I think it would be more consistent to say uh the tenant's preferences. Um and then at the I had a hard time parsing the sentence um and I think that um my confusion is maybe uh because the word and is missing um between contact with property management companies and available affordable housing options including waitlist opportunities and other leads on housing. Um if that isn't the intention then I think this last uh set of um items needs to be needs to be clarified in some way because I I don't understand it. Is that is that waitlist opportunities and other leads on housing uh are modifying affordable housing opportunities then the word and should properly precede that. Um was that the intent? Someone from staff comment on this?

[01:06:50] Tim Wong: Um you'll have to give me a sec I need to pull up the resolution excuse me.

[01:07:06] Commissioner Holbrook: While he's doing that perhaps I can continue uh and we can come back to it. So uh going on further down on page three uh item F1 E to uh relieve the ambiguity that I pointed out with my first questions um before public comment I would suggest that we modify the text to insert a reference year. So for example an additional um $5,000 per rental unit for special circumstances household adjusted annually for inflation from 2010 or from 2020. Um and that way uh we'll know what the base year is uh to which that inflation adjustment should apply. Without that we're left guessing as to whether we're um intending to add $2,000 plus adjustments to the $3,500 or whether we're intending to rebase to $5,000. So for the purpose of clarity I suggest that. Um shall I continue?

[01:08:28] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah continue and then you know mean you said you had three items?

[01:08:31] Commissioner Holbrook: No I have more than that.

[01:08:33] Chair Robert Cox: Oh well we can break and uh leave some others in if you'd like but um got another three or four find me.

[01:08:46] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay. The next one is on page four um item three. Um once again we have tenants are I think a tenant is might be might be better and then um I'd like to suggest because of the uncertainty around SB 330 that we add a sentence to this um which currently reads if tenants are eligible for relocation benefits under state or federal law tenants relocation benefits shall be consistent with whichever law provides the greatest benefit and I I'd suggest a sentence that says should this determination not be obvious the tenant shall be presented with the options and allowed to choose.

[01:09:31] Chair Robert Cox: And that's recognizing what I get fix what I'm um suspecting maybe ambiguity that we haven't gotten to the bottom of in the law which could affect this determination. The next uh the next item a question for you on that one before moving on. So I mean back to staff I mean I guess my question on that is is what is coming to the tenant you know in terms of making the choice only a dollar amount and if it is what choice is there to make? That's a question for staff.

[01:10:19] Tim Wong: I think what we could do is if if there are if both TRAIO and SB 330 apply we can provide them a basically a formula to show them what each requirement would provide them in terms of uh financial assistance or or um displacement benefits and based on that they could they could see um the differences between the two requirements.

[01:10:53] Commissioner Holbrook: Just to be clear my concern is not that we can't do math. My concern is that we really don't understand um some of these nuances of the law and that um there may be a decision there there may be a timing element for example um about the benefits that the tenant would be in a position to understand for themselves better than um than we would without without speaking with them uh or letting them decide. Um if the benefits were keyed to some period of time um you know before they found a new a new location uh but if if it I mean to Chair Cox's question if this just reduces to math I mean we know what number is greater than another number that that's easy uh the only question is is it going to reduce to math every time and do we have the confidence that uh we understand SB 330 to say that that's the case. In which case I I would not suggest this extra this extra step.

[01:12:00] Tim Wong: I think in some ways it does come down to the math because the differences in in relocation requirements is uh based on the whole analysis quite significant between what is proposed with these uh TRAIO modifications and the 42 months of uh the 42 month requirement in SB 330. I think that would be really the bottom line is the bottom line I would think for to tenants deciding which between uh the two requirements.

[01:12:33] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay well then I'll um I mean if if nobody else shares that concern I'll withdraw that suggestion. Um the next thing that I'd like to um suggest on page six um the notice to the third party agency does not include the explanation of relocation assistance that uh will be provided by the developer to each of the tenants and I'm wondering if that would be a good step so that the relocation agency can verify that um the tenant did in fact get the best um get everything that they were entitled to.

[01:13:27] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: I can I can answer that. Um so most what what is currently happening is that we together with the third party agency calculate what the tenant's um benefits are. So it's not the landlord that says to the third party that um what the benefits are the city says it. So it might not be clear but we as a city are contracting with the third party so they're working uh under our supervision not under the landlord's supervision. So this uh to make sure that um the agency can be as neutral as possible in uh providing the the services that they're uh hired for.

[01:14:54] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay and you're you're thank you. And you're comfortable that working with the landlord and the third party agency those things are going to get in lock step so yeah we've done it now for 10 years. Okay all right thank you. Um the next item is that um on on page six um let's see. Yeah at the very bottom of the page the last sentence reads after determination of eligibility one half of the relocation assistance shall be paid to eligible residential households within 15 days of the uh what is it. of the date the claim is submitted claim form is submitted third party agency and the remaining half shall be paid when the household secures alternate housing as evidenced by a signed rental agreement or other documentation. Um I believe the intent is also to pay the amount if the um if the tenant vacates the unit. Um even if they hadn't provided this documentation is that not correct?

[01:17:24] Tim Wong: I guess it would be whatever sooner the par- the the intent of that modification was to help the tenant get um the second half of the second payment sooner than later really than...

[01:17:44] Commissioner Holbrook: So for further clarification I might suggest that we add the words or vacates the unit whichever comes first and that makes it clear that they get the money one way or the other. um we deleted the words vacate the unit at this point.

[01:18:00] Chair Robert Cox: Is there any objection from anybody uh in the in in the proposed text?

[01:18:04] Tim Wong: Okay I can uh make a note of that yes.

[01:18:07] Commissioner Holbrook: And then I would I also wonder if um we want to add the words um or other similarly binding documentation a rental agreement is a pretty binding thing and I think the intent is that um the tenant provides something that indicates they're they've made a commitment to move um and we're looking for something of that structure. Is that would that be clear to say?

[01:18:33] Tim Wong: I'm sorry what was that uh language or other legally binding documentation? Not legally binding but similarly binding um secure alternate housing is evidenced by a signed rental agreement or other similarly binding documentation I mean um we can imagine documentation that's not very binding that might be used to secure this so I I think it might be helpful to clarify if we're looking for something that's pretty binding.

[01:19:02] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Yeah um I I do want to bring up sometimes they set sign a holding agreement. So now there's the legal question is that similarly binding or is that a different document? That's more a legal question maybe.

[01:19:22] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah I mean off-hand I I don't know the answer to to Anky's question but I think leaving it as other documentation my understanding is that would make it um more open in terms of what might satisfy that obligation um as opposed to kind of putting it within a box of saying if you say a signed renter agreement or vacating the unit and I think while there might be a I mean yeah you might have a lot of debate over whether or not something is similarly legally binding document that we don't necessarily want to um go down that hole I think my understanding the intent is just to kind of keep it open to what could present itself in terms of um allowing that other half to be paid sooner.

[01:20:01] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay. um so sounds like you're comfortable with that with the language you support the language as written.

[01:20:05] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Um and then um the last comment that I have um I guess goes along with this idea of recordation of notice. Um SB 330 it seems allows um certain privileges to people who reside in property that was occupied by a low a low-income person within the last five years. And I'm wondering if that's something that should also be recorded even though it's not a TRAIO thing it's an SB 330 thing. Because the person that's currently in the property may not be low income and yet they may be they may be entitled to entitled to a benefit which might otherwise be forgotten.

[01:20:48] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Sorry can you repeat what you would like to have recorded?

[01:20:50] Commissioner Holbrook: Well um there's a uh there's a provision in uh SB 330 that says um look I have to look look for it now but it says that um if somebody has been in the in the property in the last five years um I think I think it was called a protected property. If a low-income person has been in the property in the last five years the property is protected. And that doesn't say to my reading that they have that the person that's in there now has to be low income for it to be protected. And yet the property is protected. So we could that would be that would be something that could be forgotten if that is in fact a correct reading of the um of the law.

[01:21:59] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Yeah so SB 330 also provides for a certain method to uh use when uh there is no information known about the income of the tenants um in that case they have to uh kind of follow what the general uh percentage is for the city of Mountain View um so it's specif- specified in SB 330 what you need to do if you do not know exactly what the income level is of each of the tenants.

[01:22:34] Commissioner Holbrook: And I guess we get back to Chair Cox's question which is how do we know the income levels of these tenants um I mean that that's a really good question.

[01:22:43] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Well under SB 330 the third party agency has to go uh door-to-door and have interviews with each tenant to determine what their income level is and to listen to what the needs are for their replacement housing so they can provide the best services possible.

[01:23:00] Commissioner Holbrook: And I'm guessing that would be true at the time of an event like um notice of notice of intent one of these notice of intent things. But um we wouldn't necessarily know that the person that lived in this unit three years earlier was low income um and that the property had a protected status because of that.

[01:23:26] Tim Wong: And I think I think if that's the case where there was a low-income household that lived in there three years ago but in your example uh upper middle class person decided to move in uh based on that assessment that they would still be in this protected unit I think we may have to also evaluate that because that doesn't really meet the purpose or spirit and intent of SB 330 but uh that's one of those kind of like vague vagueness of the law that that we would have to

[01:24:03] Commissioner Holbrook: Yeah it's a it's a um a fine point. I I wouldn't be concerned as much about an upper middle uh income person but a middle income person does have rights under SB 330 um and so um that's where it gets a bit stickier in my to my reading. Those are my comments Chair Cox.

[01:24:34] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um so here going back there was one question that you had asked that we were waiting for a staff answer from you remember what like the first one? Right that's still pending now.

[01:24:53] Commissioner Holbrook: I guess that's a question to staff as to whether they're still researching Mr. Holbrook's first question.

[01:24:54] Tim Wong: You could go back to that original question. I think you had a que- was that on uh section 41C was that? It was a parsing it was a parsing issue whether the word and should have been included before the um between companies and available

[01:24:56] Commissioner Holbrook: I I wasn't able to hear you on mute.

[01:24:57] Chair Robert Cox: Tim you're on mute.

None

[01:24:58] Tim Wong: If you could go back to that original question, I think you had a quest- was that on uh section 41C? Was that?

[01:25:18] Commissioner Holbrook: Yeah it was the parsing, it was a parsing issue whether whether the word and should have been included before the um uh between companies and available.

[01:25:42] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah I don't hear your answer if there is an answer.

[01:25:54] Tim Wong: Apologies. Uh again for what section?

Segment 2

[01:25:55] Tim Wong: Apologies. Um again for what section? It was F1C on page three. apologies still reading through it um I think they're um they wanted him to add some ands

None

[01:25:59] Commissioner Holbrook: It was F1C on page 3.

[01:26:44] Tim Wong: On page 3.

[01:26:45] Tim Wong: Uh apologies, still reading through it. Um.

[01:26:50] Nicole Wright: I think they um, they want him to add some 'and's. So I've texted, just trying to figure out where. It's always painful when you have a bunch of civilians reading laws, codes and interpreting it like it's an exact science. And yeah, they're kind of asking for little nitpick things on the fly, so.

[01:27:18] Tim Wong: My apologies, but can you repeat your question again as I read through it?

[01:27:23] Commissioner Holbrook: Well, um, I, I had trouble parsing the sentence. And it made more sense to me when I changed the, what I changed, um, let's see, the wording from, "and providing up to five rounds of referrals through an analysis of available rental housing including internet listings, contact with property management companies, and available affordable housing options, including wait list opportunities and other leads on housing." Um, without that "and" there, um, it, it's hard for me to understand what is intended. What's modifying what?

[01:28:06] Nicole Wright: This is Nicole and just to maybe ask Tim to try to help. Um, was it intended Tim that the including wait list opportunities was just referring to the available afford- sorry available affordable housing options? Um, or was both wait list opportunities and other leads on housing all relating back to available affordable housing options? Cause if it's just the wait list opportunities then I think it needs maybe just a comma after the including wait list opportunities, comma, and other leads on housing.

[01:28:42] Tim Wong: Thank you Nicole. I do believe it's a comma after including wait list opportunities.

[01:28:46] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay, that makes sense. If that clears it up, I'm happy with it. Now I can understand it. Thank you.

[01:29:01] Chair Robert Cox: Alright. Um, so then in terms of other possible things that you wanted to change. I mean one thing that I still have here is the reference year. Yeah. You know. So that, I mean, does that sum it up? I mean, and do we have a staff comment on that?

[01:29:24] Tim Wong: I do not have a comment, maybe other staff may have a...

[01:29:29] Chair Robert Cox: Do you think it's useful to have the reference year in there or is it understood that, you know, it comes from the time of the passage of the legislation or what what do you think?

[01:29:41] Nicole Wright: This is Nicole, I think um, I mean I think historically we've had it without the reference to the year. I think that you'd go from when it was um enacted in terms of when it would be adjusted. Um, but I also, I mean I don't see a particular issue with adding the year in if we wanted to and we could just kind of craft some language for that if that was a recommendation from the EPC. And I don't know if there's other, I should just kind of confirm if there's any other references within this same ordinance that are similarly adjusted annually for inflation. Then I'd just want to be cognizant that we're not changing it in just one location and not others. So if there are others where that happens, um, I'd want to make the language consistent.

[01:30:34] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner uh Holbrook, what are your thoughts on that, do you want to pursue it?

[01:30:41] Commissioner Holbrook: My thought is that it resolves uncertainty and so I think it's a good idea.

[01:30:46] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Uh any other comment from other commissioners? Um, Commissioner Lowe.

[01:31:03] Commissioner Lowe: Hi. I, I raised my hands regarding a different item, um, which involved the, yeah, involved the um, removal of vacate the unit. I want, I had a clarification question on that, so if you want me to come back to that later.

[01:31:22] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. No, no. I guess what I want to do right now is I want to resolve any of the concerns that Commissioner Holbrook had at first before we go on to other suggestions. So, um, so here, do I have any comment from other commissioners? So put your hand down if you don't want to answer what I'm asking now. Um, and do any commissioners have something to say about Mr. Holbrook's wanting to include the reference year?

[01:31:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: You're talking about the section F1E, is that what you're talking about? Is that where we're talking about, Robert?

[01:32:03] Chair Robert Cox: Yes. Commissioner Holbrook.

[01:32:05] Commissioner Holbrook: Yes.

[01:32:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, then I would be, I would be fine if it simply said something like, you know, based on the date of adoption or something like that rather than starting to mess with putting in dates and things like that. Uh, I would if it covers your concern Nicole, to put it based on the date of adoption, then just saying it based on the date of adoption would be consistent with previous practice.

[01:32:33] Nicole Wright: Yeah, I mean I would also, this is Nicole again, I would ask staff in terms of how we typically um, adjust it for inflation, if it was kind of a date certain or based on date of adoption. I know I've seen in um, and this might be more in contracts than ordinances, but if we wanted to, we could include kind of um, you know, a July 1, 2021 kind of date out a little further out than a year or something to kind of make it consistent with like a fiscal year if we wanted to do that. Um, but I don't know how this staff is, just annually adjusts it based on, you know, prior adoption date. I'll see if Tim might be able to help address that. But I mean just to kind of round out my comment, so then I would, if we were going to make that change, I would suggest language that um, where it says households adjusted annually, um, I'd say on and after whatever the date is July 1, 2021 for inflation or on or after, you know, one year after date of effective date actually is probably what we would do.

[01:33:31] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Yeah, this is Anky. Um, yeah we use the um, the calendar year. The CPI for the calendar year.

[01:33:44] Nicole Wright: Thank you Anky, so then if we wanted to be consistent we could, if we wanted to write language in to make that clear we could say on and after July 1, or sorry you said calendar year so on or after January 1, 2021 or 2022, but um, so it kind of two years out but...

[01:34:01] Commissioner Holbrook: Just to be clear the math here is that um, uh, if we were to go back to the adoption of the ordinance originally, then we'd be looking at um, like a $2,300 increase whereas uh from the 3, from the uh 3,500, um, whereas if we were to go, if we were to say as of the adoption of this amendment, then we're looking at a $1,500 increase uh from the 3,500. So you know there's, there's a chunk of money at stake here and I guess it kind of gets down to what council's intent was, you know, were they more fixed on the 2,000 number or were they more fixed on getting the number up from 3,000 to 5,000.

[01:34:54] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah, so another possibility would be for us to just give direction back to staff to...

Segment 3

[01:35:16] Commissioner Holbrook: Yeah, that'd be great.

[01:35:20] Tim Wong: We can certainly relay the EPC's wish to whether to have a full $2,000 increase or a flat 5,000, but we can relay the EPC's comments.

[01:35:38] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Alright. So here, let me then move to, I guess the question is whether or not anybody, I mean, if you resolved with Mr. Holbrook has been asking and we can go onto other commissioners?

[01:35:54] Commissioner Holbrook: That issue is resolved to my satisfaction. I had three other things that I had mentioned that I would still pursue or maybe just one other thing which is adding the language or vacates the unit to the wording at the bottom of page six.

[01:36:16] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So here, let's just leave that one then pending as your other open item. And let me also get other comments from other people on the commission. I see Vice Chair Cranston.

[01:36:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: In general I think the proposal makes sense. I am not in favor of backdating the change to 5,000 to 2010 and then calculating inflation since that point in time. I mean it's just, it should be, you know, it makes sense, it's what our practice has been when we adopt the new BMR rules or other things, it's not, you know, you're not going backwards in time to do a calculation. So I'm not enthusiastic about that. I like the change on the vacate section that was proposed. But overall I think the proposal that's been, that staff has brought forward is clear. And I think one of the things that I have, I guess I've learned over the last year is that rather than trying to incorporate everything that might whatever happen into the actual ordinance that I have learned to trust that staff does put in place administrative procedures that actually successfully implement the intent of these things. And so I'm less inclined to go through and make small changes to the language. I'm comfortable with what's here right now and would be prepared to make the motion when others are to that point.

[01:37:54] Chair Robert Cox: Thank you Vice Chair Cranston. I see Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:38:00] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: I'd like to echo Vice Chair Cranston's comments. I think that this is an example of how Mountain View has been ahead of the state and I know, I feel for staff, this is a lot of administrative work. But I think trying to reconcile what the city puts forward and specific tenants being displaced is, is a lot of nuance and this is going to be an iterative process as we try and reconcile what Mountain View has adopted and what the state has adopted as we try and seek what's best for those residents that are being displaced. So, like Vice Chair Cranston, I'm comfortable seconding his motion and we adopt, I get a little uncomfortable too about changing the details of the language and I would defer to staff on the adoption date as we discussed earlier.

[01:39:01] Chair Robert Cox: Thank you. I see Commissioner Lowe.

[01:39:11] Commissioner Lowe: Like Vice Chair Cranston and Commissioner Hehmeyer, I support the proposed changes on a high level. I did have a follow up question regarding one of the changes that Commissioner Holbrook brought up, which is the language on vacates the unit. I think it definitely makes sense to add that back to the sentence. And my question has to do with if a qualified tenant decides not to move into another apartment rental unit, let's say they want to move back with their family for a while, assuming they still are qualified to get assistance, they're not going to have evidence of a signed rental agreement.

[01:40:01] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: If I may answer that. Yeah. So at the moment they vacate the unit, they get the second 50% of the payment. It doesn't matter where they're vacating to.

[01:40:18] Commissioner Lowe: Right. So thank you for clarifying that. And I think that makes it more important to add that language back... add the vacate or vacates the unit or whichever in there, or something like that.

[01:40:33] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Thank you. Um, give me a chance to let the airplane go by. Our hands train. Anyway. Wonders of living in downtown Mountain View. Okay, Commissioner Schmiesing, I see you have your hand up.

[01:40:56] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Thank you. I had one question and then just a general comment. My question refers back to something Commissioner Holbrook was talking about, about that five year period if someone who was low income lived there. Are there any projects currently under development that that would apply to? In particular, 2645 to 2655 Fayette Street. I believe that low income residents lived there at some point in the past five years but maybe do not anymore. So would SB 330, that provision of SB 330 apply to that project or any other projects in the city that you know of?

[01:41:39] CSFRA Program Manager Anky van Deursen: Yeah, this is Anky. Currently, there's only one project that the application was approved after January 1. As I mentioned before, all the existing redevelopments are grandfathered in under the current TRAO.

[01:41:57] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Okay. And then Chair Cox is it okay if I just proceed with my general comments as well?

[01:42:03] Chair Robert Cox: Sure, go ahead.

[01:42:04] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Okay. Um, I just wanted to kind of echo what other commissioners have said, that I'm really excited to see these proposed amendments to TRAO. A couple thoughts I had in line with some of the letters we've gotten, just with that interaction of SB 330 and TRAO. I, a couple things that I saw in SB 330 that I would like to put forward as potential recommendations to make to City Council that they consider. I am not agile enough to come up with language here and now. But I thought that SB 330, their reasonable moving expenses might be something to consider including in our TRAO amendments, just because I know that moving can be quite expensive, moving trucks, all of that. In addition to first and last month, or first month and security deposit, can be quite onerous for some people. I also in line with the question I asked earlier around first right of refusal and SB 330 having more stringent requirements for developers and language around first right of refusal, just bringing our TRAO in line with SB 330 in that area in particular. Um, those would be not... from my understanding as a new commissioner, it wouldn't be like a requirement, I guess, but a recommendation to bring forward to City Council looking at those two areas, that SB 330 is offering, especially given that SB 330 is time limited. Um, and having that consistency moving forward past 2025 in those areas.

[01:43:47] Chair Robert Cox: I see, do I see anybody else? I think we don't have anything additional to say, right? Okay, there we go. Okay, so um, so then I guess you know if we want to go back, first instance Commissioner Schmiesing is making some suggestions. Are these things that you want to be added to the TRAO modifications this time or are you asking that these be put into the staff report as things that the commission, I mean the council may consider in a future change to TRAO?

[01:44:26] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Um, I guess it depends on where my fellow commissioners lie. Um, I would be happy to put them in, from my perspective, I believe in them strongly enough that I would put them in as recommendations for now.

[01:44:46] Chair Robert Cox: Do you want to direct them as recommendations?

[01:44:48] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: We only do recommendations, so then, yes. That's what I would do, but I would also be happy if they just appeared in the staff report.

[01:44:56] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, other comments back from other commissioners on those items? If you have additional thoughts like the Commissioner Schmiesing suggestions.

[01:45:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So, um, on a high level I also am very happy to see that staff has moved in this direction to update TRAO. I'm in agreement with the suggestions and recommendations. I was under the impression that it was an iterative process and that the key to everything now is in understanding what SB 330 is all about and once we get a firm grasp on that, then I think we'll have a better way to then make comparisons. Right now, without understanding it myself fully, I'm a little hesitant to make the changes right now. But what Commissioner Schmiesing has put forward, I'm comfortable with. But anything beyond that I think I would um wait until we have a better understanding of SB 330 in order to do larger iterations. So, as far as the wording is concerned, I think the comma, clarifying anything is perfectly in order. And any language regarding the dates, I would hope that staff would just go back to being consistent with what they've done in the past and I'm okay with that. So, all in all, I would be happy to move forward with the recommendation and if any suggestions to be made now go into staff report, I'm good with that too.

[01:47:08] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so just so that I understand what you're saying here. You would support the motion pretty much as written but you'd be willing to add to the staff report the two things that Commissioner Schmiesing has suggested as just for consideration in a future...

[01:47:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Correct.

[01:47:24] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:47:29] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Yes, I think Commissioner Schmiesing brings up a good point, but maybe it could be a little more prominent in the staff report in the sense that SB 330 is time limited. And whereas the TRAO would endure, and I think I personally would prefer to have general comments to council saying that because we believe that TRAO will potentially endure past the five years that SB 330, who knows what the state legislature is going to do, I think general policy direction from the EPC is helpful and my understanding of what staff and particularly the city attorney's better assistants deputy city attorneys said earlier is that these two pieces of TRAO and SB 330 don't have to be, we're not bringing TRAO into compliance with SB 330, right, there are two separate pieces that operate in parallel. And so I just want to make sure I'm clear on that point that what we would be suggesting to council would be that in future review of the TRAO that the key elements that appear in SB 330 might make sense to be integrated. As opposed to, these are the ones that we want to be considered, because I just don't feel like I mean, sure, like real moving expenses, but I don't feel like I have enough information to say that that's what I want to see in this next version, whereas the staff report has laid out really clearly very specific points that have already been vetted by council.

[01:49:10] Chair Robert Cox: Thank you, Commissioner Hehmeyer. Let me see, Vice Chair Cranston.

[01:49:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess, you know, I'm open to the idea of as we gain more understanding of all the things that SB 330 has in it, that there may be a point in time, either in the near or not so near future, that we may want to find a way to preserve those items and not there. But I'm, you know, I am not in a position at this point to say right of first refusal is the one that I would want to keep or not without having some kind of an analysis and study done around it. So I definitely agree with Commissioner Schmiesing that as we understand more about it, that recommending to the council that they as we as we learn more about it, there may be things that are worth preserving in the TRAO going forward regardless of the duration of SB 330. And that that should just be something that, you know, that we exact, they direct staff to come back after six months or whatever, as they as they are farther along, with maybe additional changes or recommendations they might make. But I wouldn't want to specifically fold any of those in at this point in time.

[01:50:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, that was just a leftover. Let me unraise my hand.

[01:50:55] Chair Robert Cox: And Commissioner Holbrook.

[01:51:03] Commissioner Holbrook: I share Vice Chair Cranston's view that I think it'd be good to get a more comprehensive understanding of SB 330 to figure out what we might want to fold into TRAO, noting Commissioner Schmiesing's point that SB 330 has a sunset of about five years out. So I think that once we have that information we can have a better informed discussion about what we might want to recommend to council. If someone would seek a recommendation on at this point.

[01:51:27] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So then I guess, I see Commissioner Schmiesing having her hand up.

[01:51:42] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Sorry. I just wanted to circle back and say I totally hear, especially because there is some uncertainty around exactly what SB 330 is, what exactly the language is indicating, so I am totally fine if it's just in the staff report. It is not one of our official recommendations. And I really do hope that this can be an iterative process and that as we come to a more wholesome understanding of SB 330 and everything that it offers that we can adopt those things that we think will be beneficial to Mountain View into our TRAO so that those things endure past 2025.

[01:52:35] Chair Robert Cox: So here's where I think what I hear us iterating toward. I mean there's a question of whether we would consider putting other things in the staff report. In particular a recommendation for the council in the future to consider adding moving expenses. And the other thing was the right of first refusal. And then there was another comment from Commissioner Holbrook about adding the language about vacating the unit back in. Is there anything else that we left out that we want to talk about before we have someone make a motion? Okay, I'm gonna take that as a no. So let's try to decide, do I, I'll take these one at a time. I guess I'll ask Eric here. What's the best way to do a straw poll with something like this?

[01:53:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'm here. Thanks. You know, I don't think we've thought that far ahead. Maybe one way you could do it is by using the raise hand feature.

[01:53:44] Chair Robert Cox: That's a good idea. So here, let's do the raise hand feature then. So I gotta figure out how I raise, can I raise my hand? Right? I just have to give my input verbally.

[01:53:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I don't think you can raise your hand.

[01:54:00] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so I'll have to give my input verbally. So let's see a raise of hands of how many people want to include language in the staff report about future consideration for adding a line item for moving expenses?

[01:54:30] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Can I just clarify? Because I think what I heard Commissioner Schmiesing walk back to an element, what I think I heard from at least Vice Chair Cranston and Commissioner Holbrook is that there might be additional elements as we study SB 330 we would want to have council take a look at. So at least for me personally, I'm not sure that I would want to just pick out moving expenses and write a first refusal, I think I would be more comfortable saying there as we understand more about SB 330 there might be particular elements that EPC would recommend council integrate into the TRAO. I don't really know how to raise my hand for one element versus another with that point of view.

1

[01:55:00] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: EPC would recommend Council integrate into the TRAO. So I don't really know how to raise my hand for one element versus another with that point of view.

[01:55:12] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So what I'm going to do is, I'm going to call that etcetera, just for sure. And then we'll take a show of hands for that as well. Okay? So, but I want to know if people want to call out the moving expenses explicitly in the staff report. So can we put hands up for that?

[01:55:37] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so I only see two hands up. So I think that one is not...

[01:55:41] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I'm sorry, Chair Cox, if you wouldn't mind indicating for the record kind of who raised hands.

[01:55:52] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Okay, so let's... let the airplane go past again and then let's put our hands up again for whoever wanted to support adding the moving expenses in the staff report as a specific recommendation. So I see Commissioner Schmiesing.

[01:56:07] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was gonna actually say, I agree with the general principle that what we should be saying to the council, the recommendation is that as we know more about SB 330, we could look at other further recommendations for the next version of our TRAO because of the time limit that SB 330 has. I don't think it hurts to say such as this and this. So I'm okay still with adding it if the...

Segment 3

[01:56:51] Chair Robert Cox: So here, let me do it this way then. I'm going to take them in the opposite order. And I'm gonna say, I think I'm hearing more of a general consensus for that kind of statement into the staff report. And how many hands can I look up for suggesting what Commissioner Yin and Commissioner Hehmeyer have been talking about for that type of language in the staff report? Okay. So then I see one, two, three, four, five, six. And I'll add myself, so that's unanimous. So I don't need to read the names off for that. But now let's ask if we want to explicitly call out moving expenses. Okay, I see Commissioner Schmiesing only. So that doesn't pass. And what about calling out the first right of refusal explicitly? I see Commissioner Schmiesing. Okay, so. So I think what, what the straw polls are showing is that for the person who's going to make the motion, um, if, you're likely to get more votes if you make it with including the general language but without those explicits. So having said that is there anything else that we need to discuss before I ask for someone to make a motion? Oh, the vacating thing. What about the vacating language? Can you put up hands for that? This is Mr. Holbrook's comment about adding the language about 'or vacating the unit' back in. Okay, I see, yes, I see six hands up for that and I concur as well so that's unanimous. So okay, so then the two things that we're looking at changing are just adding this general language about monitoring the situation and, you know, being flexible and bringing it back for future recommendations as we learn more about the effectiveness, 330 and the whole process, and then the second thing about adding Mr. Holbrook's language about vacating the unit. So would someone like to make a motion?

[01:59:02] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Chair Cox, actually this is Nicole, just to clarify too cause there was some discussion regarding the inclusion of the adjusted annually including a date or not. I just want to take a straw vote on that before...

[01:59:21] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Okay, so let's take a straw vote on adding clarification, having the class staff put clarifying language in for the start of the, of their proposal that will make the whole idea about when all of this stuff starts clear to council. How many hands go up for doing that? I see four. Commissioner Lowe, Holbrook, Yin, Cranston. And I also agree, so that's, oh I think that passed. So wait I think I missed Commissioner Hehmeyer. Commissioner Hehmeyer, are you hand up for that? Right here, right. Oh okay, so I have six hands for that plus myself so that's unanimous as well.

[02:00:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So it would be really great, one of the things that we don't have here is that last slide that staff always puts up that we can then read from. Is that available? Can you, can you share that?

[02:00:27] Planner Brittany Whitehill: I believe we would need Tim to share his screen and pull up that last slide if that's possible Tim.

[02:00:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Ah, I move that the Environmental Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Article XIII of Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code related to Tenant Relocation Assistance, to include the following modifications: 1. Increase the income eligibility for TRAO, adjusted by household size, by an additional $5,000. 2. Increase the amount of additional relocation assistance for special circumstance households from $3,000 to $5,000, with clarification by staff as to the effective date of such change. 3. Require enhanced assistance by a relocation agency in searching for replacement housing. 4. Require County recording of notice of Ellis Act/TRAO requirements. 5. Add language specifying if tenants are eligible for relocation benefits under state or federal law, tenant's relocation benefits shall be consistent with whichever law provides the greatest level of benefit. And to amend... F1, F3... section 36.38.15... F3, is that right? Sorry, section...

[02:02:21] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Sorry, so just if I can try to assist. Are you adding the words 'or vacates the unit' into that section of... 36.38.25?

[02:02:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is it 8, yeah, a little, yeah the first little A3. Um, amending the language to add in addition the 'or vacates the unit' and 'at the earlier of' I believe is what...

[02:03:03] Chair Robert Cox: Yes.

[02:03:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Did I get it all?

[02:03:12] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I think that got it all for the res, and then I would just add to your motion, um, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:03:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: To be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:03:35] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, do we have a second? Um, somehow my participant screen doesn't seem to work right. Ah, I'm seeing, you know Eric, I'm seeing a tile with a whole bunch of people in it rather than, you know, the par- ah there's my participant thing. Okay, here we go. Somehow when staff takes it over it, I lose the independent participant thing. So let's see who's got their hand up to second. Oh I guess I get to pick somebody. How about Commissioner Hehmeyer, do you want to second?

[02:04:08] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Yes. I'll second.

[02:04:13] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So then Eric how are we going to take the vote on this? Are we going to call up names or am I gonna just look at the hands?

[02:04:26] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Chair Cox if I may, we were going to do a roll call vote and I can call off.

[02:04:30] Chair Robert Cox: Okay.

[02:04:35] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[02:04:39] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Aye.

[02:04:41] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Holbrook?

[02:04:44] Commissioner Holbrook: Aye.

[02:04:46] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Lowe?

[02:04:48] Commissioner Lowe: Aye.

[02:04:50] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Schmiesing?

[02:04:53] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Aye.

[02:04:55] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Commissioner Yin?

[02:04:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[02:04:59] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Vice Chair Cranston?

[02:05:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[02:05:03] Planner Brittany Whitehill: Chair Cox?

[02:05:04] Chair Robert Cox: Aye.

[02:05:06] Planner Brittany Whitehill: So that passes unanimously.

[02:05:08] Chair Robert Cox: Alright, thank you for your hard work on that. Um. Is the commission okay with going straight into the next item or do we need a break?

[02:05:11] Commissioner Holbrook: I wouldn't mind two minutes.

6.1

[02:05:40] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Lowe. Okay. So, let's see. Is there anybody else who's not back yet? I see Commissioner Cranston, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Yin, Commissioner Hameister. I don't see Commissioner Schmiesing yet.

[02:10:17] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah, I guess we're still waiting on Commissioner Schmiesing. Maybe three minutes is too brief of a intermission.

[02:10:46] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Sorry, sorry.

[02:10:49] Chair Robert Cox: There she is. Okay, everybody's back now. Um, so we'll move on to the study session. Um, item 6.1, uh, Senate Bill 743, CEQA transportation analysis. Is there a staff presentation?

Segment 3

[02:11:25] Chair Robert Cox: Yes.

[02:11:27] City Staff: Okay. So. Hello commission. I am Soroush Aboutalebi, an Assistant Planner with Community Development, and we're here to talk about Senate Bill 743, which is a reform to the California Environmental Quality Act. I'm joined tonight by Martin Alkire, our Advanced Planning Manager, Ria Hutabarat Lo, Transportation Manager from Public Works, and Dawn Cameron, our Public Works Director, as well as our consultants, Megan Weir and Emily Roach from Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates. So, like I mentioned, we're here to discuss Senate Bill 743. This is a law that was passed by the California State Legislature in 2013 and explicitly calls for modernization of transportation analysis under CEQA. What the law calls for is transitioning from use of level of service, LOS, to vehicle miles traveled, VMT, in analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. What we are currently on the hook to do as a city is to develop new thresholds of significance in terms of VMT and screening criteria as well to determine significance level. At this point, level of service can no longer be used to make a determination of significance for transportation impacts under CEQA. And in implementing this policy we're looking to update associated city transportation policies as well. We have a variety of guidance and best practices to lean on for implementing SB 743, perhaps the most significant of which is technical guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. They have provided technical advisories that have been iterated while we've been implementing the law. So, the process of complying with SB 743 has been underway in Mountain View since 2016, with most of the legwork occurring in the past two years. In October of last year, we came to EPC for a study session to provide background information on the law. Tonight we're here to provide policy options for implementing SB 743. Next Tuesday we will be at City Council providing information regarding the policy options that we discuss tonight. And we hope to return to Planning Commission and City Council in May and June for final adoption hearings. It's important to mention that on July 1st, 2020 that is sort of our deadline for when we absolutely have to have thresholds of significance in place in terms of VMT. So what our tasks are for right now, especially this particular study session is to get an understanding of the screening criteria that will aid in project review, study different thresholds of significance for land use projects, and study the use of LOS outside of CEQA.

Segment 4

[02:15:01] City Staff: study the use of LOS outside of CEQA. So now that level of service is no longer used to determine significance of impacts for transportation, the city loses this ability to require conditions of to require mitigations that respond to LOS impacts. So what we're looking at here is an approach to continue to assess roadway operations and things that were measured with LOS outside CEQA.

[02:15:35] City Staff: So again, what is informing the suggestions that are in this that are in the staff report and the presentations are, you know, foremost the technical advisory from OPR and as well as best practices from cities that have already implemented SB 743, like San Jose and Oakland. And there's a variety of of literature that we've looked at that's informed some of the suggestions here.

[02:16:00] City Staff: So another thing I'd like to mention is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, VTA, has played a pretty critical role in us implementing SB 743 in the county. As the Congestion Management Agency for the county, they've provided member agency support and technical assistance in complying with the law. As opposed to actually advising what we should do ourselves as cities, VTA has, you know, been really helpful and provided...

[02:16:30] City Staff: baseline VMT reference averages as you can see in this table, for the different geographies, for Mountain View as a city, Santa Clara County, and the nine-county Bay Area region. So all of the all of the maps and suggested screening criteria and thresholds of significance in this presentation are informed by these reference averages you'll see here. So you'll see you'll hear me and others refer to these reference averages throughout the report. Another thing that I'd like to note is that these reference averages are in terms of daily vehicle miles traveled, either per capita for residential projects, which is just per person, or per worker for employment projects. So we're not looking at aggregate VMT in this case. We're just looking at it per each individual user of those specific land uses.

[02:17:27] City Staff: So one of the first things we want to study is screening criteria, and what is screening criteria? So this is criteria that can be applied to proposed projects, where if this criteria is met, then there can be a presumption of a less than significant transportation impact. So one of the screens that OPR advises lead agencies adopt is a map-based screen. And as you can see here, this is a map of Mountain View boundary. And the colors on the map indicate variation from the regional reference average. So variation from the nine-county regional VMT per capita value that you saw in the table above. So to give you an idea what these different colors mean, the yellow yellow areas on the map show locations in Mountain View where the average VMT per capita is between the mean for the nine-county Bay Area region and 15% below that value. So in those areas, VMT is still low, but it's not beyond a 15% reduction from the mean. When you look at the light gray light green areas, that those areas in the city are defined as areas that have average VMT per capita that is 15% below the mean up to 25% below the mean.

[02:19:00] City Staff: And the dark green areas represent areas whose average VMT per capita is 25% or more below the mean. So the green areas on the map that you see here, represent areas that would be considered low VMT for residential land use projects. The idea here is that if you took a project and you put it on the map, the depending on the color that it lands on, it could be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. So specifically, if that project is located on an area of the map that is light green or dark green, then it will be presumed to have a less than significant impact. If it's on an area that has that's yellow on the map, then it would be presumed to have a significant impact, but it would be and mitigations would be required in response to that impact, but it would be easier to mitigate given that the value of VMT per capita that's exhibited there is already low.

[02:20:11] City Staff: So this next map is essentially the same, but it is compared to the reference average the Santa Clara County average VMT per worker. So this is an employment map. The employment VMT per worker for Santa Clara County is a lot higher, a higher value than the than the regional VMT per capita. So as you'll see in this map, there are no areas virtually no areas on this map that are green. This map shows variation from that county average, like I'd mentioned. So there there this map would be used, but if a project was to be if an office project would be located on this map, it would not be presumed to have a less than significant impact.

[02:21:03] City Staff: This next screen that's recommended by OPR for lead agencies to adopt is a proximity to transit screen. And this is defined as, a project would be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact if it is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor. So the black outlines that you see here indicate areas in Mountain View that fall within that half-mile buffer. These areas are known as transit priority areas, TPAs, so we'll refer to those. And as you can see that despite, and this this is a TPA overlaid onto the employment heat map that you saw in the previous slide, to say that even if a project, an office project, is located in an area that has that is not low VMT, it could still be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact by virtue of its proximity to transit. In this case, this map is overlaid or the the TPA is overlaid on the employment map, but it also holds true for holds true for residential projects as well.

[02:22:17] City Staff: Another screen that OPR recommends cities adopt is a small project screen. And what that means is it is it prescribes values that, so for projects that are below these prescribed values in terms of size, for office and residential land uses, they would be presumed to have a less than significant impact. So as you can see in the table, OPR recommends a residential a single-family residential project of 12 dwelling units or less would be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact, and a multi-family project of 20 dwelling dwelling units or less would be presumed to have a less than significant impact on the residential side. And for employment, they set that bar at 10,000 square feet or less. So, we provided some suggestions for Mountain View. We've followed the recommendation for employment as well as for single family. And we're suggesting 30 dwelling units or less be classified as a small residential multi-family project. The idea here is to sort of streamline development of infill housing and small employment projects, and that's why we're considering this one.

[02:23:38] City Staff: And our last screen that we are suggesting this evening is screening for affordable housing, which means that projects that feature 100% affordable housing, either as standalone residential projects or the residential component of mixed-use projects, if those projects feature 100% affordable units, there's a presumption of less than significant transportation impact.

[02:24:05] City Staff: So that covers it for screening criteria. And now, a discussion of thresholds of significance. So this is a table that sort of consolidates the best practices, OPR's recommendations, and what we're considering for Mountain View. Sort of as we alluded to with the with the map-based screens, OPR recommends that a 15% reduction relative to an a reference average for VMT per capita or per employee is attainable for office and residential projects. So, you'll see that San Jose and Oakland, which who have already adopted their SB 743 policies, they sort of followed OPR's approach. And we're suggesting use of use of the regional reference averages for both residential and office projects.

[02:25:00] City Staff: For retail projects, OPR suggests any net increase in total VMT could constitute a significant transportation impact. That is to say if a retail project is implemented, if that project is going to result in a net overall increase in VMT, the presumption would be that there would be a significant impact. So just to be clear, what we're suggesting is for residential, 15% below regional, in this case the nine-county Bay Area reference average, VMT per capita for that land use, and for office we're suggesting a 15% below existing regional, in this case the Santa Clara Countywide, average VMT per capita, per worker reference average.

[02:25:47] City Staff: So, those are what our suggestions are, based on the analysis that we've done. And I'd like to show this these next couple maps just to show the implications of choosing amongst the different reference averages for residential and for office land uses. So, for residential, OPR suggests that cities, and you know, they're the state agency so they they're providing guidance that is supposed to be consumed by all agencies in the state. Not everyone is like Mountain View. So over here, these two maps on the left, they are a heat map that shows VMT per capita relative to the Mountain View's citywide local reference average for VMT per capita. The map in the middle is a heat map that shows Mountain View's residential VMT per capita compared to the Santa Clara County reference average. And then on the right, this map displays what we're suggesting and that's the VMT per capita in the city relative to the nine-county Bay Area reference average. What I'd like for everybody to see here is that the map to the far left doesn't have, you know, any green at all. Basically saying that if a project were to be located there, a residential project were to be located anywhere on the map, it would be presumed to have a significant impact and they would have to mitigate. But if you go to the middle map or the map on the right, you'll see a lot more green. There are a lot more areas where residential projects can be located that would be presumed to have a less than significant impact.

[02:27:35] City Staff: So, this next slide is demonstrating the implications of choosing between the reference average options for employment projects. On the left, the values are relatively are pretty close to one another between the nine-county Bay Area reference average and the Santa Clara County reference average, VMT per worker. So, you'll see that the map on the right does show a little bit of yellow, which means there are some areas in the city that are below that mean reference average. And so more there's a higher likelihood that projects would or more projects would comply would be closer to that threshold.

[02:28:25] City Staff: And so, for retail, we are suggesting following OPR's recommendation in considering a threshold where any net increase in overall VMT from a retail project would constitute a significant transportation impact. And OPR gives two options for evaluating mixed-use projects as well as other project types, like general plan amendments, precise plans, and some others. One of their approaches is to evaluate each land use independently. That might mean analyzing the the precise plan or a mixed-use project by applying the appropriate threshold to each land use. And the other option they provide is considering the dominant land use in said project and applying just that land use for a significance determination. We're suggesting applying each applying the threshold for each land use independently. Our analysis shows that that's the best option here.

[02:29:32] City Staff: And for a discussion of, you know, handling LOS outside of CEQA and a proposed approach for Mountain View, I'd like to have Ria, our transportation manager, go over this slide.

[02:29:48] City Staff: Hi, this is Ria. So the process starts with, um, a project comes to the city, and first of all it would be screened for the multimodal transportation analysis. This screening would be based on, initially we're proposing that this screening would be based on the TI the VTA's transportation impact analysis guidelines. And they have a criteria of 100 peak hour trips in the a.m. and or the p.m. peak hour. For projects that are not screen that are not screened out, the applicant would then undertake the multimodal transportation analysis to assess operational effects based on multimodal metrics. And so the multimodal metrics are likely to include automobile level of service, queuing analysis, and metrics relating to the quality of service for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. And this analysis could be is then used to condition multimodal operational improvements on projects. After or in conjunction with the MTA, the multimodal transportation analysis, projects would be screened for the CEQA VMT analysis. And we expect that fewer projects would need to do the VMT analysis than would do the whole MTA. And the VMT analysis would then be used as a basis for CEQA mitigations and would be done according to what Soroush has described.

[02:31:25] City Staff: Thank you, Ria.

[02:31:26] City Staff: So that concludes our presentation. We do have a question we'd like to pose to the commission. And it is whether EPC supports staff's suggested screening criteria and VMT thresholds of significance. Thank you.

[02:31:39] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you. Um, so now this is a study session. We will open it up for public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your telephone. Um, and she's still there. Planner Whitehill will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Planner Whitehill, do you have any people wishing to speak?

[02:32:16] Planner Brittany Whitehill: I don't believe we have anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item.

[02:32:33] Chair Robert Cox: Uh, you're on mute, so I don't hear a thing.

[02:32:38] Planner Brittany Whitehill: My apologies. It does not look like there is anyone from the public wishing to speak.

[02:32:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Then emails received by 5:00 p.m. were forwarded to the EPC. Planner Whitehill, have you received any public comment on this item via email since 5:00 p.m. or by voicemail?

[02:32:58] Planner Brittany Whitehill: We have not.

[02:33:01] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And Planner Whitehill, are there any additional members of the public on the line now who have indicated that they want to speak at this point?

[02:33:08] Planner Brittany Whitehill: There are not.

[02:33:11] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So having done that, thank you, Planner Whitehill. We will go back to the commission for questions and deliberations. So first, let's start with any clarifying questions that commissioners may have on these items. Just raise your hand and I will recognize you. Vice Chair Cranston.

[02:33:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: A question for staff on slide six in your presentation, you had the employment daily VMT for Mountain View is listed as not applicable. But in the staff report it said it was something like 18. Can you explain the difference?

[02:34:07] City Staff: Yes. So it is shown as not applicable here because based on the Office of Planning and Research's technical advisory, they do not advise adopting a threshold of significance for employment projects based on a citywide reference average. And the reason for that is they say that you are to adopt a reference average that includes a geography where all workers in your city are expected to live. And so they do not advise to do that because they understand that commute trips are regional by nature. And Mountain View is certainly that's certainly the case in Mountain View where we know most folks do not live in the city.

[02:34:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Thanks, that answers question number one. And then the second question, I guess I'm looking at the flowchart that the last speaker went through. I guess is this this is a process from the very beginning. So if first somebody comes in and this is the process they go through to decide whether or not they need to even do a VMT analysis? Is that right? Which would suggest that we're always doing a... an MTA is going to confuse me because of the MTA as a transit agency in the area. So everything will go through that screen and that's the way we ultimately get down to the end, is that what this, is that what it's doing?

[02:35:38] City Staff: That's right, the MTA screening happens before the CEQA screening.

[02:35:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Are you saying if I'm reading right, it says every project goes through this regardless... period.

[02:35:54] City Staff: Uh, yeah. So there there would be projects that don't need to do any analysis and those would be small projects that get screened out of both the MTA and the CEQA analysis. But if you if you've made it through the uh... there are not projects that would have a a CEQA analysis for VMT that don't also have the MTA analysis for the multimodal impact, effects.

[02:36:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So only small projects would skip this overall?

[02:36:27] City Staff: Yes.

[02:36:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions.

[02:36:35] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. I see Commissioner Holbrook. Thank you, Vice Chair Cranston.

[02:36:51] Commissioner Holbrook: I was looking for the unmute button. Um, I just have a few questions this time. Um, I presume that while a CEQA VMT analysis is less burdensome than a uh the old LOS analysis, that it is still costly and time-consuming. And that um avoiding a CEQA VMT analysis would speed the process of developing housing in Mountain View. Is that is that correct?

[02:37:29] City Staff: That would suggest streamlining the residential development by not subjecting it to CEQA transportation analysis. If that is the case, that would be considered streamlining residential development.

[02:37:43] Commissioner Holbrook: Well, but also office development. I mean, if you don't have to do a CMT, if you don't have to do the the CEQA analysis for VMT, your project is less burdensome. And I'm I guess what I'm trying to do is get a sense for how much how big a pain is it to do one of these analyses? Um, it's less than LOS, but is it still burdensome?

[02:38:05] City Staff: That's a good question. Um, one of the one thing that would help in in doing the analysis itself is VTA is developing a VMT evaluation tool where project characteristics can be input into this tool, and applicability to screening and thresholds and VMT assessments will be an output of this tool. So it hasn't launched yet, so I we don't know exactly how it's going to work in practice, but it is something that member agencies have contributed funding to that will be able to be used by developers, environmental consultants, traffic consultants, et cetera.

[02:38:47] Commissioner Holbrook: So so is is that one component of a much more comprehensive VMT analysis or is most of the work that? And once you've got the tool and you put you put the numbers in, you're you're mostly there? Or can you say if you have a sense for it yet?

[02:39:03] City Staff: I would say it's a little bit early to tell. Um, at the same time you don't need that tool to do a CEQA VMT analysis. Uh, transportation consultants do that pretty regularly, whether it's for a transportation analysis or for um greenhouse gas emissions assessment. Um, perhaps one of our consultants um from Nelson\Nygaard can provide some input on that.

[02:39:31] Meghan Weir: Yep. Hi, I'm happy to. Um, I'm Meghan Weir with Nelson\Nygaard, and we've been working with the city team on this. And um the you you are correct that VMT not having to do VMT analysis will streamline the process, and um also that VMT analysis is overall less burdensome than LOS analysis. Um, for projects that's proposed in a location that doesn't get screened out based on having being being uh in a low VMT per capita location or low VMT per employee location, um the the map itself and the data that is um presented in the map is pretty much the VMT analysis. That's where that's what indicates what um the existing VMT per capita or VMT per employee is in any given location. And then the additional um work that would be called for is identifying ways of mitigating the VMT in locations that are not already low VMT. And the tool that VTA is working on, um, as Soroush said, uh, will support that. And um they it's still in development, but we know that there are going to be opportunities to input details about the project and get a sense of how the project um specifically what specifically how um specific information about the project design and and size and um and so forth could uh contribute to a lower VMT. Um, and there will also be um I think similar um uh functions that that that will allow you to input different transportation demand management measures that and um have a a measure of how much those would reduce VMT. And so the effort involved in the VMT analysis will be mostly around identifying how VMT will be mitigated um depending on certain, you know, the specific location um and uh the project design details.

[02:41:46] Commissioner Holbrook: And is so so if that's most of the work, is that um is that hard? Um is it costly? Does it take time? Or I suppose it probably depends on how far how far you've got to go to get to get to where you need to be.

[02:42:10] Meghan Weir: Yep. I think it does depend on how much VMT mitigation is called for. And um different project types um will will the the details of the project type will also make a difference. Um, for example, there are certain TDM, transportation demand management um, strategies that have a really significant impact on office projects because um all the users um at an office uh development are traveling to the same location in the morning and leaving from the same location in the evening. And those types of um TDM measures um well, while many of them may be relevant in a residential development, they would probably have a a different kind of impact on the overall VMT. Um, and so um I think the the tool will give us a better sense of just how much effort goes into it. Um, there probably still will be a role for some strategic thinking and um creative problem-solving, as there always is when it comes to CEQA mitigations. Um, but uh it should be much more um transparent and kind of um predictable with this setup compared to mitigating LOS.

[02:43:30] Commissioner Holbrook: Thank you, that's that's very helpful. Comprehensive answer. I appreciate it. Um so so my second question uh has to do with the um recommendation for Mountain View to adopt a small project screen of 30 units, whereas OPR recommends 20 and San Jose recommends 25. And the uh staff notes say that uh cities have discretion to set their own small project criteria provided provided that the thresholds are supported by substantial evidence. And the question I have for you is, substantial evidence of what?

[02:44:12] City Staff: Yeah. So, I would say that cities have discretion to sort of recommend those those lines in the sand, if you will, um, based on their own local context. So, um, if there is a development pattern that says that picking that OPR recommended value um is is not not intuitive, then you have discretion to change that. Um the the purpose of this screen is to not burden implementation of infill development projects um in a city with additional CEQA analysis. So that's sort of what the spirit of this is. Um, and the numbers that, you know, OPR suggests or that San Jose has adopted or that we're suggesting, um are not widely different from one another.

[02:45:06] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay, and I guess they can be justified because you say that um one of the criteria for determining significance is a greater diversity of land uses and this is achieving uh an objective that we have in terms of getting the um getting more residential relative to office. Is that is that correct?

[02:45:27] City Staff: That's correct.

[02:45:29] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay. Got it. And then the last question I have for you has to do with the um affordable housing criteria. Um the the staff report said that or I guess it was in the answers uh to questions that were submitted that said that um a project consisting of a high percentage of, so OPR technical advisory said a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less than significant impact on VMT. Um, staff has went with a uh 100% because that was the most cautious assumption. What would a less cautious assumption be? And what would, what do you think would be supportable if we were to choose a number lower than 100%? Or is that a place you just don't want to go?

[02:46:23] City Staff: I don't think we have any um you know, any qualms with with going any lower. At this point the evidence suggests that 100% affordable units um tend to have um lower VMT than a a smaller proportion. Um, I that's sort of what was described very explicitly in the technical advisory. Um Meghan, perhaps you can comment on that. I don't know of other cities that have um sort of specified a lower proportion um as a as a screen for that. But Meghan, perhaps you can chime in.

[02:47:02] Meghan Weir: There we go. Sorry, my mute button was uh not responding. Um, yeah, the the OPR guidance is um as far as I know from the other cities that we've worked with recently is uh the guidance that other cities have been going with when it comes to affordability. The the affordable housing screen. Um, the idea is that if an a development is 100% affordable, um then we cities don't need to let other aspects of um the review process get in the way. And also research suggests that affordable housing has a significantly lower VMT than market-rate housing. Um, because any affordable housing unit has a lower VMT per capita than market-rate housing, would um it's very logical to assume that um 80% affordable or 70% affordable would still have a lower VMT per capita than all market-rate. Um, and so there there is a I think the the OPR guidance kind of leaves it open to cities to um identify the exact ratios. Um, but the starting with 100% affordable is the most straightforward um option because if it's less than 100% affordable, it will it sort of like more like mitigating VMT as opposed to guaranteeing reduced VMT. And so um in locations that would otherwise require significant mitigation, um if it's high VMT per capita, um and the ratio, the affordable ratio is not 100%, then the the VMT mitigating impacts would be uh less significant. So um it's a good it's a good way to start and I think it's something that could be um re-evaluated uh over time um as more affordable housing opportunities come up in Mountain View.

[02:49:37] Commissioner Holbrook: And uh I don't really have a sense for how many uh what what kind of percentages of affordable housing we have been considering uh because I'm a new commissioner. Um, is is the question of 70, 80, 100% even relevant or is it kind of moot?

[02:49:56] City Staff: Um, I would say, and Martin feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but um residential developments, multifamily residential developments particularly in Mountain View, um if they do have affordable components, it's either um a much, much smaller proportion um or it is or they are 100% affordable. Um...

[02:50:22] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay, thank you.

[02:50:25] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, I see Commissioner Schmiesing.

[02:50:32] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: I was just wondering if you had any examples of mitigation efforts that specific developments have put into place? I know it's a relatively new um VMT is a relatively new thing. Um, but perhaps in San Jose or Oakland um specific examples of those mitigation measures.

[02:50:51] City Staff: Well, we actually have a bunch of really good examples of mitigation measures to curtail VMT actually here in Mountain View. Um we have several precise plans that have um different policies for bringing VMT down. Um one of which that comes to mind is a trip cap, um, and a single-occupancy vehicle cap in the North Bayshore Precise Plan does require that particularly at office developments. Um and what happens is that um projects typically office projects, have to meet a certain trip cap, a certain um number of trips through different TDM measures whether they do that with transit subsidies, um or telecommuting or what have you. Um and then we require um an annual report where we monitor how they're meeting those caps and if they do not meet those caps they would have to pay a penalty and comply. Um that's just one example, we have a variety of them, there's some are more effective than others in reducing VMT. Um, but there's a variety of strategies.

1

[02:53:44] City Staff: validated, validated over and over by independent consultants, by themselves, by us. Um, it, it doesn't make sense. Um, it's no, it is definitely intuitive that Mountain View, downtown Mountain View should be a low VMT area, um, by virtue of its density, its mix of uses, its um, proximity to transit.

Segment 4

[02:53:58] Chair Robert Cox: Vice Chair Cranston.

1

[02:54:04] City Staff: So, um, that's something that really we grappled with a lot during, you know, while we were studying this. But, um, one thing that I'd like to point out is at least in the case of that particular anomaly, which seems to be the most striking in the city, um, although it doesn't seem intuitive, it is in a transit priority area.

Segment 4

[02:54:24] Commissioner Lowe: Not right now. Thank you.

1

[02:54:26] City Staff: So, um, developments would generally, for office and residential would generally be screened out, um, from having to do a, you know, a detailed CEQA analysis by virtue of its proximity to transit. Um, it's right next to the Transit Center and, um, as you saw on the TPA maps, um, that does generally cover most of downtown.

Segment 4

[02:54:38] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Lowe, do you have other questions?

[02:54:42] Commissioner Lowe: Thank you.

1

[02:54:45] City Staff: Um, so we're aware of it, and VTA isn't changing their, you know, input values for the base year at this point. Um, but that's not to say that they're never going to change it. And, you know, they're aware of the issue.

[02:55:00] City Staff: Um, but at least in the short term, it's not going to change in terms of what that model says. Um, but we're certainly going to be continuing to ask, um, you know, what is, what can be attributed to that.

[02:55:18] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Okay, so thank you. I, I think that makes more sense to me. So what you're saying is projects within, let's say the radius of downtown, would likely be screened out from a VMT analysis because they're presumed to have a low VMT impact given the location, proximity to the Transit Center? Is that what I understood?

[02:55:38] City Staff: Essentially yes. The, the screen that would apply there is the... um, that area falls within a transit priority area, which is one-half mile from a major transit stop. So, yes.

[02:55:51] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: And then I just want to restate one thing that I saw in the staff report that I think makes intuitive sense to me, but it'd be helpful to just clarify. So I think in terms of the heat mapping, what it shows is that Mountain View residents live near work, relatively. Mountain View employees do not.

[02:56:14] Commissioner Allie Schmiesing: Is that, is that the key thesis? Right, that compared to our region, Mountain View residents tend to work closer to their centers of employment than most, most Bay Area residents?

[02:56:27] City Staff: Uh, yeah, you're, you're generally, generally right on that. Um, what that basically means is that Mountain View residents have closer, the destinations that they would go to from their house, um, they're closer than the commute trips that folks who work in the city, um, undertake.

Segment 4

[02:56:46] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Commissioner Lowe.

1

[02:56:49] City Staff: So, it's not just home to work is short, it's, um, it's any of the destinations that would begin at home are generally shorter than the commute trips of folks who come into the city for work.

Segment 4

[02:57:17] Commissioner Lowe: Thank you. Um, I have a question about um mixed-use projects and and also how we can apply this uh VMT methodology to like a precise plan. Um could you maybe walk us through a an example so that I can better understand that? Thank you.

[02:57:42] City Staff: Sure. So just as with mixed-use projects and um things like precise plans, um each of those sort of they highlight different land uses. So a precise plan could, you know, permit office development in an area, residential development in an area, and then mixed-use development in a different area. Um, it what the approach that we're suggesting that OPR um gives us discretion to adopt is applying the um the appropriate threshold to each of those individual land uses in the precise plan or each of the individual land uses in a mixed-use development. So, um just for to clarify, if you have a mixed-use project that includes um maybe some ground floor retail, office space, as well as residential, what we're suggesting we do is apply the retail threshold to the retail component of the project, the office threshold to the office component of the project, and the residential threshold to the residential component of the project, and do independent determinations of significance based on each individual land use. And then we would handle precise plans in a similar way. And you know, with precise plans for example, if a precise plan calls for the build-out of you know, 10,000 housing units for example, that build-out assumption would be taken as the residential development and then we would apply the threshold to that sort of build-out.

1

[02:57:43] City Staff: Sure. So, just as with mixed-use projects and, um, things like precise plans, um, each of those sort of, um, they highlight different land uses. So a precise plan could, you know, permit office development in an area, residential development in an area, and then mixed-use development in a different area.

[02:58:05] City Staff: Um, what the approach that we're suggesting that OPR, um, gives us discretion to adopt is applying the, um, the appropriate threshold to each of those individual land uses in the precise plan, or each of the individual land uses in a mixed-use development.

[02:58:28] City Staff: So, um, to further clarify, if you have a mixed-use project that includes, um, maybe some ground-floor retail, office space, as well as residential, what we're suggesting we do is apply the retail threshold to the retail component of the project, the office threshold to the office component of the project, and the residential threshold to the residential component of the project, and do independent determinations of significance based on each individual land use.

[02:58:59] City Staff: And then we would handle precise plans in a similar way. And in, you know, with precise plans for example, if a precise plan calls for the build-out of, you know, 10,000 housing units for example, that build-out assumption would be taken as the residential development and then we would apply the threshold to that sort of build-out.

[02:59:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, just some, I guess some follow-ups. Um, I'm... I was not actually super surprised by the... the residential... the per capita...

Segment 5

[03:00:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: people in downtown Mountain View because many of the people that I know live in that area, including, I think, Chair Cox, you know, when he does his shopping, he drives out of the area down to San Antonio and and he works way out of that area. And many of the people that I know they chose to live downtown because almost more like the downtown in San Francisco. So I was not actually very surprised that there was a maybe a little bit of a of a bubble in that area. Is that is that something that you guys looked at? where it's Mountain View downtown is a cool place to go hang out, but it's not necessarily a place where the people that live live there. They don't work there. They they go some place else for larger retail shopping. And is that something you've looked at?

[03:00:47] City Staff: Um, we we sort of followed the like the intuition that given that it's got a mix of uses in downtown, that it's walkable, that it's right next to rail or it's right next to you know, Caltrain, commuter rail, light rail transit, as well as bus transit. Um, all of those sort of give us the hunch that it's going to be a lower VMT area. Um, it's impossible to know everybody's travel behavior who lives down there. Um, so yeah, we didn't we didn't dive into that, but, you know, you bring up a good point. Um, and I know Commissioner Yin brought up a couple theories for why it might be, you know, actually legitimately not low VMT as well. So, um, so yeah, that's not what we initially looked at, but you know, we're we're looking for all reasons to sort of justify the VMT there.

[03:01:46] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, I have a few questions. Um...

[03:01:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I apologize. I have another...

[03:01:53] Chair Robert Cox: Oh you have one other question? Oh sorry, go ahead.

[03:01:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Uh, you mentioned the transit area in the staff report, this the language is used as within a half mile of existing major transit stop or along an existing high quality transit corridor. What does that mean? And I'm particularly I'm particularly concerned about the inclusion of the light rail in this analysis.

[03:02:11] City Staff: Yeah good point. So, um, it is the presumption of less than significance um it's from a half mile from an existing um major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor. Um, and a high quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods. So, um, a corridor with fixed route bus service, um, with headways of 15 minutes or less. Um, and then the other is a major transit stop, which is defined as um a site containing an existing rail transit station, comma, so rail transit station that would include the light rail. Um, a ferry bus terminal served by either bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon commute periods. So based on that definition, the VTA light rail would um be classified as that. Um, and, as would a Caltrain and the bus routes that...

[03:03:52] City Staff: Can I jump in? This this definition is actually in California law. So it's um it's ABC44. And um so that's this defined. It's not based on the speed of the...

[03:04:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If I could also If I could just are we required to provide this transit screening overlay? Or is that something an option that we have as we go through this these study sessions?

[03:04:21] City Staff: We're not required.

[03:04:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Thanks.

[03:04:27] City Staff: I I I just wanted to add on, um, you know, and we've heard this comment uh certainly from council members uh uh expressing what you just said uh Commissioner Cranston about, you know, how viable light rail is. Um, uh but again, it is it is what we have. Um, you know, a lot of the regional and also city plans have been built around um, you know, the assumption of this this uh this transit service. Um, and certainly the performance has not been the best, but um it is what we have. There's been a huge investment in that um both in policies as well as uh infrastructure. And you never know in the future uh we hope and it could it could change and we could see uh improved ridership and and performance looking ahead in the future.

[03:05:25] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Does Commissioner Cranston have further questions?

[03:05:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm done.

[03:05:38] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so then I'll I'll ask a few questions here. Um... I I guess Yeah, I mean I'd like to follow up on that idea of, you know, the hot downtown or whatever. Um... So did you look at other cities' downtowns and see whether or not they exhibit a similar behavior in the area? Meaning the Santa Clara County or you know, the nine-county Bay Area region?

[03:06:08] City Staff: In the heat maps that VTA um provided, um I I don't remember looking at um the specific downtown areas for all those jurisdictions. Um, what I what I can comment on is um there weren't that many cities that were as struck with the anomalies um in the county as we were. Um, it sort of seemed like the biggest issues were with us. So, um, that's that's my recollection of what we have heard from the other member agencies. Um, I know that down I know that

[03:06:44] Chair Robert Cox: Let me ask a question for clarification here. When you say struck by it, do you mean that they didn't have the same behavior or that they did and they weren't surprised by it?

[03:06:55] City Staff: Sorry for not being clear. Yeah. Um they did not observe those types of anomalies in their cities. Yeah. And one thing that I can point out is that um not surprisingly um downtown San Jose was considered a low VMT area. It did have a lot of green on their map. Um which somewhat to be expected.

[03:07:19] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, I'm trying to understand the difference between, you know, you talked about this dominant, I mean in cases of mixed-use projects dominant use versus each use separately. Um, I mean... give me an example of a case where the dominant use wouldn't be what you would get with each separate because each separately includes a dominant use. I mean one of the uses has to be dominant. So I mean, you know, I mean if you do each separately, then, you know, you're you're uh evaluating the um dominant use and so it just seems like each separately might give you more opportunities for disqualification than just the dominant one. Or maybe I'm not I may not be understanding what you mean by each separately.

[03:08:08] City Staff: Uh yes, so... um so I'll answer the last part of your question first about evaluating each one independently sort of opening the door for more problems. Um, it's certainly a a way to get a clearer indication of what the VMT would be from the mixed-use project because you are analyzing all the different components as opposed to just taking the analysis of one land use in the project and have that VMT assessment um sort of cover the entire um project. So it's definitely more accurate to take each to evaluate each component independently. Um, an example of this would be if you have a large multi-family residential project, say 500 units or more, um and you have ground floor retail um that wouldn't be considered local serving retail. That retail component would have a certain it would have VMT associated with it that would warrant its analysis. Um, to the point where it probably wouldn't make sense just to evaluate that mixed-use development with a residential threshold only because you would sort of not be taking into account necessarily what the trips that would arise from that retail um component of it. Um,

[03:09:35] Chair Robert Cox: So in that case would you just be evaluating the retail case and not evaluating the residential?

[03:09:42] City Staff: So in the the approach that we're suggesting you would be you would be evaluating both of those land uses separately.

[03:09:52] Chair Robert Cox: Okay and if any of them uh you know wants not having exception that means that you have to do the evaluation or is any or if one out of the whole group you know um would considered separately qualify for the exception then you don't do any of them?

[03:10:10] City Staff: So if there is um a sig if a significant impact is found um for that for a particular land use, mitigation would be required.

[03:10:24] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, okay. That's that's the thing I was missing. Thanks for clarifying. Okay, um... So yeah, I just I wanna I want to... make sure that I understood the question that Commissioner Cranston asked and maybe expand it a little bit. So in the things that um you're suggesting as you know um granting an exception or not having to do the CEQA analysis, which of those are required by law in California and which things do we have discretion over? Because it sounded like you said that like the TPA analysis if we didn't want to do it we didn't have to do it at all. Okay. We wouldn't have to do that exception. Are there other things in there that we don't have to do and is only recommended by California that we do this?

[03:11:17] City Staff: Yeah. So so let me be very clear. Um, the only thing that we are required to do is evaluate VMT under CEQA. We are not required to use any of the particular screens or um and the only other thing is that the thresholds that we set have to um contribute to greenhouse gas reduction, diversity of land uses and um multimodal transportation networks. What I mean by what we're required to do and why we're not required to adopt um a screening that screen for transit proximity, um is because the state's advice is um you can you you have discretion in adopting a threshold based on either a local city reference average or a regional reference average. So they give you two choices there, for example. But for um for the transit screen, they don't really give you different choices there. They say one of the screens you can adopt is the transit priority area, which is defined as one half mile from transit. So um there's like for example, the 100% affordable housing screen, they say that that type of development is presumed to have a less than significant impact. They give you the opportunity of justifying for yourself to use a smaller proportion, but what they advise is 100%. And what they advise for transit is the half mile from uh stops. Um, for small projects they say okay you can have discretion, you can kind of get your own spin to it. Um, and the same thing with the low VMT. Um...

[03:13:13] Chair Robert Cox: So let let me try to read it back to you what I thought I heard, okay? And that's that you're saying that so on the on the transit priority area, it sounds like you're telling me both that adopting it as part of this formalism is our option and it's even our option they recommend a half mile but we also could recommend a different distance if we wanted to. Is that true?

[03:13:40] City Staff: That's correct.

[03:13:42] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. And the the 100% affordable housing exemption, that also is under our discretion. We don't have to include any affordable housing um exemption if we don't want to.

[03:13:55] City Staff: That's correct. But...

[03:13:59] Chair Robert Cox: I understand staff wants us to, but...

[03:14:02] City Staff: Right, so the way that I should describe it is that the technical advisory was put out there to aid cities' implementation of SB 743, but sort of if you follow the letter of their recommendations, it will and if the if all the agencies or all the cities in the state follow their general collective recommendations, it would make it it it would be that that's how we would reach sort of the um climate action goals that we have statewide. If you don't if you don't adopt um a TPA screen, um you're kind of getting further away from that. If you don't adopt if you don't make it easier for development of infill projects, you're kind of getting away from that. So um yeah, I mean it they they do rec they recommend it for a reason. They cannot hold your feet to the fire and and bind you to um adopt all of their recommendations. Um, but I would say it would raise some eyebrows if we, you know, just didn't um consider at least the ones that are recommended in their advisory.

[03:15:08] Chair Robert Cox: And what about the the 15% rule? Is that 15% in that same context? They they're asking for a 15% rule and we just have, but they'd like us to do is is, you know, choose among several options of how we think of it. But I mean really they're strongly recommending a 15%?

[03:15:33] City Staff: That's correct. It's it's absolutely within that context. Um, the those numbers were arrived at because a 15% reduction um from a, you know, a reference average is not only attainable for different kinds of land use projects, like office and residential, but that's directly from the state's climate action targets. So from our GHG reductions that we're expecting through 2040, um specifically it's between light truck emissions and car emissions, automobiles. Um, they're I forgot which one is which, but one of those automobile classes needs to reduce their emissions by 16% and one of those have to reduce their emissions by 14% in order for us to reach those targets into the future. And the happy medium between those, the average would be 15%. So that's why they landed on that. You could adopt a different threshold in terms of a different reduction, but it wouldn't be in keeping with those climate action targets.

[03:16:41] City Staff: And if I could just add to that the presumption is we the cities would use the technical guidance presented because they have you know kind of validated and done all those studies. If if a city wanted to do something different, the burden would be on the city to provide that substantial evidence about why they want to vary from that uh OPR guidance.

[03:17:06] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Um, and then one one last question about the whole idea of replacing level of service with uh vehicle miles traveled. Um, I have a concern about, you know, if I think back on what is it that we're losing if we take away uh I mean first of all, you set in the staff report that, you know, if we thought that it was necessary under certain circumstances we could do level of service um, you know, I mean it's not prohibited by law, although it wouldn't be required by law anymore and it wouldn't be a gating factor in CEQA anymore. But you know, I try to get my head around the idea of what it is I think is important about what we were doing before. And and that's just that you know, over doing before was um we weren't disqualifying projects based on the level of service numbers. What we did get out of it was it would identify places where there are particularly problematic areas. And so I mean, you know, it gave us some leverage to say, yeah, you know what you're gonna do at this intersection it's going to be really bad and here's what you can do here's what we want you to do to mitigate that, okay. And so my question back to you is is there in the MTA analysis a way for us to incorporate that same kind of thing not by getting a map of, you know, the impact on every intersection you know, within a five city area, okay, but, you know, zeroing in on on things that could be problems, you know, through staff you know, experience and understanding and seeing that those things didn't become problems after the implementation? I guess and the second question I have that follows up on that is, you know, I mean I see places in the city right now where it looks like we missed them. You know, I'll give you a good example. When I'm driving down Middlefield Road okay, and I want to make a left hand turn onto San Antonio, um man, I mean the the cars they really back up. I mean this is before Covid. But they really back up in front of that um Magnussen Toyota place. Okay? I mean you know, and and the striping just isn't isn't able to accommodate, you know, the the back up of the cars and it's just a mess. So I it makes me ask the question, what what mechanism do we have in retrospect when a problem does arise to fix those kinds of things?

[03:19:41] City Staff: Hopefully my sound is coming through better now. So in terms of the LOS analysis um what we're currently proposing is the as the multimodal transportation analysis is that LOS would be included as one of the factors that is being considered there. So um it would include LOS and then other metrics for pedestrians, bicycles, and and transit that are definitely included in it. Um,

[03:19:46] City Staff: Yeah, perhaps one of our one of my colleagues from Public Works...

[03:20:22] Chair Robert Cox: But how would you decide when to use it? Because if you're just going to include it all the time, you know, you wouldn't get the savings of not having to do it, right? So you need some way to determine when it's necessary.

[03:20:32] City Staff: Yes. So it would we would base it on the MT MTA screening criteria. So there would be a lot of projects that um, you know, that still need to do the LOS as part of that. It looks like Dawn wants to say something.

[03:20:45] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yeah, I think you caught it there. I'm Dawn Cameron, Public Works Director. Um, and in general, to do the MTA level of service analysis would be done um to the same extent that it's currently done under CEQA. So, you know, before if if we needed to do a level of service analysis under CEQA, we're still going to do it, but we're going to do it under the MTA. And instead of um being able to address what you're mentioning in terms of an intersection problem that that needs something, you know, to deal with it, instead of it being a CEQA mitigation, we will address it as a condition of approval for the project.

[03:21:31] Chair Robert Cox: Oh. Sorry, yes. Thank you, that's that's what I was hoping to hear. Okay. Um, are there any other uh commissioners that have like introductory questions before we start going through the points? So here, I guess I don't uh Commissioner Yin.

[03:21:59] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, I just wanted to clarify that this is not taking away the CEQA process in total, it's just taking away the transportation portion of CEQA for various projects, correct?

[03:22:12] City Staff: That's correct. A presumption of less than significance um for anything that we discussed tonight is only um an exemption, so to speak, for the transportation component of CEQA. It does not presume less than significant impact for any of the other impact categories, like biological resources, air quality, etc.

[03:22:34] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I figured. Thank you for just confirming that. Um, second was um it sounds like from the description that even though the process is streamlined by not going through CEQA, um, the results aren't necessarily going to be compromised because we have the MTA, even though we we're not 100% sure what the MTA is all about just yet because it hasn't come out, but once that does come out, the assumption is that together they do equal to what CEQA did and in fact, have a more holistic view of how we move people in and out of the city in various ways on different metrics.

[03:23:18] City Staff: I think that's the general idea, yeah. And perhaps an improvement versus what the status quo or what what sort of the old guard was is that with doing the MTA, the idea is for that to begin earlier in the development review process than with CEQA when it's usually at the end. Um, so yeah, you're you're absolutely right.

[03:23:41] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm just going to keep going with it. Just a couple more questions that one leads to the other. And if that's the case, then um just looking, who's paying for this? The MTA portion? CEQA was done by the developers. With MTA is what is taking over more, who's actually paying for those studies?

[03:24:04] City Staff: Um, perhaps our Public Works folks can provide a little bit more background on this, but um there are reports that would still need to be done by an outside consultant.

[03:24:14] City Staff: And that would be sponsored by the applicant.

[03:24:18] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Alright. And then I I think I have one more which was um sorry, it just left my brain. So the MTA sort of takes priority... Okay, cir circling back to streamlining, if the MTA is covering as much as it did before with the LOS during CEQA, I guess how is it streamlining the process if everything that's being done before is still being done? Is it just the order in which it's being done, timing-wise?

[03:24:56] City Staff: That is one of the changes. Um, Ria, can you provide some more clarity on that?

[03:25:04] City Staff: Um, yeah, I think also in CEQA there's a um a very um determine sequences of steps and um and you know, public hearings and all of that that needs to happen as well. So it uh it separates it from that process and makes it more part of the beginning of the planning process. Um, but yeah, I think in terms of workload it would probably be similar to what's currently happening.

[03:25:37] City Staff: Yeah, I mean CEQA documents have to be certified by the state, at the clearinghouse, OPR, um and then sort of happen at the end. Um, whereas the MTA approach would be handled by the city, which I would, you know, think just by nature is more nimble.

[03:25:53] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. Um, and so in that case it's still public so even though it starts in the beginning of the project it would still be available to the public? All these results of the study?

[03:26:06] City Staff: Yep. Yes.

[03:26:08] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. That's all for now.

[03:26:12] Chair Robert Cox: I see Commissioner Holbrook's hand.

[03:26:17] Commissioner Holbrook: Um, following up on the comment that was made earlier that we have some discretion in setting the boundaries for the um Euclidean map for the TPA. I wonder um if there's any merit in the idea that we might adjust the boundaries to fill in some of the holes um in the in that map. There's a uh it looks like Dana Street um near 230- no near 85 is uh excluded, but the areas around it are included. Um, would staff find it or would it be just kind of administratively or logically more convenient if we were to define that area there, that uh that little peninsula that isn't covered as an area that's covered? Since it sounds like we would have that discretion. And similarly if we I suppose we could include the corners of Mountain View uh in the northeast there that aren't aren't covered as well. Um, it would lead to a I mean it strikes me that it would lead to a more simple to describe policy um that may not require as much testing. But then again, maybe there's really no not much not much advantage to that. So I'd be interested in your thought on that.

[03:27:58] City Staff: We looked at several alternatives for um what the TPA map could look like and specifically the surface area of the TPAs. Um, the one that we're suggesting here is OPR's recommendation and it is what we kind of came back to. We also did a walkshed network analysis to see um you know, what would the experience be to getting to these transit stops for some for a cyclist or a pedestrian, um, because you have you have physical barriers like Central Expressway, like State Routes 85 and 237 that are not really um passable for pedestrians. Um, and if we're getting down to it, like that's sort of really the the experience that we wanna get at is pedestrians and cyclists that get to transit stations, you know? Um, and that particular network analysis, which we we do actually have a map of up here, um it yielded a smaller surface area, um, less areas in the city would be transit priority areas, and, you know, thereby less less areas would be presumed to have a less than significant impact by virtue of their proximity to transit. So, that's why we ended up ultimately recommending the um Euclidean distance um that was also recommended by OPR.

[03:29:29] City Staff: I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be possible. Um, there's nowhere where that's explicitly recommended in any of the state guidance or the best practices, but um perhaps one of our consultants can um you know, mention if they if they know of any any examples of that or if there's any reason why we wouldn't consider that.

[03:29:33] Commissioner Holbrook: I guess it would be possible just again kicking around ideas here that you could adopt one of these um maps for residential and a different map for uh office. Is that would that be reasonable?

[03:30:16] City Staff: Maybe I can just chime in... If I could just chime in, I I think it would be um you know, since we have these kind of fixed uh you know, rail locations, fixed stops, um, I think it would be a lot easier to administer and a lot easier to communicate to developers and property owners and applicants if we just had, you know, a single metric, a single TPA for whatever land use. Because the important thing is proximity to to those um those transit stops. So again, for for ease of administration and and ease of of um of public understanding, it it would probably suit us better just to have one map.

[03:30:58] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay, thank you. That it helps me to know that you considered the uh walkability map that's great to hear and decided against it for good reasons.

[03:31:13] Meghan Weir: And I can add one other um consideration. Uh, the OPR guidance recommends the half mile buffer like Ria said earlier, that's sort of how um high quality transit is defined at the state level. Um, so a walking shed would be narrower than that and so would be a more conservative screen. Um, and we looked at the map and um understand that one of the primary goals of the screens is to streamline the development review process and support um you know, additional development that's consistent with the City of Mountain View's um long range plans and so on. Um, and so it didn't seem like it would be useful to use a more limiting transit priority screen. Um, to address your earlier um observation that there are some little gaps between the transit um screens, um I I guess I I wanna make sure that we point out that it's really not um it's not a really significant deviation if a city decides to use a more conservative screen or in other words a less permissive um screen. But if we were to try to adopt um a screen with a bigger radius, that would be um more permissive and it would basically um apply the presumption of a less than significant impact to a larger area. And uh because that um OPR documents a research that supports the presumption for the half mile specifically, any any buffer area that is larger than half mile would have to be backed up by substantial evidence that shows that areas falling within that larger buffer area um support the desired travel behavior changes relative to typical development in the region. And that that substantial evidence burden would be on the city to document. So that's essentially why um why um our recommendation is to stick with what OPR has or if there's something that you want to do that limits um the application of those screens, that's something that you might consider. But um don't go beyond what OPR says to to make it more permissive um without doing a lot of extra work.

[03:33:30] Commissioner Holbrook: Very clear. Thank you. Appreciate the background on that.

[03:33:37] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. I see Commissioner Yin's hand up.

[03:33:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, that was uh hold over. I'm not good about lowering my hand.

[03:33:58] Chair Robert Cox: Sorry, didn't realize that wasn't uh I thought it popped up again. Anyway, um, so I'm trying to figure out an efficient and effective way to go through the rest of this uh in order to get to some kind of consensus. We're not actually passing anything tonight, but we do want to give a clear sense of the commission's idea on what staff recommendations are. Um, you know, let's see. I mean there's a couple different ways to do this. Um, one is that if we go back through the slides and you know, I mean, we could hit each of these things at the high level and if somebody wants to comment on a specific item, they can. We don't have to have everybody um commenting on everything. But I guess the main thing I think we want to hit is if there are deviations from the current staff thinking, you know, uh we would have a chance to discuss them. If if somebody has a different idea about something. So I don't know, I mean what do staff think and what do the commissioners think on doing it that way?

[03:35:20] City Staff: We're just trying to gather, you know, your general support or, like you mentioned, if there's any suggested deviations from staff's suggestions. Um, so, you know, I'm I'm willing to do whatever's most efficient, but...

[03:35:38] Chair Robert Cox: What do you think is most efficient?

[03:35:40] City Staff: Well, I think what we can begin with is uh you know, like I mentioned, there's we have discretion on most of this stuff and and the majority of it is not required, so to speak, but um in many cases for what staff is suggesting for screening criteria and for thresholds of significance, for many of these cases we are following OPR's recommendations to the letter. Um, but then there's also some cases where OPR suggests uh you know, recommends two different options for thresholds, for example, um where we staff made a judgment call and suggested one of those based on our analysis. So, perhaps we can start with um just going perhaps I can go through those points where we are following OPR's recommendation to the letter and see if the commission has any concerns about doing that, and then after that we can go into the choices that we the judgment calls that we've made to see if we have the commission's support there.

[03:36:47] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So do you want to call those out or I can do that. Can you put them up so we can see something?

[03:36:55] City Staff: Sure. So the first one that comes to mind is... so we'll get into the ones where we have discretion based on the information in this slide here, these are the different reference averages. But um one of those will be this this screening map for low VMT, um the TPA map is one of those where we have clear direction from OPR and we are going with um their suggestion, and I know we literally just discussed that. Um, but it would be nice to see if, you know, the commission has any any thoughts against adopting um against this particular suggestion.

[03:37:48] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So then let's let's not try to do them all at once. Let's go back to the beginning and show one slide, you know, like one of the heat maps or something, ask if there's any question on that heat map and have anybody wants to talk about it...

[03:38:00] City Staff: Sure.

[03:38:02] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So yeah, so the residential heat map is the first one. So I mean does anybody have any comments about the residential heat map? Or are they I mean if you don't need to say anything if you're okay with the staff's recommendation the way it is. That'll save us some time. Um... and I have to hit participant to see who's raising his hand. It looks like Vice Chair Cranston.

[03:38:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I am I am philosophically using the either the regional variation based on the county or the nine-county region would make sense to me. What I'm more troubled by is using different levels for the two different maps. Um, it would seem to me that an area that would be opposed to development would be likely to choose the residential map that would make um any residential development hardest but then they'd choose the ones for jobs, they'd choose the op the extreme um or an area that is very very pro-development just manipulating the the criteria that you use selectively that you're you you invite you invite manipulation, and I would be more comfortable using the same level of maps for both the criteria. And um I think the the the Santa Clara County one was maybe a little bit more stringent on the residential uh definitely set a higher standard of what would be required for for office. And so I would I would be more inclined to not use the regional, the nine-county regional maps for residential, but to use the same level of map, the Santa Clara County maps for both, um, because I think we should be we should pick a standard and apply it uniformly across both the residential and the employment area. My thought.

[03:39:57] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Let's see Commissioner Holbrook.

[03:39:59] Commissioner Holbrook: Yeah, I um I was initially troubled by the thought that uh Vice Chair Cranston raised, but I um got uh comfortable with the suggestion when I considered the question of whether or not employment in Mountain View more closely maps to employment in Silicon Valley or the average company that's located in the whole nine-county area. And I believe that our employers, uh, our our employers here are probably better represented by the companies in in uh Santa Clara than they are by companies in Santa Cruz or Alameda or other other counties uh in general. So that's that's why I uh was okay with choosing a different map uh whereas for the nine-county Bay Area uh for for for residential vehicle models travel I wasn't able to come up with a compelling reason why we'd be particularly different from other cities in the in the nine-county area.

[03:41:20] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Other comments on this?

[03:41:27] Chair Robert Cox: So, um, I guess I'll make a comment about it. I mean, the one thing that I was a little bit concerned about was that it seemed that, you know, by selecting the the most permissive of the residential maps that we were basically giving a walk to nearly everything. And I understand, you know, I mean I like the idea that office is tougher than residential, but I do worry some about whether or not, you know, it's just we skip around, you know, the review, the CEQA review for all residential entirely, well, except for maybe the downtown area, and we're going to end this North Bayshore area. And then we're going to try to talk ourselves out of that. I guess my other comment is I want to, you know, I wanted to echo what uh Vice Chair Cranston said, you know, in in giving my experience in what I've talked to people who live in the downtown. And that is true that, I mean, you know, um a lot of us do not I mean it it's not the typical textbook case of a downtown in that, you know, the downtown has all of the things that you would want to get in terms of, you know, your retail shopping experience and and even your convenience items, whatever. I mean, you know, when I think about the shopping that I do every week, I completely avoid the downtown for that. I mean, I go to San Antonio, you know, I mean primarily, and to the Costco and and that's where I spend most. Doesn't have all the things that I need on a daily basis. Um, what the downtown is popular for is the restaurants. Um, and what I've been told is that I've talked to several people who have restaurants in the downtown, even one in particular told me that, you know, I started this out with the idea of thinking that I was serving people in the downtown, and then what I realized was that no, downtown Mountain View, the target audience is really the more wealthy, high-tech people across the Bay Area. You know, and so this is and that's where I ended up making the money to be profitable. And I I think that that's not an unusual thing in the downtown. That, you know, our downtown is mostly a restaurant destination place. You know, if we get out of this Covid thing successfully, you know, I mean before we were in it, let's just put it that way, there were over 100 restaurants within two blocks of the downtown. And and, you know, I mean a typical person I talked to has said to me that, you know, 80% of his customers come from the outside. So, you know, I mean, does that mean low vehicle miles traveled? Not really. And in particular, when the city's own commissioned um downtown parking survey showed that 80% of the people who live in the downtown actually drive out and park there to work. I mean, you know, that also doesn't say low VMT traveling to me. So I'd ask you to kind of like look at that, depart from the textbook and see that maybe our downtown really is different. That's all.

Segment 6

[03:45:01] Chair Robert Cox: Then you know that's a classic downtown. But anyway that's an aside. I just, ideally I'd like something between the two maps on the left, but I mean this is not something I feel all that strongly about. Because I know that we need more residential and convinced me that in terms of being able to do, being able to analyze the transportation bottlenecks and fix them, you know it'll still be able to do that under the empty analysis. So I won't push real hard on it, but if there is some other support then you can let me know.

[03:45:44] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So anyway I guess maybe now at this point do we want to show a hands maybe for people who want to just adopt the staff recommendation as it is?

[03:46:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: For residential?

[03:46:09] Chair Robert Cox: For this map. I mean to choose the most permissive map.

[03:46:13] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So this is Nicole, just to clarify this is a study session, there's no action.

[03:46:17] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah, yeah, but I'm just trying to get a, I'm just doing a straw poll here, I'm not trying to make a motion. Because I mean if it turns out that we get a majority of people who are okay with the staff recommendation we just say we're okay with it and we go on to the next point. It kind of closes out the discussion. If not, then we have to talk about what we want to do instead. So I'm guessing that we're going to get the votes because only three people talk. But anyway, so I don't know is it okay to do that then? Or what would you want us to do as an alternative on how to handle this?

[03:46:56] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: No you can take a straw vote just to see if there are further thoughts, but it is framed as an adoption and I just wanted to clarify there's no action intended.

[03:47:02] Chair Robert Cox: Oh okay sorry I didn't mean, I didn't use the correct word of adoption, asking that this is a formal vote and all. So let's see a show of hands of people who like the staff recommendation as it is.

[03:47:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: For residential specifically?

[03:47:19] Chair Robert Cox: Yeah, for residential specifically.

[03:47:22] City Staff: And to clarify that's to use the 9 County Bay Area regional average VMT per capita reference average.

[03:47:33] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so I'm kind of surprised to only see two hands up, so somebody needs to make an alternative recommendation.

[03:47:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So to Santa Clara County.

[03:47:48] Chair Robert Cox: Santa Clara County.

[03:47:50] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Yes I would I would join Vice Chair Cranston and somewhat representing those.

[03:47:56] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So then let's ask this. How many people would go for the Santa Clara County as the baseline for this? Raise your hand. Okay so I'll throw mine in there since I can't raise my hand and that will give us four. So keep your hand up. Okay because I haven't named the people yet. So that's Cranston, Schmiesing... Is that you Commissioner Hehmeyer too? Hehmeyer and Cox. And anybody else want to do put their hand up right now and otherwise we'll go on to the next item.

[03:48:36] City Staff: Before we proceed on that can I just make sure we have the proper understanding of what that indicates? I'm gonna share the screen here. What you're suggesting is that most of the commissioners are supporting use of this middle reference average that would create this middle heatmap here. Right, so like there are slightly fewer low VMT areas than use of the 9 County area regional reference average. The change is not dramatic. The reference average for Santa Clara County is 13.33 miles per capita, and then the reference average for the 9 County Bay Area region is 13.95. So staff did consider, you know, uniformity amongst the reference averages used, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody clearly understands what supporting that option would imply.

[03:49:45] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, having heard that does anybody want to change their vote? I didn't hear anybody speak up, so if not we'll go on to the next item. Can we see the second heat map? The employment one. Okay, I'm just seeing transit. Okay. All right. And which one is the staff recommendation again? The one on the right?

[03:50:21] City Staff: Yeah, so I'll give this just a quick treatment. The map on the left is using the reference average for the 9 County region VMT per employee, and then the map on the right is displays staff suggestion of using the Santa Clara County reference average VMT per employee for the map. The reference average VMT value for Santa Clara County is the higher of the two at 16.64 miles per worker, and for the 9 County it's the lower of the two at 15.33 miles per worker.

[03:51:05] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so that because we're looking for things in green, that shows the exemption, there really are no green areas in either map. Right? That's right.

[03:51:18] City Staff: That's correct, but what I'd like to point out is that there is more yellow in this in the map to the right, which means that they are closer to complying with that threshold. So the idea is if it's, if development is located, if office development is located in the yellow area, that development would be able to mitigate VMT to an acceptable level with only modest mitigation, whereas if it's in a darker area, red or orange, then more substantial investment in VMT mitigation would be required to reach an acceptable level.

[03:51:59] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So maybe on this one we can just take a show of hands on the staff recommendation. So, how many want to support the staff recommendation? There's only two alternatives. So I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Cranston, Hehmeyer, Lowe, Schmiesing, Holbrook, Yin and I'll throw myself in too, so that's a unanimous recommendation. Okay, can we go on to the next one?

[03:52:36] City Staff: Yes. So that's for the two for low VMT...

[03:52:52] Chair Robert Cox: Right.

[03:52:53] City Staff: Retail... let's see, un-retail... That's for low VMT, I want to make sure we're getting through the screening before we get through the thresholds. So, after low VMT comes proximity to transit screening, yeah, so I think we understand what this means. We are suggesting following the OPR recommendation, we would have to demonstrate substantial evidence if we chose to go with a different recommendation, but as you saw we did do an analysis of walk shed network distance and so that is technically an option as well.

[03:53:34] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, so I'm going to throw out a wild hair here on this. This is the one I have the most trouble with. And the reason I have the most trouble with it is this. Intuitively what it's saying to me is is that we're saying to people that you know if you put your development in these areas, then people should be comfortable picking this high quality transit method of choice as their means of getting around and they're in and that's why it shouldn't be a problem. And it just really doesn't seem to me to be the case. It might be true, I'll make less of an issue with it with Caltrain, okay, but with the El Camino bus service and with the light rail, I find that more problematic. And I mean I understand it would be going against the state recommendation, but I would even feel strongly enough about it that on those last two I would reduce the area to one quarter of a, one quarter mile instead of one half mile and I would make the condition on, you know, higher ridership. I mean if we hit a certain ridership target, then I would be okay with moving it out. But I mean to me the low ridership on the bus and on the light rail says to me there's something wrong with it and it needs to be fixed before we can really take it at its face value. So that'll probably be my strongest item on seeing. Anyway, who else wants to say something? We've got Commissioner Lowe.

[03:55:23] Commissioner Lowe: Sorry, I forgot to lower my hand from the vote earlier.

[03:55:30] Chair Robert Cox: Vice Chair Cranston.

[03:55:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess my trouble with the transit overlay is that I think Commissioner Hehmeyer's interpretation of the maps was almost the same as mine, that the people who live in Mountain View hang out in Mountain View, the people who work in Mountain View come from someplace else. And so when I look at the transit overlay I'd say okay, I understand and agree with the theory that if there is transit that can be heavily utilized to bring those people into the area on the employment side, then that makes sense to me. But the heavy traffic in the morning is coming up 85, coming down 237, it's going down the length of 101 in each direction and there is none of the transit options deal with 85. While the blue line for VTA kind of looks like it follows 237, it, people that I know are coming from way over in Fremont, they're coming from the East Bay, they're not taking, the option of taking VTA all the way into the city isn't even, isn't even there. At least the Caltrain and the bus roughly follow 101, but my concern is that we actually, by placing, by removing these areas from consideration, we infect, miss the opportunity to make those target, that the city is attempting and the state is attempting to hit. If our goal is to reduce the vehicle miles traveled for people coming into the city, then if these transit options were contributing to where they were coming from, then I'd be all for it. But I don't believe that they're doing that. And by removing the requirement off the screen across the size of the area that it is right now, it actually defeats the purpose of what the, the change to vehicle miles traveled is attempting to achieve. So I think the consultant said that if we tried to make it bigger that would be a problem. I'm actually suggesting make it smaller okay? And quite frankly, eliminate it. Because if you look at the overlay what we want in this city is residential, and if you look at that green map and a lot of the areas for the residential, we could put in more developments. We could have more people working, living here in the city and tweeting nearby. And if it's the transit side for employees, if people coming from Morgan Hill, if people coming from Fremont, if people coming all the way down from San Francisco, and they're not gonna be taking, you know, many of them are not gonna be taking this transit and so putting in place other mitigations that would come out through the MTA and other other methods, to me makes more sense. So I feel that by adding that overlay on top of it, we're in fact going the wrong direction when it comes to reducing the vehicle miles traveled, uh, if that's the goal that we're all trying to drive to in the area.

[03:58:39] City Staff: Can we, um, do you mind if we if staff can provide just a little bit of background just to hopefully um bring the conversation a little bit?

[03:58:47] Chair Robert Cox: You can, you can give the staff perspective.

[03:58:50] City Staff: Thank you. Um so I have something I'd like to mention but um I think Meghan um you wanted to bring something up with respect to transit-oriented development bounding um in these TPAs.

[03:59:07] Meghan Weir: Yep. Um, without uh framing this as a defense of the half mile buffer recommendation but just like to provide um a little bit more context, I want to make sure that we get to make the point that um the TPA screens serve to identify places where people, if there's development there, people would potentially have access to transit and also to encourage uh development in areas that could be transit-oriented development. So those are the places in the city that could be um supported, where maybe transit ridership could increase or an increase in transit frequency and change in transit service could be justified if there is more transit-oriented development. And so part of the screen um also calls for a certain minimum level of density and um limits on the amount of parking that we would be um allowed in those locations to ensure that they're transit-oriented development um land uses. Um, so I agree that if it serves two roles it's not just to um to identify where people take buses. Make sure that's clear. And if you look at the San Antonio Center has a precise plan with transit-oriented a denser more dense transit locations, transitoring around the San Antonio train station as well as the bus lines. And we just finished the East Whisman precise plan which has a lot of incentives in it for bringing in those kind of transit-oriented development. So I, I guess my, I have an, I think we've already done, we're doing those things that are gonna drive those going forward. And so I just if anything I would rather have an office development justify how they're going to bring the transit level down, you know if they don't do it as a mixed use development that's transit-oriented if they don't do the things that fit in a TMA that need to be done. It just feels like it gives too much of a pass. So I'll shut up.

[04:01:31] Meghan Weir: Well, maybe also worth noting that um applying these screens within the CEQA process doesn't mean that none of the uh land use uh details would um be required. So, something might not be subject to CEQA review or CEQA transportation analysis but still would be required to have the densities um and there could still be conditions of approval called for in the MTA process that um uh include TDM type of um measures to further incentivize the use of transit or further um reinforce connections to transit in any of these locations. So, the difference is um whether or not the transportation analysis has to be documented within the legal framework of CEQA review. And everything else in terms of um what the development, the local development review calls for um can still take place outside of CEQA review. So, it's really a matter of um whether or not CEQA applies and um and then identifying additional local review policies to ensure that the city gets the kind of development that they're looking for in every location regardless of the CEQA-based stream.

[04:03:30] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Holbrook.

[04:03:34] Commissioner Holbrook: I guess I've gotten a little confused about the logic for why the state would object to expanding the circles and be in favor of smaller circles. Could you explain that?

[04:03:58] City Staff: Are you asking why would the state object to expanding the area?

[04:04:02] Commissioner Holbrook: Yeah, when I raised the, what I raised the suggestion earlier about filling in that area around Dana Street I heard that that was a problematic direction to go and that the other direction of having smaller circles was a more um, would be something that the state might embrace. And I'm, I'm not understanding the logic for why the state would have that position because in the end it would point to tinier little circles or no circles at all. And why would the state be in favor of that if they're asking for um, why would the state be in favor of that?

[04:04:36] Meghan Weir: I can answer, or at least start, um, if you'd like. So, it's, the the difference is that um, the state has done research and or compiled research and come up with this um specific definition definition of high quality transit that um identifies that an area within half a mile of transit is considered to be within walking distance. That's a really widely um accepted distance definition of walking distance. Um, so anything that's within walking distance of transit is therefore um uh within an area that could be um treated as transit oriented development and where um somebody would visibly be able to have access to transit as long as it's at a um frequency of 15 minutes or less. Um, expanding the definition um of walking distance to a larger radius um means that like if we if we use a larger radius to find the TPAs then we have to assume that people in Mountain View in particular are more likely to walk farther than the research suggests is a typical walking distance. And so if we deviate from the OPR recommendation by using larger radii for the TPAs um, there would have to be some kind of justification to explain why in Mountain View we actually think that a larger radius still counts as walking distance even though there's been extensive research that indicates that half a mile is a pretty standard definition. Um, on the other hand, um, if we were going to say in Mountain View we actually think that the walking distance is shorter or we think that the TOD influence area around these stations based on the specifics of the station um design or um transit service that's provided at that station um doesn't support a half mile walking distance radius, um that's a more conservative approach. Now I want to be clear that when I say that's a more conservative approach I don't mean that to suggest that the state recommends a more conservative approach. I just mean that it doesn't require extra research to justify a longer walking distance. The state recommends using a half mile radius and um if there's any reason to not use a half mile radius based on the local transit service or the local land use context or other barriers and so on, that's up to the local lead agency to define that. And it's justifiable based on the local context. But it's not that the state recommends a half mile and anything less than half a mile is even better. It's just that anything less than half a mile is um fairly easy to um explain because it doesn't assume that people are gonna walk longer in Mountain View than they do in other places.

[04:08:13] Commissioner Holbrook: Okay, and I'm hearing you say that uh the logic that Chair Cox and Vice Chair Cranston have raised um might be consistent with a recommendation by the EPC and Council to go with a tighter radius along these less traveled nodes.

[04:08:34] Meghan Weir: I think that the logic that they raised is um is worth discussing. Uh I think that the recommendation should be rooted in the outcomes that you want to get and how CEQA um factors into those outcomes. And um that's why we're so focused on looking at what does this look like on the map as opposed to just like what in theory is the definition of a TPA. Um so if there is um a lot of concern that the TPAs as they're presented with half mile radii um creates too permissive of a screen for CEQA like that's then and you wouldn't get the CEQA review outcome that you're looking for in Mountain View, like that's that's a justification. I think um on the other hand that even with less than ideal um uh transit service and you know light rail stations that leave room for improvement, there is still a lot to be gained by streamlining the CEQA review process within those areas because it makes it easier to um approve uh land uses that are supportive of more transit use and more transit oriented development in the long run and there's an opportunity to get the other um development review that you're looking for outside of CEQA. So um I know it's um a tricky balance to strike because we're looking to the OPR guidance for some very specific definitions and recommending that we stick with those limits that are outlined in the OPR guidance and um and then at the same time saying that like you can really address a lot of what comes outside of CEQA, like that's not part of CEQA you can address that with your local um transportation analysis and don't get too hung up on um whether or not something no longer requires CEQA analysis. But um the root of all of this is that in the past CEQA analysis was um driving development away from transit oriented um development locations and away from infill projects because the LOS um based uh findings of significance um were creating barriers that were very difficult to to mitigate. And um so the the direction now is to simplify what's in CEQA, make sure that the CEQA analysis that is called for is supportive of TOD and infill and um walkable multimodal uh land use in neighborhoods and so on. And then get everything else that you need outside of the CEQA review process in that local MTA process that um the staff described earlier.

[04:11:54] Commissioner Holbrook: So what would the state have to say about Chair Cox's suggestion that we might consider a ridership test?

[04:12:03] Meghan Weir: You know I haven't seen um specifically any references to ridership tests, but um but I do know that there are other cities that technically have transit stations um but those transit stations have very low frequency service and so while they technically meet the definition of a transit station, um uh because they're served by rail, the local cities don't see those as opportunities to um to build TOD around those rail stations. So I think um uh my best um educated guess about what the state would say is that um without weighing in on whether or not a ridership test is the way to go I think they would say looking at the frequency and um the existing land uses and um local plans and ambitions for um incentivizing transit oriented development should be what drives that decision and if there are locations um where transit oriented development is not um a priority then um submit to the local lead agency to um make sure that that's reflected in the TPA maps.

[04:13:25] Commissioner Holbrook: Thank you.

[04:13:29] Chair Robert Cox: Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[04:13:35] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: I just wanted to make a point that I think Meghan emphasized and Martin alluded to earlier. I think when we're looking at the original CEQA analysis that favored level of service we're biasing, you know, sprawl. And while the infrastructure we have, the transit infrastructure we have leaves much to be desired, um, at least this respects, these are nudges right, they're signals saying this is the type of development that we want. Because the way I see those heat maps, it suggests to me that if you live in Mountain View you're fortunate that your lifestyle allows you to have a fewer VMT than the goal. But if you don't enjoy that same benefit, and to me that's an argument for densification and for the work that we've put into the East Whisman Precise Plan and to North Bayshore where we're building communities that while they might not currently exist, to justify high ridership on light rail or on VTA eventually they could. Right, there is a certain level of density that we need to meet. And I'm a perfect exact, I worked for an employer that pays me to take transit, I live within a half mile of transit, and it's hard that there are fewer people that get to enjoy that because we haven't been able to build that housing stock. So I note that this is early on in the process, we're in a study session, but I think I really echo what Vice Chair Cranston is saying, right, we're solving a regional problem and that isn't gonna be done if we're making decisions based off of, you know, this this take a regional perspective, because the people that we're trying to help are the people who are forced to, um, run the 237 corridor where there isn't really a viable option or up 85 where getting from Santa Cruz to Mountain View can take two and a half hours. Those are the things that we're trying to do and it'll take a really long time, but at least this signals, you know, these are the areas we want to help. So, my two cents. I know it's late.

[04:15:56] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. I'm hoping Commissioner Yin put her hand up. Commissioner Yin wants to say something.

[04:16:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, now I'm unmuted. Um, I completely understand why OPR is wanting to go in this direction and I do agree with a lot of the other commissioners and the um principle. And would like to see that happen one day. It is a long-term process, and understand that. I just um to Commissioner Cranston's point, I he has said that he didn't want to give a pass and I think that's where I'm stuck a little too because I don't know what the MTA truly involves yet. It sort of feels like now with talking about how this streamlines everything, it feels like we're saying we're just gonna make it easier for developers to get by. And I I want that not to be the case, I want it to be where we're aiming for um goals that do get us, or not goals, we're aiming for um actual practical application that gets us to the goals we're seeking. And so if MTA can get us there then great, but since we don't know what MTA is or at least I don't know what MTA is, can't comfortably say yeah let's go with this uh this map that allows for um as we said earlier, kind of a difficult metric to measure actually how many people can use that transit point because of so many barriers that exist existing like the highways. There's no way someone's gonna cross the 101 to ride a bus. So it's a very very long-term thing and I want to make sure that if MTA does come in that provides us with what we're aiming for, that some of those funding will go to making it more accessible if we do use that metric. So, that was a little bit roundabout, it's a little late. I hope you guys understood what I was trying to say.

[04:18:08] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: If if I may, um, and because of the lateness of the hour I'm gonna be really blunt here. Public Works does not consider that we're gonna get what we need to resolve transportation operational issues via the VMT method in CEQA. Which is why we're putting all of our emphasis in the MTA. Because the MTA analysis is going to be as rigorous as the previous transportation analysis was for CEQA and even more so because we now are putting much more of our local touch on it in terms of, yes we care we care about how things are functioning for the vehicle but we're really gonna also focus on how are things functioning for pedestrians and bicyclists and in doing that set more conditions of approval that are geared towards how we're gonna improve site access for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as deal with the automobile traffic. To be honest we basically have said as far as we're concerned this VMT process is a CEQA process it's primarily driver is air quality and it's not the functioning of the transportation system. So whether you keep the boundaries at a half mile around a rail station in order to help encourage that we get more TOD around these uh transit places which as staff we would recommend, it's not going to change the fact that we aren't going to do a thorough transportation analysis under MTA for those projects.

[04:19:45] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Thank you that was really helpful.

[04:19:53] Chair Robert Cox: Okay do I see other commissioners that want to talk on this? So then the question is um, where are we going to go with this then? Um, Commissioner Cranston, I mean do you want to suggest an alternative to the staff recommendation? Are you there?

[04:20:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I was... I had a, I had a minor note that there is no VTA station the the one that's the dot, the extra dot on the map there... that station is not there anymore.

[04:20:31] City Staff: Which one are you talking about?

[04:20:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Evelyn Avenue station. The exhibit exhibit 8 that came out earlier had an extra dot in it, it looks like you fixed it on this one okay.

[04:20:45] City Staff: We did accidentally include the old Evelyn Avenue station, um but we've improved we fixed it here in the presentation.

[04:20:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess, you know, I'm drawn, is uh like Commissioner Yin, um as I read through this my reaction was man you know I really want to see what the empty, empty looks like because a lot of what we're counting on is going to happen there. And at the same time having, having a speed bump after the MTA, if they don't do what they do in the MTA, just says oh shit I'm gonna have to do this big VMT analysis if I don't go through it correctly, would be something that says hey guys, this is the process the town's working on, you better freaking follow it because otherwise you're gonna have to deal with this other sec - this other section. So, I I guess to me that's a positive, like, say if they do the things they need to do, they do the right analysis, they come back with things that are not only vehicle friendly but bike and pedestrian friendly as well, and they do mixed use developments, etc., I think we're all, I'm gonna be happy. But I, I'm hoping I feel better now after what she said in my mind, you know, keeping that barrier afterwards it pushes them towards the MTA being the right thing is a positive. So I would be inclined to either reduce the radius of them, or as I originally said basically say you know you get no pass for for being there just because you happen to be in that area even if you're not doing anything you need to do to have you actually able to, to meet our goals.

[04:22:37] Chair Robert Cox: Well here, I mean you know in the interest of of time I think what I'm hearing is we can take a vote on whether we want to reduce the radius and if that doesn't pass then let's take a vote on the staff recommendation. So, uh, put your hand up if you would like to reduce the radius uh lower than the one half mile. I see only Commissioner Holbrook.

[04:27:41] Commissioner Holbrook: No, ignored my hand.

[04:27:55] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, I see nobody likes this that recommendation. Okay. So then somebody please make an alternative recommendation we can try to put our hands up for.

[04:28:08] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Okay. I will make an attempt at it, because I think this is a study session and it's something that we're going to continue to work on it. I think planning and public works have heard loud and clear that we our goal is to really make sure that we have a clear understanding of, we don't, we don't want the end outcome we do not want is developers to be able to say I'm within, you know, a half mile of this VTA station and therefore my project is is transient oriented development and that's great if no one's actually going to use the transit. I think they heard that message. I'm just not sure besides what level of detail beyond that they need. I just, it seems like that we're working on a process that we can't quite define what the approval is going to look like later through the MTA approval, so I can't leave it there.

[04:29:08] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. I guess I, okay what I'm not, my problem is that you didn't vote for the staff recommendation but I don't hear any alternative from you.

[04:29:22] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: And this is Nicole and maybe I can just kind of clarify...

[04:29:28] Chair Robert Cox: I'm trying to vote for this recommendation. I'd be the only person to do it.

[04:29:32] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I I was just gonna indicate that since it is a study session that you know um if there were comments that wanted to be shared and there is a majority that kind of shared in that concern or those comments that it's something that staff could take a closer look at potentially and come back with a different recommendation when this does come back before you for public hearing because I believe that's the next step in this process. So um and also it helps expedite some of the, some of the comments about...

[04:29:35] Chair Robert Cox: Yes.

Segment 7

[04:30:00] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: reach a solid solution at this point. Um, if you guys are in agreement in those concerns or what you might like to see and then staff can bring something back.

[04:30:09] Chair Robert Cox: Yes, okay I like that idea. But, you know, we did not align with what the staff is recommending now and we want to see a different, we gave some reasons and we'd like to see an alternative. I mean, we take a straw vote on that. Okay, Commissioner Yin, I'm putting my hand up for that.

[04:30:37] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, I wasn't voting, I was trying to raise my hand to talk.

[04:30:41] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, go ahead.

[04:30:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just very quickly, I was actually going to abstain from the vote and just wait till we get to the point where there's more information because right now I just don't feel comfortable voting on a preference just yet. So I was just gonna abstain and that was my reason. Just to wait for more information later when I get the MTA. And so, you know, I trust what Dawn is saying, that that's the intention, but I just would like to see it before I put it out there. That...

[04:31:13] Chair Robert Cox: But is that substantially different from asking them to come back with a recommendation?

[04:31:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No, I'm just saying I have no, no comment at this point about that.

[04:31:28] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. Just don't want to make any comment.

[04:31:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah.

[04:31:36] Chair Robert Cox: So let's go back. How many people will put their hand up for having a line in the staff report back to council that we didn't support the current action as recommended by staff and we would like to see an alternative? Put your hand up if you agree with that. 1, 2, 3... okay, so Holbrook, Lowe, Cranston, and myself. That's four. So I think that's good enough for us to go with that. Okay, let's go to the next one. So the next one would be small project screenings. Okay, does anyone have any concerns about the small project screening? I want to discuss anything else there? I don't see anything. So let's just take a show of hands who supports the small project screening. Okay. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That's unanimous. Okay, let's go to the next one. Okay, the 100% affordable housing. Does anybody want to discuss deviations or alternatives for this? Commissioner Lowe.

[04:33:17] Commissioner Lowe: I just had left over raised hand.

[04:33:21] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. If... okay. I'll take that as a no then that nobody wants to discuss it. Let's see who supports the 100% affordable housing screen. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... okay, so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see Haymar, Holbrook, Cranston, Yin, Schmiesing, Lowe and myself. Okay, that's unanimous. Alright. Okay, what else?

[04:34:16] City Staff: Next would be support or comments on the thresholds that are proposed in this table.

[04:34:35] Chair Robert Cox: So are there any comments on this? Vice Chair Cranston.

[04:34:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I mean my only comment, the 15% adjusted based on what we voted on earlier. Because right now it just matched to the map. Which was residential was Santa Clara County and the office was Santa Clara County. So...

[04:35:15] City Staff: That's correct. You did indicate support of using the Santa Clara County reference average for both residential and office. That sort of lends itself to those associated thresholds here. So unless there's been any change of mind since we looked at the low VMT maps, that would carry here. So that would leave the retail choice here, which is following OPR recommendation.

[04:35:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm fine with that.

[04:36:04] Chair Robert Cox: Let me understand. Is this the place where we were talking about that you wanted, any increase... is there an exemption here for certain kinds of retail?

[04:36:16] City Staff: There is... does anybody else hear that phone sound?

[04:36:18] Commissioner Lowe: Press 2 to erase and re-record. Press 3 to continue recording where you left off. Press 4...

[04:36:24] City Staff: I do. I don't know where it's coming from.

[04:36:27] Chair Robert Cox: I think it's concluded.

[04:36:30] City Staff: So yes, there is a presumption of less than significant impact for local serving retail. That is in the technical advisory and generally retail development stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional serving. So cities typically have their own definitions of local serving retail, but we can take it as less than 50,000 square feet.

[04:37:26] Chair Robert Cox: Can you give me an example of a retail, you know, 50,000 square foot retail store somewhere around near Mountain View?

[04:37:34] City Staff: These are individual stores, so it's not like an aggregate development with floor area excessive 50,000.

[04:37:42] Chair Robert Cox: So like one Safeway might be that? I mean I just, I don't really have a good sense of what that number means, that's why I'm asking.

[04:37:52] City Staff: Right. Just one moment while I check something.

[04:38:01] Meghan Weir: That is correct. Grocery stores are typically less than 50,000 square feet, which I think is one of the data points that was considered in OPR's recommendation. Grocery stores are local destinations. Adding a grocery store to a neighborhood means that people who used to drive farther could have a shorter trip to the grocery store and therefore there's no net increase in VMT.

[04:38:32] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, I understand that. Thank you. Okay, so let's see. So then go back to the slide, please. Okay, then what we're voting, let me... let's get a straw poll on acceptance of this with you know, as Vice Chair Cranston said, we're using Santa Clara County standard for the residential and for the office. The retail stays the same. So how many people will support that? Okay, 1, 2, 3, 4. Okay, Schmiesing. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And I supported, two. Here's somebody who's trying to get into it. I don't know who that is.

[04:39:33] Commissioner Holbrook: It's me, I had an issue with the...

[04:39:39] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. All right. Okay, so that's a majority anyway, so then that's supported. And then let's see, what else, staff?

[04:39:51] City Staff: So our next one is whether or not the commission supports evaluating each component of mixed use projects or projects like precise plans or general plan amendments, by applying either... the staff suggestion is evaluating each land use independently as opposed to just evaluating the dominant land use that is apparent in those projects.

[04:40:22] Chair Robert Cox: So are there comments or questions from commissioners on this? Vice Chair Cranston.

[04:40:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I just had a good question. I mean it would seem like a mixed use resident with residential in the area might lower the VMT. Office in the same thing, it may raise the VMT. If you evaluate them separately, do you lose the offset that a mixed use development might provide? I get when it's one or the other, it just was when you have a combination, it would seem like you might want to actually do them together, evaluated separately.

[04:41:19] City Staff: If I could comment on that, both together, meaning evaluating sort of the VMT that would occur from both of those land uses, is that what you're saying?

[04:41:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, I mean the whole theory behind mixed use is, hopefully people that building residential next to the office is that you know, so yeah, there may be more VMTs generally for the office, but there's also this residential that's coming in and taking it down. And it seems like when you look at them both together, it may be fine, and they don't need to go through the whole process. But if there's a little bit more residential by itself and it forces them to go through and review it, it just... it seems to actually discourage the idea of mixed use rather than encourage.

[04:42:23] City Staff: Yeah, I hear what you're saying. When you if you do analyze each use independently, as part of that VMT analysis there needs to be an accounting of internal trip capture which is you know the phenomenon of what mixed use brings about. And so you would only be able to do that by evaluating both of those land uses independently. If that makes sense. You wouldn't be able to analyze internal trip capture if it would... there's no assigning credit for that if you only look at one land use.

[04:43:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess so the main point is so when you're saying doing it independently, you're viewing each independently, but you're also looking at them together. Sounds like they're not... you're actually looking at everything.

[04:43:18] Meghan Weir: I can chime in here as well. So, you are correct, there is an opportunity to reduce total VMT by encouraging mixed-use developments. For the sake of having a consistent review process, looking at how each of the individual land uses compares to the thresholds of significance for that land use is a useful first step because it allows us to identify if either or any of the land uses involved might warrant VMT mitigations. So your example of residential and office together is a good one, because we know from looking at the maps that residential maps have more... more areas will be below the VMT threshold for residential, and throughout the city there's no area that's below the VMT threshold for office. And so if there's a mixed use project in an area that's green for residential and yellow for office, or orange for office, what we would know from that first step is that the residential land use wouldn't require any VMT mitigation, but that the office land use might require VMT mitigation. And then the VMT analysis tool that VTA is working on is based on research that's available about how different TDM measures reduce VMT. And the examples that we've seen from some other regions in the state that are looking at similar resources to quantify VMT mitigations also do have an input to consider the VMT mitigation that might be achieved by the fact that there's a mix of land uses. So basically we wouldn't build the mixed land use into that initial threshold screening process, but we would have an opportunity to give credit to any land use that's above the VMT threshold in the VMT mitigation process. That's where you would count that mixed use being a benefit. And I'll just say one more thing. One reason that that process is recommended as opposed to giving a blanket credit for any mixed use project is that the VMT mitigating factor for a mix of use is viable, but there are a number of other VMT mitigations that have a bigger impact, and so just being a mixed use project on its own is likely not enough to have a significant VMT mitigation. And so an office project that requires VMT mitigation will get some benefit from being mixed use but would also require other mitigations as well.

[04:47:11] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So let's see. Any other comments from commissioners or questions on this? All right then. Let's see a show of hands of people who support the staff's recommendation on this slide. Okay. I see 6 and I'm a two. So that goes for the... Alright, are there other ones?

[04:47:44] City Staff: I think that might be it. We talked about the core screening criteria and essentially the four categories of thresholds. We talked about MTA, and now we're just back to that question. So I do believe we covered everything. I can go over just a summary. I think that would help me just so I can, I ascertain that I'm getting the right information from everybody. For the low VMT and for the thresholds, what I take to be the direction from the commission is use of the Santa Clara County reference average for both office and residential development. I take that the commission is supportive of staff's suggested approach for evaluating retail land use projects. That the commission is supportive of staff's suggestion for the small project screening. That the commission would like staff to continue to study and provide alternatives for transportation priority areas and transit screenings. I'm hearing that the commission is supportive of adopting a screen for 100% affordable housing. And that the commission is supportive of evaluating mixed-use projects and other project types by evaluating each land use independently. Did I get all that correctly?

[04:49:54] Chair Robert Cox: I think you said it right. Anybody disagree? Commissioner Holbrook.

[04:50:04] City Staff: You're muted, Commissioner.

[04:50:08] Commissioner Holbrook: Sorry about that. I don't disagree. I have one other item to discuss if you're done with this item, Chair Cox.

[04:50:18] Chair Robert Cox: I don't understand, because does it have to do with this item and the, in the... I mean, does it have to do with SB 743?

[04:50:28] Commissioner Holbrook: Sort of, yeah, I mean I'll tell you what it is.

[04:50:32] Chair Robert Cox: Well, no, the point of it is commissioners can only discuss things that are on the agenda. It does have to do with 743?

[04:50:41] Commissioner Holbrook: Yes. An additional comment, which is that several commissioners expressed an interest or an emphasis on the point that the MTA that's to be developed is going to be important to achieving many of our objectives. My understanding from the answer that we were provided a couple hours before the meeting is that staff is planning on doing that administratively, and is not planning on running it by the EPC. And I wondered if that, first of all, is the case, and secondly, if that's something that we might suggest the council might be interested in asking for input on. And if so, and if not, why not?

[04:51:28] Chair Robert Cox: So, who wants to field that?

[04:51:32] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So part of it is just our time crunch. We have a good guide to go with. San Jose's local transportation analysis handbook is very similar to what we want to do, so we're not going to be starting from scratch. But there are pieces of it that we want to revise and change. And what's critical is we gotta have something in place July 1st. And we so we can't be sure we'd have something ready to bring to you at your May meeting, which is your next meeting, and so we want to be very careful about that because it has to provide something to the consultants and developers and so on to say, this is how you do an MTA, and that has to be ready by July 1st. What we can do is nothing says that what we put out on July 1st never gets revised or changed. We can get this out on July 1st and then in the fall, when you're meeting again, say okay, this is what we put out there. Do you have any comments or concerns about it? And if there's something you feel we missed or didn't think about, we can take that in and we can always do a revision.

[04:52:43] Chair Robert Cox: That sounds like I think a good idea. Okay. Do any other commissioners have comments they want to make about SB 743 implementation? If not, I'm going to close this item and we will go on to the next item, which is commission and staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Eric.

[04:53:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so I don't have too much to discuss here. I was just gonna give you an idea of the upcoming items. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 6th. And we are tentatively going to bring forward the 1001 North Shoreline project which was scheduled for the meeting that was cancelled. So it should be fairly familiar to you if you got a chance to review that report. And then as Public Works Director Cameron was saying, we do have to come back pretty quickly on adopting this SB 743 item. So we're looking at bringing that later in May for the public hearing. And then rounding out the year we're looking at the Google Landings project and possibly a study session on historic policies in downtown. So those are the items that we're looking at, again, all very tentative in terms of schedule for the remainder of the year. And I'm happy to answer any questions about that if you have them.

[04:54:41] Chair Robert Cox: So do we know when the next EPC meeting is going to be?

[04:54:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: May 6th.

[04:54:47] Chair Robert Cox: May 6th. And we don't know precisely what's going to be on it at this point?

[04:54:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right now the only item that we are moving forward on is that 1001 Shoreline project. And I don't have any reason to give you that it won't be on there, but again, anything can happen in the next month.

[04:55:11] Chair Robert Cox: Okay. So I mean I'll repeat something that I said to you during our chair call, if you can confirm that the staff report is an identical copy to the previous one, let us know ahead of time, it may save us some time re-reading it.

[04:55:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I've already sent that request to the project planner.

[04:55:34] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, sounds good. Do any commissioners have their own updates requested or other items to announce?

[04:55:44] Commissioner Preeti Hehmeyer: Just a quick question for Eric. If we were approached by the developer to meet with him in person before the sheltering, is there any reason from staff's perspective why we couldn't conduct that meeting by Zoom if it's still a 1-on-1 format?

[04:56:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, well I will see if the City Attorney has any thoughts on that, but I would assume that actions by Zoom are similar to actions by phone. You just may want to be cautious about maybe having a password to your room...

[04:56:30] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Just to tack on to part of Eric's comment...

[04:56:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: [unintelligible audio]

Gap between 4:56:40 and 5:06:40

[04:56:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yup. Sure that...

[04:57:10] Chair Robert Cox: There might be some transmission issues understanding him.

[04:57:13] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah, there was some problems I think Eric with the, with the microphone or something then. So um, I don't know if you want to take a look at that.

[04:57:23] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I couldn't quite make out some of that, but just to kind of follow up on Eric's initial comment, yeah, I mean in terms of meeting with Zoom, it wouldn't be any different from um, you know, meeting in person in terms of being mindful about like one-on-one and then the disclosures would be at play as well when that subject comes before the EPC and that's kind of part of the script is disclosing that um that meeting.

[04:57:51] Chair Robert Cox: Alright, I, I'll just make a mention that, you know, I continue to attend Livable California meetings and this last one um was a surprising one that um it went over the uh number of people that were normally allowed on Zoom and the conference there were over a hundred people who tried to attend.

[04:58:14] Chair Robert Cox: And um, the interesting thing about it, it was a perspective of uh Mr. Calthorpe who has a long history in recommending um high-density uh development along transit corridors.

[04:58:30] Chair Robert Cox: And Mountain View was named as one of two cities uh he uh Mountain View and Redwood City as two cities that have uh done an exemplary job of this and should be serving as models for other cities that are trying to bring higher density in there.

[04:58:53] Chair Robert Cox: So I thought that was a very positive thing to hear from one of the experts in the field. Um anyway, uh if there are no other comments uh from Commissioners then...

[04:59:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Mr. Chair Cox, just uh I don't know whether there are other reports, but I just got a, I'm on an email list indicating that people are very interested in Plan Bay Area and there was a webinar and uh a presentation and audio record, audio recording was posted and I can send that to Eric if you know, distribute around if folks are interested in seeing kind of where Plan Bay Area is right now.

[04:59:31] Chair Robert Cox: Good idea. Is there is that some link that you could send to Eric so the rest of us can see that too?

[04:59:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, that's what I said. I'll send it to Eric and so he can forward it on to folks.

[04:59:40] Chair Robert Cox: Okay, thank you very much, Vice Chair Cranston. And are there comments from Commissioner Holbrook?

[04:59:48] Commissioner Holbrook: Um, it's late so I'll be really brief. I attended the um Planners Academy uh at the beginning of last month. And um, I, I'll say that I got value out of it. I heard presentations on ethics and CEQA and uh nuts and bolts of planning, development agreements, a legislative update with tons of detail. Um there was, there's a lot of information.

[05:00:18] Commissioner Holbrook: Um I think probably what I got most out of it was uh the context um as opposed to the specific things. Just kind of hearing how other people did things and some of the terms around uh around it.

[05:00:32] Commissioner Holbrook: But I, I enjoyed the conference. I would have enjoyed it a little bit more if it had been a couple of weeks earlier because it was the last meeting I went to before the COVID thing hit, it was March 4th through 6th. So I was a bit uncomfortable being in person with people at that conference. But um I was glad to be sent and I'm grateful to the city to support me in that.

[05:00:54] Chair Robert Cox: Uh thank you very much, Commissioner Holbrook. And are there other announcements uh or reports? Okay, I'll take that as a no. And I'll thank, I'm going to thank staff in particular for putting together this Zoom meeting.

[05:01:14] Chair Robert Cox: Um Mr. Jenson in particular from our IT department and, and you know, Eric, Brittany and everybody else who uh worked with us to try to make this a success and, and, you know, each of the individual staff presenters like Krish. And and all the commissioners who have been working hard to, to, you know, work with us.

[05:01:40] Chair Robert Cox: And I apologize for my uh brief impatience there and and just thank you all for being such a great group of people to work with. So um I will therefore adjourn the EPC meeting on uh April 20, April 16th at 12:03 AM and the next EPC meeting will be scheduled to be held on Wednesday, May 6th at 2020 at 7:00 PM. So hopefully uh we will see you all there. Thank you very much. Bye now.

• ← Previous
• Next →