September 2, 2020 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:00] Vice Chair Cranston: That because that was the meeting that was held at uh up in Hercules and I mean is it actually if there are only three members there, was it even officially a meeting? To have minutes?

[00:00:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so it it was officially a meeting, it was noticed and it was agendized. Uh, so we discovered after the fact that uh we did need uh at least four commissioners to uh vote for those minutes um and we actually intended to bring it back to you but unfortunately we brought back the wrong date. You'll notice that you approved October 2nd twice. Um, and so in the future uh and Nicole can speak more on this if I say anything wrong but in the future um if there is not a sufficient number of EPC members uh who were present at the meeting at the time uh to vote yes then the remaining EPC members uh can uh look to the other commissioners voting yes as sufficient evidence to vote in favor of the minutes.

[00:01:10] Vice Chair Cranston: And I guess if the meeting was noticed but there were only three members is that even a quorum to call it a duly constituted meeting?

[00:01:24] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: This is Nicole, good evening commissioners, I think there might be some confusion. I think the three commissioners were voting for the minutes not the number of commissioners attending the um the meeting. But I'm actually not sure how many commissioners attended the meeting. The three was I think the vote for the meeting minutes because four of the commissioners had abstained due to not being present at well I guess I see what you're saying. Haha.

[00:01:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There were new uh sorry for interrupting there were new um commissioners appointed between the time of the event and the vote. So we leave there was actually a quorum at the time we just didn't have enough commissioners who were on the EPC at the time to vote.

[00:02:23] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay. So this will come back then some other time?

[00:02:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exactly.

[00:02:26] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay. Thanks.

[00:02:27] Chair Cox: Okay, are there any other comments or questions from the commission on the minutes? Okay, if not uh would any member oh wait a minute Commissioner Capriles, you have your hand up?

[00:02:42] Commissioner Capriles: Yes, thank you thank you. I was just gonna say I would not be voting on the June 3rd meeting because I was not present at the commission during that time. So I I will abstain from voting for June 3rd.

[00:03:00] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: And if I may just to clarify which it's fine if Commissioner Capriles wishes to abstain but as Eric had indicated it is pretty customary that even if not present for um that particular meeting to be able to rely upon the minutes that had been taken um but ultimately up to up to the commissioner whether to participate or not.

[00:03:23] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, thank you for that clarification.

[00:03:25] Chair Cox: Alright then any other commissioners wishing to comment on the minutes or offer amendments to the minutes? Okay seeing none I will ask 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 nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Planner Horan will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Planner Horan, are there any members of the public that would like to comment on the minutes?

[00:04:03] Planner Erin Horan: There are none shown.

[00:04:05] Chair Cox: Alright. Emails that were received by 5:00 p.m. were forwarded to the EPC and then uh having done public comment I will bring it back to the commission for a motion uh to approve the minutes. Please raise your hand. If you would like to put a motion forward. And I see Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:04:30] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Can I make a motion for all four draft meeting minutes or do we need to do them individually?

[00:04:37] Chair Cox: Um I think it's okay but let's check with Nicole. I see Eric shaking his head. Yes.

[00:04:45] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah. Correct, correct, you can do them you can do them for all four I would just ask if um Commissioner Capriles is abstaining on that one that that just be clarified so we're clear about that one um those minutes but otherwise it can be one motion even with even with an abstention.

[00:05:03] Commissioner Capriles: Yes, I'll be abstaining for just that one date.

[00:05:05] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Okay. Um well then Chair Cox I'd like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the Environmental Planning Commission on April 15th, May 6th, and May 20th, 2020.

[00:05:24] Vice Chair Cranston: And June 3rd?

[00:05:25] Chair Cox: Second.

[00:05:27] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay.

[00:05:28] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh let's all well we have to take a roll call vote on this so Planner Horan would you call the roll?

[00:05:31] Planner Erin Horan: Yes. Commissioner Capriles?

[00:05:33] Commissioner Capriles: Abstain.

[00:05:34] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[00:05:35] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Aye.

[00:05:36] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Lo?

[00:05:37] Commissioner Lo: Aye.

[00:05:38] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Schmeising?

[00:05:39] Commissioner Schmeising: Aye.

[00:05:40] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Yin?

[00:05:41] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[00:05:42] Planner Erin Horan: Vice Chair Cranston?

[00:05:43] Vice Chair Cranston: Aye.

[00:05:44] Planner Erin Horan: And Chair Cox?

[00:06:03] Chair Cox: Aye.

[00:06:04] Chair Cox: Alright, so then that passes um either 6-0 or 7-0 depending on the date uh with abstention from Commissioner Capriles on the one date that she had mentioned.

[00:06:18] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Chair Cox I only made a motion for the first three meetings, I did not make a motion for June 3rd because I misunderstood Commissioner Capriles, I thought she was just abstaining from June 3rd I didn't realize she was abstaining from all all of the meetings.

[00:06:34] Chair Cox: Alright. Do you want to do this over again then or?

[00:06:37] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I think we can just do the June 3rd one um

[00:06:41] Chair Cox: Okay. Would some commissioner like to make a motion on the June 3rd minutes?

[00:06:47] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I'm happy to. I just I had omitted it, I misunderstood I'm sorry.

[00:06:51] Chair Cox: Alright.

[00:06:53] Commissioner Hehmeyer: So I'll move to adopt the uh draft EPC minutes for June 3rd as presented in uh packet for our September 2nd meeting.

[00:07:04] Chair Cox: Alright and do I have a second? Please raise your hand. Uh Commissioner Lo is seconding. Okay then Planner Horan would you please call the roll?

[00:07:15] Planner Erin Horan: Sure. Commissioner Capriles?

[00:07:19] Commissioner Capriles: Abstain.

[00:07:22] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[00:07:24] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Aye.

[00:07:25] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Lo?

[00:07:27] Commissioner Lo: Aye.

[00:07:28] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Schmeising?

[00:07:30] Commissioner Schmeising: Aye.

[00:07:31] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Yin?

[00:07:33] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[00:07:34] Planner Erin Horan: Vice Chair Cranston?

[00:07:36] Vice Chair Cranston: Aye.

[00:07:38] Planner Erin Horan: And Chair Cox?

[00:07:39] Chair Cox: Aye.

[00:07:41] Chair Cox: Alright, so having dispensed with the minutes, uh we will move on to item number four, oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on matters 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 a non-agenda item? If so please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Planner Horan will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Planner Horan do you see any members of the public wishing to offer comment in this section on oral communications from the public?

[00:08:37] Planner Erin Horan: I do not.

[00:08:39] Chair Cox: Alright. Thank you, emails received by 5:00 p.m. were forwarded to the EPC. And then uh having no comment uh from the public on items not on the agenda, we will move on to item five new business and item 5.1 COVID-19 permit extensions. There will first be a staff presentation from planning manager and zoning administrator Stephanie Williams. Would you like to start Miss Williams?

[00:09:13] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Thank you, yes. And um if Planner Horan could um enable screen share please?

[00:09:22] Planner Erin Horan: Sure. Um, having difficulties seeing my ability to promote you. Um, let's see. Are you able to change it Chair Cox, for her?

[00:09:47] Chair Cox: Sorry, I don't see a button that allows me to do that. But I did see Stephanie talking there a minute ago, so... hmm.

[00:10:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Can you do it now Stephanie?

[00:10:11] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yes, thank you. Okay.

[00:10:17] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Alright, there we go. So um thank you and good evening. Oh, no. Oh, dear. Okay well we're just going to I think default to, okay here we go. So um in response to disruptions to the development process as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, staff is proposing a one-year permit extension for all valid planning permits beyond their expiration date which would allow applicants an additional year to pull the necessary building permits for the project or establish their use. It would apply to approved valid permits as of March 16th, would be in addition to any approved permit extension allowed under our current permit extension process and would not extend or reactivate expired permits. This would not be a codified provision and would not amend the zoning ordinance. This would be a temporary provision which would be applied based on its implementation parameters.

[00:11:43] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Staff will present a resolution for Council consideration implementing the proposed permit extensions at the September 22nd City Council meeting and will provide any comments or recommendations the EPC may have on this matter to Council later this month. And that concludes staff's presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[00:12:06] Chair Cox: So it it says here that I should take public comment first. Is that appropriate? Or do we want to take EPC questions first?

[00:12:24] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Um, either is fine with me.

[00:12:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's up to the chair, um but it's customary for um these more informational or study session items to take public comment first.

[00:12:38] Chair Cox: Okay, let's do that then. 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 phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Planner Horan will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Planner Horan, are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

[00:13:05] Planner Erin Horan: I am not seeing anyone.

[00:13:07] Chair Cox: Alright. Emails that were received by 5:00 p.m. were forwarded to the EPC. Um, not seeing any public comment, we will bring it back to the commission for questions and deliberation. Are there any commissioners who have questions or would like to make comments on this item, please raise your hand. I see Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:13:28] Vice Chair Cranston: I'd just a clarifying question for Stephanie. So someone could apply for a normal extension and get the one year, so they could actually get however long the normal application plus a year, I didn't understand that earlier. Is that correct?

[00:13:45] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Yes, they would be cumulative.

[00:13:49] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay. Thanks.

[00:13:53] Chair Cox: Okay, and Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:13:57] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Thank you Stephanie. Just a couple questions, and I don't know this is informational, so anecdotal information you have would be helpful. Um, the projects that you've received extensions for, are they mainly housing or mainly commercial? Do they cluster in any type of category or it's just it's across the board?

[00:14:17] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: It's really a mixture of of all types of applications. Some are housing projects and some are just, you know, standard conditional use permits.

[00:14:24] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Okay. Um, and then I guess all of, it seems like one year has been the standard for most cities. I guess I'm just wondering if any of these potential projects might not go go through as a result of the economic implications. Um, are there any communities that are thinking of longer term extensions or one year is the max one?

[00:14:37] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: I haven't seen any that are uh go beyond one year. No.

[00:14:40] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Okay. Thank you.

[00:14:41] Chair Cox: Okay, and Commissioner Capriles.

[00:15:06] Commissioner Capriles: I I just think this makes a lot of sense and it is um, you know, I'm glad to see that we're doing that to um make it uh realistic for people during this time period, so. Thanks for doing that.

[00:15:21] Chair Cox: And Commissioner Lo.

[00:15:24] Commissioner Lo: Uh, my question has to do with the length of the extension as well. I'm curious um to understand staff's analysis re um on six months versus a year. Seeing that some city has chosen to go with six months, um what are the pros and cons with the six months versus versus one year?

[00:15:51] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So the cities that we found that did six months that was in addition they they adopted their extensions um early on in shelter in place, and so it was the six months was in addition to the unknown time frame of whenever shelter in place the provisions of that would have been lifted. So um, I think they were being conservative, um not not knowing A, how long shelter in place would take place and the disruption to the development process that would be. And then thinking that six months would be a um, you know, a reasonable time beyond that. Um, we landed on a year as being reasonable, um pretty much basically because um a year extension is pretty standard. Our our own city process that allows extensions uh goes up to two years, but more standard extension is really only need a year to, you know, tie up loose ends and get issued their their building permit and/or their subdivision map. So we felt that a year was a reasonable time frame especially um, you know, coming through out of the shelter in place and just seeing the what starting to be the true implications of the disruptions to development.

[00:17:26] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, are there other commissioners that have questions or comments? Okay. I just have one question. Um, I mean, it's a little bit on the side from this, but are we seeing also a delay in in people going forward in the that are in the process of doing a development project right now, uh, based on the conditions and you know telling you things like, 'Well, you know, um we might have been wanting to fast-track this project but we might be wanting to take our time?' Uh, that question is either for Eric or Stephanie.

[00:18:12] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Right, well I don't think we we received that feedback. No I don't think we we received that feedback, um I think our standard two-year entitlement provision is um, some people um you know pursue their building permits or um establish their use very quick and some people um have their own, you know, path and timeline within that two-year two-year time frame.

[00:18:53] Commissioner Lo: Okay, I'll take that as a no. Um, if there are no more questions or comments. Would someone, do we have to take we need to take a motion for this right or no? Uh, Eric?

[00:19:11] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Chair Cox, this is Nicole, it's a it's an informational item so it was just for comments from the commission so no formal action would be needed.

[00:19:20] Chair Cox: Okay. Awesome. Alright, because I mean it said deliberation, I didn't know if that was a prelude to uh making a motion or it's just a question for discussion. So uh are there any other uh yeah, I'll just add to uh Commissioner Capriles's comments that this sounds like a very prudent thing to do and will save some staff time and just sounds like the right thing. So I'm happy that you guys are being proactive about this and putting it up for uh, for a vote at the council, or approval by the council. Um, Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:20:03] Vice Chair Cranston: I would say the same thing. I think all of us had hoped back in March that six months would be more than enough time, but uh I think the one year number is is more appropriate so I would certainly encourage council to to look to the one year number, um that seems to be hopefully will be enough but uh it certainly I think six months is probably too short practically.

[00:20:27] Chair Cox: Okay. Alright. Um, last chance for comments on this before we move on to item six. Alright, seeing no further comment from the commission, I will thank um zoning administrator Williams for bringing this item forward and informing us on it. And uh, let's move on then to our public hearing, uh, item six, uh item 6.1 a planned community permit, development review permit, provisional use permit, and heritage tree removal permit - sadly they're always there - for a hotel development at 2300 West El Camino Real. Uh first, let's do the standard thing of asking the commissioners if they have made any contact with the applicant or have had any site visits.

[00:21:23] Chair Cox: Um what happened to the... oh, I lost the I lost the thing where I can see the raised hands. Here give me a second. Oh boy. There, there we go. Okay. Ah, okay. So um, I'll start out I guess, I did go back to the site but I have not talked to the applicant since we had last seen this item. Uh Commissioner Yin.

[00:21:58] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, I did a drive-by of the site, but have not spoken to um the project um applicants.

[00:22:09] Commissioner Schmeising: Uh I also visited the site but have not talked to the applicants.

[00:22:14] Chair Cox: Okay, Commissioner uh Lo?

[00:22:17] Commissioner Lo: Likewise, I visited the site but never made contact with the developer and the previous um review by the EPC I was not on the EPC yet.

[00:22:27] Chair Cox: Okay. And Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[00:22:29] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I also hadn't visited the site and have not talked to the applicant.

[00:22:36] Chair Cox: Okay. And Vice Chair Cranston.

[00:22:38] Vice Chair Cranston: I have not physically visited the site or spoken to the applicant.

[00:22:42] Chair Cox: Alright. Did I get everybody? Um, I, I have not visited the site nor talked to the applicant. Okay. I think that's everyone. Okay, thank you all for your disclosures. And now we will have a staff presentation for us from senior planner Diana Pancholi and planning manager zoning administrator Stephanie Williams.

[00:23:46] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Sorry about that. Yes. Okay. Good evening chair and members of the commission. My name is Diana Pancholi, uh senior planner with the city's planning division. And I have with me tonight Stephanie Williams, our planning manager and zoning administrator. The item in front of you tonight is a public hearing for a four-story hotel development at 2300 West El Camino Real. The 0.97 acre project site, uh 0.97 acre project site is located to the north of El Camino Real between Ortega Avenue and South Rengstorff Avenue.

[00:23:47] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you very much. So now let's take it back to the uh commission for uh questions. Uh if you have a question please raise your hand. There is Vice Chair Cranston, go ahead.

[00:24:07] Chair Cox: I don't hear anybody yet.

[00:24:22] Chair Cox: Okay. Alright. Commissioner Lo, do you have another question?

[00:24:25] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: The project site has a general plan land use designation of mixed use corridor and is also part of the medium intensity corridor sub area of El Camino Real precise plan. The project site is surrounded with commercial uses and multi-family residential uses in the vicinity and is currently developed with a 3 story 71 room hotel uh with underground parking um I should say subterranean parking. Um the project applicant is proposing to develop the site with a 4 story 153 room hotel development which will have an underground parking garage. The project will have a uh commercial setback uh characteristics as per the El Camino Real precise plan. The ground floor uses will include uh dining area, guest uh uh lobby area, and the reception area. The project is also going to include a courtyard which will, which will consist of fitness area, spa area, some fire pits, and um seating for the hotel guests.

[00:25:00] Vice Chair Cranston: Is somebody speaking? Somebody speaking?

[00:25:37] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: The guest rooms are distributed on all the four floors and the building has been designed in an U shape. The project will also include landscaping along the perimeter of the entire project site. The main entrance to the, the main and the only entrance to the underground parking garage is um along the El Camino frontage and the applicant is proposing a 100% valet parking program for accessing the and parking in the underground parking garage. The proposed design is modern uh architecture and it utilizes a variety of high quality material including various types of trespa panels, smooth plaster walls, uh plaster frames, and metal framed trellises as well.

[00:26:31] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: The uh El Camino frontage has been designed with specific uh emphasis on the pedestrian experience including use of wooden trespa panels, a metallic arch feature, and also a prominent um hotel entrance along El Camino. The project is consistent with the El Camino Real precise plan development standards except uh a uh side yard setback encroachment by a balcony feature which is permitted in the El Camino Real precise plan for uh similar architectural features and that has been mentioned and um discussed in the staff report.

[00:27:13] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: The uh project is also going to propose removal of one heritage tree on site and removal of 22 non-heritage trees on site. As a proposal, the project is proposing to plant 30 new trees along the perimeter along the perimeter as I described earlier. Uh the project building designs steps down to two stories along the rear property line in order to meet the zoning um requirement, as well as it is in line with and more appropriate um with the adjacent two-story apartment buildings at the rear location as well.

[00:27:55] Commissioner Lo: Thank you.

[00:27:56] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: This is the second time the um uh city is reviewing this project. The project was previously reviewed by EPC in 2017 and approved by City Council in 2017. The applicant has been working with staff on the building permit plans and because of some unfortunate reasons for construction drawings, the uh applicant was not able to complete the process in time and the entitlement expired. Therefore, the project is back in the planning review process with minimal changes to the to the site plan, um including changes to the courtyard areas, reducing the number of hotel rooms, and other um and an additional curb cut for trash pickup. The project is uh found to be categorically exempt as per California Environmental Quality Act CEQA section 15332 infill development project.

[00:28:52] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Um it is also to be noted that this project is a Tier 1 project development under El Camino Real precise plan and the applicant will be making a um contribution public benefit contribution in the amount of $637,897, which will go towards city's affordable housing fund for funding future affordable housing in the city. In conclusion, staff finds that the project is consistent with our general plan and zoning requirements and it actually furthers the kind of development that we have envisioned along the El Camino Real precise plan area. So staff recommends the EPC to recommend to City Council to conditionally approve the planned community permit, the development review permit, and the provisional use permit to allow hotel development and uh reduced parking at the site with the removal of one heritage tree through the heritage tree removal uh permit.

[00:29:51] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: As the next step, um uh if approved the the uh project will go to City Council um and City Council will hear the EPC's recommendation, it is tentatively scheduled for September 22nd, 2020. Um alternatively the EPC can also um recommend the project with uh further modifications to conditions or refer the project back for further development review um or deny the project if it finds the site is not suitable. Staff would like to note that during the um between the publishing of the staff report and today's meeting staff found a mathematical error in the public benefit calculation which uh which will change the total amount that is that the applicant will be contributing and that amount has been the correct amount is um you know just uh uh discussed in the staff briefing as well as right now is on on your screen as well. And that concludes staff presentation, the applicant is present here tonight, if um you have any questions for staff or the applicant.

[00:31:36] Chair Cox: Okay, Commissioner Schmeising.

[00:31:54] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Maybe I can speak for him at this point of time um definitely if we can get him um on the call again but based on my previous um discussions with him, um he I don't think he has a presentation tonight, but I think now he can speak.

[00:32:14] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Perry I'm not sure if Thomas is on the on line right now because I can see Adriana Cook from the applicant team but not um Thomas.

[00:32:18] Perry Patel: Great. Um uh Diana thank you so much for the presentation. Uh um Commission thank you so much for listening to our our presentation. I actually uh don't have a formal presentation. I think Diana's done a great job of describing the project as well as um giving the fact that this project has been uh passed through and there's minimal changes to it. We felt as though it was best to um just leave Diana to present. And I'll let I'll let Tom Jess our uh project architect uh say a few words.

[00:33:24] Perry Patel: He is in the uh he says he's got his hand raised. Let me see if I can text him and see if uh what name he may be under.

[00:34:13] Perry Patel: Given given maybe the technical difficulties, I'm happy to to answer any questions that that uh the commission may have. And I'll let's see if Tom can maybe hop off the meeting and then hop back on and see if uh perhaps his name shows up in the participant list.

[00:34:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It looked like that the Adriana Cook jumped jumped on and jumped off and then raised their hand again, maybe we could just promote that person and see if that's the right person the one with their hand raised.

[00:35:32] Tom Jess: I guess I guess I joined as Adriana, I apologize for the confusion there. Um anyway this is Tom Jess, not Adriana, with Aris Studio Architects. Um thank you to the EPC commissioners and to Chair Cox for hearing us today. Um as Perry mentioned we don't have a formal presentation because this is technically like a re-approval of a project but I did think it would be helpful to just give a little background on how we got to this situation and and where we are in the process. So we are fully committed to doing this project to moving it forward, in fact we had gotten through several rounds of plan check and were closing in on just a few remaining comments when we were notified that the um the planning entitlements had expired.

[00:36:20] Tom Jess: Um we had in order to get to the point where we were submitting drawings we actually lost a little bit of time because we explored a few different options with how to build the hotel. We explored a modular solution because we just had finished a modular hotel in South San Francisco and it went really well. So we spent some time exploring that with different modular builders and lost some time there because it just didn't pan out, it just wasn't a good solution for this particular site, so we lost some time there. And then we went in and and submitted and prepared the drawings for a conventionally built building, went through, we were going through plan check, we were emailing every week and going back and forth and responding to comments and then we got a notice that our permit our applic or planning entitlements had expired, and that because the way that the conditions of approval were drafted that there was no opportunity or option for an extension. And I think it's a little um funny timing that the item right before us was extensions because we would love to have had an extension, we would have been under construction by now for sure.

[00:37:26] Tom Jess: The um and with that in mind, I'm hoping that you can find a way to to reapprove the project and allow us to continue. Um the only request I have on the conditions is that the same condition that prohibited us from getting an extension on the last project is worded the same on this one, and it's condition number three. I would really, it would really be helpful, we don't have any intention of extending this any longer but but it would be really helpful if there could be a sentence added to the end of condition three that just said 'the permit will be null and void unless an extension is granted.' And it was the wording of that condition that prohibited us from getting uh an extension the first time through. Um so if if there was an opportunity to to revise that, that would be really helpful to us. But the drawings are complete, we just need to modify the drawings to update them to the current building code because they were submitted under the previous cycle and if uh if we're able to get this project re-entitled, we will have plans resubmitted you know very shortly, in short time, just a matter of a month or so would be my best guess. Um we do have myself and Perry um both both on the line able to answer any questions that you may have um and with that I'll go ahead and end the presentation, but thank you very much for having us and we look forward to getting this moving forward.

[00:39:11] Vice Chair Cranston: Uh I guess two questions. I I had been focused on if anything was taken out but the catch of the the uh community benefits fees. Maybe wonder if there were other fees um that have also changed since this was approved, for example park in lieu fees um obviously housing is already accounted for because of the community benefit, are those also been taken care of? Are there any of those that need to be reviewed? um from Stephanie or or Diane.

[00:39:45] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So usually when you know the fees are to be updated the community benefit fee is a special thing it is not part of our usual fee structure like you know like an housing impact fee or BMR fee or something like that. And that's why it is very specifically um um mentioned in here, otherwise you know the other fees which have been adopted through our usual uh master fee schedule annually we do not include specific dollar amounts in here, they are calculated at the time of building permit issuance and the applicant works with us to do that so that's why they have not been specifically mentioned in here it just says that you know the application will be subject to a lot of this these fees which are related to the permit.

[00:40:28] Vice Chair Cranston: Okay. And then uh second question, to the applicant's question about the the expiration the way it was worded, was there a reason that was done the first time that that it didn't allow you know extension through the normal process?

[00:40:44] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: The the um the condition the way it's worded these are standard conditions. This condition is applicable to each and every permit that goes through our planning entitlement process irrespective of what kind of permit it is. So it is an absolute standard condition, the applicant will does get an opportunity to apply for an extension but they have to apply for it before the permit expires.

[00:41:30] Commissioner Lo: Uh follow-up question, was the applicant notified um before the I'm hearing an echo... was the applicant notified a certain number of days before a per an entitlement or permit expires? Is that in our process to do so?

[00:41:54] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So we try to do it in in our best interest and for providing the best service, but at times it is also being missed because you know the staff is really focused on processing a lot of permits. We're really short staffed for past couple of years, and um that is the reason why the conditions of approval have been written very specifically and it goes through a public hearing process the applicant can know and review the conditions beforehand and they can ask questions if they had any.

[00:42:22] Commissioner Lo: Got it. Thank you. I I know we're our staff is very busy, so. Um another question perhaps this is for the applicant, I'm a little confused as to how many heritage trees are being proposed to be removed um in the project plans um on page L-3 it indicates that three heritage trees are to be removed, um namely number three, number 4a, and number 4b.

[00:42:57] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: And maybe I can I can um uh provide a little bit of background. I'm not sure if the applicant's arborist is present here tonight. So the there is a mistake there. Um the existing palm trees 4a and 4b which have been shown as a heritage tree are actually not heritage trees by the definition of heritage tree as we categorize in City of Mountain View. The same thing has also been indicated in the arborist report, I think the arborist report stated that it has not been determined as heritage and um that's the that's the mistake in the plan set where it's saying that 4a and 4b are actually heritage trees, the girth of the tree is not big enough for us to categorize it as a heritage tree. So at this point of time consistent with the resolution, the application is um the applicant is proposing to remove only one heritage tree which is the heritage tree number three along the rear property line.

[00:44:03] Commissioner Schmeising: Um in one of the questions submitted by the EPC um talking about um sorry, looking for the question... um comparing this project with the MTA because this project was approved before that went into effect, it's not subject to that. Um but staff did mention that they reviewed the site specific transportation analysis with the draft guidelines of the MTA and I was wondering if there were any concerns that emerged when that um review was made.

1

[00:45:00] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: ... inside and she would like to answer that.

[00:45:08] Chair Cox: She's been promoted. She can talk now.

[00:45:14] Erin Horan: I think she's just muted. If you want to unmute, Renee.

[00:45:21] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: Thank you, Erin. Good evening, Commissioners, this is Renee Gunn. I'm a Senior Civil Engineer with the Public Works Department. And, um, oh, it turns out you can get a video also.

[00:45:37] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: Um, so yes, we did review this in-house for comparison with the MTA. In general, it complies with it. Um, this project has limited ability to do bike and pedestrian improvements beyond what is there right now. It's relying on the El Camino Precise Plan to meet those requirements. Um, and there's not a lot of other things that we saw that could be done as part of this project.

[00:46:08] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, Commissioner Hehmeyer?

[00:46:12] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Thank you, Chair Cox. I have a question for the applicant. I know this project has been many years in the works, but I wonder if the recent pandemic is having, is perhaps encouraging you or would potentially open up any changes in the design that we see before us tonight, not sure in terms of hotel operations if there's anything that would have to be adjusted, and whether that could be done within the current scope?

[00:46:41] Tom Jess: Yes, so this is Tom Jess again. The, um, so this will be a branded hotel, and the brands have very specific operating instructions. In fact, they've issued entirely new operating instructions since the COVID crisis has put everyone on lockdown. Um, not necessarily items that would change the design of the hotel, the look, the feel, the size of it. More operations. They want as much fresh air as possible, ventilation, um, heavy-duty cleaning. They've changed some of the electronics in the, um, the locks to make things more keyless. So we would be incorporating those, but, um, we don't anticipate anything that would change the physical structure of the building itself.

[00:47:29] Chair Cox: Okay. And I see Commissioner Lo.

[00:47:33] Commissioner Lo: Um, I just realized that I forgot to ask one more thing. Um, in the resolution number 43, um, it talks about relocating, it's 43.relocation. It talks about tree number four in the arborist report shall be relocated to another location. Is that still up to date?

[00:48:02] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: No, that is going to be revised and presented to City Council.

[00:48:07] Commissioner Lo: Okay, so number 43 will be revised, will be deleted because they're not being relocated. They're being removed. The two palms are being removed.

[00:48:18] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: That is correct.

[00:48:19] Commissioner Lo: Okay.

[00:48:24] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, Commissioner Yin.

[00:48:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Hi, thanks. Um, I understand that between 2017 and this current application, that there was a change in the curb cut. And I had asked one question, thank you, staff, for answering that question earlier. Um, I understand why there was an additional curb cut. I was just curious whether or not in the initial design, there was any thought of trying to get the trash done, uh, along the same curb cut as the entry into the garage so that along El Camino we're minimizing the curb cuts.

[00:49:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Since we're trying to make it a boulevard, um, in such a narrow lot, now we've got two curb cuts, which means people walking have to then, like, look out for traffic every time there's that queue that the curb breaks. Um, and I know that's difficult to do now at this late date, but maybe it's a question for staff also in what we're trying to do to minimize curb cuts on El Camino. Um, and I also noticed in reading the answers in the staff report, um, that all the curbs are painted red on El Camino Real, and I guess I didn't realize that.

[00:49:36] Commissioner Joyce Yin: If you could talk a little bit about that as well, because given such narrow sidewalks and how close cars are to the curb, at 40 miles an hour cars driving, sometimes parked cars actually add a buffer, and pedestrians feel a little safer. Sorry, those are two different questions. Um, hope that wasn't...

[00:49:54] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Definitely, I can, um, respond to that. So you're right, staff actually did explore a revised design or a design alternative where the trash could be included in the same curb cut. And, um, it was determined during the building permit phase that that was actually not feasible. Uh, looking at the building design, if you can understand that, the ground floor there is an entry feature for the vehicle entrance, but above that, the second, third, and the fourth floor is actually a building. Um, the hotel guest rooms are actually built on top of it. And there is a limited amount of space that will be available for the, for the trash trucks to operate.

[00:50:35] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: We were trying to balance between, you know, whether we can avoid having a, a trash truck parked on El Camino Real, which is going to then disturb the bicyclists, uh, the, the bicycles, uh, and the pedestrians, um, along El Camino Real, or to reduce the number of curb cuts. We tried that, and it didn't work out, and that's why I think with the revised design that we are proposing where the second curb cut is only for trash pickup and it is not for a vehicle entry for parking or anything, it is actually going to, uh, reduce, you know, any trash trucks that will be parked on El Camino Real and hinder any kind of bicycle movement along the El Camino Real, um, corridor.

[00:51:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. But there was no, uh, thought to go back and redesign the hotel to accommodate?

[00:51:27] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: No, because the applicant has gone through so much substantial design, and they have invested so much into the building permit, um, process as well. They were pretty near completion, as they just mentioned in their commentary. That's why a substantial change to the building design was not explored as part of this iteration.

[00:51:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I understand. And, um, regarding the second question, um, about why there's no parking at all, there's everything is painted red on the curb and there won't be parking. Um, when I walk down El Camino now, it is so noisy you can't even talk to the person next to you. Cars don't go 35 miles an hour, they go much faster sometimes, and when I'm walking anywhere, it's always more comfortable if there is that buffer of parked cars there so it doesn't feel like, you know, cars are whizzing right by your shoulder.

[00:52:23] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: I will let my, um, my peer, um, Renee Gunn answer this, but I think my understanding as a bicyclist is the fact that I don't feel safe if I'm going to bicycle along with high moving traffic and the parked cars as well, and, um, that might have contributed to the decision for painting, um, red curbs along El Camino Real. But Renee can probably add more insight into that.

[00:52:49] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: So in general, we're removing parking along El Camino, um, per the El Camino Streetscape Plan and per the El Camino Precise Plan. To keep the full three lanes of traffic, of vehicular traffic, plus the bike, um, we need to remove the parking.

[00:53:15] Commissioner Schmeising: Commissioner Yin, you're muted.

[00:53:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Uh, so it's a, just a matter of the right-of-way? There's just not enough to get parked cars in there as well as the bike and the lanes of traffic?

[00:53:27] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: Correct. We would need another couple feet of right-of-way from every property along El Camino to maintain the parking.

[00:53:36] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. So then it's the bicyclists that are now the buffer between the cars and the pedestrians? Got it. Correct. Thank you.

[00:53:44] Chair Cox: Uh, Commissioner Schmeising?

[00:53:46] Commissioner Schmeising: Sorry, not specifically related to the project, but is there any plan for like a protected bike lane with like even just a strip, like a median, not a median because it's not in the middle, but like a small little planter or something?

[00:54:04] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: I would have to refer you back to the El Camino Streetscape Plan. Um, I'm not sure on the actual design, and for this section, I know that the full design hasn't been completed yet. Um, they've only completed the design on basically, um, downtown towards Sunnyvale.

[00:54:25] Commissioner Hehmeyer: And if I may, Commissioner Schmeising, I think part of it gets tricky because it's a county-controlled road, so the jurisdictional issues get difficult if it can be a class one versus a class four bike lane and who's paying for it and all those issues.

[00:54:36] Commissioner Schmeising: Thanks for the clarification.

[00:54:38] Chair Cox: Okay, Commissioner Yin, did you have an additional question?

[00:54:45] Chair Cox: Uh, you're muted. Oh, I think you're saying no, so. Okay, and now I see Commissioner Schmeising, okay, she's taking her hand down. Um, I don't see any more hands. I'll ask a few questions myself. Um, can you just remind me about the restaurant on the ground floor? Is that open to the public or is it only for the hotel patrons?

[00:55:13] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: It is for the hotel patrons, but it does have an open patio area, um, which has been designed in order to kind of mimic the commercial, um, frontage.

[00:55:25] Chair Cox: Okay. And, um, you know when we... I'm hearing an echo. Um, when we did the El Camino Precise Plan, uh, we did prioritize the, uh, uh, community benefits for, uh, affordable housing. And I'm just wondering, uh, can somebody on staff, I've been reading up on what we've been doing with COVID and it... um, is it true that we're taking money from the City's affordable housing plan and using it for COVID relief right now?

[00:56:04] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So, I can try. Maybe Stephanie, you can chime in if you want. Um, based on my, uh, discussions with the affordable housing manager, um, City, uh, prioritizes different kind of efforts, um, but the affordable housing, um, fund is specifically to be used for funding affordable housing projects only, and that is the best information I have at this time.

[00:56:32] Chair Cox: So you don't anticipate that the money that is being put aside here for the affordable housing fund, uh, would be used, uh, would be diverted for COVID relief?

[00:56:47] Stephanie Williams: No, I have not heard that that is being done, but we can certainly look into that and, um, bring back an answer on that question to the...

[00:56:57] Chair Cox: Okay. Okay. I mean, do you... I mean, like for instance, I mean, I'm aware of, you know, several programs, right? One of a rent relief program and, uh, for tenants and also, uh, a landlord program, and a, um, and a small business, uh, aid program. And, uh, do you know where they're getting their funding now?

[00:57:27] Stephanie Williams: I don't know the specifics of the funding for all of those.

[00:57:32] Chair Cox: Okay. Okay, well, just wondering. I mean, you know, because my... well, I'll leave that for comments. Um, let's see. Another question, this is back to the applicant. I'm just curious for our own education. Um, what exactly is a modular project, and why did you pursue it, and what are the advantages, and then why is it that you decided not to do that on this site?

[00:58:01] Tom Jess: Okay, this is Tom Jess again. Um, so a modular project was, was one that we did in South San Francisco is a very good example. We, the hotel rooms are actually built, this particular company builds them in Idaho, and then they truck them to the site, and a modular box is the guest room, the corridor, and the guest room on the other side. It's about a 70-foot long, 14 or 15-foot wide box that comes in. The guest rooms are completely finished out inside, the quality is very high, and then all the utilities from the core are stubbed to the corridor and they're connected in there. So they're stacked in place on the site.

[00:58:39] Tom Jess: And it works out really well in a lot of different situations, especially locations where there's a, where there's a lot of impact from... in theory, it would work well in this location because it's a, it's a tough site to build on, there's not a lot of staging area. However, the hotel layout and the site, um, didn't work out very well. It works out really well in long, narrow buildings, like a, a typical linear hotel where you can just stack boxes. This one, because the, the U-shape of the building, made it not very efficient, and although we tried to make it work, it just didn't work on this particular site because of the shape of the building and having to fit it on the site.

[00:59:19] Chair Cox: So the main motivation for doing it is that this is a proven, uh, lower-cost development method, or?

[00:59:26] Tom Jess: Um, it's not necessarily even lower cost. The quality is very high. The speed... it goes faster, it goes quite a bit faster. Um, and the quality is very high because you're not getting the wood rained on, you're not getting the, you know, the finishes are all done in a factory. They're not having to be carried up elevators to get in there for the, for the furniture and everything. Um, it's pretty slick. We're doing another one in Daly City. There's one in South San Francisco. We're doing one in Santa Rosa. But they, um, but they, they work better when the boxes fit evenly without having to cut the boxes after you ship them to the site.

[01:00:02] Chair Cox: Mm-hm. Okay. Thanks, thanks for that additional information. And then just one question back to, I think probably this goes back to Eric. Um, so it's been almost, almost eight years I guess since we put together the, um, El Camino Precise Plan, and one of the components was these, um, were these TDM measures. And, and I'm just wondering, um, do we... has, has staff ever gone back and looked at, you know, I mean, did we pick the right TDM measures? And what sense do we have after this amount of time, uh, that, you know, we're doing this the right way, or if there's any modifications, uh, we might want to make to it given that it's been a long time now?

[01:01:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, that's a great question, and I, um... You know, we are, uh, always, you know, looking for ways to, to modernize our standards and, and bring them in line with the, you know, things that we're hearing from, um, people in the field and, and even applicants to a certain extent. Um, one thing that we are doing, and we have in the, uh, Council, um, uh, kind of work items, uh, for us to get started on is the, uh, TDM ordinance citywide, where we can start to look at these things, although, um, much of that ordinance is going to be, uh, procedural.

[01:01:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We do have, um, you know, if, if we are finding that, uh, applicants are, are consistently unable to provide TDM measures, um, and they have valid reasons for that, uh, then we may bring forward specific proposals, um, uh, for, for modifying those standards, but we haven't heard that to this point. Um, and it'd be good to hear specifically, um, you know, maybe at a future date when you are, uh, looking at, you know, uh, priorities for the, uh, Council and for the Commission to, to work on items, uh, good to hear the concerns that you have about the implementation of those.

[01:02:42] Chair Cox: Yeah, I mean, the one thing that comes to my own mind is just that back when we did the, uh, El Camino Precise Plan, like Uber and Lyft weren't as big a thing as they are now. And, you know, I mean like rideshare was a bigger thing at that point, and it seems to be supplanted largely by Uber and Lyft. And I just wondered whether or not that might have a, that might be a reason to, you know, just ask the question whether or not, you know, some of the figures, you know, should be revised. I'll make the comment just that, um, you know, I'm more comfortable with these hotel projects having reduced parking just because of the alternatives available to people who are, um, you know, often don't need a car when they're staying in a hotel anymore. So, all right, those are my questions. I see Commissioner Lo, do you have a follow-up question?

[01:03:38] Commissioner Lo: Um, I asked this question in the, uh, written question. Um, I'm curious to hear from the applicants about your thoughts on the courtyard. Um, I know some modifications have been made, um, but from the drawing, there doesn't seem to be much shade that's provided in the courtyard. Um, perhaps you're thinking the buildings surrounding the courtyard will be shading it? Um, I am looking for more opportunities to be able to plant more trees on the site because trees provide so much public health as well as environmental benefits. Um, I'm wondering if you might consider planting some shade-loving trees in the courtyard. Um, for example, maples and dogwoods are both shade-loving and some of the species of these two kinds of trees don't require a lot of water, um, so you'll be able to to not exceed the water requirements also, and they're really lovely to look at for your guests as well. So I wonder if you would like to comment on that.

[01:04:52] Tom Jess: Yes, sure. This is Tom Jess again. So the changes to the courtyard, the primary change between the previously approved, um, courtyard design and then the one that's being proposed now is that we decided to move the fitness room down to the, you know, onto the courtyard area. It's kind of a glass cube on the fitness, you know, on the end of the courtyard. And, um, that was the primary change between the two. We thought that that would help activate the courtyard and and keep it more, um, you know, more people using it and out there. As far as the trees go, um, as far as the shade goes, we do believe that there is significant shade from the building onto the courtyard. So I don't think that shade is going to be an issue. As far as trees go, we're not opposed to, um, vegetation there. We have a lot of planting on there. We have, we can certainly do raised planters and, and do tall shrubs and so forth. And, um, in reality, creating the, the best, most inviting courtyard is, is only a plus for us and for the hotel guests. So that's going to be the goal, um, all the way through from, from start to finish is to create a really good, strong guest experience. And if the, um, and if we can get some trees in there, we certainly will.

[01:06:08] Commissioner Lo: Yeah, because if you plant trees in planters, they don't, I mean, they don't grow to their full potential. Um, so I think it's best that they are planted into the soil directly.

Segment 2

[01:06:21] Tom Jess: Well unfortunately in this situation, there is a parking garage below it. So we don't have soil in the courtyard, so it would, it would be in a planter regardless at that point.

[01:06:30] Commissioner Lo: You would need to haul in a lot of soil in order to do that properly, I guess. It's, it's tricky. Um-hm. Okay. So that brings me to another area that I was looking at. Um, again for the same purpose of increasing tree coverage. Um, which is the two palms that are being removed. Um, I think what you're proposing is to plant two new palms. Um, which I would request that you change that, because palms don't really provide all that much um, benefits to the environment, nor health, they don't um, absorb that much carbon, they don't um, clean air that much compared to broadleaf trees. So I would request that you change the replacement trees to be something that are broadleaf, large stature, uh, preferably if they can be native, that would, that would be even better. But it depends on the site of those two uh, new Queen Palms that you're going to plant. If you could choose something that can provide tree canopy as well as um, you know, if they're native, preferably.

[01:07:46] Tom Jess: Sure. Yes, staff passed along that comment to us earlier um, I think it was today even, and we have no objection to that at all. So we, um, I think that what we proposed to staff was maybe wording it to be, you know, native trees to be coordinated with um, the staff or with, with the city to do that. We have no, we have no objection to doing that at all.

[01:08:08] Commissioner Lo: Okay, yeah, and if you have a project arborist, um, you know, I'm sure that person might have input as well.

[01:08:16] Tom Jess: Yeah, we have a landscape architect and an arborist that have both contributed to the project, so we're in good hands.

68:20

[01:08:22] Tom Jess: We're in good hands.

[01:08:24] Commissioner Capriles: Thank you.

[01:08:26] Chair Cox: All right. Commissioner Schmeising.

[01:08:29] Commissioner Schmeising: Um, uh, so Chair Cox's comments on the TDM, um, made me think of another question. So looking at your proposed TDM plan that includes free transit passes for employees and guests, financial incentives, um, to employees who use other transportation method, uh, methods, and then free shuttle services. Um, you'd brought up that there might be some operational changes with how the hotel is run given COVID, and while we hope that this does not go on for an extended period of time, um, are there any operational changes you're considering to, um, your proposed TDM, um, I guess methods of engaging in the TDM? Um, things that you've been thinking about?

[01:09:15] Tom Jess: Um, the short answer is no. Um, we don't feel like, um, the, like I agree with you that hopefully this isn't going on for a long time. And by the time this hotel gets constructed, it'll be another year or two down the road. Um, hopefully the COVID crisis is something that we look back upon at that time. But, um, as far as social distancing and, you know, cleaning surfaces and so forth, I think that that's going to still stick around for quite a while. So, um, if we do have to make adjustments, we will, but at this point we haven't, um, anticipated any or planned for any.

[01:09:52] Perry Patel: I'll just add to that as well, which is, um, you know, we're too early on in the current crisis to understand what the new operating procedures will be in regards to new operating practices. If you look at most of the hotels in the Silicon Valley, corporate business is essentially down to a null. Um, most of the tech companies have actually shut their offices and so we're not seeing any airlift coming into the market where, uh, where corporate travel is what it was pre-COVID. And so, um, we're too early on in the current environment to establish what those new SOPs will look like in terms of valet, um, and even ride share, Uber, I think Lyft was also mentioned as well. I am a big believer that we will likely return back to what we think is normal, albeit with probably some modifications and, like Tom noted, in terms of cleanliness, but, um, it's too early on in the current environment to make decisions as to what that will look like, uh, once normal travel returns.

[01:10:55] Commissioner Schmeising: Thank you.

[01:11:00] Chair Cox: Okay. Um,

[01:11:03] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: If I may, I just wanted to answer to Chair Cox's earlier question regarding the source of funding for the rent relief, um, effort. And I was just talking to our affordable housing manager and she confirmed that those are, um, the rent relief funding is coming from the BMR and the CDBG funds that we have and some private, uh, funding as well. The affordable housing fund is not being utilized, uh, for, for rent relief efforts.

[01:11:33] Chair Cox: Okay, thanks for filling me in on that. All right. Are there other commissioners with questions before we go to public input? All right, I don't see any, and so, um, I will ask, 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 phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Planner Horan will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Planner Horan, do you see any attendees wishing to speak?

[01:12:18] Planner Erin Horan: I do see a Bruce England and my abilities to let someone speak is not available. If you want to...

[01:12:29] Bruce England: It's working. I unmuted.

[01:12:31] Planner Erin Horan: Okay great.

[01:12:32] Bruce England: Thanks. Um, Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive.

[01:12:35] Planner Erin Horan: Can we pause for a second? I'm sorry. Chair Cox, how long may they speak for?

[01:12:41] Chair Cox: Um, I think three minutes is fine since we probably don't have a lot of comments.

[01:12:49] Planner Erin Horan: All right, thank you.

[01:12:51] Bruce England: Okay. Yeah, I only need 10, so that's fine. Uh, no, I only need a couple minutes. Thanks. Um, okay, Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive, I'm speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We didn't submit a letter on this, um, but we, uh, part of our mission is to, uh, protect and enhance our, uh, infrastructure for bicycle and pedestrian transportation. So I'm just going to make a couple of points on that. Um, a lot of my questions have already been answered, so I don't have to go into any of those, but, um, we definitely want to see a minimal number of sidewalk barriers, so posts of any kind, racks, I guess you don't see too many of those anymore, but anything that blocks the sidewalk. El Camino is pretty abysmal, as I'm sure you all know, for anybody walking and biking along there. Um, minimizing the curb cuts, one of the commissioners commented on that, I understand the limitations, um, if they can be minimized, that's great. And there are multiple, uh, plans and guidelines that are available. So there is the El Camino Streetscape Plan which was mentioned and the El Camino Precise Plan which was mentioned. There are also complete streets guidelines at the state level and I haven't heard that discussed. I also didn't see it in the, um, staff report. Um, and I just wanted to comment on the bikes issue and the no parking, that one of the problems for bikes going along there and a lot of parts of Mountain View is dooring. So if you have a car parked and you're biking along there, you've got to be, you have to really allow enough space because people do open their doors and accidents have happened that way. And lastly, um, it's not clear to me that the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee had the opportunity to review this project, and, um, I think they ought to, given these bike and pedestrian impacts. And that is all for me.

[01:14:40] Chair Cox: Okay. Thank you, Mr. England. Are there other speakers? Planner Horan, do you see any other speakers?

[01:14:50] Planner Erin Horan: I do not see anyone else raising their hand.

Segment 2

[01:14:56] Chair Cox: Okay. Since there are no other speakers, uh, I will mention that the emails received by 5:00 p.m. were forwarded to the EPC. And I will bring this back to the commission for deliberation and action. Since this is a public hearing, we will be looking to make a motion at the end of the deliberation. So let's start. Uh, are there any commissioners with further questions or comment? Please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Lo.

68:20

[01:14:57] Chair Cox: Okay. Since there are no other speakers,

Segment 2

[01:15:37] Commissioner Lo: Um, I would like a little bit more information about the El Camino streetscape, um, which is a document that I'm not very familiar with. I heard someone said earlier that it's uh, in the works. What stage is it at?

[01:16:03] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: So the El Camino streetscape plan has been approved by council. We can make sure that the EPC commissioners um, get a link to a copy of that.

[01:16:16] Commissioner Lo: So perhaps I heard it incorrectly. I thought someone said it was still being worked on.

[01:16:22] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: So the overall streetscape plan, kind of the conceptual, precise, a little bit more than a precise plan level has been approved by council. The implementation of that plan, specific CIPs to install bulb-outs, um, the striping for bike lanes, um, that is in progress. One of those projects is in design right now, and the other two are in future years.

[01:16:50] Commissioner Lo: Thanks for clarifying.

[01:16:52] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: You're welcome.

[01:16:55] Chair Cox: Okay. Commissioner Capriles.

[01:17:14] Commissioner Capriles: Can you hear me now?

[01:17:15] Chair Cox: Okay, yes, now we can.

[01:17:18] Commissioner Capriles: Okay, alright. So I, I think this is a good project for uh, El Camino. I think it's uh, we, we've noted that a lot of the property along El Camino is uh, not an easy one to build on. So I, I think that was really well, uh, well designed, to make it uh, appealing and give it curb appeal, and I, I concur with Commissioner Lo that uh, any of the native trees and broadleaf trees that can be planted on the property to really enhance it and then to contribute to the greenhouse um, uh, emissions that will, you know, help us achieve that, those goals uh, is very, very much uh, appreciated. And we really uh, support those uh, the native trees and to make that uh, you know, part of the way we um, put any, any buildings uh, within the community. And that's what we're uh, really trying to, trying to achieve here. So appreciate your willingness to kind of look at the types of, of trees and to um, uh, make, make those modifications. As far as the uh, TDM, understand uh, that we are in a situation where it's pretty unknown at the moment, but would like to publicly comment, we'd like you to keep that in mind 'cause that's also uh, something very near and dear to our hearts to make sure that people are, are utilizing not only public transportation, but they have other options to um, utilize something other than their personal car, cars. So, uh, thank you for uh, resubmitting uh, your, your project, and I, I think it is a good one for our city. Thank you.

[01:19:29] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Schmeising.

[01:19:36] Commissioner Schmeising: Um, yeah, I want to echo some of what Commissioner Capriles was saying, um, I do really appreciate the efforts that this project has made um, to encourage public and active transportation for guests and for employees. And you know, as this situation evolves if updates need to be made to the TDM um, that you guys are willing to do that. Uh, I really appreciate the incorporation of art and green spaces into the hotel, um, and I would encourage the project to continue work with arborists um, or with other experts to identify ways to enhance the green spaces available, um, and to choose greenery that will optimize public health benefits, so like Commissioner Lo was mentioning um, choosing trees that are going to provide the maximum benefit for air filtration, um, shade, all of that. Um, I also um, appreciate the consideration of the future bike lane on El Camino, and if this does happen to be a section of El Camino where a protected bike lane is feasible, understanding that that varies, um, that the curb cutouts would take that design into consideration and just kind of the, the balance between those two, and I think the suggestion by Bruce England to have the bike and pedestrian committee review this project is um, that would be great. Um... Yeah, I think that's all for me, thanks for um, resubmitting and presenting this project.

[01:21:13] Chair Cox: Okay, uh, Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[01:21:17] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Sure, and I'll echo my thanks to you, the applicant resubmitting. Um, I think the only comment that I had jotted down that I don't think has been mentioned before is the reduced parking. Um, I, I like that the operator is considering tandem parking, and, and really helping us get towards signals that um, alternative transportation modes are important, and, and that we don't need to park a car for every room, so thank you for that piece.

[01:21:43] Chair Cox: Alright, uh, Commissioner Schmeising, did you have another comment?

[01:21:46] Commissioner Schmeising: Nope, just keep forgetting to lower my hand.

[01:21:50] Chair Cox: Okay, let's see. Um, are there other commissioners that want to speak? Uh, there is Vice Chair Cranston. Go ahead there, Bill.

[01:22:04] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess mine's more of a procedural question. Um, when someone makes a motion on this since the language in the uh, staff presentation refers to, 'as included in exhibit one of the staff report'. Um, the community benefit, the public benefit item number six, and the removal of, I think it was section 43, will we need to read that into this when we do it, or how does that, how would that be handled? Um, removal, 43 was the, was the one for the uh, I think the palm tree one that Commissioner Lo mentioned. So how do we, how do we incorporate those two changes, which would seem to be important, particularly the community benefit change would seem to be important, since the staff report is not actually right.

[01:22:54] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So I suggest that I have language on the screen which will go into the uh, recommendation, with uh, two modifications, um, trying to go to the next slide, um, which will say what exactly is being modified. Uh, this includes condition number six modification for the public benefit funds dollar amount, and removal of condition number 43 related to relocation of the trees. I have not included any um, modification language here for replacement of the, the palm trees with more native trees because um, that is more of like a usual process that we go through when we review the building permit plans, a lot of the times the type of landscaping that has been proposed specifically some of the tree species and stuff kind of change based on further detail assessment of the site and the, the landscape opportunity. So staff will take uh, this direction from EPC and will, and as the applicant has indicated that uh, you know, they're willing to work with staff on that, so we will just do it as part of the building permit process.

[01:24:08] Vice Chair Cranston: Thank you.

Unknown

[01:24:36] Chair Cox: Okay, I think I'm not echoing now. Okay, good. All right. Um, yeah, in general, I, you know, I do like the project. I did vote for it last time. It's substantially unchanged, and I have no reason to change my mind on the basic idea of it.

[01:24:54] Chair Cox: The modifications seem like ones that are reasonable ones to attract more customers. But I also want to echo what I hear from the other commissioners, that, you know, I mean, having some native trees and some shade trees, uh, you know, would be a good addition into the courtyard or in some place.

[01:25:13] Chair Cox: I mean, just, um, hotels sometimes, you know, they feel a little bit more like home, uh, if you can have some, uh, shade trees, uh, to help, uh, uh, make the courtyard area feel a little bit more natural. And so I'm glad that you're open to that, and I'm glad that, um, you'll be exploring that opportunity.

[01:25:36] Chair Cox: Um, you know, I mean, I understand why, you know, uh, for a hotel, the, um, first priority is to make sure that the restaurant is available to, um, the people who are using the hotel, uh, as residents there.

[01:25:56] Chair Cox: But, um, I also know that, you know, there are a lot of hotels that are able to make, um, a ground-floor restaurant open more to the public, um, and some actually, uh, become destination places.

[01:26:10] Chair Cox: And, uh, one of the things that I felt about the, um, I mean, looking back on the, uh, El Camino, uh, Precise Plan, um, it was the first precise plan that I worked on when I became a member of the commission.

[01:26:28] Chair Cox: And I also served on the Special El Camino Task Force with, uh, Eric Anderson here, who led that task force, and so I had additional, uh, responsibilities with that, because this was a particularly, um, important one, uh, for me.

[01:26:45] Chair Cox: Um, and looking back on it, uh, now that it's built out a lot, you know, I've seen some pluses and minuses with it. In general, I think it's been a big plus. Um, the buildings that we've gotten on here are new, are modernized, they're up to the sidewalk.

[01:27:03] Chair Cox: Um, it does provide, uh... there was no pedestrian interest in the past. I mean, you know, it was just, El Camino was a place that you drove along and you just dropped off somewhere to use a business and then you just drove on. Um, there was no connectivity there.

[01:27:22] Chair Cox: Um, it's become better, I guess, in terms of we had this idea of walkability and bikeability and, and pedestrian interest. And I think it's becoming more bikeable, even though, you know, there's always the question of safety biking on El Camino.

[01:27:39] Chair Cox: Um, walkable, yes, I mean, we're getting more consistency along the sidewalks, and I think that's a plus. Um, public interest, it's a step up from where it was before, but in general, I still wish there, there were more, uh, destination places for the public as we went along.

[01:27:59] Chair Cox: In general, I mean, you know, I think it just comes from that whole problem with retail, you know, I mean, just finding it much more difficult to attract retail in a new project than it has been in the past.

[01:28:13] Chair Cox: And so, um, I guess I'd give us an eight out of ten on this one. But, uh, but yeah, as much as we can do on any of that, I think is a plus. And this is certainly consistent with other buildings that are along El Camino, and it is an upgrade to what is there now. And so I, I'm very much in approval of the project.

[01:28:35] Chair Cox: Uh, let's see what else. Yeah, the other comment that I had, and in fact one of the council members actually just emailed me the answer to the question about the sources of funding for the rent relief and, and mentioned that it's coming out of... the rent relief is coming from the BMR housing funds and CDBG funds, were used for rent relief, it says here.

[01:28:58] Chair Cox: And small business and small landlord relief program funding came from the general non-operating fund. So I will thank that council member for providing that information.

[01:29:11] Chair Cox: And he also mentioned that, um, that, you know, that there isn't currently a big move to add a lot of further funding to the rent relief program from our affordable housing funds.

[01:29:29] Chair Cox: Yeah, and that's just the comment that I made, wanted to make. I mean, I think in general at first, um, you know, there was a great movement to take money from our affordable housing, from our BMR housing funds and use it for COVID.

[01:29:42] Chair Cox: I think that was appropriate at first, but I think also there was this idea that maybe COVID was going to be gone soon. And it looks like, you know, it's going to be a year out. And, um, I am encouraged by this comment that I've received an email that...

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Chair Cox: that, you know, we weren't, we're not going to completely drain, you know, our affordable housing funds because I think, you know, the intention when we put together the El Camino precise plan was that this could provide affordable housing to people over a long stretch of period and so I'd like to see that continue. And let's see, so, um, so anyway, those are my comments on it, just generally quite favorable toward the project. Uh, are there any other commissioners that would like to comment on the project, um, before we ask for a motion?

[01:30:42] Chair Cox: Not seeing any, would one of the commissioners like to make a motion?

[01:30:54] Vice Chair Cranston: Chair.

[01:30:57] Vice Chair Cranston: Um, Diana, can you put the language back up please?

[01:31:04] Vice Chair Cranston: So I move that the Environmental Planning Commission conditionally approve the Planned Community Permit and a Development Review Permit to construct a new four-story, 75,358 square foot, 153-room hotel, replacing an existing 71-room hotel; a Provisional Use Permit to allow a Hotel Use and a Parking Reduction; a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of a tree on a 0.97-acre lot located at 2300 West El Camino Real (Exhibit 1 to the EPC Staff Report) with, next page please,

[01:31:43] Vice Chair Cranston: a modification to condition 6 to read 'Public Benefit Fund where in the applicant will provide a public benefit fund to the City Affordable Housing Fund, with an estimated value of $637,897.68.' And number two, remove condition number 43 for relocation of the tree.

[01:32:03] Chair Cox: Okay, is there a second to the motion?

[01:32:10] Chair Cox: Uh, we have three participants with raised hand. Let me take a look. I, ah, keeps moving around. Okay, Commissioner Heymeyer.

[01:32:22] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Great. I'll second the motion.

[01:32:27] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, any further comment before we vote?

[01:32:34] Chair Cox: Seeing none, uh, Ms. Pancholi, would you call the roll? Or should, oh, sorry, Erin Horan should do that.

[01:32:46] Planner Erin Horan: No problem. I'll do that. Uh, Commissioner Capriles?

[01:32:50] Commissioner Capriles: Uh, yes.

[01:32:53] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Heymeyer?

[01:32:55] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Aye.

[01:32:56] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Lo?

[01:32:57] Commissioner Lo: Aye.

[01:33:00] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Schmeising?

[01:33:01] Commissioner Schmeising: Aye.

[01:33:03] Planner Erin Horan: Commissioner Yin?

[01:33:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Aye.

[01:33:07] Planner Erin Horan: Vice Chair Cranston?

[01:33:09] Vice Chair Cranston: Aye.

[01:33:11] Planner Erin Horan: And Chair Cox?

[01:33:13] Chair Cox: Yes.

[01:33:15] Chair Cox: Okay, so it looks like the, the motion passes, uh, 7-0. Alright. Thank you for, uh, coming and re-presenting your project, and we will now, will wish you well when it goes to council. And we will move on now to, I, yes.

[01:33:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sorry, if I can just, um, uh, real quick, uh, administrative action. Um, if you could please make Ms. Horan a host. I think you have to, uh, right-click on her, um, and, um, if you can make her the host, that'd be awesome.

[01:33:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And Ms. Horan, if you could please make Chair Cox a co-host.

[01:34:00] Chair Cox: Okay, here, let me see if I can find her. Ah, there she is. And it says right cli... you're saying if I right-click on her?

[01:34:10] Planner Erin Horan: I will do that. Done.

[01:34:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Or there might be three little dots in the corner, you can click that.

[01:34:15] Chair Cox: Uh, sorry, I only have her as a participant, and my only actions are ask to unmute, oh, more, okay, let's see. Make a host, there we go. Yes, there we go. Alright.

[01:34:40] Chair Cox: Wow. Okay. Hopefully everything's right with the universe for item number seven now. Thank you, Eric, and Planner Horan.

[01:34:51] Chair Cox: Uh, new business. Let's go to item 7.1, Plan Bay Area, Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Uh, I believe there is a staff presentation from our Advance Planning Manager, Martin Alkire. Take it away, Martin.

[01:35:10] Martin Alkire: Yes, uh, thank you, Chair Cox, and good evening, uh, Planning Commissioners. Uh, I hope you can see the screen. Um, but, uh, I will be making the presentation this evening, uh, along with, uh, Mr. Anderson, our Principal Planner, uh, regarding, uh, Plan Bay Area and the, uh, RHNA process.

[01:35:32] Martin Alkire: Um, my presentation, just going to touch really briefly on, uh, the points, key points in the staff report. I'll start off with an overview of both the, uh, processes, and then really focus on kind of the local implications of these processes, both at the county level as well as the city level. Um, talk about some potential RHNA allocations that, uh, have been discussed by our, uh, ABAG's Housing Methodology Committee, and then go over next steps.

[01:36:06] Martin Alkire: So, uh, Plan Bay Area is, um, required by Senate Bill 375, uh, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, is essentially trying to plan how the Bay Area can continue to grow in the most sustainable way possible. Uh, one of the key metrics is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita, uh, while also continuing to grow.

[01:36:28] Martin Alkire: Uh, the plan, uh, again as a regional plan, focuses on, uh, those four broad topics that you see on your screen: economy, environment, housing, transportation, and also includes, uh, some very broad implementation strategies, uh, for a variety of topics regarding infrastructure, uh, streets, transit, etc. Uh, and those strategies, again, can be, uh, implemented both at the regional level, at the county level, as well as at the local level throughout the Bay Area.

[01:37:03] Martin Alkire: Um, and I believe in the, uh, as an attachment to, uh, the staff report, uh, we kind of point out some of the local city of Mountain View projects that really, uh, share some of these same goals and that we are implementing at the local level.

[01:37:17] Martin Alkire: Um, and finally, the Plan Bay Area is a, is kind of a, uh, just a, again, a regional growth plan, but it doesn't, uh, take away any local land use authority. Cities still maintain, uh, local land use authority.

[01:37:32] Martin Alkire: Now on to RHNA. Uh, again, this is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, um, that, uh, is led by our state's, uh, HCD department. Um, and those numbers will go into our housing element that we must, uh, update every eight years. Um, and the link between the two processes is that, um, the RHNA must be, uh, consistent with the development pattern, uh, established by Plan Bay Area.

[01:38:08] Martin Alkire: Uh, that is where, where growth is located throughout the Bay. Um, and the RHNA, uh, process uses different methodologies to calculate, uh, how much housing should be allocated, uh, to each city in the Bay Area region, and the RHNA process could, uh, can use the growth scenario established by the Plan Bay Area, or they could establish their own.

[01:38:35] Martin Alkire: So the numbers you see on the screen there, uh, again, uh, for the next housing element period, the Bay Area, uh, has been allocated, you know, over 440,000 units. That's a substantial increase from the previous housing element period, which you see on your screen has almost 188,000, uh, units. Um, I should also note that, uh, RHNA is guided by several statutory objectives.

[01:39:02] Martin Alkire: Uh, there is an attachment to your staff report that outlines those five or six, uh, key objectives, such as, you know, RHNA must include an increase in housing supply and the mix and types and affordability levels of housing. It must promote infill development, and a number of other broad strategies. And then finally, you know, as the RHNA allocation, uh, gets, you know, implemented at the local level, cities must commit to the housing policies and programs in their housing element. And, uh, every year we submit an annual progress report to the state and just to demonstrate, you know, how we're doing both in housing production, but also in implementing various policies.

[01:39:47] Martin Alkire: Um, in terms of the Plan Bay Area, where we are now in the process, um, recently, uh, there's been, uh, a lot of meetings at ABAG with the Housing Methodology Committee, but what, uh, planning staff from Mountain View as well as other cities have done in the, in the county is we got together and discussed kind of some of the draft numbers that we were seeing for the county and among our own cities.

[01:40:13] Martin Alkire: And we jointly drafted a letter that went through the Cities Association, uh, and then was forwarded on to ABAG, and it basically outlined the amount of growth being forecast for Silicon Valley as shown on the screen there, and our concern was the high level of, of growth anticipated for the region and, uh, being problematic in that we don't have as viable transit say as other regions in the Bay Area, notably San Francisco or Oakland, uh, mainly with BART. Um, and so, uh, you know, one of our, uh, kind of concerns was not only the unrealistic amount of growth and how it would be very difficult to implement, but, you know, adding all that growth without viable transit is a concern. And so, again, we were saying perhaps more of the growth should be allocated to San Francisco and Oakland.

[01:41:06] Martin Alkire: Um, drilling down to the local levels, uh, local level here in Mountain View, again the map on the screen shows, uh, the Plan Bay Area growth distribution for Mountain View, and it's very similar, just basically identical to, uh, the change areas in our General Plan, again, where we're seeing, uh, and have been planning for a lot of growth in Mountain View for, uh, you know, well over ten years in line with our new General Plan, our 2030 General Plan. Again, San Antonio, El Camino, East Whisman, North Bayshore, those are all the, uh, geographies where we're planning, uh, growth. So it's very similar to, um, the Plan Bay Area geographies.

[01:41:52] Martin Alkire: Um, however, the big disconnect is the amount of growth. And you can see on the screen, uh, kind of the, you know, existing households we have, uh, what we've been planning for in terms of total new households, and then what Plan Bay Area is, is planning to 2050. And, um, that, that's, you know, almost double our existing size right now, and, you know, our, the Cities Association letter does point out that we all have city, cities all have a responsibility for adding housing, um, but like a lot of other cities, we were, uh, concerned about the high, the high amount, um, so we pointed that out in our letter, um, and we're continuing forward in the process.

[01:42:38] Martin Alkire: Um, so, uh, for RHNA, uh, again, as I mentioned, um, the Housing Methodology Committee, which is the subcommittee which has been kind of tackling all these different methodologies for how to allocate, uh, housing across the Bay Area region, um, has kind of settled on, uh, the methodology on your screen, using the growth, uh, from Plan Bay Area to 2050, the growth in households, and then using some additional factors, uh, to further adjust that number based on different, uh, income levels: very low, low, moderate, etc.

[01:43:19] Martin Alkire: Um, and through this kind of process, what we're seeing now, the rough numbers, we're seeing that Mountain View could, uh, potentially be allocated approximately 9,400 units, um, for, uh, our RHNA, which is the 2023 to 2031 housing element period, where we would have to demonstrate that we have enough sites, uh, and appropriate zoning to accommodate that number of, of housing growth.

[01:43:46] Martin Alkire: And again, you can see on the screen what our previous RHNA was, um, and, you know, it's percentage growth from our existing 2019 households, and then as a kind of a method of comparison, we looked at also Palo Alto and Sunnyvale's growth, uh, under this new methodology. And you can see what their numbers are just to give you a sense of how we compare to those cities, which are somewhat similar to Mountain View in that we, uh, you know, share the same kind of Caltrain line, we have a lot of jobs, uh, we're very high resource communities in terms of, uh, education levels and resources like that.

[01:44:24] Martin Alkire: Um, so, uh, that's where we are, uh, the next steps in the process, again, going to City Council, uh, next week. Um, and on your screen kind of shows, uh, the next schedule of the, the Plan Bay Area along with the RHNA allocations. Um, and this is all leading up to the final Plan Bay Area, which is slated for adoption in September 2021. Uh, and then, uh, housing elements will be due, uh, January 2023, uh, again based on that, uh, final RHNA allocation. Uh, so that concludes, uh, the overview presentation and, uh, staff is available for any questions.

[01:45:15] Chair Cox: Okay, it looks like, um, the next thing on the agenda though would be public comment. And so, uh, 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 phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Planner Horan will start the timer and let you know when your time is up. Planner Horan, are there any people on the line that want to comment on this item?

[01:45:51] Planner Erin Horan: There is not anyone raising their hand to comment.

[01:45:55] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, I will note, thank you Planner Horan, emails received by 5:00 PM were forwarded to the commission. So we will bring this now back to the commission for, uh, questions and, uh, deliberation or discussion. So it looks like Commissioner Capriles wants to be first out of the gate. Go to it, Commissioner Capriles.

[01:46:22] Commissioner Capriles: Um, just a, just a quick question for Mr. Alkire. Um, so do you feel like this is, um, negotiable as far as the number of units that is assigned to Mountain View? I mean, do we have any wiggle room? It seems pretty extreme to say the least of the expectations for that, that amount of growth, and I, I'm just not sure that we can, uh, accommodate that many, and, you know, and particularly your, your point and I'm glad that the cities, uh, sent the message to talk about the viable transportation, 'cause that just is an ongoing issue for us here in this particular area. And, you know, the, the ability to have, have a BART or have a, uh, a public transportation system that's really reliable in this area, just has not been forthcoming in the last, you know, many years. So, um, where, where do we go from here, Martin, on an individual city basis?

[01:47:40] Martin Alkire: So, um, we don't have a whole lot of wiggle room. Um, the, the main numbers coming down from ABAG and the Housing Methodology Committee are, are really rooted in the Plan Bay Area, uh, numbers, so those numbers are, are fairly high across the region. And so while we might be able to tweak a little here and there, it's not going to be substantial. I mean, we all recognize we will be getting a large number, as will other cities, and just to reiterate, you know, the state, obviously, as you all know, has has made housing a priority, and um, therefore, uh, you know, are really upping the, the allocations this year or this cycle, for not only Bay Area but other regions as well, the Sacramento region, as well as San Diego, uh, and LA. So, again, we don't have a whole lot of wiggle room, uh, because it is based on those very gross, uh, Plan Bay Area growth assumptions.

[01:48:37] Commissioner Capriles: Thank you.

[01:48:40] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, Commissioner Heymeyer.

[01:48:43] Commissioner Hehmeyer: So, Martin, it it kind of seems like a blunt tool in the sense that the city's progress to date on adding housing elements isn't weighted in any way. There's just been a, this huge increase that needs to be met and it doesn't matter if one city has made a lot of progress toward it and other cities have not.

[01:49:02] Martin Alkire: Uh, that, that is correct. I mean in past housing element cycles, that has been a factor that uh, folks have talked about and actually, uh, you know, have made a point of trying to include in the formula. Uh, so you're right. Uh, it's nothing that necessarily we get credit for, although at every opportunity we, we rightfully point out uh, the amount of housing that we are producing, the amount of areas that actually the EPC and Council is, is well aware of rezoning areas like North Bayshore and East Whisman. Uh, you know, we, we feel good about that. Uh, but clearly now we're in a new uh, environment where there's a lot more expected of us.

[01:49:45] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Okay. Thank you.

[01:49:49] Chair Cox: Uh, Vice Chair Cranston.

[01:49:54] Vice Chair Cranston: Uh, thanks for the update Martin. I, I am, I was struck by the, the, your initial comment was that Plan Bay Area isn't uh, isn't locked in stone, but it certainly sounds like the RHNA numbers are coming from Plan Bay Area so they may not be locked in stone but they're this untouchable thing that we can't touch and so I was, I was looking at the, the job growth patterns that you included as a, I think it's pages 17 and 18 of your response to the questions, and it, if one of the objectives of Plan Bay Area is to, is to put more into the Priority Development Areas to go for transit rich areas, uh, go for the higher resource areas, all of those drop in the allocation of, of, of jobs and of housing in this um, um, in this proposed plan. Um, I mean what, with the exception of the transit rich, but it's certainly that in the job growth it's moving it away from the priority areas, it's moving it away from the transit areas. Um, and I am just I'm...

[01:51:00] Vice Chair Cranston: So I I'm I'm, have they commented on that, number one? Um, the the reason for thinking that job growth in San Francisco and Contra Costa County are going to drop off noticeably and be fully absorbed by the South Bay is counter-intuitive to me, um, when, you know, up until COVID everybody wanted to be in San Francisco. Um, so is it, any, so I'd appreciate any comment on that. And then the third thing would be, was there any response from ABAG to this, to the, to the letter that the Cities Association sent on these items? Because it's a, it letter was sent, but are they going to do anything with it? Are they going to respond? Um, so again the first one is why, why move jobs away from priority development areas and transit areas, high resource areas, why, why do they think it's going to shift South? And are they going to respond?

[01:52:02] Martin Alkire: Sure. Um, so I'll take a couple of those and uh, Mr. Anderson, you can feel free to chime in as well, but um, just a a little um, uh, brief history of of PDAs just as a as a level of context. So PDAs are priority development areas, and that was started by ABAG a number of years ago where they asked cities, can you uh, identify areas in your community near transit that you expect growth because we want growth to be near transit. So the city voluntarily uh, included El Camino and San Antonio uh, down uh, downtown and eventually uh, North Bayshore. Um, but what this, what ABAG found is that not enough cities were volunteering uh, priority development areas and more importantly not enough development was taking place in priority development areas. So this this ABAG expanded their definition of where they wanted to see more growth and so they added these new categories, high resource areas, transit rich areas, so they so that's why you might be seeing some growth in these other areas besides the formal PDA areas.

[01:53:12] Martin Alkire: Um, that's one thing. The other thing is that again, uh, we discussed with ABAG and we've heard the HMC acknowledge our concern over the amount of growth in Silicon Valley, but then they also said, uh, we recognize that, but we also realize that uh, Silicon Valley has a lot of underutilized large parcels, a lot of aging malls, aging office parks that uh, have the ability to add a lot more density, commercial density. Uh, in addition to that, uh, as we all know, Silicon Valley is, continues to be an attractor for uh jobs, not only large high-tech jobs but attracting other smaller companies and other businesses serving all that growth. So um, just by virtue of our history of success at creating jobs and our geography, uh, we are slated to to to have more growth. Um, and then Mr. Anderson, I don't know if you wanted to comment on the the issue with Contra Costa or these competing areas, uh, and what you've been seeing in kind of your analysis of those numbers?

[01:54:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I, you know, I can't say for certain the why. Um, as we often say, you know, the Plan Bay Area is something of a black box. Um, we know what the policy goals are, but we don't know exactly how they turn into actual numbers in the output. Um, so I I would just reiterate what Martin said about some of those attractive factors of Silicon Valley, the available land, the large parcels, the unutilized parcels, which may not have as much of a positive effect in um, San Francisco and Contra Costa County as um, quite the job attractor that that the South Bay is.

[01:55:10] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, Commissioner Lo.

[01:55:19] Commissioner Lo: Um, I had a, I I would like to hear your thoughts, Martin and Eric, on the transit side of the story. Um, obviously we lack viable public mass transit, and if the state expects us to, if, if the state expects Silicon Valley to produce so much housing and so much growth, is the state investing in the transit area to help us overcome that? Do you have any insight in that?

[01:55:52] Martin Alkire: Um, well that that's a very good point, obviously, and that's central to all our minds, and when we did raise that issue at one of the meetings, um, I think someone pointed out that, you know, uh, San Jose is getting the BART. Uh, and so we're trying to move in that direction, and and you know, that that is going to be a connection and that will help. Um, but in terms of uh, state investments, I mean, we all realize living in in in where we live in in Mountain View uh, how difficult it is to get around now driving around and and how poorly some of our transit agencies, although they try very hard, they we're just not seeing the performance, not only that, but you know, Caltrain has capacity issues. Uh, you know, they're it's just very difficult. So um, it's, it's a tough situation we're all in, and uh, the hope is that we will continue to see some state investing in the future for transportation.

[01:57:00] Chair Cox: Okay. Uh, Commissioner Schmeising.

[01:57:03] Commissioner Schmeising: Um, I had a couple of questions. Similar to Commissioner Lo's question on transit, I remember this came up during our VMT, um, legislation discussion, that tension between um, you know, is the, you know along some of these corridors, is this really high-quality public transport, and then the hope being that um, by including that in the, the CEQA exclusion analysis that it would attract more development in those areas, thereby creating a virtuous cycle and improving the quality of the transport. Um, I was wondering what staff's thoughts are on that and if, um, you know potentially community benefits packages, if there is that that residential development in those high priority areas, if that would help the public transport sit situation.

[01:57:58] Martin Alkire: Uh, yeah those are those are great, great points. I mean the hope is with with the VMT process again that we'll see more investments in in multi-modal transportation uh, and uh, you know, different ways that we can move people around in in a more sustainable way. That's that's the hope. Um, you know, in terms of community benefits, that's a great a great idea. Certainly in our North Bayshore uh Precise Plan, the priority community benefit there is uh transportation improvements, and certainly uh, community benefits can be leveraged uh, you know, in different ways and certainly uh, devoting some of that to transportation improvements, you know, is, makes a lot of sense.

[01:58:43] Commissioner Schmeising: Um, in your opinion, um having spent a lot of time on this, do you think those improvements will happen in within this RHNA cycle? Um...

[01:58:55] Martin Alkire: Yeah, um, that, transportation infrastructure projects are obviously by definition take an extraordinary amount of resources and a long time to to do. So uh, we obviously won't see uh some of them. Um, but we, you know, we are constantly um, uh, in either design or construction phase of a whole variety of uh transportation improvements. In fact, this fall we're going to start construction on the uh Shoreline Boulevard uh reversible bus lane that's going to run connecting downtown transit to North Bayshore. So um, again, a lot of these things take a lot of time. If they can be tied to projects, they can maybe be sped up a little, but for capital projects, they they do take several years.

[01:59:35] Commissioner Schmeising: Thanks. Realize I'm asking you to uh, hypothesize a bit. Um, and then my other question was related to R3 zoning, and in the staff's answers to the EPC questions, it was mentioned as a potential way of increasing density to allow us to meet these RHNA targets, and I know that wasn't included as sort of an overall part of our comp plan. And wanted to see if there was any additional details you could share.

[02:00:18] Martin Alkire: Right. Um, so that is a City Council goal uh, to uh look at the R3 zoning uh district with the uh idea to uh incentivize more stacked flats, more apartments. Uh at this point we don't know uh we're a ways off uh coming up with an absolute number of what we think or even where we could upzone, but that's certainly something that will probably be part of the R3. And just as an update, uh we are going to the City Council in October uh to get confirmation on uh kind of the next steps, the key kind of scope-related next steps for the R3. And once we get that confirmation, we will go uh full into the update process and involving the EPC uh probably starting in 2021.

[02:01:07] Commissioner Schmeising: Thank you. That's all my questions.

[02:01:09] Chair Cox: Uh, Commissioner Yin.

[02:01:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Uh, thank you. Yes, thanks for the update. It's very interesting. Um, I I did have a question, it just seems like with the numbers that we did have in the past we were already having trouble meeting a lot of the below market rate ones, um, and I don't know if in the talks that you've attended in the meetings, whether or not people are addressing the fact that it's been tough to get the below market right, below market rate to date, if we are increasing it yet that much more uh for the foreseeable future, then um, it just feels a little bit like we're getting pushed off a cliff without a parachute. Uh, it's you know we're also trying to maintain a lot of our existing um, lower cost housing. And if developers are going to come and redevelop to be denser, they're not going to do so with BMR in my, as a goal, um, they're going to wait until, you know given the economics of construction that they can make it back and that's high-end luxury. So I just, I see that it's a little bit conflicting and I don't know if people are talking about that at a higher level.

[02:02:25] Martin Alkire: No, that I mean that's historically been the problem with uh meeting every city meeting their RHNA uh goals. Uh, obviously Mountain View, we've done very well uh in terms of producing a total number of units, much better than other cities, but not so good in the very low and low-income categories, better than some cities, but it is always very difficult uh, for a whole number of reasons. Uh, but yeah we we realize it's, it's difficult and uh, the hope is through, you know, tax credit programs, uh BMR ordinances, other things, that we can continue to see more uh uh development of units in those income categories.

[02:03:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah and it it would be great, you know, if that conversation kept getting pushed forward because it seems key to the whole thing. Um, I had a second question and this is a little bit different. This is in regards to the fact that if we are trying to densify, um is there talk about the very important need in maintaining a larger percentage of open space, usable and diverse open space, as we densify? Um, you know, you've got New York City with Central Park or Golden Gate Park, and there's no way that's going to get built out because it's so important to everyone that lives there. Um, that land is valuable, per square whatever foot, and yet it's worth it, and they know it because they live in that kind of dense surroundings. Um, you know we're not quite there yet, we're in suburban sort of density, and we don't feel it, but if we're going to densify it over the years, I want to make sure that we are adding to that conversation that it is very important to keep usable open space available. Um, I just notice that in, you know, in the discussions they talk about finding areas that are underutilized um, and trying to target those as development areas. Well when they're underutilized, they can be utilized as great open parks, not just for building more stuff and housing and and office space. Um, and it's just as valuable and I just want to make sure that that point is made.

[02:04:47] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, yeah, I have a a few questions and and a few comments. Um, one of them is, is that yeah I when they a while back when we talked about the idea of putting MTC and ABAG together, you know, one of the ideas I heard uh floating around was uh this will be an effective combination because it will mean that uh we can tie, you know, transit funding to the areas, you know, uh, where we see, you know, uh and need uh the growth to happen. And so I mean, you know, I guess I'd ask the question, look if they, if they want to project in the nine county Bay Area that our single county would pick up 44% of the employment growth, um, is there also the same enthusiasm on MTC to give us 44% of the funding for transit in the nine county Bay Area?

[02:05:48] Martin Alkire: Well, I I I'm not trying to be completely facetious, but I mean, you know, they did say that and and um I want to know if that's part of the conversation. So uh actually we did bring that up. Um, and just so you all know, the the process that I just described, it it is part of the regional transportation plan, so it all kind of links together. And the numbers that I've seen is that um 75% of the transportation planning for to implement Plan Bay Area will go to uh just maintaining uh existing infrastructure, uh you know, not new infrastructure. So, you know, we raised the concern that in Silicon Valley we're we're in need of probably new, you know, new new strategies, new ideas, um, but uh you know, basically the way it's drafted now is that again, 75% of the transportation funding will be going to operating and maintaining existing systems, uh which of course they have a backlog and they need that, but but your point is well taken.

[02:06:53] Chair Cox: I mean is there a possibility of like raising additional funds through like uh, you know, county-wide or multi-county-wide um, taxes?

[02:07:06] Martin Alkire: I mean, those are all these uh, you know, uh uh options that are on the table. Certainly we've had uh things like that, Measure A uh for VTA and other initiatives, uh that that's always an option and probably will be an option, will have to be an option moving forward.

[02:07:22] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, let me ask this, I mean I can you tell me um in a little bit of detail, I believe our uh Director of Community Development Aarti is um involved with the ABAG MTC planning? What exactly is she, is she doing?

[02:07:44] Martin Alkire: Sure. She's one of uh I think three or four uh Santa Clara County representatives to the Housing Methodology Committee, so what that means is she goes to the meetings uh and um you know reviews the uh recommendations and uh you know uh discusses, you know, her concerns over over where things are going and and her ideas for how uh how those methodologies should be shaped. So yeah, she's been an active participant in all the HMC meetings.

[02:08:14] Chair Cox: Okay. You know, one of the things that I wonder about, you know, and I think back, you know, I'm I'm coming to the uh end of a eight-year cycle myself on the uh EPC, you know, and it's pretty much uh a large part of it has tracked the existing 8-year housing element cycle. And you know, as I look back on it I see that you know, whereas uh we've done, you know, uh, we've done quite uh uh we've had a good production of housing, you know particularly in the uh above median income area. Uh we have not met, you know, the affordable goals. And but our situation is not unique. Most cities, I think that over 95% of cities um that are in California uh find themselves in a similar situation of not being able to meet the affordable housing goals. And so, you know, one of the things that I think about with all of this is just that you know, do we even have fundamentally the right approach? And one of and one of the things that I think we've done well in Mountain View is, you know, I mean uh particularly in uh the East Whisman Precise Plan was you know, codifying this idea of jobs-housing balance. And uh you know, we mentioned it also with respect to our negotiations in North Bayshore and it was even talked about when we were talking about Terra Bella as well. But so what I wonder is, it it seems like you know the thought on how this goes is we say oh, here's where the growth in employment is going to come, therefore we need to build the housing, without the idea of saying that well maybe we should do RHNA as a linkage. You know, we should look at where the housi... where the employment growth is coming, and then you know tie the RHNA to, you know, how much actually happens. And then cities like ours that are planning for a linkage, you know, would then be able to, you know, I mean there would be at least a there'd be a carrot and a stick to tie the two together. I noticed in the handouts that you sent out, there's at least the inkling of this, you know, with the idea of they talk about, it looks more like it's a, like the carbon transfer program, where you know like you'd buy offsets or whatever, it was kind of mentioned that way. But, um, I'm just wondering, I mean, has there been any discussion at all about, you know, how the former plan, uh, you know, did not work out, and whether or not we should be taking a look at different ways of doing things?

None

[02:11:40] Martin Alkire: done a lot at the local level. Um, and kind of the not exact one-to-one relationship at the regional level. But, you know, factors regarding job growth is a, is a central issue that has been discussed in, uh, you know, the HMC meetings for a number of cycles.

[02:12:00] Martin Alkire: Um, and that is, you know, cities that have a lot of jobs should maybe be getting more housing, as a very, uh, uh, rough way of saying it. But not to the exact level that we're doing, uh, you know, we're doing something quite a little bit different in terms of, uh, you know, mandating certain jobs housing relationship.

[02:12:18] Martin Alkire: But that job factor has been considered and is currently a factor, one of the factors in the current HMC formula.

[02:12:25] Chair Cox: Okay. I, I would like you to maybe, I, I talked offline, uh, with Eric Anderson, you know, uh, in the call that we usually have before the EPC meetings, asking about, um, you know, like what comes next and how this might, um, might affect, you know, how we might have to do, uh, rezoning.

[02:12:49] Chair Cox: Because fundamentally, you know, the statutory requirement for RHNA is that, um, when you get the RHNA allocation, you know, you need to be able, you need to zone so that the, um, so that, you know, that it's possible to build that, it's legal to build that within your city.

[02:13:09] Chair Cox: So, um, can you talk a little bit about how that, you know, that, um, zoning might play out over the next few years? I mean, what considerations are involved, and also this idea of, you know, how our, our tiering might affect, you know, what our RHNA allocation is and how it's implemented?

[02:13:30] Martin Alkire: Right. So, um, I think I mentioned in the one of the responses, uh, you know, we are tasked, potentially tasked with getting this high number, approximately 9,400 units.

[02:13:43] Martin Alkire: Uh, and looking at our North Bayshore and East Whisman areas, those areas together, uh, could potentially accommodate, you know, approximately 15,000 units. Um, and as you probably saw in the, the news, uh, Google just submitted their plans for East Whisman of I think 1,600, 1,700 units.

[02:14:01] Martin Alkire: So, you know, we've set up the framework to accommodate a lot, uh, of this new potential housing allocation. One of the, the nuances with North Bayshore and East Whisman is that those areas also allow office uses.

[02:14:17] Martin Alkire: So we're going to have to have some discussions with the State Housing, uh, Office, uh, about, you know, how many of those sites can we, can we count, as it were, towards housing, knowing that housing is potentially competing with, um, office.

[02:14:32] Martin Alkire: That being said, I think we would have a strong argument to say that, as you mentioned earlier, Chair Cox, that we have policies in place that kind of tries to link, um, you know, jobs with housing.

[02:14:44] Martin Alkire: So I would like to think that the state would be favorable to that 15,000 that we've kind of zoned for to help meet this new RHNA allocation. That's one thing. The second thing is, uh, we do anticipate some increase, a modest increase through the R3.

[02:15:00] Martin Alkire: So between those three areas, just at a very rough level, we think, uh, you know, as we go through the housing element process, which you'll all see, that, um, you know, I'm personally confident that we could, we could, um, zone and accommodate what we get from the state.

[02:15:19] Chair Cox: Okay. Yeah. I guess I'd also like to make the comment that, you know, it hasn't quite become a truism, but you see a lot in the press now about this whole discussion about whether tech work needs to be local or it can be more remote and whether it will be in the future.

[02:15:38] Chair Cox: I mean, if we looked, given the uncertainty around that, you know, I mean, that's why I would advocate in, rather than having a fixed RHNA number, having a number that, you know, actually tracks what happens in terms of employment, because we don't know what's going to happen.

[02:15:56] Chair Cox: But we do know the result, a key result we want to achieve is appropriate balance. I mean, you know, as I've gone back and I've looked over the numbers, I mean, you know, I mentioned this to Eric offline, right, that, uh, my first reaction was that, you know, how did Sunnyvale get a smaller allocation than we did when the city's twice our size?

[02:16:06] Chair Cox: I mean, you know, I mean, for something of such serious public importance, I mean, you know, the fact that that, um, you know, as I said, I don't mean to boast or anything, but I mean, I do have a PhD in, in, uh, systems engineering and, and planning and, and as a result, I mean, you know, I mean, looking through the documents that we received, they're not easy for even me to understand.

[02:16:20] Chair Cox: And I mean, it, but I mean, on the other hand, you know, if I look at it, you know, there is, there does seem to be something baked into the numbers about what the existing jobs-housing imbalance is in these areas.

[02:16:32] Chair Cox: And so it is true that, you know, if you look at it, you know, Palo Alto has locally probably the worst and we're maybe somewhere around next and then Sunnyvale is somewhat less. And so there may be some of that driving it.

[02:16:47] Chair Cox: But a key thing here, and I'm, I want to echo what Eric is saying, that, you know, this, um, transparency is not a hallmark with this.

[02:17:23] Chair Cox: And, you know, I think it's a big jump to just, you know, having something like a five-page document that you could share with the public about where all of this came from.

[02:17:34] Chair Cox: But yet, you know, if there were such a thing, then I mean, it would, it would drive a lot more public confidence that we're actually doing the right thing.

[02:17:44] Chair Cox: And so I mean, you know, the lack of transparency is I think, you know, it only hurts, you know, building support for, for this because, you know, I mean, people can't see easily where, where the rationale is behind the decisions that are being made.

[02:18:02] Chair Cox: I mean, I believe they're being made in good faith. I believe the people who are doing this believe they're doing it correctly. But it's just not clear to those of us on the outside how it's being done.

[02:18:14] Chair Cox: And I, I would encourage if there is any way that you can get more transparency in this, I think it would...

Segment 4

[02:18:29] Martin Alkire: Um, well just, just to to note, yeah, I mean, um, two ways that we're thinking about this, from a policy perspective, uh, ABAG has been pretty, pretty transparent in terms of what they're trying to achieve, and they've had workshops with the public where, you know, more than I think 95% of the public participants say hey these are great policies, these you're you're in going in the right direction, we need to do more, you're you're you're doing great. That's the policy lever. Then, what Mr. Anderson mentioned earlier is the kind of black box of where the numbers come from. And that, you know, we've had a number of uh conversations and emails back and forth with ABAG staff to try to get more clarity on, on that black box. And we do have I think we have a call set up pretty soon again, isn't that right, Mr. Anderson, with one of their tech people, to try to get that more transparency. So, just to echo, I would say that from a policy perspective I think ABAG has has been pre- has been pretty uh transparent, and some of the documents that they present uh are are easy to understand from the policy level. The the actual formulas and the black box and the data, that that continues to be a challenge.

[02:19:43] Chair Cox: Okay. And yeah and the one I'll make a parenthetical comment about, you know, I mean, I, the last time I was at the Planning Commissioners Academy, right, I mean, you know, there was a lot of talk about RHNA, and, you know, I mean, uh, the one anecdotal thing that got repeated over and over again was how did Beverly Hills end up with only one, you know, affordable unit and one market rate unit in their RHNA. I mean, peop- people just didn't think that that really passed the smell test. And it sounds like, you know, at least with the methodology, you know, uh, it, uh, this will be more fair. But, you know, I I bring that up as the idea that when things look very unfair, you know, people do notice it and it does get noised around a bit. So anyway, I've said enough, I'll I'll go to Vice Chair Cranston.

[02:20:43] Vice Chair Cranston: I guess maybe to somewhat echo Chair Cox's comments. I'm, you know I, I have less concern about the ability of the, the housing agency, whatever that stands for, to actually, if I believe the numbers that were coming out of Plan Bay Area, do I trust that the agency can put together a plan on how to apply that? I feel better about that than I do about that initial input. It's the, the black box that comes out of Plan Bay Area and I continue to be troubled by the comment that 'well Plan Bay Area, you know, it's just advisory, people don't have to follow it.' It's like, no that's that's bullshit. It's, it's being incorporated into the the RHNA numbers and so it's, it's not an independent thing, it's actually part of it.

[02:21:32] Vice Chair Cranston: Um, so I would agree with you, the fact that if it, that experienced planners like yourself, like Mr. Anderson, others look at this and say it's a black box, has me even more worried. Because it says that the people that I would trust to actually should understand how this is coming out, if you can't figure it out, how does, that doesn't necessarily convey confidence to the rest of us. So that, that black box somehow needs to be better articulated.

[02:21:59] Vice Chair Cranston: With that said, my confidence that that we'll be able to change that black box as much as I would love them to open it up and show it, is actually kind of low. All right? So, you know, I think we still need to fight it, but the flip side is I, one of the things I wanted to bring back to you, to, to Martin and to Eric, you mentioned the comment about the ability, the likelihood of the, of the state recognizing the, the mixed use areas as part of our number. And I am, I am there is no question that I am not as familiar with the exact details of how North Bayshore Precise Plan works. I am much more familiar with East Whisman because I worked through it. And the ability to point to 'if you do this, you can get these kind of houses, if you don't do this, you can't get the growth.' And my question is should we be, so I would if I were somebody looking at it from the outside, that hard linkage would mean to say 'okay, well then I'm confident that you're going to get that housing. Because if you get the growth you you've put it, you've codified it and said the housing has to be there.' Is that same kind of linkage as clearly articulated in North Bayshore? Should we be going back and looking at North Bayshore? Should we be looking at other things, even even El Camino or San Antonio to say, you know, if we're going to do these things, if you want to put in more, if you want to make it denser, it's not just a wish that you did the housing, but that we build those linkages in so that when we do look at our plans, we can say with confidence that 'hey guys, here's the, here's the document. If they want growth, there's going to be housing. So you give us credit for that, um, as part of their plan.' Should we be going back to looking at those areas where we don't have that hard linkage, um, and making it a, a tighter coupling?

[02:23:33] Martin Alkire: That's a very good point. Um, certainly East Whisman has uh, kind of a lot stronger language uh, regarding that issue. However, um, all the issues surrounding future growth in uh, North Bayshore that have centered around these master plan ideas, uh, every time that we've talked about uh, that with uh, the major land owners up in North Bayshore as well as with the city council, that has been a a key policy issue that they continue to raise. And uh, we're confident that the the major owners and stakeholders in that area understand that. And um, again, while I can't point to specific language uh, as I mentioned that East Whisman has, there's been enough uh, things on the record that I would feel confident talking with HCD and looking at past proposals, looking at the existing language and past proposals that we've seen in North Bayshore, to, to really credibly say that yes, we, we would expect to have um, more uh residential uh, with any growth in North Bayshore. Mainly because of the transportation issues. And uh, we all realize that uh, just continuing to grow North Bayshore in terms of office, our transportation system can't accommodate that. And that's the other key kind of reason why residential is is so favorable up there.

[02:25:15] Chair Cox: Okay. I'll ask a follow-up question. I mean, you know we've talked a lot about, you know like uh transit you know between, I mean other than buses, between um the downtown and and North Bayshore, like this automated guideway and all this kind of thing like that. Is there any potential for us to get MTC money for any of that?

[02:25:41] Martin Alkire: Um, so I know that VTA has um, um, well actually that wasn't VTA, it was actually Google that funded a VTA study for uh some of the automated uh feasibility studies uh, that were happening, automated uh guideways. Um, you know that that's a potential. To be honest though I think um, we have realized that we've had to fund a lot of our own improvements um, in North Bayshore and and other parts of the city and, and haven't had, we just can't wait for the state or the state doesn't have as much funding as as uh, that can accommodate us. So um, if the state is does have some additional funding sources, we'd love to take take uh, take that opportunity. But to date, a lot of these other uh, transportation improvements that you see have been largely funded by uh, by the city.

[02:26:40] Chair Cox: Alright. So I, I guess, um, what comes next? I mean, in terms of like uh what will you be bringing back to our commission uh on this item?

[02:26:50] Martin Alkire: Yeah, well certainly uh you know, we will inform you of um you know the final Plan Bay Area uh, as it moves forward, the final blueprint, and of course you'll be hearing about any draft methodology that comes out. Um, regarding this process that the timing is awkward. I think the comments on the public draft ended I think August 10th. So the timing is just, is not, does not line up well. However, we are still moving forward with taking your comments, taking the city council comments, and we will report that to the HMC, into ABAG to let them know of our concerns. Um, but other than that, uh, we're just waiting for the final HMC determination uh and then again it will be feeding into the RHNA process that you'll all see with the Housing Element.

[02:27:47] Chair Cox: Okay. Are there any more questions or comments from commissioners before we move on to the next item?

[02:27:54] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Just thank you for continuing to push on some of these important issues. I mean I know the advocacy piece is hard.

[02:28:04] Chair Cox: Yeah, I'll echo that. You're in the midst of the toughest uh situation here in California and so I'm glad uh we have you on our staff and, and please keep us informed because this is a matter of great interest to us. Alright, uh, not seeing...

[02:28:30] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Somebody was trying to say something, Chair Cox.

[02:28:31] Chair Cox: Oh, oh, who else wants to talk? I don't see any hands.

[02:28:35] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Nicole the, from the City Attorney's Office.

[02:28:39] Chair Cox: Oh Nicole, okay. Nicole, did you want to say something?

[02:28:50] Commissioner Lo: We're not able to hear you.

[02:28:58] Chair Cox: Yeah, she's off of mute but she doesn't have her hand up and uh, so I don't know if she really wants to talk.

[02:29:06] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I wonder, I think her bluetooth is just reconnecting.

[02:29:08] Chair Cox: Oh, okay.

[02:29:10] Martin Alkire: Um, while, while she's waiting, uh Mr. Anderson, I don't know if we wanted to uh ask for just a summary of comments uh, uh that we heard or key things that EPC you'd like us to formally report back to to Council uh at next week's uh meeting.

[02:29:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I can, I can summarize some of the things that uh, were said. Um, I don't know if the um, maybe then at that point we can see if there's anything else that the the commission wants to say to kind of tie everything into a into a uh, tidy package. Um, I heard questions about whether, you know, what the negotiation process is with uh, with ABAG. Uh, whether our current progress in the RHNA, um, matters and, and what influence it might have. Um, questions about, um, allocation of jobs in the region. Um, let's see. Um, lots of questions about transportation improvements following growth. So uh, that was a a key theme. Um, uh, let's see. Question about um, the virtuous cycle of uh, more density being better for transit. Um, and R3 process. Um, uh, concern about um, the, the tension between maintaining naturally affordable units and the need to create higher density. Uh, as well as some concern about making sure that some land is set aside for high quality open space. Um, again, more questions about linking transportation funding to growth. Um, a question or comment about um, linking housing growth to job growth. Um, and some discussion about, concern about whether our mixed-use sites or our sites that involve bonus FAR or tiering, um, or, or, uh, any other concerns about what what can count to um, RHNA sites. Uh, concern about the transparency of the process. Um, uh, let's see, and um, that PBA is not just advisory. RHNA is an output of PBA, and it's regulatory, so that's um, kind of disingenuous. Um, concern about the black box again, uh, if um, you know if we can't figure it out, it's not open and transparent. Uh, and then maybe some thoughts about expanding the explicit jobs-housing linkage to other areas besides East Whisman. Um, and then more about linking transportation funding and and and housing growth. So that's kind of the... I think that's pretty much everything that I heard from everybody. Um, certainly big theme was transparency and linking transportation funding to, to housing growth.

[02:32:51] Chair Cox: Okay. Um, any other comments then before, um... I'll ask once again, did Nicole Wright want to say something? No, she wanted...

[02:33:07] Vice Chair Cranston: She's moving her mouth. She's moving her mouth but we're not hearing what you're saying Nicole.

[02:33:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Nicole, can you text in the chat box? We don't have a chat box, unfortunately. I can...

[02:33:23] Commissioner Lo: Oh, we don't. Okay.

[02:33:24] Martin Alkire: Or Nicole, if if if there's a key legal issue that that you need to raise I wonder if you could email uh, Eric, uh...

[02:33:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: You can email me, my email is open, yeah.

[02:33:39] Commissioner Hehmeyer: I also wonder, Nicole, if you go to preferences and then audio, I think you must have the, the microphone is either not the internal one or, because you must be able to hear us. So I think you can pick built-in microphone or same as system and that might help.

[02:33:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh. She left. Yes, we did, we took public comment, yes we did.

[02:34:07] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: It's all over, thank you. I just wanted to confirm because I might have missed it and I couldn't con- ah. Thank you guys. Thank you.

[02:34:16] Chair Cox: And now we can hear you.

[02:34:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We, we did it. Yay.

[02:34:23] Chair Cox: Okay yes, it was there. Nobody said anything but we did ask. Okay, well if there's nothing else on this item, we'll thank staff once again and move on to our next item, number 8: Commission, Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests and Committee Reports. Um, uh anything back for us Eric?

[02:34:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't have anything new to report. I'd like to um, welcome the commission back from the summer break. Uh, looking forward to an exciting season. Um, I did want to remind you uh, of the, um, uh, Human Relations Commission listening forums. We did miss the uh, the the English uh, adult one a couple of days ago, but um, there's a youth one that's coming up and also uh, some for um, uh let's see. On Thursday, September 10th there's one for youth. On the 17th there's one for Spanish speakers, and on the 24th there's one for uh, Chinese. So, um, just wanted to get that out there, make sure that people were aware that that's going on. And that's all I have.

[02:35:43] Chair Cox: Okay, can uh, do you have anything about our next EPC meeting?

[02:35:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, sure. Uh, our next EPC meeting, the scheduled items are um, so a little bit of a long story, we've got um, more accessory dwelling unit uh, amendments uh, to share with you. Um, uh, and then um, there're also some minor precise plan amendments to East Whisman and North Bayshore related to uh, discussions we've had with the school districts uh, about a city-wide school strategy. So we are amending the precise plans to be consistent with that city-wide school strategy.

[02:36:22] Chair Cox: And so the next EPC meeting will be at the expected time on the 16th of this month?

[02:36:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yep.

[02:36:31] Chair Cox: Okay. Alright. Uh, do any uh, the commissioners want to report on anything they did over their summer break? Usually this was the point where the council members would talk about their vacations, you know, I went to Paris, I went to Africa.

[02:36:50] Vice Chair Cranston: Are there hands up?

[02:36:53] Chair Cox: Oh, Commissioner Lo, go ahead.

[02:36:57] Commissioner Lo: Well, I'm not about to report on my summer vacation because I didn't go anywhere. Um, but I did want to uh, let everybody know that the Green Streets for a Sustainable Community Symposium is kicking off um, on Thursday, September 10th for day one. Day two will be on September 25th. And day three will be on October 8th. Some of you may have already registered. Um, if you recall this event was initially scheduled as an in-person event, and due to COVID now it's all virtual, and the time got pushed out. Um, in addition, um, Canopy has a webinar series as well. Canopy is the uh nonprofit where I serve on the board uh, that promotes urban trees. Um, it had one webinar in July and August, and the next one is coming up in October. Um, and the topic actually is very relevant to what we do. The title is 'Save the Trees, Please! Best Practices for the Development Plan Review Process.' And one of the um, speakers will be our own council member Alison Hicks. Um, and um, some of you may recognize another speaker's name, Deanne Ecklund. Um, so that should be a pretty interesting webinar. If you can all attend, that would be great, thank you. And they they will be recorded if you're not able to attend. And I can share, I think Eric probably has shared information on some of these already, if not I can forward that to you.

[02:38:45] Chair Cox: Okay, thank you Commissioner Lo, and I see Commissioner Hehmeyer.

[02:38:52] Commissioner Hehmeyer: Yeah, I think the only other update, um, the Buildling Center where I work, we've been facilitating a partnership um, for the City of Mountain View, and are very excited that Mountain View is going to be entering into a data data sharing partnership with Stanford to look at um, our policing data and figure out what alternative modes of policing might look like in our community. So um, it's it's been great and we've had our research uh, presented to the the subcommittee on Race, Equity and Inclusion. And so, more to come on that.

[02:39:29] Chair Cox: Okay, and thank you. And um, yes, I just wanted to mention that you know, I mean our city council elections are coming up, and I still serve as the Vice Chair of the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association, and Chair of the City Council forum which will be held on uh, Wednesday, September 30th. So I'm hoping there isn't going to be an extra EPC meeting that night. Um, but in any case, uh, we'll have more information on that forthcoming. Normally we invite the whole city into the library to hear this, but we aren't going to do that this time but we will have it over Zoom, so hopefully we'll get a lot of people to attend on that. Um, another thing I do is I'm vice president of the Mountain View Historical Association, and there will be an event uh, this Sunday at 1:00 p.m., a Zoom event. And uh, there's going to be a webinar, and I don't have all the details but um, if you're interested just let me know and I'll tell you what it was going to be about. I think Nick Perry is going to be giving, you know, a historical uh, walk back in time about Mountain View uh, over the webinar. That was what we had planned before. So there was that, and let's see if there's anything else. Um, nope, I think that's that's the main stuff I have to share. Okay. Um, let's see. So if there are no other Commission, Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests and Committee Reports, I will adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m. and thank you all for, it's great to see you again even if we can't see you in person. I mean you know, I mean this is, I mean in one way it's convenient to be at home, but I mean, I I hope that you know, sometime in the year we'll be able to get together.

[02:41:33] Chair Cox: I I know that Eric um, we talked a little bit about the idea of doing a virtual retreat and I put in a plug for, he said 'but how do we do the food?' And I said 'you give us each a coupon to use a pizza robot.' And so we could, we might try to do that. So I don't know if there's any more thoughts on that, but I think it would be nice to have that you know, sometime before the end of the year. Um, uh, I'll just leave it at that unless Eric has anything else he wants to add to that comment.

[02:42:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, nothing to report yet, thank you though.

[02:42:10] Chair Cox: Okay, okay. And so I adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. until our next regularly scheduled EPC meeting on Wednesday, uh, Wednesday, September 16th. I'm looking it says June 17th there. Okay. Alright. Thank you all, we'll be seeing you then.

[02:42:37] Commissioner Lo: Thank you Chair. Thank you very much, it's good to see you all.

[02:42:38] Vice Chair Cranston: Good to see you guys. Bye.

[02:42:39] Commissioner Lo: Goodnight.

[02:42:40] Chair Cox: Goodnight.

• ← Previous
• Next →