Sept. 18, 2024 Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:21] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of September 18th, 2024. I will call the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to EPC at mountainview.gov by 4:30 PM on the meeting date.

[00:00:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak, and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you're speaking on. Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

[00:01:23] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjected to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe and inclusive community for all. This commission welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters over which the commission has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the council code of conduct and the government code may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's comment period. Now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with roll call.

[00:02:13] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Madam Clerk?

[00:02:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Oh, okay. It appears that we have all seven of our members here according to my screen. So we're going to say we're seven of seven, we've got everybody.

[00:02:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All present. Thank you Madam Clerk.

[00:02:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Item number 3, minutes approval, there are none. Item 4, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6.

[00:03:13] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers?

[00:03:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh we have one in-person speaker, uh Logan Herrera.

[00:03:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright.

[00:03:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Oh, okay. Um, not at this time.

[00:03:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Gotcha. Alright. There being no speakers for oral communications under item 4, we will move to item 5, public hearing. Uh, item 5.1 specifically. Eliminate minimum parking standards for residential uses in article 10 parking and loading of chapter 36 zoning of the city code, and the P19 downtown precise plan, P38 El Camino Real precise plan, P40 San Antonio precise plan, and P41 East Whisman precise plan. First, could the commissioners with conflicts of interest related to this item please make your recusal statements now.

[00:04:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so I'm recusing myself from discussion of the elimination of minimum parking requirements due to the proximity of my personal residence to the El Camino Real precise plan area.

[00:04:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner.

[00:04:20] Commissioner: And I am recusing myself from discussion of the elimination of minimum parking requirements due to the proximity of my personal residence to the El Camino Real precise area plan as well.

[00:04:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Vice Chair. We'll give 'em a moment to relocate and then we'll get started. We will begin with the staff presentation from Associate Planner Hang Zhou and Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. Oh, let's hold up a second. We have a question from a commissioner.

[00:04:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Question for the City Attorney. Um, I am within the half mile radius of the AB 2097. Do I need to recuse myself?

[00:05:10] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Um, if I may, we are not proposing any changes for AB 2097 as part of today's agenda, so that would not be required.

[00:05:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Alright, thanks.

[00:05:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright, to the staff presentation, please take it away.

[00:05:30] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Good evening commissioners. My name is Hang Zhou, Associate Planner with the Planning Division. I'm joined here by Principal Planner Diana Pancholi. The item in front of you tonight is to consider amendments to the city code and a few specific precise plans to eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential uses. For background, since January 2023, Assembly Bill 2097 eliminated minimum parking requirements for most development projects within a half mile of a major transit stop. The state law allows developers to set their own parking needs based on specific conditions, rather than following the city's minimum parking requirements.

[00:06:11] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: However, AB 2097 still allows cities to require minimum parking spaces for electric vehicles and disabled persons. In the city of Mountain View, there are currently six major transit stops, including four light rail stations and two Caltrain stations. These areas within a half mile of the transit stations are highlighted in blue on this map here.

[00:06:38] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Later in April 2023, the City Council adopted the sixth cycle Housing Element, which covers the 2023 to 2031 planning period. As part of this Housing Element, program 1.2 was introduced to eliminate minimum parking standards in certain cases. This program included three subtasks. Subtask A required eliminating the minimum parking requirements for 100% affordable housing developments. This was completed as part of the zoning code update in December of last year.

[00:07:15] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Subtask B calls for codifying exemptions to parking requirements for residential developments in the El Camino Real, San Antonio, downtown, and East Whisman precise plans, as well as in the Moffett Boulevard general plan change area. This subtask is due by December 31st, 2024, and is the item presented to you tonight. Subtask C requires codifying exemptions to parking standards for projects that meet enhanced transportation demand management criteria, with a due date of December 31st, 2026. This will be addressed as part of the citywide TDM ordinance, which is currently being developed and has an anticipated adoption timeline of fall 2025. This program aims to provide greater flexibility in land use and site design, facilitating the development of diverse housing and mixed-use projects that align with the city's long-term vision.

[00:08:18] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Housing element program 1.2 went above and beyond AB 2097. That further eliminates the minimum parking requirements for all residential developments and any residential component in mixed-use developments in Chapter 36 of the city code, as well as four precise plan areas, as highlighted in yellow here. In the precise plan areas covered by AB 2097, this means that although no minimum parking is required, electric vehicle parking and parking for disabled persons are only required if a developer chooses to include parking voluntarily, and is calculated based on parking being provided instead of parking being required per building reach code.

[00:09:06] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: In precise plan areas not covered by AB 2097, the proposed amendment will align residential parking requirements with those inside AB 2097. However, it is worth to note that the current minimum parking requirements for non-residential development will remain in effect in the areas highlighted on this map.

[00:09:30] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: In line with the proposed amendments, there are other minor amendments which are proposed for internal consistency. This includes removing parking reduction options for multi-family residential development in El Camino Real precise plan and the San Antonio precise plan. Removing car share vehicle requirements for multi-family residential development in East Whisman precise plan. And finally, making it clear that if parking is not required, but voluntarily provided, those spaces must still comply with standards for access, size, design, and other safety related requirements in the parking ordinance. This is to ensure parking is developed in a way that is usable, promotes good circulation on site, and will not create hazards for those using the spaces.

[00:10:22] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: In summary, the proposed amendments will eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential developments only, which aims to allow for greater flexibility in land use and site design, enabling the creation of diverse housing and mixed-use projects. There is no change to the current requirements for non-residential developments. Although developers are no longer required to provide residential parking in those areas, they can still choose to provide parking based on market needs voluntarily. In such cases, required electric vehicle and ADA spaces will be calculated based upon the voluntary parking proposed per the building reach code. Additionally, the amendments to the precise plans include language clarifying references to the city code for parking and access design development standards.

[00:11:18] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: The proposed amendments to parking requirements are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, as per section 15061 subsection B3. Staff has received three public comments on this item. One is in support, one is an objection, and one is an inquiry only.

[00:11:39] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: In conclusion, staff recommends that EPC recommend to Council to adopt the ordinance amending chapter 36 of the city code, and adopt the resolutions amending the downtown precise plan, El Camino Real precise plan, San Antonio precise plan, and East Whisman precise plan. As a next step, City Council will review EPC recommendation on the proposed amendments at a public hearing tentatively scheduled on November 12th, 2024. This concludes the presentation and staff is available for questions. We also have the Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski here in person, and our Community Development Director Christian Murdock joining the meeting virtually to help answer any questions. Thank you.

[00:12:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Ms. Zhou. Questions from the commission?

[00:12:37] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I had uh one clarifying question uh from the presentation. Could you uh let us know, did you say that disabled parking is not required if they opt to not voluntarily provide parking? That's part of the...

[00:13:00] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Um, so yes, the ADA and EV parking are calculated based on the number of parking spaces required or provided per the building code. And now that we are removing the required number of parking spaces in these areas, so it is only going to be required when parking provided voluntarily and calculated based on the parking provided voluntarily.

[00:13:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Legally that's the way it goes because of the way the state law is worded, okay.

[00:13:34] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Yes.

[00:13:36] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah, so yeah, that's correct. So it's, it's, so under AB 2097 if that was the only, you know, state law that, that, you know, regulated parking in our city, then you would still be able to require ADA or EV parking based on the minimum parking requirement that used to be allowed, right? So let's say in a office development you needed one parking space per thousand square feet, right? And you needed like 40 parking spaces total, and then the building code calculated that out to like 10 EV or ADA parking spaces, the the the minimum that that applicant would have to provide are those minimum ADA and EV parking spaces, period. However, the housing element is taking that a step further in in stating that we will be removing minimum parking standards. And when you remove minimum parking standards, then there's no basis to calculate those EV or ADA parking spaces. So if somebody is going to provide no parking, and we don't normally see that and and it will be rare to see that so I want to make sure we're all aware of that. If someone provided no parking under, you know, the modifications we're making to, to be in keeping with the housing element, they would truly be required to provide no parking.

[00:15:16] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

[00:15:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Go ahead.

[00:15:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I just have a question about how much discretion do we have in this decision? It seems like there's there's the state law, there's the housing element, so it kind of seems like we pretty much have to approve this.

[00:15:52] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Uh yes, I would say we don't have much discretion here because the housing element was approved by city council and it's a required by the state and AB 2097 is also a state law that we have to follow. Um, so...

[00:16:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, that's what I thought, thanks.

[00:16:07] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah, I I do want to say though, I think, you know, it's it's I I don't want to say that there's not any discretion at all. I mean, you know, this is our you know, in our adopted housing element, um, it it we are following that to a tee. Could, you know, the council suggest some sort of alternative that still meets, you know, this requirement or this what we've said we would do? I think that there's potential there, but we are as staff following this exactly how it's written and that's what we're bringing to you tonight.

[00:16:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay, thanks.

[00:16:48] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Further questions from the commissioners? Take it away.

[00:16:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes, and um, I'll just start my questions um with a quick statement saying I think we um exerted a lot of uh discretion as part of kind of coming together on the housing element and ultimately kind of like as a community kind of creating that as well. Um so I have three questions um and actually I might have one follow up to Joyce's, Commissioner Yin's question just now around the ADA and the uh reach codes. All right, I'm sorry, the EV parking spots. Um, I think um in the example I heard you mentioned around 10, um it just I don't know, it in this hypothetical total example, um was that um 10 was it like or or and or or is it like can someone do all EVs or all ok, I just wanted...

[00:17:46] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: No, it it would be a combination of whatever the requirement is for both spaces.

[00:17:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, like it required allotment for both. Okay, cool, I just wanted to make sure I was understood that correctly. Okay, um in terms of my questions um and I think you kind of touched on this a little bit when you kind of um started alluding to the rarity of kind of like no parking um developments. But I am um going to ask kind of like a broad question because this is a change and I would want to kind of understand um a little bit more around how that change ultimately kind of ends up looking like. Um, and so uh my question to staff, um to whoever feels um is is best placed to answer, um so in what ways uh have developer behaviors, parking supply, uh you know, the transit um network or flow, and um resident behavior changed in other cities, areas, etc. where parking minimums have been eliminated for residential development? Like what have we observed or or what what are the like effects that generally could be anticipated?

[00:19:01] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you Commissioner for that question. Um we don't have any studies that are readily available which have um specifically studied this change um since we came out of the pandemic. I think San Jose is the one city which has eliminated their parking requirement and a bigger one uh in very recent past. So I think there's still time before we can actually tell what that difference is and what the impacts are or what are the benefits coming out of that in terms of people using different modes of transportation or the impacts on the residential neighborhoods surrounding it.

[00:19:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh, in lieu of that then, um within you guys's realm of kind of like expertise on this, what are the anticipated benefits or impacts that we might expect to see?

[00:19:48] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: We definitely, and as the housing element has intended to, we are trying to see how can we eliminate the barriers to encourage more housing development in the city. This this policy and other policy programs are geared towards that. So definitely we would like to see that as a benefit coming out of it. This can also result in um shifting the mode uh you know, making people choose more alternative modes of transportation rather than just depending upon cars. Uh at least those are the benefits, there could be other impacts as well in terms of you know, people looking for parking spaces elsewhere. And we are working on other city-led programs which will which are trying to address that.

[00:20:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Excellent. Uh I appreciate that. Um my second question, um so and I think um yeah we're kind of touching on the kind of like discretion question. On the flip side of that, um let's assume that we did kind of like, council at the end of the day were to ultimately for whatever reason reject um the proposed uh change. Uh what would be the consequences um or the impacts with regard to our uh you know, our city's compliance to the housing element?

[00:21:05] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So, as we've mentioned in in other hearings, you know, we're you know, that's not completely known at this point. Um, I think that what you know, HCD from what we understand and our conversations with them are looking for everybody to put forth their good faith effort in getting their um projects and their implementation done. Um, and you know, that would require us to go have a conversation with them, right? If if the council were to not you know, you know, move forward with the housing element program as as prescribed. So I think, you know, that's a bit of an unknown um and it would require more conversation to to figure that out. And obviously we hope we're not in that position. Um, and so we're trying to, you know, get get this item in front of you and the council before the deadline, which is the end of the year.

[00:21:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Really appreciate it and within that spirit of, you know, hoping not to be in that position, um, at or before December 31st, 2024. Um, I am just curious to understand a little bit more around, um, and this is my last question too, uh what were the and I might be missing something technical that I totally missed and I apologize in advance if I am, but um what were the selection criteria um under which the new kind of outside AB 2097, the orange stuff basically um on the summary of proposed amendments, what was the selection criteria for for those being the target areas for this?

[00:22:34] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So that is geared, it is coming out directly from the housing element program which specifies four specific uh sorry, four precise plans, downtown, El Camino, San Antonio and East Whisman. And those areas which are outside AB 2097 are the parts of the precise plans which are outside AB 2097. So the how we selected those four precise plans is just basically implementing how we decided to do it in the in the program language.

[00:23:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thanks.

[00:23:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Any further questions from the commissioners?

[00:23:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I do, I have uh just a a couple. Um, one is just uh responding to Commissioner Nuñez's uh idea of communication and talking, is the department of, what is it? Community Development, Housing, Community Development for the state, are they still open and able to have communication with you guys? Are they easy to reach?

[00:23:39] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Um, I wouldn't say that it's like extremely easy to reach them, but you know, if we reach out for guidance or we, you know, submit requests through their, you know, they have a portal that you you submit, you know, questions. Um, you know, they they do respond to us, uh sometimes it's you know, you know takes a little while, but um, you know, I think there is communication there and I think we know some people who we've had conversations with who may be easier to reach out to. Um, but you know, most of our conversations have come through something that's been submitted through the portal and then they reach out to us to to have those conversations.

[00:24:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. Um, and then the two other questions I had uh are regarding, oh, if staff wouldn't mind just updating us on the downtown parking strategy and what surveys have been done, I believe Commissioner Nuñez touched upon it as well. Um, I know we haven't done much since COVID and that was a whole different environment. So um if you wouldn't mind doing that and then I'll have another question afterwards.

[00:24:59] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Sure. Uh thank you for the question Commissioner. Uh we adopted the parking strategy in 2021 and um it identifies several implementation items specifically for downtown parking strategy. Uh since then because of the um staffing limitation and actually prioritizing other items, we haven't made any significant pro- progress on that. There were some um minor items which have been implemented but nothing nothing substantial. Right now we are in a process, we are actually going to go back to the city council in October for um securing some funding to get consultant on board to start the implementation process on those uh implementation items. And in terms of the studies, that's why we have not done any studies yet. We do um regularly do parking um assessment of our parking garages and parking lots. And um those are just in preparation of when we get to the step of implementing some of our strategies.

[00:26:08] Commissioner Joyce Yin: For the consultant?

[00:26:09] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: For the consultant, yes.

[00:26:10] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Um, and then the second question was, could you remind us of the schedule for the TDM implementation? I know we reviewed it once, it was sort of very high level. Um, and where we're at with that and the I guess second question, part B would be whether or not any of this might affect either of those plans I guess mainly the TDM plans.

[00:26:37] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yes, so the uh we are prepared in the process of uh preparing a citywide transportation demand management um ordinance. And at this point of time we are working with our consultants to figure out the thresholds based on the input that we received from EPC and city council. And it is tentatively scheduled to be coming back for adoption in fall of 2025 as mentioned in the presentation. AB 2097 had a very major impact on you know some of the um related parking requirements that we discussed today. So that has already been in effect and we are taking that aspect of it into consideration as we prepare our TDM ordinance. When we will revisit our parking strategy and how we are going to implement it, it's definitely going to also impact the baseline of where we start, because we we did the study, uh we adopted the parking strategy in COVID, and since then things have changed a lot so we'll have to do some studies again to see what the baseline is.

[00:27:38] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, great. Thank you so much.

[00:27:43] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And just one last question from me. Um, I understood there were three comment letters from the public about this project. Um, I must have missed them in my packet. So could you just very quickly cover um who sent them and what the general tenor of the letters were? I think we probably all just like to know what was in them.

[00:28:03] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So I I will just make a uh clarify that. It was recent communication, that's why it was not in your packet. But uh they will be attached to the council uh item when it will go uh as part of the council package for sure. And we'll shortly just describe what the comments were.

[00:28:20] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Perfect, thank you.

[00:28:24] Associate Planner Hang Zhou: Actually there is one comment from Charles Wrigler. Um he emailed in and asked about what the scope is and I called him back and he expressed concerns with the overflow parking on street, and also he expressed uh concerns that developer would not use this opportunity as lowering housing cost but making more profit out of it. Um, the other comment I received is also this afternoon, uh is from Amiel Abraham, uh she or he um expressed full support of eliminating parking as um she felt that it is always not a good idea to walk through the parking lots to get to the public transit. So she thinks eliminating all those parking near public transit is actually make public transit more accessible. Um, I seen one more... sorry... that one, the the other one I, I need to find the name but he was asking about if his property is inside this change area and it is not, so there's no follow up uh discussion about that.

[00:29:37] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Ms. Zhou, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, EPC questions being complete, we'll now move to public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card, provide it to the clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on the item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star 6. Do we have one in-person speaker, Logan Herrera. Okay.

[00:30:14] Logan Herrera: Hello. I appreciate being able to comment on this with all of you today. Um, I am in full support of of the recommendations. I think that increasing the housing supply through the housing element is a key piece of work for the community and you know, I'm proud to live in a community that is a pro-housing designation from the state. Um, I live in an affected area in an AB 2037 San Antonio station, um, and I biked here. I I think that it's important that our built environment reflect more than cars, that it reflect a diversity of transportation methods and ways of living, and that this is key to accomplishing that. I also had a question, can I ask a question?

[00:31:09] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: That's generally not how we do it.

[00:31:13] Logan Herrera: Okay, well well then I'll I'll just talk about my understanding from reviewing the documents in advance. Um, my understanding from reviewing the documents in advance is that with respect to bike parking, that it is required when parking is voluntarily provided. And I think that this makes sense and it it wasn't addressed in any of the discussion today, but I think it's also a form of parking that I think is being handled well through this recommendation. Yeah, if my understanding is correct. Thank you.

[00:31:52] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thanks. Madam Clerk, any other comments?

[00:32:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, no comments online. Thanks.

[00:32:05] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right. EPC deliberation and action. Uh, comments for the commissioners. Mr. Nuñez.

[00:32:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Chair Dempsey. Um, yeah, I um, a few thoughts on this. Um, number one, I I very strongly support this. Um, for a few reasons. Um, the first of which is that um you know, us um being an arm both of the public and you know as appointed through the city council and um given you know our city council approving uh the housing element uh that you know this project is is rooted into and out of. Um, it would you know I I would hate to be out of lockstep with regard to um almost explicit direction uh from the city council on that regard uh through the housing element. Um, notwithstanding even kind of like how and in what ways the state uh would factor into into that. Um, and so uh to the extent that I'm approaching this item, uh the way I'm approaching it is um by you know working within the the direction given of and through the housing element towards um assessing is this the best way to achieve um what the housing element has been set forth through. And I think it does a great job. Um, you know I really appreciate um you know the the target areas. I mean you know just going through the city and kind of uh intuitively feeling you know kind of like how Moffett might look like in the future, what San Antonio um has kind of ended up looking like today and may still uh turn into. Um you know it feels good to think of um these change areas as uh enabling us to have a more uh experimental uh kind of spirit uh towards how we approach development.

[00:34:02] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, all towards ultimately uh you know doing the things that we uh you know as a you know city uh you know and public have um you know collectively put our hands up to say that we value which is more housing, more affordability, uh more options for getting around, um less reliance on cars, uh less emissions, um and a more you know connected kind of fabric for for doing that. Um, so I think this is fantastic. Um, in terms of you know the the staff's work, I mean I I there's there's nothing I can say that you know gives me any reason to doubt that this is um the right approach. Um, and so I just appreciate you guys's work in terms of getting this through and um again I'm I'm just looking forward to doing what we said we would do um with regards to all of that grueling work that led to our housing element. So I I support this.

[00:35:01] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Mr. Cranston.

[00:35:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, what's come forward here is what we discussed and agreed on during the housing element, so I don't have any fundamental issues with this. If I have a concern it's not with this, it's the foundation underneath it. Okay, the assumption of AB 2097 was that people would be using transit. There was a recent article in the Chronicle that shows that people are not actually getting back on transit. Um, I drive it every day and Monday and Friday, I think I've mentioned this before, Monday and Friday, my business is in San Francisco. It's like driving on a weekend. Today, my commute was a half an hour longer than normal and there were no accidents, because people are not taking transit when when they go to work. Okay? There are companies that are beginning to require, Amazon announced this week announced that they would be requiring people to come back into the office, but an underlying assumption of this is that people would take transit if they were near transit. And it's not clear to me that at least that the process that's in place today and I don't know whether VTA and Caltrain have looked at this, but the requirement that you, you buy a pass that's for a week instead of buying something that's for three days so that somebody's, you know, somebody would, would take transit if they didn't have to buy a full month pass.

[00:36:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I think that we as a city need to be advocating back to these groups to say, look, recognize that there is, you know, we want to do this, okay, this is the right thing to do, we want people back on transit, but if the structures that are in place, a TDM isn't necessarily going to get people onto the trains if you know if they're still not, they're more comfortable just taking the car the three days a week that they go to work. So I'm, I'm worried about the the underlying assumption in this that says the people that put in 2019 and before went to Caltrain every day, took their train to work, they took VTA every day to work, they took their bus every day to work. There's not evidence that that's changing at this point. And COVID started four freaking years ago, okay? And you know, I don't go around with a mask on worried that I'm going to get COVID. I I'm conscious of it, I don't sneeze on people and I'm worried about flus and everything too. But it's, I'm worried that the underlying assumption that we're counting on for this to actually deliver is not actually coming to pass.

[00:37:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And I think, so my comment is, this is, it's beyond kind of the scope of this, but I guess it's a a comment to staff and a comment to council that we need to also be looking at what what do we need to do to help encourage the people that would take advantage of this to actually take advantage of it given the fact that they're not being asked to work five days a week in the office whenever they go in. And so what else can we do to actually encourage them to do that? Because otherwise this will be a dismal failure. We'll have a parking nightmare, okay, if they don't do this. And if they just decide well I'm just going to park on the street like Mr. Wrigler was concerned about and everything else. So, this doesn't really, there's nothing in place today that I can see that makes that an objective that we're actually going to realize this. I don't think, this doesn't address that, this is a piece, but an important piece of how do we get this to really turn into the reality I think is missing from this and it's not really in the housing element. I don't think I don't know that it's a land use issue necessarily even, but that's my. So I'm, I'm going to vote for this, but I am very concerned that the underlying assumption this counts on is not coming to pass and so we may not actually achieve the objective that we set out and the housing element set out and the state set out in this regard. So I'm, that's my, that's my comment.

[00:38:43] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Commissioner Yin.

[00:38:47] Commissioner Joyce Yin: This is not right on topic either, but it definitely touches on it and and we're in it. Commissioner Cranston, you opened it, so I'm gonna dive in. Um, I don't fully disagree with what Commissioner Nuñez has said. I understand that at this point legally with the way things are worded, we have a timeline, we have to do this, I get that. But we're not hitting it yet, and I know that is not making you guys comfortable staff, to say we're close but not right at the line.

[00:39:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I feel like yes, it's rare, but this is something new. I don't think we've ever had a position or a time where we told developers you don't have to build any parking and so we don't have a lot of experience with developers coming back saying we don't have to do any but we're gonna. So um, in that respect, I have concerns that we're losing disabled parking. Even though, even if transit or ridership was up and we've got the majority of people riding transit, not everybody can move around like that. I mean some people have to drive. They're elderly who have wheelchairs and um, if you're gonna bike, thank you for the in-person comment, we need bike parking as well.

[00:40:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So I think going back to opening Pandora's box here, whenever we have like the housing element, the state coming down with um the laws, it is as I've been describing to a lot of people, heavy-handed. I understand the goals. Whenever you're trying to make major changes that are extra complicated and involving lots of different players and lots of different complexities, um, when the state comes in, it's like using a sledgehammer, when at some point you need some tools that are a little bit more refined to do some of the finer tuning.

[00:41:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I think what we have before us is the sledgehammer and it's relatively new and it has not been fully fleshed out. I think while we have time we should reach out with whatever means we have to talk to people who can make a difference. Uh whether or not it is to give us a stay on this deadline um, to work out some of these kinks, because I don't believe the intention of this sledgehammer policy was that disabled people may not be able to live here or work here. They won't be able to get here. I I'm 100% sure that's not the intention. So I think we we should flush that out.

[00:41:52] Commissioner Joyce Yin: If council is willing, I would like to propose that we use whatever means necessary to reach out to somebody to maybe we can stay this deadline and see if something can be done. I don't know. Honestly I don't have the answer at this at this point, but I feel like it's worth a try. uh because I am concerned that by doing away with the parking regulations and the ability for the city to to mandate some sort of parking that there's an opportunity there for developers to just say I don't have to do it, why would I do it? Cause that's not unheard of. Um so I'm just putting that forward.

[00:42:30] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Commissioner.

[00:42:36] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I I think that the I see your point that the the state is often kind of a sledgehammer. Part of that I think is a reaction to the fact that a lot of cities are using their the tools that they have to kind of oppose um some of the goals that that the state has, and the but but they're not all you know pro-housing cities like like the city of Mountain View. So sometimes we get caught in the the crossfire with that. That being said, the the housing element went through a long process, a lot of public input, and this is what came out of that process and so I generally think that this is uh the direction that that that the council wants, that the the people wanted through that entire process so uh so I'll I'll be supporting it.

[00:43:42] Commissioner Paul Donahue: And uh another uh comment on the um the public transit, it is unfortunate that the ridership is is still down. Um, I mean maybe the the new electric trains will will help that. Um you know maybe kind of not having parking and will force people to take public transit, I don't know, um that seems um I don't know if that's really the right way to do things but you know maybe that will happen. Um so anyway I I will be supporting it because I think that per my question earlier there's not a lot of discretion so and and this is what what uh what we have collectively decided uh in April of 2023 when the housing element was adopted.

[00:44:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So for my part I'm not going to plow any new ground here. Um, I think on the whole it's it's important that we respect the direction of council, that we honor our commitments in the housing element, and that we follow the law. And on the strength of that by itself, I will be voting uh in favor of this tonight. Um, maybe the one thing that I will add...

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: add, and and it's... I don't want to, I myself don't want to get into second guessing some of the decisions made before but let me make one comment about what we should do next. We should have good qualitative metrics about traffic impacts and park, excuse me, parking impacts for the folks that live here going forward.

[00:45:21] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So that it is relatively easy for people to see what we've bought with policies like these and others. And if there is an easy objective way to say, you know, parking impacts, they're real bad in this area, that area, the other. I think having that kind of data so that we can have a reasoned conversation about other places where there's just... it's not working. But we need data to do that. And so my plea going forward is simply that we, you know, we continue to invest in not only data collection but data presentation in a way that the public can actually access easily and understand easily, and we can access and understand easily.

[00:46:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So if there's places that are really getting crunched and people are suffering, we'll know, and we'll know why, and we'll know how big it is. And then we can talk about what to do with it and maybe share that some of that data with the folks in Sacramento going forward. So, I'll stop there. If there's no further comments, I'm willing to entertain a motion.

[00:46:27] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I had another comment.

[00:46:28] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Oh, Ms. Yin.

[00:46:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Just a discussion. Yeah I I didn't I wasn't trying to say that, you know, I'm not blaming fault, there was no fault. I understand the reasons how we got to where we are. My only point was that state laws tend to be sledgehammers. It's just the way it is. In addition to policy, I understand the direction of the policy and the reasons for it. I'm not against that, but these are sledgehammer policies, they're not fine-tuned, so there's the concern.

[00:47:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I understand that we we have to get things going but just because we're not right there at the... I'm just putting it out to council if they're listening, that we should use whatever means possible to go ahead and reach out and talk to someone in Sacramento to tell them that there are some concerns. And there might be unintended consequences. Sometimes I do realize that you push farther beyond the limit in order to get what you want later and then you backtrack. That's another way to do it. But I don't... I'd prefer to, you know, get there in an efficient way.

[00:47:37] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And Mountain View is not one of those cities that says no, we're not going to do it, we're not going to do it. Mountain View is a city that has proven that we're willing to. So I think if we have any leg to stand on or if any city has a leg to stand on, it is us. So, I'm just putting that out there. I understand that we really have no choice in this matter at this point, but I guess that's it for now. Thank you.

[00:48:07] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Ms. Yin. Mr. Cranston.

[00:48:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Mr. Chair I recommend that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 Zoning of the City Code to Implement Subtask B of Housing Element Program 1.2, including updates to Section 36.32.50 required number of parking spaces to eliminate minimum parking requirements in certain areas, and making conforming and clarifying changes to other sections of Chapter 36 Zoning; and finding the amendments to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), to be read in title only, further reading waived (Exhibit 1 to the EPC Staff Report).

[00:48:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And number two, recommend that the City Council adopt Resolutions of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending the P(19) Downtown, P(38) El Camino Real, P(40) San Antonio, and P(41) East Whisman Precise Plans to eliminate minimum parking standards for residential developments, consistent with the Housing Element 1.2, and finding the amendments to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), to be read in title only, further reading waived (exhibits 2 through 5 to the staff report).

[00:49:26] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Cranston. And Mr. Nuñez, we have a second from you? Thank you sir. Uh, the motion having been made and seconded... Madam Clerk, call the roll.

[00:49:56] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I do not see... do you see... does anybody have their voting screen up? Madam Clerk, would it be possible to call the roll?

[00:50:15] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Clark is absent. Commissioner Cranston?

[00:50:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[00:50:20] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:50:21] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[00:50:23] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Gutierrez is absent or recused, rather. Commissioner Nuñez?

[00:50:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Aye.

[00:50:31] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Dempsey, Chair Dempsey?

[00:50:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[00:50:35] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And Commissioner Yin?

[00:50:37] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I'll abstain.

[00:50:46] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So the motion has passed, four votes yes and one abstain. Thanks.

[00:50:51] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Madam Clerk. Alright, item six, Commission and Staff Announcements. Uh, Ms. Pancholi do you have anything or... No action will be taken on any questions raised by the Commission at this time I might add.

[00:51:04] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: We'll just bring the Commissioners back. Sorry. Just a minute.

[00:51:09] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes please. You want me to go get them?

[00:51:25] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And I'll... Oh, that's a good point. So just for the record, um, for the vote, Commissioner Clark recused from the item. I think it was previously incorrectly stated that he was absent. He was... Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Gutierrez recused from this item.

[00:51:46] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Wonderful. Thank you very much, and Mr. Nuñez thank you for catching that. Any staff announcements?

[00:51:56] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you. This is just going to be a second reminder 'cause we don't have any other upcoming meetings in September for EPC that we have the annual celebration of Service Awards on September 30th at Michaels in Shoreline. So we hope to see everybody there. I hope everybody has received an invitation. If not please let me know. And we will be doing a short presentation on our EPC work from past year.

[00:52:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Alright. Well with any uh, any comments or updates from the commissioners? Anyone? Going once, Mr. Donahue.

[00:52:32] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I have a question. So... on tonight's agenda under minutes approval there was none. We haven't had minutes for any of the meetings so far in 2024.

[00:52:46] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah I think the last meeting, in the last meeting there were two minutes that were approved, with some comments and corrections.

[00:52:55] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Right, they were from 2023.

[00:52:57] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: That is correct. So now we are working on 2024, it will be presented in the next meeting.

[00:53:02] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay.

[00:53:03] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Can I... so I'll just add to that. So we recently realized that there was this... so all of the EPC and ZA and just all of the minutes get loaded into Laserfiche, and unfortunately we discovered, me being new, our planning board clerk being relatively new, that that hadn't been done for a very long period of time.

[00:53:29] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: And so we shifted kind of priority in getting those back... that backlog of minutes loaded into the city's Laserfiche system, and so that impacted the speed to which we were... she was able to work on the minutes. But she's... we finished... we just completed that task, um, and I know that she's working on on the minutes.

[00:53:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not like years in arrears.

[00:53:58] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah. That's kind of what what happened that we...

[00:54:01] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay.

[00:54:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Donahue. Commissioner Gutierrez.

[00:54:04] Chair José Gutiérrez: Hey just a quick follow up question on that process um because I know with Brown Act and what have you right, but is there a timeline by when minutes should be presented to the board for approval or is there no timeline specific to that, so that we're not in any violation of anything?

[00:54:24] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah I don't think there is any specific timeline but traditionally we try to get them to you quickly, and I think this was just an unforeseen issue that arose. And so, um, I know that she was working on them today actually because I was talking to her about them.

[00:54:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Great. And that's for you to see Steve Nelson 'cause I know you're a big Brown Act fan so I asked the question, there you go.

[00:54:44] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And so just for clarification at the next meeting we will be caught up with all of our minutes, is that no?

[00:54:50] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: No. No. When will we be caught up? I don't have an answer for you on when you'll be caught up but hopefully you will see some at the next meeting. Yeah. It takes her quite a while, she has to relisten to the meeting and then um and then you know, write it all, you know write it into into the document. So it just takes a little bit of time.

[00:55:13] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Alright, well thank you very much for that update. Uh Mr. Cranston.

[00:55:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know whether you've looked at it but people in my company have started using an AI tool that actually captures meeting dialogue and turns it into the document. It seems to be quite good, so rather than her having to sit there and read through it and and type it in, you may want to look at some of these tools that actually do the capture for you. It speeds things up. It's kind of amazing, you actually get minutes within a day of some of the meetings I've been in. It's pretty cool stuff.

[00:55:49] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So there's an app for that.

[00:55:57] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. Any further comments from the commission? Alright, there being none, we will adjourn this meeting at 7:56 p.m. The next regularly scheduled EPC meeting will be held on October 16th, 2024. Thanks everybody.

• ← Previous
• Next →