Feb. 5, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:08:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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 p.m. on the meeting date.

[00:09:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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 speak and turn them in to 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.

[00:09:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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 advisory body/commission welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters over which the advisory body/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.

[00:10:19] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Now, I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with the roll call.

[00:10:33] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:10:36] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:10:37] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:10:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:10:40] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Yin?

[00:10:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:10:43] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:10:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:10:46] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Vice Chair Nuez?

[00:10:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Here.

[00:10:50] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Chair Gutierrez is absent. So we have five commissioners here, one absent.

[00:10:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um, we'll proceed to minutes approval, but, uh, before, uh, we get there, um, Ms., uh, Diana Pancholi would like to, um, present an update to the published minutes.

[00:11:11] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, thank you. This is regarding the, um, minutes for June 26, 2024. Just wanted to make a correction. Uh, Commissioner Clark's name is misspelled in the first sentence on item 5.1. So correcting that and also first sentence of 6.1. And, um, 6.1, uh, item, it should say responded to questions from the EPC. So, minor changes.

[00:11:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: All right. That was 3.1 Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 3rd, 2024. I'm going to open it up to the commission for discussion. All right. Seeing none. Uh, public comment. Uh, if anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, 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.

[00:12:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Uh, Clerk, are we seeing any, uh, speakers in person or on Zoom?

[00:12:25] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, we don't have any speaker on this item.

[00:12:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion to approve the minutes along with, uh, Ms. Pancholi's, uh, noted edits.

[00:12:44] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: All right. Looks like we have a motion from, uh, Mr. Hank Dempsey and, uh, Bill Cranston. Commissioner Cranston? Uh, so seeing no discussion, we'll go to a vote.

[00:13:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, the motion is approved with five yes and one absent.

[00:13:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: All right. Got through the first item. Excellent. Um, with that closed, uh, we will now proceed to item number four, 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 comment on non-agenda items, 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. Uh, Madam Clerk, are we seeing any speakers, uh, on Zoom?

[00:13:54] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yes. Well, we have one in-person speaker on this and also one speaker on Zoom. Um, I'll invite the one in person. Um, Andrea? Yes. It's your turn. You can speak.

[00:14:08] Andrea Wald: I can start? Good evening, commission members. My name is Andrea Wald. I co-founded an organization called Community for Natural Play Surfaces. Our mission: we advocate for safe, healthy, natural play surfaces. We educate public and private stakeholders on the harms of artificial turf and other artificial materials. We strive to increase the amount of grass and natural materials in our playing fields, playgrounds, parks, and towns.

[00:14:38] Andrea Wald: I'm here this evening as a preliminary introduction of myself and my desire to find those within the city of Mountain View's offices that I can get connected to and share my message regarding artificial turf, its harms to our environment and our health. I'm hoping to provide whatever meaningful information, including a formal presentation, if desired, to whichever city groups have a desire to become more educated on the topic of plastic grass and how it is harming us all in ways we are beginning to fully understand and to alert everyone that we should be very fearful of.

[00:15:11] Andrea Wald: So far, my efforts have led to the city of Sunnyvale deciding to keep natural grass for a park renovation where they were set to vote on installing artificial turf. Not only was this the best decision for the environment and the health of all, but it's what those living nearest the specific park wanted. As for this specific group of people this evening, I believe you have an obligation to your community members to make the right decisions when it comes to how best address climate change and related issues: safe, healthy environment, including safe drinking water for future generations.

[00:15:45] Andrea Wald: I read that the city council endorsed a goal of meeting or exceeding California AB 32 requirements for emission reductions and that council sought overall sustainability input from the public through environmental sustainability task force in 2008 and 2017. I spent some time reviewing your climate dashboard and was surprised to see that we are now in 2025, but it was last updated in March 2022. Under community greenhouse gas emissions, all sectors since tracking started in 2005 have shown a reduction, aiming towards the city goals. I also noted that the data in the sustainability dashboard from March 2022 was only valid up until 2020.

[00:16:29] Andrea Wald: In conclusion, artificial turf is not good for us, and I'd love to know that Mountain View is interested in hearing more so any future decisions whether or not to go forward with work that might include this toxic, non-sustainable, non-recyclable, environmentally harmful product, which is linked to a myriad of health issues, can be based upon accurate, well-researched info and not the greenwashing of the plastics industry. As a follow-up, I will be emailing this public comment to all on this commission and include my contact info. I look forward to hearing back and seeing where we might go from here. Thank you.

[00:17:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Thank you very much. Time is up. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[00:17:12] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: All right. The next speaker is Bruce England. Um, Bruce, you're, you should be able to talk now.

[00:17:19] Bruce England: Thank you. Yeah, Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive, member of Green Spaces Mountain View and Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. Our members have talked a great deal over time about artificial turf and our desire to not have it allowed within Mountain View. So we certainly support what Andrea Wald was just talking about. And we really appreciate her efforts in pulling the data together and so on, it's very helpful, and making contact with you all.

[00:17:48] Bruce England: Um, as you know, the, um, in addition to just all the plans that come through you, um, the, um, you know, uh, private and public plans that come through you, also you have the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and the Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest Plan, both not completed yet and we're all anxiously waiting for the, the drafts on those. And hoping that there'll be some strong guidance in terms of rules regarding artificial turf so we don't need to, uh, do it on a project-by-project basis, which has been the case, um, um, so far.

[00:18:25] Bruce England: And then also the county just considered a ban on artificial turf and it, it didn't pass there unfortunately. But, um, Margaret Abe-Koga is, is, uh, on the board there and as a supervisor there, and she was one of two people who voted for the ban. So, certainly I'm sure you know that name. And so, was nice to see somebody, um, key from Mountain View making what we consider to be the right decision on that. Thank you.

[00:18:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Thank you to the speakers. Um, do we have any more speakers, Madam Clerk?

[00:19:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, that's all the speakers we have.

[00:19:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Thank you very much. All right. Uh, seeing no more speakers, we are going to move on to agenda item, uh, 5.1 Citywide Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Framework. We will first have a staff presentation, then public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then discuss the item, including any questions. Let's begin with a staff presentation from Transportation Planner, Ben Pacho, hope I'm saying that correct, um, and Transportation Manager, Ria Hutabarat Lo. I also hope I'm saying that correct. Um.

[00:19:42] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And, um, Vice Chair, if I could, um, I just wanted to remind everybody tonight, um, on the commission and staff that we received some feedback from our members of the public and if we could just speak in our microphone whenever we are discussing the item or presenting so that the public who is watching us online can actually hear us properly. Thank you.

[00:20:06] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Hi, uh, good evening, EPC Commissioners. I'm Ben Pacho, Transportation Planner, um, in the Public Works department. Um, it's great to be back here before you tonight and update you on important project milestones. Um, Diana Pancholi, city's Principal Planner is also here representing city staff on the project, and we have, uh, Ria Hutabarat Lo, present, Transportation Manager.

[00:20:28] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And joining us virtually, uh, we have our consultant team members, Julia Wean, associate at Steer Group, and, uh, Natalie McCarvel, senior consultant also with Steer. As a refresher, city council identified developing a citywide TDM ordinance as a strategic priority in fiscal years 2023 to 2025. Uh, the basis for TDM in Mountain View was first established in the 2030 General Plan and would later inform the specific TDM provisions that are currently required in the city's precise plans and sustainability action plans.

[00:21:17] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Um, currently, TDM requirements are and have been imposed in absence of a citywide TDM ordinance. This has resulted in a piecemeal approach and varying levels of trip reduction targets. Additionally, the strategies required of these existing projects have also been inconsistent, which the TDM ordinance seeks to address by standardizing TDM plans and the reporting and monitoring processes as well.

[00:21:44] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Um, reviewing the project's work plan, staff is in the current project phase focused on developing the ordinance framework, seen here in blue. Uh, we previously brought the project vision and goals to EPC in quarter four of 2023, um, where members had voiced their support for the project's objectives. Um, particularly, EPC encouraged staff to focus on developing quantifiable metrics and building in flexibility to reflect changing travel behaviors.

[00:22:11] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Um, members were also interested in exploring ways reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonization could be achieved through the project. Um, next steps will include finalizing the framework elements in late spring. Um, and then staff will begin uh work on drafting ordinance language for council adoption in quarter four of 2025.

[00:22:35] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Um, so over the course of the project, staff has engaged key stakeholders and advisory bodies to gain a broad understanding of current practice with TDM, um, as well as how requirements can be further streamlined and made more effective under the ordinance. Uh, for example, key insights were gathered from the Downtown Business Association and the TMA, including a host of one-on-one interviews with developers, employers, property managers, and community members.

[00:23:00] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: At January's community workshop, members of the public expressed support for on-demand services like microtransit, and also exploring potential cash incentives that could increase active transportation like bike commuting to workplaces in lieu of driving. Collectively, the input gathered thus far has been used to guide the direction of the project, including its vision and goals and the TDM framework.

[00:23:28] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And, uh, to remind all those attending, staff presented the project's vision to EPC in quarter four 2023, where the TDM ordinance will seek to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips for new development and increase use of multimodal transportation alternatives that are sustainable, equitable, effective, and respond to changing demands. The goals of the project, as outlined at the bottom, were informed by existing conditions analysis and stakeholder input.

[00:23:59] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Most notably, the project vision helped guide development of the TDM framework. The various framework elements can be distilled into three key policy areas. Including applicability, there at the top, which touches on who will be required to comply and what criteria used to screen projects subject to the ordinance. Secondly, requirements, as seen in the second row, this section concerns what key metrics projects will be subject to for compliance purposes, as well as how they will demonstrate their intent to comply by submitting a TDM plan.

[00:24:29] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And thirdly, at the bottom, we have monitoring and enforcement. This largely addresses how staff and key stakeholders will effectively monitor the ongoing effectiveness of TDM performance, as well as consider enforcement mechanisms to support compliance.

[00:24:48] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: At a high level, the TDM framework seeks to operationalize TDM requirements across the project's lifespan, from entitlement phase, from when a project is sponsored by a developer, to the post-occupancy phase, when the city later certifies new buildings are ready for occupancy. Moving from left to right, initial projects will be analyzed based on trip generation assumptions and estimated average daily trips. This would be used, um, this will be using the city's VMT policy, transportation impact studies, and multimodal analysis handbook.

[00:25:18] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: If proposed projects generate upwards of 200 average daily trips, they will be required to mitigate vehicle trips by adopting a TDM plan. And following one year post-occupancy, property owners will be required to submit an annual TDM report that attests to their compliance with ADT targets or face potential penalties assessed by the city.

[00:25:42] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And then starting at the very beginning, we'll first discuss project applicability. The TDM ordinance, once adopted, will apply to new projects seeking entitlements by discretionary approval from city council. Projects will be reviewed on the basis of expected trip generation assumptions and potential to generate over 200 plus average daily trips. Such project review is consistent with the city's VMT policy and multimodal handbook.

[00:26:07] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Additionally, the current regulatory environment is such that state and regional laws require employers with more than 50 plus employees to provide TDM resources, such as commuter benefits and parking cash-out incentives. It's intended the citywide TDM ordinance will support these employers in meeting such state and regional TDM requirements. Additionally, it's important to note that all TDM requirements under the ordinance will fall to the landowner and run with the land, as may be triggered by a change of ownership in case of sale.

[00:26:40] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And then for existing projects, landowners of properties that were entitled prior to adoption of the TDM ordinance may participate in the TDM program on a voluntary basis. Whereas question two addresses what land use categories will be subject to the ordinance. This may include multifamily residential and non-residential projects anticipated to generate over 200 average daily trips. For typical non-residential projects seeking entitlements, this may include office, medical, retail, restaurants, industrial, and manufacturing.

[00:27:10] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Mixed-use residential projects may be exempted from the ordinance if its proposed retail space is less than 50,000 square feet, which is consistent with the city's VMT screening process.

[00:27:26] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Staff with project consultants have used standard trip generation rates to estimate average daily trip volumes based on various project sizes and land uses. For example, small projects typically fall within 200 to 499 average daily trips or ADT, 500 to 999 ADT for medium-sized projects, and 1,000 plus for large projects. These trip generation assumptions by project size are consistent with the city's existing MTA handbook and VMT policy used for assessing transportation impacts.

[00:28:04] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: It's important to note the shift from peak hour trips to average daily trips marks a shift in TDM policy. The virtues of peak hour trips was initially grounded in its focus to mitigate traffic congestion during peak times. Ultimately, to increase automobile throughput when demand is at its highest. Average daily trips, as a metric, can capture trips beyond peak times, perhaps better reflecting changes in travel behavior post-COVID. A focus on ADT is also more suited to reducing total VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

[00:28:40] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Projects will be required to implement TDM strategies that reduce ADT to the following levels: 30% reduction in ADT for small projects relative to ITE trip generation rates, 40% for medium projects, and 50% ADT reduction for large projects. Such thresholds were informed by the city's existing precise plan targets, as well as case studies of similar TDM programs in San Francisco, San Mateo County, Redwood City, and San Jose.

[00:29:16] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Prior to entitlement, prospective applicants will be required to submit a TDM plan for city review. Specifics of the TDM plan will then be included in the conditions of approval preceding adoption by council. In this proposed framework, TDM plans will be comprised of three types of strategies. Mandatory strategies will provide the supportive structure necessary to implement TDM. Core strategies, there in the middle, will offer an array of flexible, proven reduction strategies that applicants may select from to develop the project's TDM plan. And auxiliary strategies, while not effective on their own, are essential for implementing the core strategies.

[00:29:58] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And this chart gives a sense of the range of strategies across project sizes. As an important programming note, the attachments to this report include a detailed list of the TDM strategies and their estimated levels of effectiveness for trip reduction.

[00:30:14] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And now moving on to the monitoring elements of the framework, this slide illustrates the various reporting activities that projects will be responsible for, which are organized based on project size. As you'll note, the burden of monitoring activities is less for smaller projects. This reflects feedback that staff has received, given that smaller projects typically have fewer resources to comply with ongoing monitoring requirements.

[00:30:44] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And to support compliance efforts, staff has proposed pathways to enforcement on account of projects failing to either provide the required annual TDM reports or meeting the required ADT targets. Note, small projects will not be assessed a penalty for not achieving its 30% ADT reduction target, given the proportion of impact to size of penalty.

[00:31:12] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: The proposed penalty structure seen here reflects existing practices which have been imposed on projects already entitled. Furthermore, the penalties will apply based on project size and will be in proportion with the level of non-compliance with the ADT target. Staff is also currently working on alternative methodologies that calculate the cost by trips and will involve further interdepartmental coordination.

[00:31:38] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Following tonight's EPC meeting and the input gathered, staff will present the recommended framework to CTC next month that will culminate in a council study session later in June. Upon finalizing the TDM framework, staff will set about drafting ordinance language for council adoption, which is tentatively scheduled for end of 2025.

[00:32:03] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And this ends my formal presentation and moves us into EPC discussion questions, which we can now begin. For a quick programming note, the next slide presents the draft TDM toolkit of trip reduction strategies. So I could oscillate between this slide and the previous based on your request. Thank you.

[00:32:26] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: All right. Thank you. Um, we will proceed to public comment first. So if anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, 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. Madam Clerk, do we see any speakers, uh, in queue for in person or on Zoom?

[00:33:00] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, yes, we have one speaker on Zoom, but his name is not identified. Um, can you, can you speak your name first and then start to talk? I'm gonna allow you to talk.

[00:33:17] Bruce Naegel: This is Bruce Naegel. Can you hear me?

[00:33:20] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Yes. Can you speak louder?

[00:33:26] Bruce Naegel: Is this better? You mentioned that you have a number of, um, local facilities that have TDM in them. It'd be useful for us to understand how well they've been succeeding and what over what period of time and the changes in configuration of that. Is that possible?

[00:33:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Thank you for your question. Yes, certainly.

[00:33:49] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, excuse me. Sorry. Um, yeah, no, it's okay. Um, we are not going to be, uh, answering questions during public comment. Um, for any speakers, um, you are free to give your public comment, but we will not be responding directly to questions.

[00:34:05] Bruce Naegel: So how would, is there some place to get this question answered?

[00:34:11] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: You, you may continue with your public comment.

[00:34:15] Bruce Naegel: Well, I, I've finished... The question is just to understand the reality of what's going on if there's going to be another time when somebody is going to be able to answer that question, I'd appreciate that. And then I'll follow up with, with whatever, uh, will help elucidate the problem.

[00:34:30] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, this is Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner and, uh, staff liaison to EPC. Thank you for your question. Um, I would suggest that you, uh, contact staff and our staff in charge for this item, transportation planner Ben Pacho, will be more than happy to talk to you further about this, uh, and provide you further details on the success of the other programs.

[00:34:54] Bruce Naegel: Could you spell Ben's last name please?

[00:35:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: Yep. Um, thank you very much. I think, uh, that this is a little, uh, inappropriate. Um, I'd like to remind speakers that we will not be answering questions or engaging directly with speakers. Um, not that we wouldn't love to communicate, this is not, um, unfortunately, the, um, the time for that. Um, so we can proceed with public comments. Again, we will not take questions or answer questions, uh, moving forward.

[00:35:26] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: All right. That's the only speaker we have.

[00:35:30] Vice Chair Alex Nuez: All right. Um, well then, in that case, um, I'll open it up to, uh, the commission for, uh, questions to staff. All right, uh, Commissioner Cranston.

[00:35:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, a few questions. Um, the staff report doesn't really indicate to me the time window when the average daily trips is calculated. Is that how is that determined? Is that seven days a week, is it three days a week, is it five days a week? How does that come about?

[00:36:20] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thank you, Commissioner, for your question. So, um, staff uses the VMT analysis, the multimodal handbook, and a number of transportation impact studies. And so, there's a number of criteria that is used, um, based on a proposed project, which is, um, its proposed land use, and the project size, and, uh, geography, which gives a sense of the, uh, overall number of trips that are anticipated to be generated. Um, in various metrics. So this could be peak hour, peak period, and average daily trips. So we would be using the average daily trips criteria.

[00:36:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And just to clarify, that's typically weekday, um, daily trips. Including for residential? Is it for residential, weekday, um, trips for residential as well?

[00:37:08] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: I think so. We'd clarify that, but yes, it would be characterized both between weekday and weekend. Typically it's during the weekday.

[00:37:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, something that you mentioned in the presentation, I certainly didn't catch, and this was that this will only apply to projects that come before council. If someone does a compliant project that's in this range but was within the existing precise plans zoning, they would not be required to do a TDM?

[00:37:42] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: This would be for, uh, new projects in the entitlement process where our main mechanism would be using conditions of approval for projects. So beyond the scope of that, I believe Diana Pancholi can answer that.

[00:37:57] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: They will be... There are certain projects which go to just the ZA-level approval, that is administrative zoning level approval, which will include conditions of approval, so they will be subject to it just depending upon the thresholds that are mentioned in the staff report.

[00:38:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So it's not limited to council.

[00:38:13] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Correct.

[00:38:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, next question. Um, I'm confused by the, um, suggestion that peak hours actually is a bad thing... peak trips is not something that we should include at all in the process. You've gone from including it to completely removing it, and I'm wondering why it's gone from something to zero.

[00:38:48] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Hello. Ria Hutabarat Lo, Transportation Manager. So, uh, the TDM ordinance framework is trying to bring uh the TDM conditions of approval into consistency with some of our other policies, such as SB 743, which has to do with vehicle miles traveled. And so the daily trips is more consistent with, uh, with that policy and some of the state laws that led to it.

[00:39:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Does the city no longer have the separate policy for evaluating projects based on total number of trips? It's not part of the VMT, but we have an additional process that I recall from previous reviews that that still exists within the city to evaluate that.

[00:39:32] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Uh, are you talking about probably you're mentioning about the North Bayshore Precise Plan and the trip cap measures there?

[00:39:39] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That and but there was it came up in one of the early meetings where the, um, when we were talking about VMT originally there was a discussion that there was that the city can impose a separate requirement to look at impact on on intersections and things that are outside of and beyond VMT. Is that gone?

[00:40:01] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: I would have to think about that, on how to respond to that, um, but in the context of this particular project, we are trying to make sure that we just have one particular metric that we're going to use in order to understand what the TDM measures should be, and what are what is the threshold that we're trying to achieve with each project, and that is going to be the ADT.

[00:40:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's what you're proposing, yes. Okay. Um, next question. Um, is there a, it was not clear to me in the, in the measurement. It seems like for small projects they don't actually have to do much in the way of daily measurements at all. Medium, it's daily, and large it's daily. Is there, that seems somewhat unburdensome and overburdening. Is there a reason that some kind of a, did you consider any kind of a sampling program that says, okay, you know, we look at certain times you know, periodically during the year you do a sampling program rather than all the time?

[00:41:06] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Um, yeah, so to clarify, um, the average daily trips would be from a sample. So it wouldn't, there would be an agreed sampling period, and then take the average from that period. So it's not every single day.

[00:41:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Thanks. That's, it didn't read to me that way.

[00:41:23] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: If I would just add as well, so, small projects will be required to submit an annual TDM report, which attests to implementing their TDM plan. So we'll get a sense of how their program is performing, um, and to the extent that they don't submit that requirement, the city will have grounds to issue uh, potential penalty. But, um, city will not impose penalties for small projects not achieving their trip reduction target. Um, the feedback we've heard from small businesses is that, uh, the penalty could affect, um, issues of viability, if, um, if it exceeds its potential trip cap, um, and it wouldn't be proportionate to the level of impact.

[00:42:08] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Um, and to your other question about the switch from peak hour trips to ADT. Um, this also follows what's happening in other jurisdictions, um, namely in San Mateo County. So, C/CAG passed their TDM ordinance back in 2022, and they made the shift to peak hour trips to ADT. And just to capture projects um that weren't typically included um in their review process that were um that didn't meet those peak hour trip thresholds uh for screening. Um, and so it was to also bring more projects into the fold, um, and capture a broader array of broader array of trips that were being generated beyond just the peak hour and peak period.

[00:42:58] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And, uh, if I may clarify, I think the peak hour trips that you were talking about, I think that was more in the context of our multimodal transportation analysis, where we are doing queuing analysis and stuff, uh, so more from an operational analysis perspective we use that over there.

[00:43:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um, and the last question. Um, there's a, one of the emails we got was discussing one of the items under the core strategies, this VTA equitable VMT mitigation thing, I think it was called. I will admit that I did not have the time to go off and look at it, but can you comment on, at least the item submitted sounded like, oh this sounds like a cool thing, but I didn't have a chance to look at it to say yes this is a cool thing. Can you, do you have an opinion on this, this thing, and and why it was chosen as a core rather than a mandatory?

[00:43:50] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Yes, um, the city has been involved in this strategy, um, it doesn't yet exist. So, VTA is thinking through a potential strategy where, um, applicants could select from an account, it's like a VMT bank. So they could select from strategies from the county for projects that are generating VMT at the local level. So, if and when the program launches, VTA staff envisioned that they could select these programs, um, but VTA is not the entitling agency. So it would still need to go through the city process and have city conditions of approval. And so really I think that this and so the city retains its role and responsibilities as the permitting authority. So it would really be more of a supplement rather than a replacement to a city TDM ordinance.

[00:44:44] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: If I may add as well, uh, the city has been really engaged and enthusiastic about the prospect of this uh program. It's really novel, um, for the county uh to be taking this leadership role, and so there are a number of questions that need to be addressed prior...

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: before it becomes implementable, which are a number of political questions that relate to a number of jurisdictions signing on that creates the critical mass needed for it to become successful at the county level. And also the legal questions as far as what grounds for enforcement county agencies will have to hold developers accountable to either paying the fees that are due for the various strategies. And the financial considerations as well as far as will this look like a VMT bank or an exchange program? And so that will require thought leadership and engagement from the jurisdictions to decide which would be the best path forward.

[00:45:56] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin.

[00:45:59] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. I had a slightly overlapping question regarding the peak hours traveled and wondering if that was something that we could still look at if we have the data. Is it easy to just get that data and that we look at it even if that is not what we're measuring against because it seems like valuable information if we're doing that for multi-modal transportation studies? Because I don't think it's an unimportant number, but I do understand you're trying to standardize and simplify. But I think it would be good to have. I recall projects coming before us where we've recommended approval, and I believe they've been approved by council in the past that had TDM requirements. I notice that how it's described here in the staff report for reporting and penalties, all that is based on years of occupancy. So if the TDM program is still forming, do we have projects that have the condition of having a TDM? And if they're already occupied, how are they going to be monitored if they don't need to do it for, let's say, after three years, and this program hasn't started yet?

[00:47:29] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you for the question. So we always keep in mind the direction that we are receiving from our decision-makers in terms of any of the policies that we are formulating. But if a project is being approved, say, in the next six months or a year before the actual TDM ordinance adoption, we do tell the applicant to look at the policy direction that we have received from our decision-makers, suggest it to them, but it is not a mandatory requirement.

[00:48:05] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I see. Okay. All right. Okay.

[00:48:17] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: I could add clarification if you need, if you have a follow up to that.

[00:48:22] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, I just I guess I was under the assumption that the projects went forward and were approved with TDM measures as part of the conditions. And if they're already occupied and this hasn't hit, yeah, and all these are based on years of occupancy, let's say a medium project, they have to do it for the 10 years after occupancy, and let's say they've already been built, we'll just throw out three years. So that means they only have to do seven more or, you know, after this is implemented. And for the small projects, they only have to do three years. If they were built three years ago and occupied, they don't have to do this at all. So that's my question. Is there something to sort of...

[00:48:59] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So the projects that have been approved have TDM conditions in their conditions of approval, and they'll be subject to those conditions only. They're not subject to the requirements that we are proposing right now.

[00:49:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Got it. Okay. All right. Now, I have another question here. Oh, the fact that small projects, I understand this is very fluid and plastic because there are a lot of moving parts and it's new. So one, I applaud that we've got this draft that, I know a lot of work has been put into it. And it's hard to tell, you know, what works and what doesn't because we haven't applied it yet. I was just curious, with the small projects, I know the reason for not wanting to put huge penalties down right away and kind of being a little bit more lenient so to speak, but I wasn't sure if we had a tally of how many small projects we have because if you have a bunch, they add up in terms of ADTs or average daily trips and will make an impact. And to not really have any teeth would be sort of counter to what we're trying to do. So I was wondering, maybe, are there any examples or possibilities where small projects can pull together their resources for someone to come out and do a sampling? Maybe overall it's a little more expensive because they have to move from building to building, but, you know, they can still get it done in a cost-effective way.

[00:50:35] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Yeah, staff is actually looking into some mechanisms for this. One of them is the Mountain View Transportation Management Association, TMA. We're working with the TMA to increase some of their offerings in terms of TDM services and some of these things like monitoring would be part of that. So that is one possibility that they could potentially join the TMA and have the TMA do those tasks for them.

[00:51:02] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Right, to add to that, it's an issue of capacity. Smaller projects, their value add typically isn't transportation, so it's usually administrative staff that has to pick up the burden of meeting TDM requirements and helping implement programs on the ground. So to the extent that we're coordinating with the TMA to build and add that capacity that could then help implement TDM programs, pool resources for smaller projects, and then also help on the back end with monitoring and reporting and whatnot. Because the burden of reporting is often that projects will have to hire consultants to conduct whatever studies or surveys that are done, and that is an added cost. So we try to position the TMA to provide additional support to smaller projects that might not have the technical expertise or know-how in that realm to help address your question.

[00:51:59] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. No, that's that's good to hear. And maybe it would be possible to just keep track of how many are small projects to see what percent of the total, I know, you know, compared to North Bayshore, it's not going to be a big percent, but overall in terms of what we already have going and approved and constructed. It would be good just to have that sort of number. I think that's it for me for now. Thank you so much.

[00:52:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you. Just want to remind everyone to try and speak into the microphone as well. All right. Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:52:37] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, for staff, help me understand, I'd like to understand with a little bit more detail, precisely how we do estimates and sampling of ADT. So I know that we do estimates before we have data, and then we do sampling afterwards. And I think we use, we call it a driveway method of counts. Help me understand how we make, precisely, how do you come up with those estimates for both, because there's a concern about undercounting, but I want to hear how we count them first.

[00:53:13] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: So in terms of the estimates or the forecasts beforehand, there is an Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook. It's a big tome. And it has estimates for different types of land uses of the daily trips, the peak hour trips, and some other things in there as well. So that's what we use as the basis for the estimates looking forward. For the sampling, that would be a driveway count accessing the property after the fact. And so typically they'll put down, they'll either hire somebody to sit there with a clicker, or they'll put down hoses and count them pneumatically that way.

[00:53:55] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay.

[00:53:56] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: I can add, so ITE is the industry standard and the consulting industry in our backyard is, they use it, it's kind of their go-to source. So it's based on observational data that is conducted countrywide. So it's laying tube or hoses that's collecting driveway counts. And this is averaged across land uses to get an average of trip generation. And then to your question of sampling, yeah, it's kind of corroborated with actual driveway counts that we then conduct post occupancy to get a sense of, you know, the validity of the data that we're getting.

[00:54:45] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So one further question and an observation. For the essentially the industry standard that you're referencing that sort of has its own formula, does that look at parking spaces at all?

[00:55:03] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: So there's a number of inputs. It is parking availability, it's geography, it's the project size, it's the land use.

[00:55:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. So then I'll make two observations, if I may. So one, there is a trend that we've seen here at this dais, is that we're kind of slowly pulling back on how much parking we make available, both in the spirit of trying to make more land available for actual development of humans, but also as a result of stuff that's coming out of Sacramento. So one of the things I would submit to you is that if we are slowly pulling back the amount of spaces that we're making available, but we're not necessarily pulling back the number of trips, that makes me wonder how good that methodology is because it probably presumes, I don't know if all the presumptions are correct still, not saying, I don't know if it's a wide variance or small variance, I have no idea. But I'm simply saying that the amount of parking spaces that we are making available is changing. And it's an interesting and open question for professionals like y'all, whether that is changing the outcomes or whether there's activity that we're not catching. So my second comment, much more on the point of activity that we're not catching, let me tell you a story very quickly. It won't be long. I live close to a cluster of medical offices, and this cluster of medical offices sees a lot of people, and they have a parking lot. Probably any given day, there are 10 to 15 people that are there that represent patients parked outside of their parking lot. So they don't go through the driveway. And this is probably true of other places too. If you are counting average daily trips based on a tube you ran across the driveway, there are many, many trips that you are simply not counting, which a problem that becomes greater as we take parking spaces away. So, and this is not a small, this is not a smaller or insignificant, I live right there, me and my neighbors, we are well aware of this problem. It is very significant. A large number of the vehicle traffic is just not going to be counted under that method. That's deeply concerning to me. So I think that there's a lot of undercounting going on. So what I would ask is for transportation, when you're making these checks, please find some methodology that allows you to double check whether you think there's people actually missing your count entirely by not driving over that tube. Because there's places where I can promise you that is happening and not in insignificant numbers. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[00:57:44] Chair José Gutiérrez: Alright, thank you. Commissioner Donahue, questions?

[00:57:49] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, you mentioned that in mixed-use developments, if the retail portion is below 50,000 square feet, then the average daily trips don't count towards what we're considering here. And then you said that that's consistent with the city's VMT policies. Can you help me understand why? I mean, 50,000 square feet is pretty non-trivial retail space.

[00:58:29] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thanks for your question, Commissioner. Yes, so the VMT policy under which projects, residential projects with the retail element of 50,000 square feet or less are screened out, because these are believed to be mutually supportive uses, and helps to internalize trips that would have been generated otherwise had that retail not been there. So under the VMT policy, those projects are screened out. The retail element. But the trip generation would be captured for the residential portion. And so again, the team ordinance tries to align with the VMT policy and would also exempt mixed-use projects of the same nature. So the retail would not be required for mitigation purposes, only the residential portion if it exceeds 200 average daily trips.

[00:59:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. I mean, it still seems to me that 50,000 square feet is not just serving the residential development. Unless there's like thousands and thousands of units in that development. Okay. I also had questions about some of the specific things in the attachment or the, what's it gonna call it? The toolkit. Yeah, the toolkit, right. So some of them, like say unbundling parking costs and limit parking supply, as we were just talking about. It says that they're mutually exclusive, but therefore they should not be selected together. It seems like you can unbundle parking costs and limit parking supply both at the same time. Is that correct?

[01:00:43] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: That is correct. And I'll invite our consultants on the call to clarify how those two would interact, and can speak to the team toolkit measures.

[01:00:55] Andrea Wald: Sure, thanks Ben, and thanks for the question, Commissioner. And I apologize, I think we could have been a bit more clear in our wording within that toolkit, so that's noted for us as we move forward. What we're trying to get at with some of these parking strategies is the sort of additive nature of the percent reduction that we've been assigning to each strategy. Where in most cases, if an applicant is selecting two strategies within that core strategy list, the percent reduction that we've assigned to each one can sort of add on top of each other to help them achieve their target. With parking strategies and some parking strategies in particular, administering two at the same time will ultimately have the result of changing the behavior of the same people rather than kind of having that additive effect. And so that's why we've suggested through the toolkit that applicants aren't choosing two of them, or that if they are, we'd need to reconsider the percent reductions that are assigned to both.

[01:02:12] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so if you have secure bike parking, then that reduces it by X. And if you have limited parking spaces, that reduces it by Y. And if you have both, you have X plus Y reduction, but in this case, these two things each are supposed to reduce by 10%, but actually what you're saying, I think, is that it doesn't reduce it by 20% total.

[01:02:35] Andrea Wald: Exactly.

[01:02:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. All right. Yeah, I appreciate your feedback there, and we can make sure that's more clear. Okay. Okay, those are my questions.

[01:02:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston, did you have more questions?

[01:02:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Just a brief follow-up to Commissioner Yin's question earlier. Let's say somebody already has a TDM and this is done. Could an existing project submit to staff and say I'd like to switch to this, is that an option? Or will they be stuck with the program they have today?

[01:03:18] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: That's an interesting question. My preliminary thought is that they will have to come back to the hearing body to change that because we are changing the conditions of approval that they are subject to. And that a future property owner would be subject to as well. But we haven't, yeah if you'd like to-

[01:03:39] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Yeah, what they could do is they would still be subject to their original conditions, but part of this process is also the ordinance management process. We hope that the reporting process, at the moment, the formal applicants submit very kind of tailored reports that are quite text-heavy. And our goal is to make this like a really simple checklist, you submit it, maybe you're submitting it like through a system. And so that's something that we would love for the existing entities to be able to participate in as well. So it's a more simple reporting process even if their existing conditions are still standing.

[01:04:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if it had been approved by council, is there a reason in this ordinance we couldn't say it could just go to the ZA and change it? I don't know how conditions of approval are...

[01:04:36] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: We will have to look at the legal aspect of it. But as I'm thinking about it, we do have a condition of approval which says minor modifications to the project can be reviewed at staff level or you know, certain things can go to the ZA level. And that could be an option. But then I was thinking more about in what circumstances somebody would actually like to come under our TDM ordinance purview and move away from what we have conditioned them already. It will depend upon that as well, like in what circumstance would somebody like to come under our new TDM ordinance framework.

[01:05:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I can share anecdotal, my specific question was one of the comments I think that was made previously was since everyone's tailored, they're all different. If it's a single project single owner, they probably wouldn't come back. But if you're Prometheus and you have six projects all across the city, and you could say, you know what, it's gonna be easier for me if I just use one process for everything, that's, that actually becomes a savings for them. So that's where I'm seeing where land owners with multiple projects could find a benefit to streamlining their process by consolidating under one methodology, and that's why my question comes from. So I can't see a one-person one-thing just changing it, but that's-

[01:06:04] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: That's a very good input. We will further look into this as we refine our framework further.

[01:06:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, I have a couple questions. I think if I recall correctly heard earlier that council and the state are currently shifting toward the average daily trips metric if I heard that correctly. So if I could ask staff to just kind of give us an overview, or give me an overview of kind of like the origin, not without going into all the history, but like the origin of that, with regard to how council has been implementing it or the direction that they've been pursuing as part of getting this proposal here to the commission. And just the rationale behind that, and also how that sets us up for the consistency, because I just want to make sure that I'm hearing a lot of concern, and I just want to make sure I'm also understanding kind of like why council has gotten us here, and why the state is getting us here.

[01:07:23] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Yeah, so I think that the beginning of this was probably AB 32, relating to greenhouse gas reduction and sustainable communities. And following that there was also SB 743. And what SB 743 did was it tried to bring the analysis of environmental impacts that were related to transportation into alignment with the greenhouse gas reduction strategy. And so previously, environmental impacts that were related to transportation were measured in terms of LOS, automobile level of service. And that's a measure of automobile delay and queuing. And it had various kind of perverse results in terms of encouraging more greenfield development and not actually going against sustainable community goals. And so the state passed this SB 743, and that resulted in a shift when we do analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act from LOS to vehicle miles traveled. Because vehicle miles traveled captures more of those global impacts, both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but also other types of sustainability issues, whether it's the use of, you know, land or other sustainability issues as well. And so this shift also within the city from peak hour, which is kind of part of that process of getting to LOS, to ADT, which is more aligned with VMT, is kind of in alignment with that shift statewide as well.

[01:09:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: Got it. And so then with regard to this ordinance initiative, are there any driving compliance drivers behind this? Like what parts of this are we supposed to be doing, what parts are we not, do we have discretion over? Like for example are the metrics of performance indicators discretionary? If you could just give me a sense of what we have, what we're able to essentially choose, if anything from with regard to this ordinance, or what requirements this is trying to satisfy.

[01:10:03] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: So I can speak to existing conditions. The mobility element, or I should say the greenhouse gas emissions reduction program implements the mobility element of the 2030 general plan. And that's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, where to comply with state law, the GGRP sets trip reduction targets across the city. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction program was adopted in 2014 by council and it sets ambitious trip reduction targets in the peak hour across the city for various growth areas. So we've been implementing these requirements, but they've been fairly inconsistent on a site-by-site and a piecemeal approach. So this has led us to be in the situation that we are now in having to kind of retroactively try to find ways that we could standardize our processes so that we could align with existing policies and standards that are happening at the local level with SB 743, but also at the county level with the VMT equitable mitigation program and their efforts to reduce VMT and implement TDM. So I think the GGRP, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction program in 2014 had said that adopting a citywide team ordinance was a priority. And this was back in 2014. So 10 years post, we're kind of now having to clean up a lot of that work right now, which we're seeking to standardize and make transparent for the development community. So I don't know if that answers your question.

[01:11:45] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And this was also a policy direction in our general plan, which was adopted in 2012. It just took us very long time to kind of reach here to adopt an ordinance or develop an ordinance.

[01:11:57] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And the sustainability action plan adopted in 2019 finally provided the resources for the organization to staff up and begin implementing this, which was kind of the precedent in hiring and building out the transportation team to implement these priorities.

[01:12:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. So then along those lines, one of the... I've never followed you home, sir, but I think I might know Commissioner Dempsey the offices that you're kind of referring to. And I think that there are other areas around the city where, like Terabella comes to mind, at least when I used to hang around there. Lots of like overflow traffic, and so that was years ago, and it was kind of hard, and I hate to admit that I might have been one of the people making it hard for people who wanted to have open parking there. But I guess I'm trying to think in my head, maybe you guys can give me guidance. Like, what's the way of kind of ameliorating some of the pain on the way to at least in my view, what I think are good things. And so I guess I'm trying to figure out in terms of those concerns being valid, in what ways is either this ordinance proposal or other work items that council has looking at, or if there's none, in terms of even just best practices or other projects or initiatives that you guys have seen that might actually not make those parking impacts so painful. I guess if you guys could just speak to that, that'd be great.

[01:13:42] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: So I think some of the issues that you were talking about, so one of the issues is in the counting itself. You mentioned about people parking on the street. And I think that we can be a little bit more broad in the way that we consider driveway counts. When I've done TDM monitoring in a different city in a previous role, we didn't just count the driveways, we actually looked at everyone coming into the neighborhood for the day. And there was a particular issue with the site, one of the sites we were looking at, where they had told all their staff that they were not allowed to park in their parking lot the week that the monitoring was happening. So we actually looked at the whole neighborhood, and there was an issue there. So I think that being a bit less literal about the term driveway is one strategy. Another thing that is usually coupled with something like this is a residential parking permit program. In Mountain View, we do have the residential parking permit program available, but there's been no uptake of it. And so maybe one of the strategies to make that more attractive is to have the program because at the moment, the residents would have to pay into the program and probably come into city hall and get their annual passes or whatever. But one strategy might be to consider having the generator of the spillover parking be the one that kind of sponsors it for the neighborhood around them. So there are some ideas of how to kind of make that program a bit more functional within the city.

[01:15:14] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: And I think in addition to that, council also has directed our public works staff to kind of work on an item to bring back a study on how the street parking is being managed and things around that. So yeah, there are other initiatives which we are working on in parallel, which will hopefully will reduce some of those impacts.

[01:15:39] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Right, it's a holistic approach, which we've been missing, and we're kind of catching up to. So the downtown parking strategy too that was adopted is something that is of focus. And so after this ordinance is adopted, we'll be turning to a downtown TDM program that will look more closely at strategies for handling parking and existing programs like the downtown parking permit program in coordination with the review of on-street parking management. So it's kind of understanding how all these pieces are working together to both manage the supply and demand of parking citywide.

[01:16:16] Chair José Gutiérrez: Got it, thank you. Last question for me, and then I see Commissioner Yin is in the queue. Kind of a little bit changing topic, I noticed that small developers were excluded from any penalties. So I guess I'm just wondering maybe I missed it or didn't catch that, but what's the thinking there and just what's the thinking there?

[01:16:40] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thanks for your question. So we've had a number of small projects that when we included the penalty structure within the conditions of approval, it raised some eyebrows in terms of their ability to be able to pay the penalty should the trip target not be met. And so the level of impact typically with the penalty structure as it is, a project that generates 1% under their target would be assessed a penalty of $100,000. So for a small project that is maybe its trip cap is 22, 23 peak hour trips, so 1% might be, you know, one or two trips, and that triggering a penalty of $100,000, we seemed was fairly disproportionate. So we want to scale the proportionality with the level of impact more discretely under the ordinance.

[01:17:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: So then, I guess like, yeah, what's the... then why would they have to comply? I don't know. Yeah, sorry, I guess I'm just not trying to be funny.

[01:17:56] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: So you're welcome to make comments about this, but one of the strategies we are looking at is what the current penalty structure is equivalent to in terms of a dollar per trip. So maybe that's something you might want to consider in your comments.

[01:18:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, is there like a mechanism that you guys have seen other implementers of plans like this do for some sort of kind of like a review process to or some other mechanism where they can evaluate like the proportionality more effectively or kind of like make some adjudication there? Have you guys seen something like that in terms of best practices?

[01:18:40] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: So for how it works now, existing practice, if a project doesn't meet their trip reduction targets, they have one year after that review period to return to compliance. And then technically the city has six months to allow them a grace period to return to compliance and update their TDM plan and any kind of strategies that would help them meet their targets. So there's a level of coordination and negotiation that happens before a penalty would be assessed. And again, we're not... we want the penalty to be a measure of last resort. It's not something we want to do, we want projects to in good faith meet their TDM requirements and meet their organizational goals. So to the extent that we can provide more of a supportive kind of carrots-based approach, we're trying to do that. But we also understand that penalties can be really effective for deterrence purposes. And so understanding what that threshold is that would help projects to comply is still we're trying to determine. But we are kind of a first adopter in taking that penalty approach. And we have been for a number of years, but this is the first time we're actually looking at it in close detail.

[01:20:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Alright, thank you. Commissioner Yin.

[01:20:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. One quick question, and it's to do with your comment on how long it's taken to get here. I'm glad we're here, but because everything is so fluid and plastic and this is new, and there are so many variables involved, and so many things are changing like year after year, currently, what are we looking at in terms of reevaluation of how we're doing to see if this is working or not? Is there a planned schedule for how often we're going to go back and look at the data and just see what needs to change, what we need to adapt, so on and so forth?

[01:20:48] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: We have a plan for the monitoring, but we don't actually have a plan for the evaluation of the program. So this is great input. We can suggest it.

[01:20:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, good.

[01:20:58] Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: And then I'll just add to, so what's been really missing is the monitoring, supportive monitoring infrastructure. So the ideas we will identify solutions, whether that could be a platform that jurisdictions are now adopting, and it kind of helps staff on the back end but also on the front end, streamline the reporting measures, and how effectively they're meeting their TDM requirements, whether it's the trip reduction achieved, and then how successful they are in implementing TDM. So with this platform we should be able to scale up and see at a high level how all projects are performing, and the greenhouse gas emissions that are being avoided, what measures are working more successfully, which types, for which types of land uses. We just don't have those insights because it's being done fairly manually right now. And I'm just kind of having to do it on a site-by-site basis. So to be able to scale up, it's just right now we don't know what we don't know. And having the technology and the solutions I think is an important key to then being able to understand how we adapt and modify going forward. But we'll certainly take your feedback in consideration and trying to identify some benchmarks within a certain period of time that we know we're in the right direction.

[01:22:17] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. And I already know you guys are assuming you guys are working with other cities as well and maybe cities can pool resources to have a more standardized way of monitoring and that would have some cost savings. Excuse me. Okay, thank you.

[01:22:32] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:22:34] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First I actually want to applaud you for providing that grace period, that sort of right to cure, that if somebody is falling outside of compliance, the financial penalty is sort of the last thing that you do rather than the first thing. And to the extent that financial penalties coming from the city can be ruinous for small businesses and maybe sometimes surprise people, I really applaud the city for bringing that level of mercy to trying to get compliance rather than get money out of folks, so right on. How frequently in the last five years have we actually gotten to that penalty phase with anybody?

[01:23:09] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Never. We've, so Ben has done a great job of following up with companies, and so far we've had 100% success in getting them to submit their reports. Some of the reports have needed to go back and kind of be refined, but we've had good compliance so far.

[01:23:24] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I applaud you again. Thank you. That's all, Mr. Chair.

[01:23:29] Chair José Gutiérrez: No more questions? Alright, let's move on to the EPC discussion then. I'm seeing two questions, although there is kind of three sub-questions to that first one. So I'm thinking why don't we start with 1A and kind of work our way down, and then question number two is a little bit more broad. I think I've already heard some great ideas there, so hopefully I feel like we're well set up to provide additional feedback. But I think we can start by discussing this meaty ADT metric and threshold question first. So I will just open it up to discussion and hear the commission's ideas.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: ...observation. I... as kind of the newbie here, I assumed that this was about greenhouse gas reduction the entire time but perhaps it wasn't. Those are my comments for right now.

Segment 2

[01:30:06] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, yeah, just based on Commissioner Cranston's comment, I brought up the general plan, and the policies, this section talks about make effective use of roadway capacity and decrease travel demand and automobile traffic. So it does have something to do with reducing automobile traffic. But really the the first policy is strive to maximize the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure and manage major streets to discourage cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets. The second policy is to promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development, which doesn't really say why, but I would assume that it's related to the discouraging cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets. So that is an interesting...

Segment 3

[01:30:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:30:21] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes, since you brought it up, we'll discuss. Um, yeah, I have, again, I think it's a lofty goal, it's a very important goal to have the greenhouse gases, I think it's a good thing to be stated as one of the reasons. Um, I think most people look at this as traffic management, and I think most community members are looking at it as, what is my daily life going to be? And how is it going to be affected with the extra development and the extra cars potentially or not, right? So I think as Commissioner Cranston had said, um, maybe when it's published, that you're considering all the goals and that it is worded such that everyone understands exactly why we're doing this and what it can do for the community at large, in addition to, you know, the lofty goals which are important, I'm not taking anything away from that. Um, as far as performance metrics and thresholds, I think moving to ADT, that's fine. Everyone's doing it, we want to be standardized. I'm okay with that. Um, I just, as I in my questions, had mentioned, can we still look at the other data? Because it's not unimportant. I think it does speak to the traffic portion and how it affects people's daily lives. Um, when it comes to, oh, here, we have one little sub-bullet on the ordinance management strategies. I know we're just in the beginning here, and we're taking a look at the first tab here. Um, I just feel like it is important that we do have the monitoring of the program itself, which is what I had spoken to earlier. I think that looking at or gathering all the data, using all this money and time and effort, it makes no sense if we don't do anything with it. So, um, we should, because things are changing so quickly, ensure that we are adapting to the changes so that we're the most effective in meeting those goals: traffic, greenhouse gases, sustainability. And if we're talking about goals, I'm just going to add that for me personally, you know, sustainability is the top four, one of the broader goals, traffic management on a daily level, just daily living, I think that's important too. But also in conjunction, if we're looking holistically, I know a lot of time for you guys has been spent on the details, and there are a lot of them. Um, but when I kind of zoom out and look at this, it is a part of the larger plan that we have in urban design and how we design the city, the circulation, um, all the policies we've been doing in terms of land use. This is all for many goals that we've described, but the big one for me also is just building community. And I know it's not direct and maybe people don't see that, but we can have no trips whatsoever, everyone just sit in their home, everything can be delivered, everything can be, you know, come to you, it would be great for the earth probably if no one went anywhere, but it is tied to building a neighborhood, building a city in which everyone can interact and do things together and feel like we're a community. And so, even though this is a tool and we're getting into the nitty-gritty now, um, I don't want to forget the greatest goal, which is to, to better build community for Mountain View folks. Like what does it mean to be a Mountain Viewian? I guess that's, if we're going to give it a term, a Mountain Viewian. Um, and how does that feel, and I just in general, we just do better when we care about each other, and we care about each other more when we actually see each other and come out. So, it all folds into this larger goal. Um, so I don't know if that even wants to be in the framework, but it's there for me. Okay. That's it for now. Thanks.

[01:35:10] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:35:12] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: It's hard to follow that. Um, so for my part, I think at the metrics level, um, I'm generally fine with what we have. You've heard my point about thinking broadly when we're doing sampling, and it sounds like you're well-sensitized to that. Um, so I guess I would be remiss if I didn't talk about sort of the issue that we're all talking about right now, sort of at a principle level. Um, what's the framing of this and why are we doing it? Um, and I think, you know, Commissioner Cranston's point is a good one. If, you know, this scratches, I think the TDM is trying to scratch a number of different itches. And in the way that it's being talked to to the community, I think it's important to kind of recognize there's multiple different things that people want out of this. And so, um, and that even does, it sounds like shape a little bit the some of the details in the framing here. And so I think it's just important to remember, and I will again, I will applaud you in your project vision, you actually mention, you know, the purpose of all this is that we come up with alternatives that are sustainable. Yay, that's greenhouse gases. Equitable. That's greenhouse gases, but also a little bit of practicality. Effective. Yay, actually like getting rid of traffic. Um, and responding to changing demands. So, in your vision, you're kind of covering sort of the big different pieces here I think that people want. And I think that's excellent. Um, and it sounds like just from a, the framing and the way it's talked about, um, making sure that you're kind of covering all those bases will be important. I'm sure you're going to do that. Um, because again, I think what is important here is that this means different things to different people. And people are coming to it with different sets of priorities and they can all be met in the TDM. But I think just being really careful that people view it in different ways and want different things from it, uh, may change a little bit how you talk about it and it may change some of the tactical choices you make and some of the metrics. But overall, I'm totally happy with what we got in here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[01:37:07] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Donahue.

[01:37:09] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. My previous comments were just kind of spur of the moment based on what had been said. And so, um, uh, I don't want anybody to get the impression that I, you know, am a climate change denier or anything like that. I'm just, uh... So assuming that the, that the goals of climate change are, or greenhouse gas reduction, uh, is what the TDM should be about, which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for it to be about. Um, the, using, uh, I see the ADT and the peak hour, uh, things as being somewhat complementary in the greenhouse gas arena. Because peak hour, uh, if you have a lot, if you have a high peak hour demand, then you'll end up with a lot of idling cars and slow traffic and things like that, which is, um, assuming internal combustion engines, is bad for the environment. Um, whereas ADT is more of a, um, a broad, uh, measure. So I think that they could kind of be related. As more cars are electrified, um, I think that the peak hour thing becomes a little bit less important. But I think it's at least something to, to, to consider. Um, but again, if, if ADT is kind of the standard thing, I think it's a reasonable, um, uh, metric to use. Um, and, and I agree with many of the things that have already been said by the fellow commissioners. Uh, the percent reduction targets, um, you know, I already expressed a little bit of concern about some, some of the minor details related to 50,000 square foot retail, things like that. Um, so, yeah, those are my comments.

[01:39:30] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. Um, yeah, for me personally, um, I am supportive of the ADT percent reduction targets. I mean, in terms of getting consistency and alignment and kind of like thinking of that kind of like future direction, um, that we're heading towards, um, I have no complaints there. Um, it's interesting because I, yeah, when I, I'm recalling now, when I did ask that question around 'hey, you know, kind of some of the history around this' and, um, it wasn't until Commissioner Cranston, uh, kind of jiggled my mind a little bit. But I guess if I put myself in the position, um, of thinking back, I, I, it does feel, like I do have this sense of recalling, um, that this subject or area had to do with traffic and congestion and impacts. Um, and yet I also feel like, yeah, I mean, like how and when and why would there be a reason to kind of pass up on an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? So, um, whether the focus is in either direction, um, the performance metrics and thresholds are not the part of the plan that I'm most, um, like concerned about, in the sense that I do believe and trust that, um, staff has considered and weighed both of these goals in a manner that doesn't sacrifice, um, one or the other. Um, so I'm, yeah, I mean, yeah, like Commissioner Yin, the monitoring piece, and we can kind of touch on that in the last bullet point, and maybe we've already touched on all of these kind of three bullet points to some extent, but, you know, for a little bit of clarity, I'm just going to want to make sure we, um, touch on that. Um, but my answer is yes, I support the metrics and thresholds. Um, with regards to the strategies, and I'm taking it that these are the strategies for kind of getting people back onto compliance specifically, right? Um, like the kind of like remediative, kind of like transportation corridor, TMA membership, annual TDM reporting, all that kind of stuff, this slide right here. Yep, um, cool. I'm just going to go ahead and just pitch it back to Commissioner discussion, any discussion points on on these strategies?

[01:42:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:42:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I mean, for the greenhouse gas portion of this, then they're fine. I feel that they're lacking... they're lacking on the traffic management side of things, okay. Um, and then ordinance management. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of no impact to small business. If your fee structure is the same for 1% off at an employer like Google versus somebody that has a building with 20 people, then the fee structure is screwed up. Okay? So feedback on management strategies: fix the fee structure, okay? It should be relative to the project, the size of the project. It shouldn't be one size fits all for everybody. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of there being no impact on a small business. Should it be a thousand dollars a year? Okay, maybe that's, let's, pick a number, you know, find something that's reasonable, okay. But as I read this, it's like, okay, well I look at this and say, well, I never actually, if I'm a small, I never ever have to comply with this. It's like, screw you. Okay. There's no, there's no impact. Okay? It shouldn't be, I mean, when you set a thousand dollars, I'm like 'what?' So that's, there's something disconnected there. So that a strategy of some kind of a fee, I get, but it absolutely needs to be, you're talking about, you know, relative to the impact of those cars whatever, okay, that makes some sense to me. What's the impact of one car versus 1% of 20,000 cars? It's a lot bigger deal. So that needs to be... So I am fundamentally unhappy with not having some kind of impact on small businesses. It shouldn't be the same impact as a very large employer. Um, and I was very glad to hear some kind of a sampling strategy, come up with something that works, I think, um, you know, that people can tap into and say, 'okay, I'll use it for a while', is a very good thing. Um, I mean, I'd put that in there as a, you know, maybe it's not a strategy for a company, but it's a strategy for the city to provide that, you know, resources for, you know, 'here's the TDM' or 'the group TMA' that they have, you know, contracts with people or that say, 'okay, here's, I can sign up for my site once a year'. And that's, that's a good thing, and I really think we should be pursuing something like that. So there's... I don't want this to be overly burdensome on anybody. It should be something looking at, 'yep, I can do that, it makes sense, I can manage it, and it's not something that cancels a project because it's... it's not something I can figure out how to do'. So I like some of these things but definitely got to fix the fee structure in my opinion. So. Thanks.

[01:45:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, uh, thank you Commissioner Cranston. And I did appreciate actually that you included the um, discussion point on the ordinance management piece. So I will invite all the other commissioners to also just go ahead and kind of feel free to make both points of discussion, clearing your comment if you so wish. Uh, Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:45:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you Mr. Chair. So I don't generally like penalties, but I find that I agree with Commissioner Cranston here. Um, I am heartened by the fact that you've never actually had to levy a penalty. It really is just sort of like a, 'hey, time to pay attention kids. Let's fix this.' And I think if there is, with sufficient comfort that you, that the city would sort of ask really only reasonable measures of a small business. I mean there's not, there's not a million things that they could do. Um, and I feel pretty confident that you, that you wouldn't be heavy-handed, I don't think with a small business person. But I think just as Commissioner Cranston said, if there's literally no penalty and they can be like, 'sorry, I don't have to', like that worries me. There does, there does need to be a consequence in the very unlikely event that somebody would be a scofflaw. Um, there has to be some backstop to that. And so, um, I think Commissioner Cranston's right, it kind of messes up the incentive structure a little bit to pay attention and do the right thing. Um, and I'm, and the only reason I feel comfortable about that is that you give people up to a year and a half to kind of get with it. Um, and that your general approach is one of, like, 'hey, let's get back into compliance rather than, hey, let's hit you with a stick.' Thank you.

[01:46:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Donahue.

[01:46:53] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Uh, Commissioner Dempsey basically said everything I was just going to say. So, um, yeah, I, I have nothing to add. I, I agree with all of that.

[01:47:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:47:07] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think you already have me down as agreeing with uh, Commissioner Cranston and Commissioner Dempsey, um, on those two points already. Uh, there was one other one I just wanted to make sure I said, which was to touch on Commissioner Dempsey's comment about the counting. Um, and I fully agree with that, that that needs to be looked at, not just very narrowly as the driveway count, but potentially the street or something. Um, and yes, the scaling of the penalty I think is appropriate. Um, and I understand we all can tell already from this draft that you're not trying to go for earning money, um, we're trying to get actual compliance. So, thank you for that. Um, I think that's it for me.

[01:47:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. Um, uh, I like being the person summarizing when I agree with people ahead of me. Um, I also definitely, uh, for the uh, ordinance or the TDM strategies agree. But um, like I, I agree with Commissioner Cranston so much that I'm going to just say it again so that it's emphasized. Like yeah, it's um, I appreciate the, the carrot approach. Love the carrots. Um, and um, man, it just doesn't jive with me that there's no stick. So um, it's a carrot and stick for a reason, right? It's not just carrots, because then you wouldn't have that saying as a saying because there's nothing to like have against that. Um, so even, even if it is small um, you know projects and developments. Like I would encourage, you know, I mean either either we ourselves can figure out a way in my view that we can um, you know, set something up to make it fair and enforceable, um, and efficient in enforcing it, um, or someone else has done it and we can learn from that and maybe even improve on it. Um, and then with regard to the scale, that it's a nuanced point. Um, but I also fully agree with the scaling, not just the lack of enforcement for the small projects, but um, yeah, it doesn't seem linear to me. Um, I think that if you're a very large um, uh, non-complying entity, uh, I I I just, I don't think linear progression feels right. We don't have to be draconian, but also um, yeah, I just, that doesn't sit well with me. Um, so I agree. Uh, I guess in terms of the summarization, um, let me see, in terms of the first component. Um, it seems like there is some reservation um, around... Wait, should we go to question two generally? So I'm going to ask a question, should we go to question two, um, and then summarize or... okay, cool. Um, we will go to question two. Any additional feedback um on the TDM ordinance not already covered? And then Commissioner Yin, was that your previous hand or was that...

[01:50:38] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sorry, it was my previous hand, but I'll go ahead and just say thank you for the work. Um, I know it's a challenge to do, it incorporates a lot of things. Um, I think you've got all my other comments. So I am good to go.

[01:50:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: No? Okay. Um, so, so definitely, um, hearing agreement on, uh, I'm going to start in a weird order. Um, I'm hearing agreement on the TDM strategies, that middle bullet point. And I'm also hearing agreement on the concern and desire to see some, uh, actual, like clear, codified penalty mechanism for even the small, uh, projects. The nuance thing that I'm not sure I heard consensus on was the scale concern. Um, Commissioner Cranston expressed the scale concern, I expressed the scale concern around, um, the progression from medium to large. And so I want to just check in with the rest of the commission if that was a similarly specific concern with regard to, um, the penalties and the enforcement mechanisms.

[01:52:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I just... I'd raise the concern because if even the smallest case, it's a hundred thousand dollars, that doesn't seem the right scale. There should be some methodology that, that should take into account the number of... a percentage doesn't, isn't the right metric. It should be number of vehicles, that they're short, um, the potential impact of those vehicles. So something that's more proportional to that the vehicle level of impact as opposed to a flat fee. So that's, that's what I was, I'd like to see that changed, that should be more proportional. Given the impact, you know, if it's 1% off and it's one car, it's a lot different than if it's 1% off and it's a thousand cars. That's what I was, I think the chair was agreeing with that, so.

[01:52:57] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So I just want to understand the, the large projects have a thousand average daily trips or or more. So the 1% is 1% of a thousand. The medium projects are 500 to 999. So you know, the large projects would be a 1% would be 10 cars I guess or or 20 or it depends obviously because it there's no, there's no upper bound. But uh, you know, five basically 5 to 10 cars would be 1% of the medium projects. So it, it already is based on the number of cars.

[01:53:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But small projects don't... So I'm saying it needs to be something that applies to even small projects and large. So I'm not, I'm not proposing what those numbers are, that's their job to figure that out. So I just, it seems, seems I think we're an agreement that the small projects need something. My recommendation is go figure it out.

[01:54:06] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So, yeah, yeah. Oh no, yeah, but I think we already talked about that, that the small projects, there needs to be some teeth in the ordinance for if small projects are not complying. But I thought that the current question was whether there's a proportionality with between medium and large projects. But medium and large, and then I heard you say something about uh, it should be based on the number of cars that you're how far off you are based on the number of cars. But because it's a percentage of the number of trips, that it already is that way in my mind. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying or...

[01:54:46] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm not suggesting a solution. I'm saying right now it doesn't feel proportionate for the different scales of sizes. And that my feedback is, you know, do we have recommendations on the framework? My recommendation is go back and look at that again, please. I'm not suggesting a specific number or methodology, I'm saying it doesn't feel proportional right now.

[01:55:12] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. So you're just saying that basically the things the the 100,000 and 50,000 and the 1% all all that stuff should be kind of revisited.

[01:55:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Go back and look at that table. Okay.

[01:55:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yeah, I I guess, okay I'm I guess we're kind of talking across you here, sorry. But um, the, um, yeah I'm I'm okay with that, considering that that we're we're asking for the small projects to to have some sort of penalty. I think that that entire structure needs to be kind of revisited and and coherent. So I agree.

[01:55:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: If I may just um, summarize for clarity for staff is that there are two portions to it. Um, the first one is to um, the concern that we heard and the desire to see clear codified penalty mechanism for even small projects. That is one component. And I think the other component is the metric that we're using for the penalty structure. And to see if, you know, the metric that we're using for medium and large in terms of the percentage of whatever the target is, is that the right metric even for a small project or not? When we will be exploring that. Because it's not necessary from what I heard that that metric would be logical even for small projects.

[01:56:41] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, so we at least have three for revisiting the scale on the penalty structure. And it seems like I just want to check with Commissioner Yin and Dempsey, yes, yes. Okay, cool. So we've got unanimous support on please um, revisit the proportionality of the um penalty structure. Um, and then for the ADT component, um, I saw or heard, well, I heard uh, some support or three out of two support for the um, average daily trips. Um, we had some strong opposition from um, Commissioner Cranston. Um, but I did get a yes uh, from Commissioner Yin, uh, from Commissioner Dempsey, uh, and for myself. And I just wanted to make sure I was getting a stronger sense from you Commissioner Donahue. Whether average daily trips is a is an appropriate metric generally. And or...

[01:57:35] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I I think that's fine, yeah.

[01:57:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um, so we have uh, majority support on on that front. Um, and then we had no other uh, additional feedback per question two. Um, I just want to make sure I'm checking in uh, with both staff and the commission, um, do we have everything in terms of the feedback we need? Yep. Alright.

[01:57:56] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I thought I heard some support for including something on the traffic management side as well.

[01:58:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you so much. Absolutely. Um, there was that component around the um, the ongoing monitoring after that. Um, so do we have, I definitely support that. Um, as stated by Commissioner Yin on the ongoing monitoring.

[01:58:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Looking at peak, looking looking at at peak traffic amounts and that that's more of what I was... I thought I heard at least a couple commissioners say that they agreed that that that's a component that needs to be considered in this.

[01:58:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Got it. So in addition to if I'm just restating that correctly, um, uh, the uh, point seeking clarification or support here is in addition to the ADT, um, having some mechanism of also evaluating in a kind of like synergistic way the um, the peak or the peak hours traveled metric as informing the project. Is that is that an accurate reflection?

[01:59:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I would agree with um, that recommendation. I would be on board for that.

[01:59:10] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston, does that accurately capture it? Yep. Alright. Um, I support that as well. Um, support, do you support? Alright, so uh, thank you so much for reminding me on that. We also have support for um, just sustaining the uh, peak hours traveled metric as an informative uh measure to the uh current proposal.

[01:59:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright, uh, is that good with staff? We got everything? Okay, alright, sounds good. Alright, we are now uh, having um, I'm gonna do a time check, it is almost nine. So um, we have a another good item ahead of us. Um, do we have to take a vote to keep going or is that at like 10 or something like that? Okay, cool. Um, so we are now gonna move on to um, public hearing item 6.1 code amendment to chapter 36 zoning below market rate housing program. Uh, first we will have a staff presentation then questions by the EPC followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment the commission will then deliberate and take action. So now staff presentation from Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard and Housing Director Wayne Chen.

[02:07:25] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So I I had some kind of technical questions about about the the ordinance I guess. The um, on page five, the section 36.40.10.b.2, uh the definition of of re- or I don't know if it's a definition, rental units, the section on rental units, it still talks about between 50% and 120% AMI. Uh, but shouldn't it be it's not clear if that's inclusive or exclusive. So um is that something that would need to be cleaned up as well?

[02:08:15] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Yes, thank you for your comment. Um, we did receive your comments uh uh forwarded to staff, um and we've discussed internally. Um, we weren't able to provide some final language for this evening, but that would be some clarifying language that we would um accept that recommendation and incorporate between now and uh the city council meeting uh in a couple weeks.

[02:08:37] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay, great. So yeah, 'cause I had I had a couple a couple of instances of that. And then there were also a couple of typos which I assume are just obviously uh you would fix. Um, so okay, those are my questions.

[02:08:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:08:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Right. So two questions. The I must admit I was completely confused by the the requirement that that a residential development needs to the third bullet of convert rental units to ownership units. I don't why is that there? I mean that wasn't... how... I don't get it.

[02:09:29] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: I may have to defer to the City Attorney. Um...

[02:09:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: You're saying if a building that's a process of doing a condo conversion isn't defined as a residential development today and it would be now? Is that what that is for? I it was just like what?

[02:09:50] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: I think this was just an adjustment to the code to clarify that there are certain different types. That that wasn't an addition. It's always been as part of our code.

[02:10:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess it it doesn't feel like a in my think of a development I think of something new. Converting from a rental to a condo doesn't feel like a development. And that's why I was like what why is that now called why would that now be called a development?

[02:10:22] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: I think converting to from rental to for sale would require um a condo conversion or a map of some sort and that may be why it's being categorized or referred to as a development in the code. And my understanding is that is existing an existing provision of the law.

[02:10:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I found it confusing. Um, and then I guess on the the question on the maximum allowable rent. Um, who decides what that is? Is that automatic can they do 3% every year if this is changed? Um, is it something the city says okay it's gonna be 2% this year and it's gonna be 3% next year? How does that I didn't have time to go through and decipher how that's how that's calculated right now. Um...

[02:11:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Wayne has raised his hand.

[02:11:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Oh.

[02:11:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Good evening. Um thanks for the question. Yes, so um as noted in the staff report, uh the city has been applying a 3% maximum rent increase just as a matter of policy but it's never been codified and so we want to codify that now. The uh maximum allowable is then uh based on what the developer or the property manager wants to do up to 3%. We're not stipulating whether it needs to be 2% in a given year or 1%. They're allowed to go up to the 3%. And that would just codify something that we've been incorporating uh via policy over the last many years.

[02:11:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then so with this, I I know in in in the CSFRA there is the ability to kind of bank increases. So if somebody said they want to do 2% this year but then they want to do 4% next year, would they be allowed to do that in this or does it have to be 3% every year? As how does that work?

[02:12:25] Housing Director Wayne Chen: There is no banking provision under the BMR program like uh for the CSFRA. Um that wasn't a provision that had been identified as a as an issue when this was first modified or when it was last modified in 2019. Um, um, and it wasn't identified as an item when it was brought back to council as part of the first required review for the housing element back in December of 2023. So, um, the only identified item was just the 3% maximum annual without um discussing a a bank situation. And we haven't received any sort of feedback or comment that that banking was a um something that folks were were asking for or needed.

[02:13:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then I guess does this I'm less worried about a for-profit developer who has a small section that's BMR units versus a 100% BMR property. Um, is 3%... I mean right now inflation's not that high but I'm sure that residential developments larger are going may have be getting the same kind of insurance problems that homeowners are getting. And so um, I think it was uh State Farm said they wanted to raise insurance rates 20%. Um, is there... I don't want Alta to go under or charities to go under, people that are managing these whole properties. Is there do they have any mechanism to come back and say, 'well, right now it needs to be something different than 3%' and something like that, or...

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: How does that, is it just now that 3% period they can never do anything else about it?

[02:15:05] Housing Director Wayne Chen: This is not related to 100% affordable projects if I heard correctly, such as an Alta or Charities project. This is only related to BMR units that are integrated as part of an overall market rate development.

[02:15:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I didn't catch that. All right. Thanks.

[02:15:29] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I was curious if there were any major repercussions to an additional maybe month notice or extending the notice of rent increase. I only ask because, you know, when you get into the affordable sort of economic level, sometimes folks are budgeting very tightly month to month and it would be nice to know a little bit more ahead of time because certain decisions need to be made sometimes between one very important thing versus another. It might help. And if there's no major repercussions and it's not a huge burden, I think we should do it. I think we, that's it. Thank you.

[02:16:01] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, we can certainly receive that feedback, make sure that's expressed in the report to Council. We don't have a lot of time to finalize the Council report, but after this meeting Affordable Housing Manager Barnard and I can discuss a little further, evaluate it as we can, but certainly provide this feedback to Council as well.

[02:16:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you.

[02:16:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right. I have a few questions. So, can, my question is, can you please give me a sense of the alternate mitigation, I'm asking very broadly, the alternate mitigation within this updated or proposed update. In what ways does this update impact the alternate mitigations as we've seen them kind of come through in the past, including with recent projects, and kind of some of the reasoning behind the changes made, if any.

[02:17:18] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: I can take a run at it first, Wayne, if you like. So the alternative mitigations we've been exploring for the past year. Part of the delay that has taken since the December 2023 study session to now is that we have been working very hard on the various aspects and the nuances related to those. We've had the benefit of one or two projects going through the alternative mitigation process throughout the last year, and that's sort of turned into a very valuable learning experience. In December 2023, Council provided staff with the direction to explore alternative mitigations as a by-right option rather than it being discretionary. We were given three, three policy items to explore. If I remember correctly, Wayne, keep me honest, one was a land dedication, off-site unit construction, and also to explore the acquisition preservation. Do I have that, Wayne? So those are what we have been exploring and then also sort of to my point earlier, potential unintended consequences of alternative mitigations. So that's not on the discussion topic for this evening, but that's just sort of a preview of the direction we've been given and what we've been working on for the past year since Council's direction. Wayne, do I have that right?

[02:19:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you, Julie. Yes, those are exactly right in terms of the menu of options that Council wanted us to include. And an additional part of the analysis was to identify opportunities to include affirmatively furthering fair housing criteria as part of evaluating alter-mitigations, as well as including a fee recovery element because alternate mitigations are usually a lot more complicated than evaluating on-site BMR requirements. And so we will be bringing that as part of the fall, winter bring-back. And as Julie mentioned, it's not part of anything related to tonight's cleanup modifications. Those will be completed later on this year.

[02:19:59] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? No. Okay. All right. So we will move on to public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on this item, 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. And I would remind everyone that we are not answering any questions. If you ask questions, your time will continue until its conclusion. So feel free to give your public comment, but we won't answer questions. All right. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers?

[02:20:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, we have one in-person speaker, John.

[02:20:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay.

[02:20:54] John (Public Speaker): Hello, EPC members. Thank you for your service and your work on this very important topic. One of the things that attracted me to Mountain View 22, 23 years ago was the diversity that we have here economically, racially, just educationally. It's a great place to live and having the BMR programs are very important and I'm just really glad that you're working on those as well as the other things you're working on. So thank you.

[02:21:23] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you very much. Do we have any speakers on Zoom?

[02:21:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No, we don't have any speakers on Zoom.

[02:21:31] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. Seeing no other speakers, we will now proceed to EPC deliberation and action. We have the staff recommendation, but first any discussion from the commission? Looks like we have a motion. Record time. Commissioner Yin, I presume you are moving to adopt the staff recommendation, am I correct?

[02:22:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Correct. Oh, we don't have it up. But I believe, would you like the, you want the words. Okay. Move to adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending Mountain View City Code sections 36.40.05, 36.40.10, 36.40.15, and 36.40.20 to make clarifying modifications and adding section 36.40.16 governing rent increases for below market rate units to the Mountain View City Code, exhibit 1 to the EPC staff report. And secondly, find that pursuant to California Code of Regulations section 15060(c)(2), the proposed code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, along with the one little clarification that Barnard had mentioned earlier.

[02:23:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right, thank you. We will now proceed to the vote. Motion passed with five yes, one absent. Commissioner Dempsey, I hope we made you proud with that efficiency. All right, we are now proceeding on to item number seven, commission, staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the commission at this time. Staff, any announcements?

[02:24:13] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: We'll start with the commission. Announcements first, if anybody has any announcements.

[02:24:18] Chair José Gutiérrez: No.

[02:24:19] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Okay, then staff does have a few. I did send an email I think it was last week that we were gonna host an R3 project update question and answer session, which was conducted on Monday, February 3rd. And it was very well attended. We had some good discussion. I just wanted to let everybody know that the video recording of that session has been uploaded on the project webpage for anybody who would like to look at that. The next regularly scheduled EPC meeting will be held on February 19th. We do have a couple of items scheduled on that agenda as well. And one of the agenda will be a study session on the R3 update itself. So pretty much in line with, you know, following the question and answer session as well. At the beginning of this meeting, during oral communications, there was a comment regarding the biodiversity and the urban forestry plan and EPC's participation in that. Just thinking about the upcoming meetings, I believe ten- as tentatively scheduled, that draft plan will be coming to EPC sometime after summer. So probably an August or a September meeting if everything remains on schedule as it is for the time being. And that was it. Thank you.

[02:25:51] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right. Yup, Commissioner Cranston.

[02:25:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess it'd be a request for the future. I, it's been a long time since we've heard any update on the status of the various builders remedy projects. And so maybe at the next meeting and when you get to this, you could say, okay, here are the ones that are still open, this is where they are. That's, for me.

[02:26:11] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: I can provide you that input right now. So we did approve, we had five builders remedy projects. We received, Council approved one of them last year. That was the first one on Fayet. Then there is another one on Tyrella Avenue. That is, that was scheduled for a ZA hearing. And right now we are discussing and negotiating with the applicant on some of the conditions of approval portion of it. We are hoping to bring it back to the decision makers pretty soon. I don't have a date yet for that, but in foreseeable future, it is deemed complete and staff has completed the CEQA analysis for that, or has made the determination, not completed, it would be finally determined by Council. There's another builder's remedy project on Shoreline, the Cyvest project, that is still under review. For that, it has been deemed complete, but there are inconsistencies with the code requirements and stuff and building code requirements and stuff that we're working with the applicant on, so we are closely working with them. That one will include CEQA review which is, which has not started yet but it will, we are finalizing the scope of that. So that's moving forward. And then there's another one which is on Rengstorff. And that one we are waiting for the CEQA to start. The project has been deemed complete from the application submittal, but not consistency piece. So consistency piece and CEQA is both what is still pending. The fifth one is on Latham Street. And I will have to get back to you on that. Give me one minute, let me just check it real quick. Thanks.

[02:28:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: I did actually have a question after that as well, and if it's too meaty you can feel free to decline as well.

[02:28:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Sorry, it was not Latham, it was Gamel Way. That was the fifth project that was pending. We have deemed that complete and right now it's in the environmental review and development review phase. So again the same kind of status of you know CEQA and the inconsistencies.

[02:29:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Um, I just had one question. I guess I was just wondering with regards to our planning, infrastructure, development projects that you know the city is kind of looking after, is there any kind of potential exposure or risk or anything of that nature with regard to the potential freezing of federal funding that is going on?

[02:29:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening, commissioners. Community Development Director Christian Murdock. I think the answer at this time is there is no impact. My understanding is that a court has instituted an injunction on that executive order that would have frozen federal funding. Beyond that, if the order were to go in effect in its current form, I don't have an assessment for you right now. I know staff in the various departments began to think about that right away when the order was issued, but at this point, I'm not aware of the status of the findings.

[02:30:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Do you know if that's preparation that has fully stopped or given the pause of the executive order, which I think might be a good thing, did we also pause the impact analysis of a potential implementation?

[02:30:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: You know, I can't speak to that. The Community Development Department that I'm in charge of is not particularly impacted by that executive order. Otherwise, I think it's a City Manager's Office function to work through that, and I'm not aware of the status at this time.

[02:31:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: Cool. Thank you. All right, that was all I had. Commissioner Yin.

[02:31:05] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes, one quick question on our vacancy on the panel. I was just curious where we were with finding a replacement.

[02:31:21] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: The last I heard from the City Clerk's office is that it is still up. The applications are on. So we haven't heard on any updates beyond that.

[02:31:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: No, actually the City Council has EPC candidate interviews scheduled for February 18th. And so with any luck, we'll have an appointment made and we'll go from there.

[02:31:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you.

[02:31:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: All right, seeing no other questions, we will adjourn the meeting. I'll say it in the script way. The meeting is adjourned at 9:24 PM. Thanks.

TDM Ordinance Framework

[01:24:29] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[01:24:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm gonna make a statement first. And this is, it didn't really kind of become clear to me until as I went through this until I heard it here. The TDM strategy, the TDM program, what you are defining as the TDM program is not what has been communicated to the community over the last at least eight years.

[01:24:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: When TDM came up in the San Antonio Precise Plan, it was specifically about managing the traffic coming into it. It was not about greenhouse gases. I don't have a problem with looking at greenhouse gases, but it was not how it was presented to the community ever. That was not what it was there for.

[01:25:15] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The discussion around North Bayshore, it was not about greenhouse gases, it was managing the traffic going in and out of North Bayshore. I don't recall the TDM coming up too much in the El Camino Precise Plan.

[01:25:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But what you have redefined what the TDM program is from what the community was told, 'Hey, when this comes up, they will put in place a TDM program, and this will help this.' And now what you're talking about doing is removing the component that was communicated to the community over the last eight years because I was on the other side during the San Antonio Precise Plan, I was on the other side during the El Camino Precise Plan,

[01:25:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And the whole discussion was, the reason was, okay, we're gonna have this thing called a TDM program that'll help manage this stuff. In addition to the kind of thing that Commissioner Dempsey mentioned, another side effect of these things is we have these really, really cool apps now that say if traffic's busy, you can drive through people's neighborhoods to avoid it.

[01:26:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So instead of, it's not just people parking in them, but now neighborhoods that have residential, their kids running around, and all of a sudden all the traffic from San Antonio is moving through Monta Loma. And I'm sure we're not the only one. Waze has routed me through the areas over near Commissioner Dempsey's house in order to get to here and things.

[01:26:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if I have a problem with this, it's what the community has been told for years is that the TDM program will not only... greenhouse gases wasn't the reason this was important. The reason I supported the idea of it, I don't have a problem with doing something to improve greenhouse gases, but the thing that we've communicated to the community, the purpose of the TDM was not primarily greenhouse gas emissions.

[01:26:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't have a problem with doing that. I'm all for not having the planet melt, okay. But the removal of a consideration of the, not just the impact on the environment, but the impact on the community from the program, I can't support. It's as simple as that.

[01:27:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So is it putting in LOS? Not necessarily, that's not the thing. But the framework that's here removes the thing that we were told, 'Hey, this is how you're going to solve this problem.' And when I saw in here that we would go back and remove those kind of peak hour requirements from the precise plans, I was like, 'Oh shit, okay, that's not cool.'

[01:27:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So these performance metrics and thresholds, I think the ones that are in here are fine, but they're missing components that address what the community has been told over and over again as they've looked at projects over the last at least eight years on what the TDM is supposed to provide. And that's completely missing from this, in my opinion.

[01:27:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if you want to talk about the framework, what should you put into it? I'm not going to give you the answer what it is, but I'm telling you that's what we came away saying, 'Okay, there's going to be a TDM program, yay, yay, yay, yay.' And if you're going to take this away, that's a problem.

[01:28:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the reduction targets are fine, the performance metrics on the ADT portion, I don't have a problem with those, but you're missing a whole category of evaluation that has been communicated to the community, and you have surreptitiously taken that out of what the community has been told the TDM program is supposed to be, and I have a real problem with that.

[01:28:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's my feedback on this first question.

[01:28:58] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin, did I see your hand up? Oh, I thought, oh okay. Commissioner Donahue?

[01:29:08] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Just based on Commissioner Cranston's comment, I brought up the General Plan, and the policies, this section talks about make effective use of roadway capacity and decrease travel demand and automobile traffic.

[01:29:30] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So it does have something to do with reducing automobile traffic, but really the first policy is strive to maximize the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure and manage major streets to discourage cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets.

[01:29:45] Commissioner Paul Donahue: The second policy is to promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development, which doesn't really say why, but I would assume that it's related to the first.

Item 6.1

[02:01:31] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Do I have it on? Yes. Uh. Thank you for your patience.

[02:01:33] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Um, good evening, uh, Chair, Vice Chair, well, Vice Chair and Commissioners. Um, I'm Julie Barnard, your Affordable Housing Manager.

[02:01:45] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: I've been with the city for just about a year and it's my first time presenting at EPC.

[02:01:53] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Um, so I am joined this evening by Wayne Chen, Housing Director, uh, virtually. Um, we're here to tonight to present to you the recommendations for code amendments to the city's Below Market Rate Ordinance.

[02:02:13] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Um, in December 2023, uh, the city completed a review of the city's Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Program, otherwise known as the BMR program, um, to meet the housing element requirements.

[02:02:33] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Council supported, uh, staff's recommendation and provided direction to staff to implement other BMR provisions across five criteria.

[02:02:44] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Those criteria were, first, to continue the BMR program, to further affordable housing production across, uh, different unit types, special needs, and affordability levels.

[02:03:09] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Um, third, to assess possible improvements to increase mobility and access to opportunity. Um, fourth, to analyze potential policy changes based on best practices, new laws, and potentially unanticipated program outcomes.

[02:03:26] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: And then finally, to identify potential cleanup modifications, which is the purpose of this evening's, um, item.

[02:03:36] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Um, subsequently, staff have undertaken next steps to further evaluate, um, and develop comprehensive updates to the BMR program, such as analyzing options for physical accessibility features, uh, garnering stakeholder input through surveys and roundtables, um, and working with the city's economic consultant on, um, additional alternative mitigation approaches.

[02:04:04] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Um, the comprehensive set of BMR ordinance amendments is expected to be brought back to council later this year. Um, but there are a number of housing developments that are anticipated to secure entitlements between now and then, and, um, there's therefore a need to implement a focused set of priority ordinance modifications ahead of those, um, of those approvals.

[02:04:31] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: So three of the four ordinance modifications up for consideration this evening were supported by Council in December 2023. Subsequently, the modification of the definition of residential development also requires clarification and is therefore included in this update.

[02:04:49] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The first modification includes adjustments to the annual allowable rent increase for in-place tenants. Staff recommend, um, that the following items be incorporated:

[02:05:01] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: A maximum allowable rent increase of 3%, a maximum of one rent increase over a 12-month period, and also a 30-day written notice to tenants informing them of the rent increase.

[02:05:15] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The second modification includes the clarification of, uh, the definitions for the various income categories. Currently, the definitions, um, may cause confusion as the annual median income, or AMI levels, um, for 50% and 80% incorporate in two different categories.

[02:05:35] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: So the adjustment, the adjustments are as follows: Um, there'll be no change to the definition for Very Low-Income. Um, Low-Income will be modified to, um, define that it would be greater than 50% AMI and up to 80% AMI,

[02:05:52] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: and similarly with Moderate-Income, the definition would be adjusted to, um, words termed greater than 80% AMI and up to 120% AMI.

[02:06:06] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Uh, the third modification will establish how unit rents are calculated. Currently, the ordinance and the administrative guidelines do not specify that the rents are calculated on the AMI, um, levels assigned to the units, um, rather than the tenant's household incomes.

[02:06:24] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: So this can confuse, cause, uh, like, uncertainty and administrative confusion from time to time. Um, so then this update would clarify that the unit rents are set in accordance with the AMI levels of the assigned units, um, and not the AMI levels of the potential tenants.

[02:06:46] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The final modification provides the clarification of the definition of residential development, which, um, now includes creating one or more dwelling units, or to convert non-residential uses to residential uses, or to convert residential units from rental units to ownership units.

[02:07:08] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: So, if approved by EPC this evening, the item will be presented to Council at a public hearing on February 25th, um, as the first reading, um, and the second reading being agendized as a consent item on March 25th, 2025.

• ← Previous
• Next →