►
Description
Live teleconference of the City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) Meeting scheduled for Wednesday May 18, 2022.
A
Function
identified
as
a
globe
is
located
in
the
bottom
of
your
zoom
screen.
Please
click
the
globe
button
and
select
the
language
you
prefer.
English,
spanish
or
chinese.
Do
nothing
if
you
want
to
hear
english
deliberations,
but
you
will
not
be
able
to
hear
english
translations
of
spanish
chinese
or
public
comments.
A
If
you
choose
the
other
languages
correct,
please
welcome
ellen
garcia
and
ellen
lee
as
our
translators
today.
Thank
you
for
joining
us,
we'll
be
providing
the
translation
service
tonight.
Elena
will
turn
it
over
to
you
to
provide
spanish
language
instructions
on
how
to
set
up
the
interpretation
function.
Thank
you.
B
C
A
During
this
state
of
emergency,
the
mood
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
california
government
code
54953
sub,
paragraph
e,
as
authorized
by
resolution
of
the
city
council
of
mountain
view.
Please
contact
the
city
clerk
of
mount
at
mountain
view,
clerk
at
mountainview.gov
to
obtain
a
copy
of
the
applicable
resolution.
A
E
A
F
A
Now
open
up
for
public
comment
on
the
meeting
minutes
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
the
raise
hand
button
in
zoom
by
pressing
the
star
or
press
the
star
9
button
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6.
epc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
No
do
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
the
minute
meeting
minutes.
G
J
K
F
A
Thank
you.
An
important
agenda
is
oral
communication.
This
portion
of
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
epc
on
any
matter.
That
is
not
on
the
agenda
this
evening,
speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
state
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
any
non-agenda
items.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
non-agenda
item?
A
H
A
Bring
it
back
to
the
commission
and
move
on
to
item
number
section:
five
study
session
number
5.1
housing
element
update
the
drafts.
2023-2031
housing
element,
the
reminder
to
people
on
the
phone.
We
have
translation,
spanish
and
chinese
this
evening,
if
you're
on
zoon,
please
click
the
globe
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
To
choose
your
preferred
language.
If
you
do
nothing,
you
will
hear
english,
but
you
will
not
be
able
to
hear
the
english
translations
of
the
spanish
and
chinese
public
comment
before
we
start,
commissioner
dempsey
has
an
announcement
to
make.
I
L
I'm
sorry,
mr
chair,
I
wanted
to
know
I'm
sorry
we
I
did
not.
Commissioner
dempsey.
Also,
you
reside
within
500
feet
of
two
other
categories:
the
other
non-residential
site
south
of
el
camino,
real
these.
This
was
not
included
in
the
last
housing
element
discussion
at
epc,
as
well
as
a
non-historic
church
in
our
district.
I
A
So,
as
a
result,
we're
going
to
have
a
different
process
for
this
item.
First
there'll
be
a
staff
presentation.
Then
public
comment
then
general
questions
from
the
commission.
At
that
point,
mr
dempsey
will
leave
and
the
discussion
will
include
program
1.2,
the
community
decides
for
housing
and
the
site,
inventories
for
the
general
plan,
village,
centers,
non-residential
sites
off
of
the
south
of
el
camino
and
the
non-historic
churches
and
the
art
districts,
as
well
as
the
rezoning
framework
for
the
general
plan.
A
Village
centers,
commissioner
dempsey,
will
then
turn
return
to
the
meeting,
and
the
commission
will
discuss
the
remainder
of
the
questions.
We
will
now
proceed
with
the
staff
presentation,
I'd
like
to
welcome
elaine
yao
project
planner
and
eric
anderson,
advanced
planning
manager,
for
the
presentation.
M
H
C
M
All
right
so
for
tonight's
presentation,
we'll
cover
some
programs
that
are
included
in
the
housing
plan,
we'll
cover
an
overview
of
the
recommended
sites
inventory,
including
changes
that
we've
made
since
the
last
study
session,
which
is
based
on
council
direction
and
we'll
also
go
over
recommended
rezonings
and
general
plan
and
a
general
plan
amendment
as
part
of
the
housing
element
update.
We
have
three
main
questions
which
will
be
mentioned
after
the
related
topic
is
presented
and
we'll
briefly
go
over
next
steps.
M
At
the
end,
you
guys
all
seen
the
site
a
couple
of
times
in
our
last
couple
study
sessions,
so
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
main
five
key
components
of
the
housing
element.
The
major
inputs
are
the
first
three
listed
here,
which
include
the
housing,
needs,
assessment
and
evaluation
of
the
prior
housing
element
and
a
constraint
analysis
in
this
presentation.
I'll
mainly
go
over
the
outputs,
which
are
the
last
two,
the
site's
inventory,
which
is
to
accommodate
the
arena,
and
the
programs
which
is
to
address
identified
housing
needs
as
part
of
the
goals,
policies
and
programs.
M
M
M
M
I
do
want
to
state
that
it
should
not
be
overlooked
that
the
intent
of
the
these
specific
city
programs,
they're
designed
to
achieve
city
priorities
so
affordable
units
that
come
out
of
the
bmr
program
and
funding
and
land
to
maintain
quality
community
park
space
that
come
out
of
the
parkland
requirements.
But
nonetheless,
these
factors
are
important.
They
are
considered
major
factors
and
major
costs
to
housing
development.
So
we
need
to
address
them
together,
and
so
these
programs
highlight
the
the
program
that
we
have
in
our
housing
plan
and
the
actions
to
reduce
those
constraints.
M
And
then
the
last
program
listed
in
this
section
is
the
development,
streamlining
and
process
provisions
that
includes
finding
where
we
have
inefficiencies
where
we
can
improve
on
coordination
within
the
city
staff
and
integrating
new
tools.
From
all
of
this,
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
upholding
our
community
values.
As
part
of
that
I
do
want
to
highlight
for
that
last
program:
development,
streamlining,
I'm
sure
you
are
aware.
M
These
next
four
is
specifically
addressing
affordable
housing.
We've
realized
it
is
a
housing
need
specifically
for
the
city
of
mountain
view
and
much
of
silicon
valley
where
costs
are
quite
high
so
specifically
for
developing,
affordable
housing.
There's
a
lot
of
high
costs
associated
with
this
type
of
housing,
and
it's
very
important
that
we
increase
local
and
external
funding
sources,
that's
probably
through
partnerships
and
any
other
collaborative
efforts,
and
that's
very
vital
to
facilitating
this
specific
type
of
housing.
M
M
M
We
also
have
the
city's
own
consolidated
plan
that
was
adopted
in
2020
and
the
we
also
have
the
two-year
council
strategic
roadmap
action
plan,
which
has
identified
a
slew
of
other
specific
actions.
That's
that
is
that
has
that
we
have
in
the
pipeline,
and,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
also
have
smaller
studies,
including
the
development
review
assessment,
aka
the
matrix
study,
so
for
this
portion
we
would
like
the
epc
to
provide
us
feedback.
M
M
M
Council
feedback
also
included
direction
for
other
site
inventory
modifications
listed
under
changes,
so
council
wanted
us
to
include
general
plan
village
centers
that
allowed
residential
that
it
currently
allows
residential
in
the
general
plan.
So
those
are
included
the
general
plan.
Village
centers,
are
you
know,
400
market
boulevard,
the
shopping
center
at
ringstor,
avenue
and
central
expressway
blossom
valley,
shopping
center
grant
park,
plaza
shopping
center
and
then
parcels
near
the
corner
of
old
middle
field
way
and
north
rankstore
avenue.
M
M
M
So
I
want
to
highlight
that
staff
recommends
the
site's
inventory
as
presented
in
the
draft
housing
element
because
it
re
it
maintains
the
framework
that
was
supported
by
epc
and
council,
and
then
it
also
includes
the
changes
that
were
directed
to
us
and
also
meets
the
hcd
requirements
for
meeting
reno
as
part
of
our
outreach.
After
the
city
council
meeting
back
in
march,
we
sent
letters
to
property
owners
of
the
sites
that
were
designated
as
housing
element
sites.
M
I
want
to
say
this
is
the
second
bullet
point
talks
about
our
back
pocket
list,
so
this
is
kind
of
the
last
category
that
we
have,
but
this
last
category
is
not
part
of
the
site's
inventory.
This
is
a
back
pocket
list
for
future
sites.
That
would
require
additional
study
and
additional
outreach
to
determine
whether
there's
residential
viability
and
whether
it
could
be
well
integrated
into
the
community
vision.
M
So
these
include
other
shopping
centers
that
currently
don't
have
residential
as
part
of
their
general
plan.
Designation
we've
also
identified
a
few
non-residential
sites
south
of
el
camino.
They
are
office
office
buildings
across
from
cuesta
miramonte
and
the
boston
valley
shopping
center,
previously
discussed
it
was
down.
We
included
the
downtown
transit
center
in
our
back
pocket
list.
M
There's
the
south
drive
area
that
was
mentioned
from
previous
study
sessions
and
then
the
moffett
boulevard,
the
whole
area
we
also
have
in
our
staff.
We
also
discussed
in
our
staff
report
a
section
of
not
recommended
sites,
so
they're
not
included
in
our
site's
inventory
and
also
not
included
in
our
back
pocket.
M
M
Aside
from
the
recommended
sites
inventory,
there
are
alternatives
where
the
epc
can
recommend
whether
to
include
any
back
pocket
or
not
recommended
sites
into
the
site
inventory
or
remove
general
plan
and
el
camino
real
village,
centers
from
the
site's
inventory
or
overall
add,
or
remove
any
other
sites
and
move
them
from
the
site's
inventory
or
to
the
back
pocket.
So
those
are
some
of
the
alternatives
that
you
can
discuss.
M
Does
the
epc
wish
to
recommend
adding
any
alternatives
to
the
site
inventory
and
then
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
last
portion
of
the
presentation,
which
is
specifically
the
rezonings
of
the
general
plan?
Village
centers
and
rezonings
in
general,
concur
with
our
housing
element,
so
I'm
going
to
cover
three
rezonings
in
a
general
plan
amendment
that
would
recommend
run
concurrent
with
the
housing
element
update
to
streamline
the
process
for
actions
that
are
necessary
to
be
consistent
with
state
law
and
with
our
general
plan.
M
M
The
residential
would
be
allowed
where
mixed
use
is
the
general
plan,
land
use,
designation
so
to
apply
development
standards
most
likely,
r3
or
cra,
or
the
el
camino
real
precise
plan,
depending
on
the
context
of
the
site.
We'd
want
to
ensure
that
we're
maintaining
retail,
that
street
frontage
is
still
remain
commercial
and
that
would
provide
public
open
space.
So,
on
the
slide,
you'll
see
those
five
main
areas
that
would
be
part
of
the
recommended
rezoning
for
the
general
plan.
Village.
Centers,
the
second
rezoning
category
is
the
el
camino
real
village
center.
M
This
would
remove
the
rezoning
process
that
is
currently
called
the
village
center
overlay
in
the
el
camino
real
precise
plan.
This
would
allow
far
up
to
2.3
without
going
through
that
additional
rezoning
process
and
again
to
the
left,
you'll
see
some
screenshots
of
those
areas
and
then
the
third
category
is
the
rezoning
and
a
general
plan
amendment
for
the
87
east
evelyn
site.
So
right
now,
this
site
is
a
rezoning
opportunity
site
and
since
the
city
has
a
ground
lease
and
a
potential
option
to
purchase
the
site,
it
is.
M
However,
if
the
epc
wishes
to
have
more
review,
outreach
or
other
options
for
the
reason,
other
framework
options
for
the
specific
rezonings,
we
can
delay
the
action
that
they
don't
have
to
run,
concur
with
the
housing
element.
But
we
do
recommend
it
because
it
does
streamline
the
process
for
those
categories,
especially
the
sites
that
are
already
included
in
our
site's
inventory.
M
So,
even
if
they,
if
you
decide
to
delay
the
action,
we
have
included
a
rezoning
program
in
the
housing
element
to
ensure
that,
if
they're
not
adopted
with
a
housing
element
that
the
rezonings
will
be
completed
within
the
hcd
deadlines
for
rezoning
of
housing
element
sites.
So
our
last
question
of
the
night
is:
does
the
epc
support?
The
draft
strategy
for
rezoning
general
plan
and
el
camino,
real
village
centers
and
the
87
east
devlin
avenue,
or
would
the
epc
prefer
to
delay
the
adoption
of
that
specific
zoning
to
conduct
more
analysis?
M
M
M
They
will
be
reviewing
it
for
a
90-day
period
and
providing
us
with
comments,
and
during
that
time,
in
about
august,
we
anticipate
having
our
public
draft
er
available
and
we'll
be
having
a
public
meeting
with
the
epc
on
august
3rd
to
review
the
public
draft
dir
and
after
getting
comments
from
hcd,
we'll
be
making
revisions
to
respond
to
their
comments.
And
we
anticipate
our
final
adoption
hearings
for
scheduled
for
november
and
december
of
2022.
A
A
Some
of
them
may
have
the
items
that
you're
like
oh,
that
needs
to
change,
but
there
may
be
others
that
you're
largely
good
with,
as
is
if
some
of
you
have
watched
council
meetings
at
the
beginning
of
the
council
meetings.
They
have
this
approach
where
they
have
essentially
a
consent
calendar,
and
then
the
council
members
are
asked
to
pick
out
items
that
they
would
specifically
like
to
discuss.
A
I
think,
in
order
to
keep
this
process
moving,
I
would
prefer
not
to
go
through
and
pull
everybody
at
every
single
program.
But
then,
when
we
get
back
into
council,
discussion
or
commission
discussion
is
to
call
the
members
for
which
items
on
the
list
would
you
would
you
like
to
specifically
discuss,
and
we
will
work
on
the
basis
that
if
we
don't,
if
it's
not
called
out,
then
we
collectively
agree
with
it
and
there's
no
issue
with
that
item.
That
way,
we're
not
having
to
go
through
every
single
item
line
by
line.
N
A
A
So
I
guess
we
were
not
necessarily
expecting
that
we
would
be
going
back
through
the
goals
or
go
going
back
through
the
level
above
during
this
meeting.
I
don't
know
that
we
couldn't,
but
that
was
not
anticipated
as
an
element
of
the
a
detailed
discussion
of
each
of
those
goals
and
the,
and
what
do
they
call
the
second
level
I'm
throwing
a
blank
on
it
at
this
time
is
that
am
I
eric?
Is
that
accurate
that
we
we
reviewed
the
goals
and
the
second
level
and
the
policies
in
prior
meetings.
O
A
And
then
I
guess
the
last
thing
the
third
part
of
this
will
be
when
we
get
down
to
the
end.
Is
there
something
things
that
are
just
plain
missing:
okay,
things
that
are
beyond
what's
on
the
list
and
we've
gone
through
programs
that
simply
don't
you
believe
should
be
there
that
aren't
captured
in
the
thing
today.
So
those
those
could
be
in
any
category.
N
It
totally
does,
and
just
in
terms
of
explaining
kind
of
my
line
of
questioning.
The
reason
why
I
ask
is
just
because
there
was
like
a
a
mismatch
in
terms
of
the
number
of
programs
proposed
and
the
policies,
and
so
it
wasn't
eminently
clear
which
policies
were
being
met
by
which
programs
are
vice
versa,
and
so
that
kind
of
opened
up
some
questions
on
its
own.
And
so
just
so.
Everyone
knows
kind
of
like
the
reasoning
behind
that.
A
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
in
your
phone
phone
users
can
unmute
and
mute
themselves
by
pressing
star
6.
The
epc
clerk
will
turn
the
start.
The
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
it's
penalized.
Do
we
have
people
wishing
to
speak.
P
All
right,
thank
you
good
evening.
My
name
is
james
fusmo.
I
live
in
mountain
view
and
I
am
speaking
for
the
mountain
view.
Envy
letter
that
we
submitted
in
general.
We
are
thrilled
to
see
this
draft
housing
element.
We
know
they
took
a
huge
amount
of
work
to
get
it
to
this
point.
We
do
have
some
concerns
and
our
concerns
are
focused
at
sort
of
ensuring
that
our
housing
element
both
ensures.
P
That
mountain
view
has
a
good
housing
plan
to
ensure
affordable
housing
and
lots
of
housing
for
the
next
decade,
as
well
as
to
ensure
that
as
a
city,
we
submit
a
hdd
compliant
housing
element
with
that
said,
our
main
concerns
are,
firstly,
that
some
of
the
programs
lack
specific
objectives
and
time
frames.
This
is
something
that
many
southern
california
cities
have
been
dinged
by
hdd
and
made
non-compliant
so,
for
instance,
on
developer
stream
mining.
P
It
might
be
good
to
have
specific
objectives
around
what
permit
times
and
turnaround
will
look
like
along
those
same
lines.
We
do
think
that
the
developer
streamlining
is
perhaps
more
important
than
the
draft
made
that
sort
of
expressed
it
as
many
of
the
developers.
We've
spoken
to
cite
the
ability
and
ease
of
working
with
the
city
and
getting
the
project
through
approvals
as
one
of
the
biggest
barriers
to
development
beyond
that
are
along
the
same
lines
of
having
specific
objectives.
The
affha
section
feels
a
bit
lacking.
P
We
realize
that
hcd
hasn't
released
terribly
specific
guidance
on
that,
but
it
is
still
the
case
that
we
are
in
a
city
that,
while
we
may
not
have
the
highest
segregation
in
the
united
states,
we
do
have
internal
spatial
segregation
in
our
city.
There
are
parts
of
our
city
that
have
significantly
richer
neighborhoods
mariana
castro.
School
has
80
hispanic
and
latino
students
memi
has
around
seven
percent
we
should
be
have.
P
We
should
have
specific
programs
and
goals
about
improving
the
integration
of
our
city,
and
we
do
not
currently
have
that
in
the
draft.
And
finally,
as
a
general
note,
we
would
love
to
see
in
general,
more
programs
to
reduce
housing
constraints
and
costs,
for
instance,
with
parking.
It
would
be
great
if
we
had
no
parking
requirements
for
all
developments,
not
just
affordable
housing
developments.
P
Q
R
All
right,
I'm
saleem.
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
their
presentation
and
also
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I
just
pulled
up
some
information
from
this
website.
It's
hcd.ca.gov
compliance
report
and
you
can
filter
different
jurisdictions
for
whether
they're
in
or
out
of
housing
element
compliance
so
of
the
197
jurisdictions.
Those
are
cities
and
counties
in
the
southern
california
association
of
governments,
which
has
the
unfortunate
acronym
scag
only
6.6
percent,
are
currently
in
compliance.
R
I
also
want
to
talk
to
another
element
that
hc
has
been
very
explicit
about
to
southern
california
jurisdictions,
which
is
like
using
public
land
for
affordable
housing.
So
our
city
is,
is
really
banking
on
land
donations
from
north
bay
shore
and
middle
field.
So
this
will
that
will
be
public
land
eventually,
but
hcd's
been
clear.
If
you
have
public
land,
you
actually
need
to
have
a
timeline
and
commitment
to
develop
that
land.
Within
the
arena
cycle
I
mean
the
land
on
its
own
is
not
affordable,
housing
rights.
R
We
actually
have
to
tell
hcd
that
we're
able
to
build
this
housing
within
eight
years.
If
you
look
at
the
letter
that
hcd
sent
to
santa
monica,
it's
a
it's
an
analogous
scenario
where
santa
monica
didn't
actually
have
plans
to
develop
the
you
know
like
an
actual
timeline
to
develop
that
land
within
the
arena
period,
and
I'm
worried
that
this
is
going
to
be
something
hcd
will
look
at.
I
hope
we
can.
You
know,
turn
this
land
into
affordable
housing,
but
I
don't
know
it's
a
huge
lift.
R
You
know,
like
number
one
staff
I
mean
is
you
know
we
need
a
lot
more
staffing
to
be
able
to
pull
this
off
and
then
number
two.
I
just
don't
even
know
if
we've
really
put
much
thought
into
it
like
how
would
the
funding
work?
I
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
hope,
I'm
sure
we'll
put
our
best
effort
into
it,
but
hd
needs
more
than
a
like.
You
know
we
will
do
our
best.
They
actually
need
a
commitment
and
a
plan.
H
S
S
We
are
asking
you
to
as
you
look
at
the
site
inventory
list
and
advise
the
city
council,
that
you
recommend
that
rc
site
be
added
back
on
the
list,
because
it
has
a
potential
development
of
80
units
per
acre.
You
know
without
the
density
bonus
and
we're
recommending
that
you
could
proactively
re-zone
as
part
of
the
housing
element
and
the
reason
why
we
fill
this
property
is
so
valuable
and
should
be
added
to
this
list.
S
It
is
adding
high-density
housing
to
a
location,
that's
good
for
the
environment.
If
the
site
is
very
close
to
google
within
walking
distance,
it's
located
right
off
101
the
proposed
project
would
be
adding
much
needed
housing
for
all
income
levels.
Affordable
housing
would
be
provided
on
the
site,
which
we
know
is
very
valuable
to
this
community.
S
No
government
subsidy
would
be
required
to
construct
the
whole
affordable
housing
unit,
saving
taxpayers
quite
a
bit
of
money.
We
also
believe
that
this
area
will
this
area
would
not
impact
a
single
family
neighborhood.
The
site
is
located
right
across
from
some
commercial
zoning
and
is
not
adjacent
to
a
single-family
neighborhood.
S
The
project
also
has
many
community
benefits.
One
is
that
the
historic
land
markets
here,
the
olive
oil
amber
olive
oil
would
be
preserved
and
it
would
transform
an
underutilized
acre
that
has
two
homes
and
would
bring
added
addition
to
the
housing
element
when
listening
today
to
the
staff
members
speaking,
we
really
do
believe
that
that
this
project
meets
all
the
requirements
and
technically
we
do
have
a
project
that
we
have
just
recently
pulled
from
the
city.
I
won't
go
into
details.
S
T
T
H
A
K
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
crabstone.
My
name
is
philip
cosby,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
capacitor,
and
we
sent
you
a
letter
this
afternoon,
I've
been
following
the
mountain
view,
housing
element
for
the
past
20
years,
and
invariably,
every
year
the
city,
like
almost
all
other
cities,
never
meets
its
projected
goals
for
for
building
low
income
and
very
low
income
and
even
moderate
income
units
year
after
year,
and
of
course,
the
reason
is,
the
city
doesn't
build.
K
G
Evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
kevin
mom,
like
other
speakers.
I've
said
before
my
concerns
are
that
the
programs
are
missing
deadlines
and
also
incredibly
high
level.
Perhaps
the
item
on
displacement
response
and
prevention
and
mitigation
is
basically
saying
you
can
force
existing
law,
which
is
they're
not.
It
would
be
worse
if
we
didn't
have
them,
but
we
can
clearly
tell
from
the
general
demographics
of
the
city
that
it's
not
enough.
G
You
know
the
buildings
that
are
remaining
date
back
to
what
the
40s
the
50s
like
they
are
in
time
to
be
rebuilt
these
days
just
to
meet
modern
health
codes,
and
we
will
need
to
make
policies
to
ensure
that,
while
those
get
healthier
like
the
people
do
stay
in
the
community
and
that's
just
kind
of
missing,
there's
also
a
bunch
of
other
programs
in
here.
That
just
seem
to
be
also
state
obligations
like
updating
to
match
state
law
seems
like
a
requirement
not
like
a
like,
not
a
discretionary
program.
G
I
do
feel
like
the
afmh
analysis,
is
still
a
bit
deficient
and
it's
still
a
little
weird
to
see
just
punt
it
onto
its
own
program.
There
are
based
on
our
school
demographics,
clear
divisions
based
on
race
that
do
should
that
should
be
addressed
in
how
I
don't
know,
perhaps
because
one
of
the
biggest
elephants
in
the
room
is
sometimes
we
describe
the
city
in
two
south
of
el
camino,
real
north,
about
commuter
rally
that
probably
needs
to
be
addressed
somewhere.
G
The
sign
inventory
still
seems
a
little
optimistic
just
because
of
the
general
lack
of
rezoning.
Still,
I
mean
basically
the
assumption
there
is
that
we've
done
given
the
past
eight
years
well
enough,
and
the
results
have
shown
that
we've
not
done
well
enough,
that
housing
prices
still
continue
to
skyrocket,
10
rental
prices
still
continue
to
skyrocket
and
we
are
not
doing
enough
to
ensure
that
housing
prices
actually
become
a
meaningful
level.
G
H
U
Hi,
I'm
david
watson,
I've
been
a
resident
of
mountain
view,
my
entire
life
and
I'm
a
member
of
mountain
view.
Gimbi
thanks
for
this
opportunity
to
comment.
First,
it's
I
think
it's
important
that
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing.
We
need
to
actually
upzone
the
high
opportunity
parts
of
the
city.
That's
what
the
that's,
what
furthering
fair
housing
is
about
and
that's
what
we
should
be
doing.
U
U
H
V
H
X
So
anti-displacement
policies,
one
of
the
most
painful
things
that
has
taken
place
and
currently
seems
to
be
on
pause,
gratefully,
is
demolition
of
apartments
and
the
reason
this
is
on
pause
is
a
state
bill,
sb
330,
that
makes
it
guarantees
a
right
of
return
at
an
affordable
rate
if
apartments
are
demolished,
so
that
has
an
expiration
date.
It
is
not
a
permanent
policy,
so
your
anti-displacement
policies
need
to
include
anti-demolition
policies
similar
to
sp
330,
but
we
don't
want
to
wait
for
the
state
law
to
expire.
X
We
want
mountain
view
to
adopt
this
very
protective
policy.
It's
not
that
a
building
could
never
be
demolished,
but
it's
that
the
demolition
of
a
building
would
not
displace
the
current
tenants.
They
would
have
a
right
to
return
at
an
affordable
rate.
Topacopa
should
be
explicitly
studied
and
encouraged.
X
Why
is
there
a
housing
element
to
provide
places
for
people
to
live
and
also
to
stop
people
from
becoming
homeless,
and
some
of
the
people
who
are
on
the
very
brink
of
homelessness
are
currently
living
in
rvs,
so
adding
long-term,
safe
parking
would
be
valuable.
I
don't
know
how
well
that
fits
into
state
definitions
of
housing,
but
it
would
definitely
benefit
the
residents
of
mountain
view,
and
it
would
benefit
them
more
if
there
is
acknowledgement
that,
for
some
people
this
is
the
best
option
and
there
should
be
electricity
instead
of
generators.
X
X
Another
way
to
say
that
would
be
if
the
current
zoning
was
built
out
to
the
density
and
far
allowed
what
would
be
mountain,
view's
housing,
jobs,
housing
balance,
and
I
think
that
information
really
might
inspire
some
rezoning
in
the
future.
I
think
it
would
be
a
bad
story
for
housing,
housing
demand
of
many
more
units
coming
of
office
beyond
the
units
coming
in
the
future
for
housing.
There's
a
hou,
there's
housing
scarcity
building
office
does
not
alleviate
that.
It
decreases
the
demand
it
should
be
studied.
Thank
you.
H
D
Y
We
would
argue
they're
too
low,
because
currently
they
only
provide
1.5
acres
of
open
space
per
thousand
residents
and
quimby.
Ask
act,
asks
for
three
acres
per
thousand
residents.
I
know.
There's
a
group
of
citizens,
that's
already
considering
a
bond
measure
in
terms
of
a
way
to
increase
park
space,
so
we're
not
asking
new
developments
to
like
pick
up
the
slack,
but
we
are
asking
them
for
the
for
them
to
meet
the
minimum
of
the
state
requirements
so
decreasing.
Y
That
would
not
meet
state
requirements,
and
then
we
have
to
recognize
that
mountain
view.
Real
estate
prices
are
high
and
that's
what
parks
cost
and
then.
Secondly,
we're
really
excited
to
see
the
village
centers
as
proposed
development
sites.
We
think
they're
a
great
opportunity
to
increase
walkability.
Y
Currently
many
of
those
sites
are
very
unwalkable
like
I,
when
I
tried
to
take
a
stroller
to
the
blossom
hill.
One
it's
awful,
so
they're
not
accessible
they're,
not
ada,
accessible
they're,
not
stroller,
accessible
they're,
not
bike
accessible.
So
I
think
that
turning
those
spaces
into
bike
walk
friendly
areas
with
park,
space
and
housing
is
a
great
idea
to
supplement
that
the
the
shopping
spaces
there.
We
we
love
the
shopping
spaces,
but
it
can
be
improved
for
sure.
So.
Thank
you
for
including
that
on
the
list.
Z
Hi,
emily
ann
ramos
mountain
view,
one
of
the
things
I'm
reiterating
similar
to
my
my
friends
in
in
mountain
view.
Envy
is
how,
in
some
of
the
programs,
are
not
very
well
defined
or
specific,
nor
have
a
clear
time
frame.
I'm
going
to
go
specifically
under
the
goal.
2
area
where
2.1
is
subsidize
and
support,
affordable
housing
programs
to
meet
an
array
of
housing
needs,
with
a
particular
emphasis
on
underserved
populations,
which
is
wonderful.
Z
But
I
do
know
that,
like
there
has
been
specific
asks
from
the
community
for
some
innovative
programs
such
as
co-ops
and
topacopa,
and
I
feel
like
that
should
be
specifically
called
out
if
you're
going
to
call
out
community
land
trust,
you
may
want
to
call
those
out
too,
as
as
other
innovative
programs
that
that
are
worth
exploring,
but
also
maybe
possibly
get
a
time
frame
on
that
as
well.
But
that
was
just
one
example
on
how
some
of
these
goals
seem
incredibly
broad,
especially
and
under
goal.
Z
Z
One
of
the
things
that
I
kind
of
do
want
to
question
is
that
we
already
heard
from
two
two
property
owners
already
in
public
comment,
asking
for
their
properties
to
be
added
onto
the
housing
element.
Now
some
of
these
people,
who
are
already
submitted
some
kind
of
application
for
their
properties,
while
there
are
some
but
they're
not
included
on
the
site
inventory.
Yet
there
are
some
sites
on
the
site
inventory
that
have
no
indication
that
they
would
be
doing
that
they
would
be
building
housing
in
the
next
eight
years.
Z
AA
Hi
there
can
you
hear
me
all
right.
Thank
you
yeah.
This
is
tony
ross,
I'm
a
resident
of
cuesta
park.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
support
the
housing
element
with
its
side
inventory
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
some
earlier
comments
about
the
need
to
preserve
at
least
the
same
amount
of
retail
space
that
we
have
today
in
the
village
centers
having
the
retail
close
to
residential
neighborhoods
is
really
important
to
have
these
vibrant
walkable
neighborhoods
that
we
all
want,
and
we
will
also
reduce
the
dependencies
on
transportation.
AA
H
H
AB
AB
AB
One
of
the
most
important
suggestions
in
this
letter
is
based
on
experience.
I
had
with
a
new
housing
development
and
working
with
developer
with
the
city
and
resident
group,
and
the
conclusion
that
I
came
up
with
was
that
we
really
must
engage
the
public
early
on
in
the
planning
stages
of
a
housing
development,
and
this
policy
would
require
the
developer
to
engage
the
residents
near
the
project
site
during
the
early
planning
stages,
maybe
even
the
conceptual
phase
of
the
planning
process
and
obtain
feedback
on
the
development
and
its
impacts
to
the
neighborhood.
AB
This
may
be
the
most
single
most
important
policy
that
may
change
what
is
now
an
adversarial
urban
land
use
planning
process
into
a
cooperative
process.
It
just
makes
total
sense,
there's
no
reason
why
that
cannot
be
doable.
This
is
not
just
a
mountain
view
problem.
This
problem
is
nationwide
in
many
cities
across
our
country,
but
mountain
view
could
actually
set
a
precedent
and
be
an
example
to
the
rest
of
the
country.
AB
I
mean
the
city's
role
should
be
to
moderate
the
differences
between
the
stakeholders
and
help
find
solutions
to
the
problems
that
arise
in
addressing
the
residents
and
the
community's
major
concerns.
Above
all,
the
city
has
a
primary
responsibility
to
protect
the
public
health,
welfare
and
the
environment.
The
city
must
address
the
resident's
concerns
that
it
okay.
O
O
F
A
I
I
had
a
chance
to
watch
briefly
a
youtube
recording
of
feedback
from
hcd
on
feedback
on
what
they're,
seeing
on
the
reviews
of
housing
elements
in
southern
california,
and
one
of
the
items
was
the
lack
of
specificity
of
actions
in
the
program.
They
specifically
commented
that
use
of
the
words
like
explore,
consider
evaluate
the
feasibility
study.
These
items
were
items
that
were
viewed
by
hcd
as
an
issue
and
that
they
were
that
they
were
generally
going
back
and
asking
people
to
be
more
specific.
O
O
AD
Yeah
thanks
eric
so
part
of
what
we're
looking
at
as
your
programs
is
really
looking
at
it
as
a
package.
So
it's
true
that
hcd
does
want
to
see.
You
know
quantifiable
action-oriented
items
in
your
programs
list.
They
are
also
looking
at
sort
of
as
a
whole.
What
your
housing
element
is
finding
in
terms
of
needs
and
constraints
and
how
your
programs
are
responding
to
those
to
those
items
that
you're
finding
and
really
how
your
programs
work
together
as
a
whole.
AD
You
know
that
there
are
some
things
that
you're
doing
already
that
are
working,
that
you
want
to
reflect
in
your
housing
element
and
reinforce
through
your
housing
element,
that
these
are
programs
that
are
ongoing
and
they're
working
for
you,
and
you
don't
want
to
forget
about
them.
You
want
to
commit
to
continuing
those
programs
right
now.
AD
So
you
know,
I
think
that
you
have
a
good,
a
good
mix
here,
but
if
there
were,
you
know,
items
that
you
wanted
to
consider,
for
you
know
implementing
some
of
these
really
specific
actions,
that's
something
that
we
would
be
open
to
hearing
your
feedback
on
as
eric
mentioned.
Some
of
these
really
do
require
analysis,
and
I
think
hcd
understands
that
as
well.
So
you
can't
say
you
know,
as
you're,
going
through
the
housing
element
process.
That's
a
lot
of
work
for
staff.
AD
So
part
of
what
the
housing
element
is
meant
to
do
is
to
commit
you
to
taking
these
actions
where
you're
not
sure
what
the
outcome
will
be,
but
you
are
committing
to
doing
something
about
it
or
at
least
doing
what
you
can
to
you
know,
explore
the
avenues
that
you
have
to
address
these
various
constraints
or
address.
Affordable
housing
needs
in
these
various
ways.
A
AD
Yeah,
so
the
analysis,
sorry
eric
do
you
want
me
to
okay?
The
analysis
should
be
completed
within
the
planning
period
and
then
the
the
programs
that
we
have
that
talk
about
doing
that
type
of
analysis.
There
are
time
frames
for
them
so
that
that's
what
that's
what's
committing
the
city
to
doing
them
on
a
specific
time
frame.
So,
yes,
it's
not
indefinite.
AD
H
AC
Thank
you.
You
asked
largely
the
first
iteration
of
my
question,
the
second
one
maybe
back
to
stephanie's.
Can
you
describe,
I
think
ellen
was
talking
about
this
multi-pronged
approach.
So
how
common
is
that,
and
given
that
there
are
other
strategies
the
city
is
pursuing
for
our
housing
needs
to
tease
those
out
in
separate
policies
versus
try
and
be
explicit
and
hold
ourselves
accountable
under
the
housing
element.
AD
AD
Mountain
view
does
a
lot,
and
so
you
know
there
this
is
maybe
you
know
maybe
a
little
bit.
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
housing
elements.
You
know
you
have
cities
that
are
really
trying
to
put
everything
on
the
table
that
they're
doing
because
they
really
need
to
you
know
demonstrate
that
they
are
doing
something.
AD
Mountain
view
has
a
lot
of
really
comprehensive
housing
programs
already
in
place,
and
so
it's
maybe
a
little
bit
different
from
what
we
might
see
as
a
typical
case,
because
there
are
so
many
things
that
you
can
already
say
that
you're
doing
so,
I
don't
think
that
it's.
I
guess
I
would
say
I
don't
see
a
lot
of
cities.
AD
AE
O
If
the,
if
the
commission
says
nothing,
that
would
probably
be
our
our
kind
of
analytic
framework
for
moving
forward
on
this
and
set
that
minimum
in
do
some
analysis
of
existing
retail
quantify
that
and
set
that
as
the
minimum
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
If
the
commission
has
different
direction
by
all
means
provide
that
different
direction,.
AE
Okay,
thank
you.
Let's
see
another
question
you
guys
had
mentioned,
bringing
the
overlay
for
the
el
camino
village
centers
in
to
be
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
Do
you
mind
just
going
into
a
little
bit
more
detail?
I
wasn't
quite
clear
on
what
needs
to
be
made
consistent,
why
it
isn't
consistent
now.
O
Two
separate
bonus
tiers
of
development
that
you
can
do
in
these
parts
of
el
camino.
The
first
level
is
allowed.
You
know
through
our
normal
process,
it's
just
a
an
amount
of
development
that
developers
usually
opt
for
because
it
provides
them
a
lot,
more
floor
area
and
a
lot
more
units,
but
it
you
through
that
process,
there's
community
benefits
and
other
things
that
the
city
can
ask
for
the
second
level.
O
What
we
call
the
tier
two
development
process
in
east
wisman
actually
has
a
legislative
review
requirement,
and
what
that
means
is
that
you
you're
not
neces
you're
not
allowed
to
just
come
in
and
do
it
whenever
you
want
you're
not
allowed
to
just
come
in
and
submit
an
application
whenever
you
want.
You
have
to
ask
permission
from
the
city
to
go
through
that
review
process.
O
AE
I
I
So
one
of
the
things
that
I've
I
have
a
question
kind
of
about
something
that
I've
heard
tonight
and
something
that
has
been.
I
think
it
came
up
a
couple
times
in
the
in
the
public
testimony-
and
I
saw
also
in
the
letters,
was
sort
of
a
sense
of
anxiety
and
urgency
around
the
displacement
response
strategy.
I
If
staff
can
first
of
all
sort
of
expand
on
sort
of
the
logic
and
the
story
behind,
why
there's
a
delay
to
developing
that
plan
and
then
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
the
what
you
foresee
the
plan
being
to
develop
it
like?
How
is
that
going
to
play
out
under
the
proposal
that
we
have
before
us
today
and
then
finally
sort
of
what
remind
us
all
what
measures
and
protections
will
apply
to
renters
until
then,.
O
W
Good
evening,
commissioners,
and
thanks
for
welcoming
me
to
your
meeting
tonight,
great
question
and
the
there's
a
couple
pieces
to
your
questions.
So
please
stop
me
if
I
haven't
answered
all
of
them,
but
the
displacement
response
study
session
was
a
bit
before
my
time
and
there
were
several
elements
that
council
asked
for
staff
to
proceed
on
and
so
they're
they're
going
on
multiple
tracks.
W
One
of
the
elements
relates
to
preservation
of
naturally
affordable
properties,
which
we
are
currently
pursuing
and
in
our
study
session
that
we'll
be
bringing
to
council
in
august,
we'll
be
discussing
funding
opportunities.
Inclusive
of
some
of
our
preservation
work
that
we're
going
to
do
the
funding
for
preservation
work
is
somewhat
complex
and
unique,
and
so
we'd
like
to
speak
to
council
about
finding
more
opportunities
to
take
that
on
another
element.
Is
the
anti-displacement
ordinance
something
along
the
lines
of
something
like
sb
330?
W
Perhaps
we
received
a
lot
of
council
direction
on
that
and
have
prior
to
my
coming
to
the
to
the
city,
done
some
research
on
what
that
would
look
like
since
sp330
has
come
into
effect.
We
have
a
little
bit
of
breathing
room.
That
is
what's
currently
mostly
we're.
It's
mostly
protecting
tenants
and
it's
it's
in
effect,
now
very,
very
regularly.
W
We
implement
sp
330
through
in
a
project
that
is,
would
otherwise
displace
tenants
permanently
and,
in
the
meantime,
we're
trying
to
do
some
more
research
to
understand
the
what
that
would
look
like
on
a
city
level
and
what
would
be
the
appropriate
work
to
bring
to
council
and
that's
planned
for
2023.
As
you
mentioned,.
I
Okay,
so
it
sounds
like
the
research
is
ongoing
and
in
process,
and
that's
great
news,
and
I
understand
very
much
the
importance
of
studying
something
before
you
do
it,
because
we,
you
know
it's
government,
we
got
to
be
careful.
I
would
just
hope
that
that
you
know
we're
mindful
that
this
is
a
topic.
That's
anxiety,
producing
for
a
long
folk,
and
my
hope
is-
is
that
we
would
move
both
in
the
research
and
making
the
proposal
with
all
due
celerity.
E
E
You
know
after
their
review
and
say
you
know,
you
need
to
tighten
some
of
these
things
up,
but
you
need
to
you
know,
do
more
than
commit
to
having
a
study
of
your
your
parkv
impacts
over
the
next
three
years.
That
wouldn't
cause
us
to
then
have
to
go
back
and
and
redo
some
of
these
things.
They
can
be
adjusted
quickly.
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
a
good
question
in
terms
of
the
specificity
of
language.
Do
we
need
to
be
well
when
you
factor
in
the
rent
control
perspective
of
housing
and
protection
of
those
rights?
It's
understood
already
that
that's
a
given,
but
in
terms
of
the
housing
element,
do
we
need
to
elaborate
on
what
that
would
be
for
renters
of
either
apartment
complexes
versus
mobile
home
park
owners,
whereas
when
we
use
the
word
affordability
for
housing,
would
that
encompass
automatically
those
two
communities?
That's
the
first
question.
O
AD
Yeah,
so
I'm
not
100
sure
that
I
that
I
follow,
but
I
think
what
you're
asking
is
whether
or
not
the
housing
element
needs
to
explain
what
who's
protected
under
rent
control
and
who's
protected
under
the
mobile
home
ordinance.
The
various
protections
for
mobile
home
owners
and
and
just
more
specificity
on
what
those
programs
entail.
Is
that
the
question.
AD
Yeah
yeah,
so
I
think
you
know,
hcd
is-
is
focused
on
meeting
the
the
housing
targets
by
income
as
well
as
meeting
the
needs
for
certain
special
needs
groups
that
they
define
and
then
the
and
so
and
those
are
generally,
you
know
seniors
persons
with
disabilities,
single
parent
households.
They
have
a
set
of
what
they
determine
our
special
needs:
households,
large
families.
It
includes
a
you
know:
series
of
households
that
have
special
housing
needs.
They
are
also
focused
on
preventing
displacement,
particularly
with
the
new
focus
on
affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing.
AD
AD
In
mountain
view
and
said,
and
talks
about
how
these
different
programs
address,
the
you
know:
housing,
affordability,
that
contributes
to
fair
housing
problems,
so
that's
sort
of
more
on
the
displacement
side,
but
it
does
sort
of
tie
into
some
of
that.
You
know
you're
having
renters,
who
are
potentially
at
risk
of
displacement
and
here's
your
programs
that
you
have
to
help
the
you
know
the
needs
among
those
renters
who
might
be
at
risk.
AD
Yeah,
so
I
would
say
not
not
necessarily
in
every
program
I
think
hcd
is
going
to
want
to
look
at
your
program's
list
and
make
sure
that
you're
covering
you're,
you
know
covering
various
boxes
in
terms
of
you're,
not
focusing
only
on
homeowners.
There
is
some
attention
to
renters
and
potentially
vice
versa.
J
Okay
and
the
only
reason
why
I
bring
this
up,
which
is
an
important
reason
and
I'm
sure
the
commissioners
may
or
may
not
know,
if
you
all
do-
please
bear
with
me
here,
but
there's
a
lot
of
members
of
the
community
that
didn't
know
and
I'll
bring
this
up.
When
I
was
supporting
measure
b
early
on
along
with
the
superintendent
of
the
school
district,
we
noticed
that
with
some
discrepancies.
J
One
of
the
things
that
I
noticed
too
was,
though,
the
understanding
of
what
renter
was,
and
so
the
distinguishing
factor
between
an
apartment,
renter
versus
a
mobile
home
renter
was
an
issue,
and
we
saw
that
become
an
issue
that
stayed
for
a
while
until
there
was
clear
clarification
on
what
renter
meant
to
the
point.
Now
that
we
have
included
what
a
mobile
home
community
renter
program
would
look
like
in
mountain
view.
J
That's
why
I'm
bringing
that
up
so
that
we
don't
have
that
type
of
situation,
we're
going
on
within
our
infrastructure
of
how
we
create
policies
and
how
we
language
them,
because
the
language,
as
you
all
know,
is
important
right
and
since
we've.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
just
to
have
that
be
placed
in
the
back
of
our
minds
that
we
factor
that
in
once,
we
come
down
to
the
final
language
of
what
affordable
housing
may
look
like
and
what
it
entails.
And
I
appreciate
your
patience
on
that.
J
Yep,
okay
and
then
my
my
second
question
is
in
terms
of
the
persons
who
have
called
or
written
to
be
part
of
the
process
and
to
have
their
property
included
in
our
lists.
What's
the
official
perspective
on
that
front,
is
it
too
late
for
something
like
that
to
happen,
or
what's
the
application
process
look
like
for
that.
O
They
they
both
have
and
and
obviously,
if
the
epc
wishes
to
add
them
or
recommend,
adding
them
and
the
epc
can
direct,
can
make
that
recommendation
to
counsel.
But
staff
has
several
reasons
for
not
including
them
on
this.
The
site's
inventory
among
them
are
for
one
of
them:
uncertainty
about
the
project
boundaries,
the
project.
It
goes
over
several
public
rights
away,
and
so
it
is
unclear
at
this
time
how
they
would
kind
of
build
the
project
across
those
multiple
public
rights
of
way.
O
You
know
it's
fundamentally
about
the
location
of
the
project
and
if
we
don't
know
the
boundaries
of
the
project,
it's
harder
to
put
it
on
the
site's
inventory
and
to
give
it
a
capacity.
You
know
a
number
in
that
way.
The
other
one
is
a
rezoning
request
that
is
subject
to
the
city's
legislative
discretion
and
because
of
that,
staff
is
not
recommending
to
include
it
on
the
site's
inventory,
because
doing
so
would
effectively
obligate
the
city
to
approve
a
certain
project
there.
O
J
N
N
So,
for
example
like
do
they
care,
or
you
know,
if
someone
at
the
worst
and
the
most
extreme
end
is
someone
wrote,
you
know,
hey
we're
going
to
you
know:
do
a
thousand
units
and
they're
all
gonna
affirmatively,
further
fair
housing-
and
you
know
everything
else
is
great,
but
they're
going
to
be
rickety
and
old
and
the
pipes
will
be
rusty.
Is
that
a
criteria
for
example?
I
know
that's
an
extreme
example,
but
you
know
is
that
something
that
would
get
it
disqualified.
O
O
We
also
do
have
programs
that
we've
included
regarding
our
multi-family
inspection,
ongoing
multi-family
inspection
program,
our
ongoing
code
enforcement
program,
to
ensure
that
we
are
maintaining
our
properties
over
time
stephanie.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
to
add
about
answering
commit
the
commissioner's
specific
question
about
what
hcd
is
looking
for.
AD
AD
Yeah
they
do
want
part
of
the
housing
element
to
look
at
substandard
housing
and
to
determine
how
much
substandard
housing
is
an
issue
in
the
city,
and
if
you
find
that
there
is
that
there
are
issues
related
to
that,
they
do
want
to
see
that
you're
addressing
that
in
some
way,
and
then
they
also
you
know,
part
of
the
housing
element
is
also
to
think
about
housing
preservation.
So
they
want
to
see
that
you
have
programs
to.
You
know,
make
sure
that
housing
can
be
maintained
over
time.
AD
So
if
you,
if
you
don't
have
programs
like
that,
it
is
possible
that
they
would
provide
comments
to
you
know,
ask
you
to
revise
your
housing
element
to
address
those
kinds
of
issues,
so
you
know
I
would
say
in
a
way,
yes,
but
that
you
know
those
are
those
are
things
we've
looked
at
as
a
part
of
a
process
of
completing
this
housing
element.
Draft.
N
Awesome
thanks
a
lot
so
another
question,
and-
and
this
relates
to
cycle
five
more
than
even
the
kind
of
future
for
looking
one.
Sorry,
if
it's
like
very
broad,
but
in
just
a
few,
as
you
know,
I
hope
it's
a
simple
answer,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
anyway
to
what
extent
can
staff
or
consultants
or
whoever
just
kind
of
you
know
point
to
the
the
any
number
of
key
factors
that
contributed
to
the
failure
to
produce?
N
You
know
the
the
quota,
for
you
know
housing
at
income
levels
in
cycle
five
outside
of
just
the
market
rate
housing.
So
if
I'm
recalling
correctly,
it
was
like
340
something
percent
for
market
rate,
but
then
like
3.4
for
moderate
and
then
the
other
numbers.
You
know,
I
don't
think
cracked
even
50,
so
I
I'm
just
kind
of
like
you
know.
O
W
Thanks,
commissioner
nunez
and
it's
a
question,
I
think
about
all
the
time-
and
I
was
not
with
the
city
for
the
last
cycle,
so
I
can't
speak
from
experience,
but
just
broadly
speaking,
some
of
the
biggest
restrictions
that
I've
seen
in
in
producing
a
low
and
very
low
income
housing,
the
biggest
one,
of
course,
is
cost.
I'm
not
sure
if
the
city
would
have
even
had
the
resources
to
support,
affordable
housing
at
the
rate
that
would
have
met
the
last
renegals.
W
I'm
almost
certain
that
the
other
funding
resources
that
our
affordable
housing
developers
rely
on
like
the
county
and
the
state
probably
wouldn't
have
the
state
funding
is
extremely
competitive,
sometimes
affordable,
housing
developers
have
to
go
for
a
couple
of
rounds.
In
fact,
so
I
would
assume
that
was
the
largest
concern.
By
far
is
the
lack
of
resources.
W
Many
of
the
affordable
housing
developers
that
we're
working
with
you
know
are
juggling
several
projects
with
not
enough
staff
to
juggle
them,
and
so
that's
another
area
where
they
probably
couldn't
have
taken
on
all
of
those
additional
projects.
I'm
sure
there's
also
planning
you
know
related
constraints
in
terms
of
the
time
it
takes
to
to
find
an
appropriate
site.
That's
ready
to
go,
but
I
would
say
the
main
two
big
constraints
that
I've
observed
have
been
capacity
in
terms
of
funding
and
capacity
in
terms
of
the
affordable
housing
developer
world.
O
We
updated
our
bmr
program
to
make
it
much
more
aggressive
on
market
rate
projects
and
there's
always
a
delay
in
actually
having
that
come
to
pass
in
projects
getting
built
so
you're
seeing
projects
getting
built.
Now
that
are
subject
to
the
bmr
program
that
we
adopted,
you
know,
for
you
know
four
or
some
years
so
years
ago.
So
I
think
that's
another
part
of
the
story
that
and
why
we
can
say
that
we
can
be
a
little
more
optimistic
moving
forward
than
than
our
outcomes
were
in
the
last
cycle.
N
Awesome,
thank
you
so
much
so.
Actually
that
does
bring
up
along
those
lines.
I
think
I,
if
I'm
recalling
correctly
the
draft
mentioned
that
we
have
in
total
about
72
million
dollars
in
our
low
income,
housing
bmr
fund,
you
guys
know
what
I'm
talking
about
to
the
best
of
your
knowledge
at
the
going
rate
today.
I
know
it's
right
now:
crazy
inflation
and
market,
but
to
the
best
of
you
guys
knowledge
at
the
going
rate
today,
roughly
how
many
affordable
units
with
that
72
million.
N
W
Great
question:
I'm
gonna
have
to
do
some
back
of
the
envelope
math.
So
if
you'll,
let
me
get
back
to
you
on
some
of
that,
but
I
can
give
you
two
broad
answers
and
then
I'll
get
back
to
you
as
soon
as
I
get
my
back
of
the
envelope
math
done.
The
first
is
the
below
market
rate.
Units
that
are
inclusionary
city
doesn't
contribute
any
funds
we
don't
subsidize.
W
So
none
of
those
funds
would
need
to
go
towards
those
units,
with
the
exception
of
any
development
that
we
would
need
to
subsidize
on
land
dedication
sites.
The
second
piece
that
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
mentioned
is
we
do
know,
and
we've
done
some
analysis
that
I
can
pull
up
right
now
that
you
know
based
on
what
we
see
in
our
pipeline
right
now.
We
have
plans
for
for
developing
more
units
and
then
that
covers,
of
course
we
get
more
funding
every
year.
W
N
Awesome
two
more
questions
and
then
jose.
I
swear
yeah,
don't
want
to
back
up
everyone's
time
really
quickly,
so
in
terms
of
that
affordable,
affirmatively,
furthering
fair
housing
requirement
really
quickly.
What
what's
like
the
evaluation
criteria
that
hcd
is
looking
at
with
regards
to
whether
or
not
they
approve
or
deny
a
housing
element.
AD
Yeah,
it
comes
into
play
in
a
few
different
components
of
the
housing
element,
so
one
of
them
is
the
public
outreach
and
ensuring
that
public
outreach
is
inclusive.
They're.
Looking
for
things
like
translation
of
key
documents
and
meetings
and
just
making
sure
that
you're
reaching
a
broad
group,
another
is
in
the
assessment
of
fair
housing
component
of
the
needs
assessment.
And
there
are,
you
know,
quite
a
few
different
components
that
they're
looking
for
there.
AD
In
terms
of
you
know
the
various
maps
and
and
charts
that
that
are
included
in
your
housing
element
and
then
analysis
to
go
with
that.
To
identify
whether
or
not
there
are
issues
there
are
the
programs
which,
what
the
the
strict
you
know,
guidance
is
saying
that
you
need
to
include
at
least
one
program
that
affirmatively
furthers
fair
housing
and
then
there's
the
site's
inventory,
which
is
also
meant
to
affirmatively.
Further
fair
housing
based
on
where
your
housing
sites
are
located.
N
N
I
guess
I'm
wondering
you
know:
what's
the
you
know
the
nexus
between
having
that
as
being
included
in
the
in
the
programs,
if
it's
not
technically
something
that
the
city
governs
or
if
there's
some
legal,
like
kind
of
I
don't
know
what
you
would
call
it
like,
you
know,
wormhole
or
something
that
is
going
to
somehow
allow
us
to
pass
it
through
hcd,
maybe
because
they
just
don't
know
this
information
or
something
but
yeah.
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
sure.
O
I
mean
I'll
start
by
just
saying,
and
maybe
michaela
can
add
to
this,
but
I'll
just
say
that
you
know
it's
a
law
in
the
books.
You
know
and
that's
not
something
that
you
know
where
we
are
going
to
change.
We
have
a
and
we
have
city
staff
that
are
tasked
with
managing
the
committee
and
managing
the
program
itself.
So
I
don't
know
michaela.
If
there's
anything
else,
you
want
to
to
add
on
that.
L
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
the
rhc
is
actually
part
of
the
city.
It
is
an
independent
part
of
the
city
and
there
is
interaction
with
you
know
the
city
council,
which
does
provide
budget
authority
for
the
rhc.
So
there
is.
These
are
programs
of
the
city,
even
if
they're
administered
by
the
rhc
thanks.
W
And
I
can
come
back
to
you
with
some
numbers,
commissioner
nunez,
so
the
way
that
the
city
typically
supports,
affordable
housing
is
by
funding
a
portion
of
the
per
unit
cost,
so
it's
typically
about
20
of
the
per
unit
cost.
So
it
depends
on
what
the
going
rate
is,
but
I
did
a
couple
of
options.
So
let's
say
that
a
per
unit
cost
is
a
million
dollars
which
is
pretty
high,
but
it
is
becoming
more
typical.
W
J
A
A
A
F
AE
A
F
A
A
Taking
the
number
down
to
a
very
small
number,
you
know:
okay,
you've
got
10
places
now,
maybe
it
becomes
one,
but
you
describe
free
swiss
man
is
a
very
different
interpretation
of
that
than
what
I
had
when
I
went
through
it.
So
I
would.
I
would
definitely
I
like
that
interpretation,
the
swishman
interpretation.
A
AE
Yes,
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
the
right
place
to
to
bring
it
up,
but
I
was
curious
about
the
site.
That's
not!
I
don't
know
if
it's
called
a
village
center.
It's
got
a
lot
of
retail.
Now
it's
where
the
rei
and
best
buy
used
to
be
the
charleston
center.
I
was
curious
if
that
was
looked
at
by
staff
and
if
there
were
reasons
that
they
didn't
include
that
or
if
it's
not
looked
at
as
a
potential
rezoning.
O
O
N
Sorry
I
just
I
did
lower
my
hand.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
was
reading
that
language
around
the
the
retail
in
the
staff
report
right
so
yeah.
I
I
also
wanted
to
just
throw
my
hat
in
on.
You
know
being
very
clear
as
part
of
this,
that
in
those
village
center
areas,
those
are
pretty
you
know,
trafficked
retail
sites
and,
in
the
spirit
of
also
making
sure
that
we
are,
you
know,
maximizing
walkability,
you
know
activation.
N
I
I
think
it
is
very
important
to
make
sure
that
you
know,
even
as
we
are,
you
know,
shifting
that
to
like
a
mixed
use,
increasing
the
housing
on
those
locations,
affordable
whatever
it
is
that
that
people
have
some
options
to
to
basically
engage
with
with
the
site.
So
I
would
also
be
very
supportive
and
in
fact
very
strongly
supportive
of
assuring
that
it's
we're
using
language
that
is
super
clear
about
maintaining.
N
You
know
the
the
not
just
like
space,
but
also
the
the
kind
of
level
of
retail
that
exists
on
on
those
sites
and-
and
then
I
also
did
want
to
I
I
you
know,
hadn't
really
considered
much
of,
but
that
charleston
site
it.
Actually,
you
know
it
does
make
sense.
I
guess
just
backing
commissioner
yen's
vice
chair,
yen's
statements
there.
It
is
close
to
the
101.,
it's
close
to
costco,
it's
close
to
an
in
and
out
a
lot
of
heat
island
effect.
A
N
A
So
that
was
the
second
piece
of
this
thing.
The
next
one
is.
Does
the
epc
wish
to
include
other
non-residential
sites
south
of
el
camino
or
the
non-historic
church?
Are
art
non-historic
districts
in
the
in
the
residential
areas
in
the
site
inventory
on
the
back
pocket
list?
So
I
think
staff
pointed
out
that
there
they
would
head
down
the
path
of
updating
the
zoning
for
the
the
religious
sites,
but
they
are
not
including
them
in
the
site
inventory.
At
this
point,
I
think
that
there
was
office
space
across
from
blossom
valley.
A
A
So
next
item
was
to
support
the
strategy
for
the
draft
zoning
for
the
general
by
the
village
centers.
I
think
we
clearly
talked
about
the
the
the
retail
area
eric,
so
I
think
there's
there
seemed
to
be
support
for
it,
but
making
sure
that
that
language
reflects
we
don't
mean
reducing
the
amount
of
retail.
F
F
E
I
you
have
four.
I
have
mixed
feelings
about
hard
number
requirements
when
it
comes
to
retail.
I
I
think
the
I
think
the
goal,
broadly
as
you
described,
is
what
I
would
support,
but
I
I
think
there,
when
you
get
down
to
the
zodian
ordnance
itself,
it
it
varies
from
location
to
location
as
to
which
which
services
and
the
definition
of
retail
and
those
sorts
of
things.
So
I
support
the
concept
generally.
A
O
The
housing
element
has
that
as
a
program,
so
we
would
do
it
at
some
future
date
after
we've
done
some
analysis
and
and
outreach.
What
I'm
hearing
from
the
commission
is
that
there
isn't
interest
in
including
those
in
the
site's
inventory.
So
to
me
that
would
mean
that
there's
probably
not
interest
in
in
in
doing
the
zoning
action.
Can
you
know
at
the
same
time
as
the
housing
element
as
well?
E
A
E
N
N
K
A
N
Yeah,
okay,
cool
and
then
the
reason
why
I'm
asking
is
because
I
noticed
there
was
other
sites
that
were
in
that
shaded,
pink
rezoned
area
for
general
plant
village
center
sites,
around
old
middle
field
and
rank
storefront
central.
So
I'm
wondering
are
we
waiting
for
commissioner
dempsey
to
return
and
then
we'll
go
back
to
that?
Or
is
this
the
time
to
touch
on
that.
O
You
know
business
display,
you
know
or
relocation
policies
or
anything
like
that,
occasionally,
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
we,
you
know
developers
will
work
with
existing
tenants
in
order
to
ensure
that
they
can
come
back
so
that
they
can
keep
paying
rent
and
everything
like
that.
You
know
they
don't
have
to
look
for
tenants,
but
that
is
that's
the
that's
the
extent
of
the
enforceable
programs
that
we
have
right.
N
Yeah-
and
I'm
wondering
I
guess
that
second
part
of
the
question-
to
what
extent
is
it
appropriate
as
part
of
the
program's
agenda
later
to
to
recommend
something
like
that?
Or
is
it
something
that
you
know
if
other
commissioners
agree
that
we
could
you
know
kind
of
send
a
friendly
transmittal
to
council
about
or
what
would
be,
a
potential
action
to
to
basically
alert
council
that
like
hey
these,
are
you
know,
key
resources,
we've
already
rezoned,
somehow.
O
Yeah,
if
if
during
the
next
section
I
you
know,
I
think
that's
a
general
enough
program
because
obviously
it
would
apply
on
el
camino
would
apply.
You
know
all
throughout
the
city.
I
think
that's
a
general
enough
program
idea
that
you
could
bring
it
up
during
the
general
discussions
about
maybe
missing
information
and
programs.
AE
O
Yes,
we
do
just
confirming
we
have
support
for
program
1.2
support
for
including
the
general
plan
village
centers
in
the
site's
inventory,
support
for
the
non-residential
site
south
of
el
camino
in
the
back
pocket
support
for
not
including
the
churches
in
the
site,
inventory
or
back
pocket,
and
then
the
rezoning
framework
for
the
general
plan.
Village
center
should
have
minimum
retail
mentor
with
existing.
A
A
AE
A
AE
To
bring
up
the
potential
for
the
charleston
plaza
as
a
well,
not
exactly
a
village
center,
but
an
opportunity
to
perhaps
do
something
in
the
area
to
to
bring
a
welcome.
Neighborhood
to
that
area
is.
Is
that
something
possible
to
look
at?
I
wanted
to
get
staff's
feedback
on
the
feasibility
of
doing
so.
O
Sure
yeah
the
we
could
talk
about
it
with
the
site
inventory
or
we
could
talk
about
it
with
the
programs.
You
know,
I
think,
if
we
include
it
in
the
programs,
it
would
be
something
like
look
at
other
industrial
areas
to
you
know
industrial
or
transitional
areas
to
to
rezone
with
precise
plans,
or
you
know,
comprehensive
planning
process
or
something
like
that.
That
could
be
a
very
significant.
O
N
N
A
N
Yeah,
so
I
mean,
I
guess,
look
my
biggest
concern
with
the
you
know,
with
the
table
of
programs
was
just
that
it
wasn't.
I
mean
I
could
kind
of
like
you
know
myself,
try
to
put
a
poli
like
which
policy
would
be
met
by
which
program
like
as
an
imaginary
column
next
to
it,
but
it
really
wasn't
clear
to
me
like
specifically
like
1.1
will
be.
A
A
F
A
To
look
at
what
you
know,
what
are
the
parking
requirements,
the
fees,
the
design
standards,
materials,
reviews
and
so
forth
that
go
into
that?
Try
to
to
really
make
sure
that
we
that
to
develop
a
better
standard
that
that
can
be
or
more
concisely,
communicated
to
non.
You
know
to
blow
market
rate,
housing
developers
and
separate
them
into
into
two
pieces,
and
I
would
to
me
unbundling.
Parking
was
not
mentioned,
especially
in
here,
but
I
thought
that
was
something
that
should
be
captured
as
well.
A
H
AB
N
N
I'm
just
wondering
like
you
know,
if,
if
some
like
alternate
versions,
you
know
could
be
like,
you
know,
brought
back
where
you
know
it's
like
hey
here's,
you
know
what
it
looks,
looks
like
here's
an
option.
Basically,
where
you
know
here's
what
it
looks
like
with.
Commissioner,
with
with
you
know,
chair
cranston's
feedback
incorporated
here's
what
it
looks
like
as
was,
and
then,
if
for
some
reason
we
could
get
that
back
next
time
and
then
choose
between
the
two.
That
might
feel
like
something
that
I
would
support.
A
AC
I
would
say
I
support
that.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
we
heard
tonight
and
in
the
public
comment
that's
been
received,
really
have
been
trying
to
get
at
us,
get
at
the
constraint
analysis
and
how
we're
going
to
tackle
these
constraints
in
a
way
that
is
actionable
and
specific,
and
so
I
think
the
idea
of
teasing
out
bmr
specifically
would
make
that
a
lot
clearer
and
and
signal
to
hcd
that
we
have
this
very
we
have
we
have.
These
are
the
steps
we're
planning
on
taking.
I
Yeah,
similarly,
I
think
I
think
pulling
it
out
with
specific
timelines
that
that
actually
makes
sense,
and
that
sticks
out
to
me
is
a
good
idea.
You
know
I
do
worry
a
little
bit
that
the
multiplicity
of
goals
after
a
while,
if
we
have
so
many
it
becomes
very
easy
to
lose,
lose
goals,
but
that's
an
important
one
and
I
would
support
calling
it
out
and
underscoring
it,
as
you
suggested.
AE
I
was
going
to
ask
staff
if
that
was
something
very
easy
to
do,
for
them
to
just
pull
it
out.
Just
for
clarification,
I
think,
if
we're
having
issues
here
on
the
commission
of
understanding,
that
bmr
is
a
highlight,
then
maybe
others
will
too.
If
it's
it's
an
easy
thing
to
do,
I
would
be
all
for
it.
O
AE
AE
AE
Yeah
yeah,
if
it's,
if
it's
an
easy
thing
to
do
in
the
document,
this
is
just
highlighting
to
hcd
that,
yes,
this
is
what
we're
working
on
yeah.
I
I'm
for
it,
and
I
just
one
quick
clarification
when
we
submit
this.
This
is
the
sole
document
or
they're,
also
looking
at
our
zoning
ordinances
and
everything
else
as
a
whole
package.
AE
O
J
Hey
thank
you.
I
have
a
quick
question
about
the
bmr's.
I
I
support
chuck
cranston's
idea
so,
for
the
record.
You've
got
another
supporter
on
that
one,
especially
if
it's
easy
to
do.
Here's
a
quick
question
for
bmrs-
and
I
forgot
the
assets
the
last
time,
but
the
functionality
of
those
units
once
they're
advertised
at
a
certain
rate
for
renters
to
meet
that
bmr
pricing
range.
How
long
does
that
have
like
a
like
a
twilight
expiration
date?
Is
it
does
that?
In
other
words,
is
it
there
for
the
life
of
the
tenant?
O
So
if
a
project
is
a
bmr
unit
there,
there
are
some
bmr
units
in
the
city
that
do
have
end
dates.
Usually
I
think
in
the
past
it
was
30,
40
or
50
years
from
construction,
but
from
here
on
out,
all
of
our
bmr
units
are
going
to
be
in
perpetuity.
So
that's
certainly
the
case
of
any
property
that
the
city
owns
and
is
leasing
to
a
you
know,
a
non-profit
developer,
but
also
inclusionary
units
are
required
to
be
affordable
in
perpetuity.
A
O
Yes,
that's
correct.
That's
correct,
right
stephanie!
I
think
you
said
yeah
yeah.
So,
however,
that's
from
approval
of
a
project
that
would
reduce
the
site
inventory.
So
we
would
have
the
foreknowledge
of
the
fact
that
the
prod
you
know
there's
a
project
coming
through
like
an
office
project,
for
example
on
one
of
these
sites
coming
through.
O
A
H
A
A
A
So
it
felt
I
I
agree.
I
love
the
idea
of
the
strategic
plan.
I
like
that.
I
think
we
should
do
that
and
looking
at
how
it's
funded,
but
I
I
felt
this
as
it
was
worded
felt
like
it
could
head
down
a
path
that
did
not
encompass
the
housing
element,
components
into
it
during
that
process,
and
that's
what
I
was
worried
about
is
that
there's
a
balance.
People
want
part
open
space
and,
and
they
want
density,
there's
a
conflict
between
the
two,
and
I
just
was
I.
It
was
a
gen.
A
AC
Yeah,
I
would
second
that
I
think
part
of
what
we've
seen
in
recent
proposals
and
heard
from
developers
over
time
in
her
public
is
that
there's
the
park
fees
tend
to
be
this
obstacle
and
we
have
this
parallel
process
where
we're
going
to
explore.
How
do
we
do
this
in
a
comprehensive
manner,
but
figuring
out
a
way
to
integrate
the
housing
element
using
stronger
language
to
signal
that
would
would
maybe
be
one
way
of
making
sure
that
we're
not
doing
these
linked
things
in
a
separate
manner.
AE
Yeah,
I
was
just
looking
at
the
wording
and
says
review
and
revise
the
parkland
dedication
requirements
as
if
it's
sort
of
a
done
deal
we're
going
to
revise
it,
and
I
didn't
know
where
the
conversation
was
to
discuss.
That
is
that
here
or
is
that
with
parks
and
rec,
when
they
do
the
parkland
ordinance
update.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
know
about
the
wording
there
when
it
says,
review
and
revise,
and
we
have
by
june
2024.
AE
O
So
yeah,
that's
a
a
good,
a
good
question.
I
think
the
the
intent
is
to
look
at
the
intent
is
to
revise
the
standards
standards
broadly,
not
not
necessarily
revise
the
three
acres
per
thousand
standard.
I
don't
think
that's
necessarily
a
for
foregone
conclusion,
but
to
revise
maybe
some
of
the
calculations
standards
for
how
we
calculate
it
under
circumstances
revise,
maybe
some
of
the
exemptions
rev.
O
O
J
I
N
H
AE
H
N
Yeah,
so
the
reason
why
I'm
bringing
this
one
up
is
because
of
that
I
believe,
a
few
people.
You
know
I
have
made
commentary
around
the
the
topa,
the
land
trust
that
kind
of
section
b
around
explore
innovative
programs.
So,
in
terms
of
a
few
issues,
I
think
in
terms
of
that
ambiguity
around
the
language,
obviously
black.
N
N
I
also
have
issues
with
the
lack
of
a
time
frame
that
ongoing
time
frame
feels
a
little
bit
like
a
lot
of
wiggle
room
for
unaccountability,
and
so
I
guess,
in
terms
of
you
know,
one
of
the
potential
remedies
I'm
thinking
through
is
really
kind
of
separating
that
section
b
out
into
like
a
2.2
and
then
bump
the
others
down
or
whatever
2.1
a
2.1
b.
I
guess
to
make
it
much
more.
N
I
also
would
like
to
see
some
kind
of
discussion
around
what
mechanisms
or
funding
the
city
will
kind
of
proactively
pursue
to
not
just
have
a
policy
in
the
books,
but
at
the
end
of
eight
years,
actually
have
successfully
brought
online
some
land
trust
or
even
for
like
some
of
the
again,
the
mobile
home
parks,
which
you
know
are
having
a
spat
nationwide
of
of
you,
know
like
being
taken
over
and
purchased,
and
people
are
definitely
vulnerable
there
because
they
don't
own
the
land.
So
that's
my
concern.
F
A
Explore
innovative
programs,
I
had
a
hard
time
understanding
is
there
eric?
Is
there
a
already
a
project
or
something
in
place?
Look
at
these
kind
of
programs
and
as
to
why
ongoing
would
make
sense
of
the
as
the
timeline
or
I
guess
I
kind
of
I
was
not
I'm
not
aware
of
anything.
That's
already
in
place
to
look
at
some
of
these
innovative
approaches.
O
W
So
I
will
say
that
some
of
these
innovative
approaches
are
currently
being
explored
as
part
of
our
anti-displacement
response
that
was
directed
to
us
by
the
council
during
the
study
session,
and
some
of
them
were
just
sort
of
always
exploring
for
the
purposes
of
different
needs
that
have
come
up.
So,
for
example,
there
has
been
a
land
trust
discussion
related
to
some
of
the
anti-displacement
work
that
involves
sp
330,
but
but
with
conversion
from
rental
to
ownership,
which
is
pretty
tricky
for
an
individual
tenant
to
take
on
themselves.
W
AE
Oh,
I
was
going
to
reiterate
what
you
had
said
actually
check
instant,
which
is
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
explorer
innovative
programs
actually
means
and
michaela.
Thank
you
for
explaining
that
there
was
some
sort
of
interest
in
taking
a
look
at
it,
but
I,
I
suppose
that
it
wouldn't
matter
to
me
whether
or
not
it's
pulled
out
of
2.1
or
not,
but
just
as
a
paragraph
or
as
a
sentence,
I
wasn't
quite
clear
what
it
meant,
what
explore
meant
and
where
we
are
with
that
and
if
it's
ongoing,
what
does
that
mean?
I
Yeah
I
I
guess
I
agree
that
the
the
language
is
a
bit
mild
and
vague
if
it
was
like
research
and
report
on
that
would
make
a
little
bit
more
sense
to
me
and
in
all
honesty,
the
time
frame
of
ongoing
for
doing
research
doesn't
really
make
any
sense,
and
so
I
guess
one
question
I
would
have
for
staff
eric
what
what
would
be.
What
do
you
think
it
would
be
an
appropriate
sort
of
timeline
to
attach
to
the
exploration
of
innovative
programs
such
that
you
could.
I
O
I
think
I'll
also
add
just
kind
of
on
the
same
line.
Is
that
there's
a
there's,
a
phased
approach
here
right,
there's
first
identifying
what
we
want
to
explore
and
then
there's
the
process
of
exploring
and
we
could
be
exploring
multiple
things,
and
so
there
could
be
different
timelines
for
each
of
those.
A
A
W
So
those
are
the
two
report
backs
that
we
have
currently
scheduled
so
to
the
extent
that
you
know
some
of
these
innovative
programs
that
we've
listed
and
that
you
all
have
highlighted
would
connect
to
either
of
those
we
can
connect
those
I'll.
You
know
I'll,
be
honest,
I'm
not
sure
which
stage
of
each
one
will
be
at
which
stage.
But
we'll
report
back
with
where
what
we've
learned
so
far.
A
J
Thank
you,
chair,
okay,
so
I
I
see
what's
going
on
with
well.
From
my
perspective,
I
understand
the
issue
here
and
I
I
appreciate
chair,
bringing
this
up
and,
in
general,
the
conversation.
So
I'm
thinking
eric
that
this
is
mostly.
It
sounds
like
to
me
at
least,
and
if
I'm
wrong,
no
big
deal,
you
know
nobody's
perfect,
but
the
language
is
high
level
just
to
capture
the
essence
of
new
and
innovative
programs,
so
that
we
can
have
that
language
in
our
in
our
plan.
J
O
J
Sure-
and
so
then,
I'm
glad
you
brought
that
up,
but
in
in
in
the
experience
of
that
we've
had
within
the
city.
Is
that
something
that
the
epc
would
take
on
now
like
now
in
this
meeting
and
bring
that
up
or
in
the
joint
session
with
city
council,
because
I
thought
we
had
a
joint
session
one.
But
I'm
not
sure
if
I
misread
that.
What's
your
best
suggestion
for
an
approach
to
delving.
O
O
O
J
A
Thank
you.
I
guess
a
question
for
michaela
and
the
commissioner
I
mean
is
it?
Would
it
be
reasonable
to
include
something
in
the
time
frame
that
says
you
know,
report
app,
you
know,
recommend,
viability,
recommendations
associated
with
land,
trust
and
other
options
in
when's,
your
when's,
your
early
2023,
first
quarter
2023,
or
something
like
that.
So
that's
it's
an
existing
program,
but
it's
calling
it
out
so
that
it's
more.
Is
that
consistent
with
what
you're
doing
with
that.
W
N
N
I
you
know
I
I
would
not
want
to
put
words
on
a
housing
element
that
have
very
little
kind
of
like
viability
towards
actually
kind
of
jumping
out
of
the
paper
and
becoming
something
real,
and
so
when
I'm,
you
know,
I,
I
guess
other
like
potential
ways
of
thinking
to
this
is
like,
I
think
what
you
last
mentioned,
chair,
cranston
around,
like
hey.
If
we're
gonna
keep
you
know
section
b
in
you
know
2.1,
then
you
know
why?
N
Don't
we
also
potentially
recommend
that
you
know
we
we
do
have
you
know
some
end
date
to
when
that
exploration
is
complete.
That
way,
we
can
know
not
by
cycle
seven,
whether
or
not
land
trusts
are
viable
in
our
city
or
if
we
are
serious
about
land
trusts,
then
we
should,
you
know,
have
a
more
robust.
You
know
kind
of
goal
around
that
that
includes,
you,
know,
potential
actions
around
like
mechanisms.
N
A
AE
Yeah,
I
agree
with
what
you
guys
have
been
saying
and
I
think
what
I
wasn't
trying
to
nitpick
wordsmithing,
but
it's
just
when
michaela
had
mentioned
that
there
was
exploration
that
to
me
was
already
new
information,
because
I
I
wouldn't
know
that
and
just
by
saying
that
you
know
for
a
certain
project.
We
looked
at
this
and
there
has
to
be
some
facts
and
information
that
come
out
of
that.
AE
Maybe
it's
just
you
know
by
a
certain
date,
we
have
a
report
on
this
feasibility
on
certain
projects
so
that
I
think
people
are
aware
that
we
are
actually
exploring
it
just
as
it
stands
the
way
it
it's
put
out.
There
is
that's
something
we'll
just
kind
of
look
into
which
could
vary
from
someone
doing
a
google
search
to
actually
having
a
group
ready
to
go
talking
to
landowners
or
sorry,
not
well
landowners
and
potential
community
members
who
are
willing
to
you
know,
put
some
money
down
or
get
going
on
that.
AE
AE
H
E
E
You
know,
maybe
there's
maybe
there's
a
balance
to
be
struck
there,
where
we're
a
little
bit
more
specific
than
we
are
today
and
we're
addressing
these
concerns,
but
we're
not
so
overly
specific
that
we
end
up
in
a
world
where
you
know
a
different
council.
Two
years
from
now
decides
to
shift
gears,
and
then
you
know
hdd
is
like.
Why
didn't
you
do
this
thing
that
you
wrote
down
two
years
ago
that
you
were
going
to
do
so?
E
H
N
I
you
know
that's
up
to
staff's
discretion
again
like,
given
that
I
actually
know
people
are
actually
working
on
this,
that
it
matters
to
people.
You
know
I
I
just
don't
want
it
to
be.
Like
a
you
know,
parentheses
such
as,
etc,
thing
that
you
know
doesn't
have
like
a
a
firm
date,
for
example,
or
or
some
sort
of
you
know
we
promise
we
will
get
back
to
you,
know
the
council
and
epc
the
community
on
hey.
N
We
did
explore
it,
it
wasn't
an
ongoing
thing
and
here's
what
might
need
to
happen.
All
you
gotta
do
is
give
people
like
a
little
opening.
People
are
working
on
it.
People
are
smart,
and
that's
that's
really
where
I'm
coming
from
on
that.
So
if
staff
feels
like
based
on
the
feedback
that
the
commissioners
have
provided
that
that
you
know
there's
enough
there,
that
makes
sense,
then
I
would
feel
good
about
that.
N
J
W
J
W
N
Thanks
yup
so
definitely
michaela.
I
can
definitely
put
you
in
touch
with
people
number
one.
Absolutely
you
might
be
getting
invitations
pretty
soon
and
second,
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
anyone
can
go
to
council
and
talk
about
anything
they
want
at
any
point
in
time.
That
does
not
preclude
us
from
also
taking
actions
that
could
support
the
efforts
that
they
would
go
talk
to
council
about
proactively.
N
So
if
people
you
know,
if,
if
the
commission
wants
to
go
ahead
and
ask
for
a
little
more
specificity
on
that
land
trust
piece,
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
bone
to
throw
people
that
are
already.
You
know
wanting
and
craving
something
like
this.
If
not,
then
you
know
I'm
happy
to
move
on
and
kind
of
leave
it
there.
A
O
Guess
I
kind
of
heard
two
separate
issues
with
the
existing
language
or
kind
of
directions
to
go.
One
is
specifically
about
kind
of
making
the
the
tasks
more
explicit,
like
the
existing
tasks
like
what
are
they?
What
are
those
things
that
we're
doing
to
explore
so
so
making
those
more
explicit,
and
maybe
that
could
also
include
more
detailed
outcomes
of
what
what
comes
of
this
process.
A
A
I
don't
know
if
this
I
didn't
get
the
sense
the
council
has
said
yes
at
this
point
on
something,
so
I'm
reluctant
to
go
that
next
step
so
that
they've
gone
through
that
process.
I
agree
with
commissioner
clark
that
put
on
putting
something
in
here
at
this
point.
That's
because
we're
going
to
do
something
and
when
I
don't
I
don't
know
what
it
is.
I
would
be
uncomfortable
with
that.
AE
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
with
you
on
the
former
of
the
two
options
that
you
had
said,
so
I
I
I'm
voting
for
for
that.
If
it
is-
and
I
understand
commissioner
clark's
point
we're
not
trying
to
make
things
difficult-
it's
just
if
there's
a
little
bit
of
language
to
put
in
with
whatever
you've
already
done
and
what
could
be
done,
then,
let's
do
it
if
it's
easy
to
do.
A
A
All
right
next
item
that
I
noted
was
3.1,
and
this
is
kind
of
more
of
just
a
general
question.
The
safe
parking
program
is
mentioned
numerous
times
throughout
the
housing
element,
but
not
into
the
actions,
and
that
kind
of
came
up
in
the
discussion
is
is
safe,
parking
program,
something
that
hcd
views
as
a
component
of
a
housing
program.
AD
I
wouldn't
say
that
that's
something
that
hcd
is
specifically
looking
for
cities
to
do.
They
are
looking
for
cities
to
address
various
types
of
housing
needs,
including
you
know,
potentially,
for
people
who
are
at
risk
of
homelessness
or
are
currently
homeless,
which
you
know
in
terms
of
the
census
definitions,
some
of
your
population,
that's
living
in
rvs
which
would
qualify
under
that.
But,
in
terms
of
you
know,
hcd
isn't
saying
that
you
need
to
have
a
an
rv,
safe
parking
program.
AD
A
I
think
it
seems
to
be
working,
but
I
have
no
idea
if
I
don't
have
a
sense
where
the
council
decided
they
want
to
get
rid
of
the
same
program
parking
program
at
one
point,
some
point
another
or
not,
so
I
guess
you
know,
the
question
should
say
parking
be
incorporated
into
this
as
one
of
those
components
it's
available
to
prevent
households
becoming
permanently
host
homeless
and
providing
a
safety
net,
shelter
and
housing
for
those
that
are
unhoused.
So
it
just.
A
W
Well,
first
I'll
just
point
out
that
safe
parking
is
included
in
policy
3.1,
which
I
realize
is
different
from
program
3.1.
So
that's
part
one.
I
also
know-
and
I'm
not
an
expert
on
this-
that
many
of
the
safe
parking
leases
have
an
end
date
at
this
time.
So
I
think
that
might
be
a
reason
to
be
thoughtful
about
whether
or
not
to
include
in
the
programs,
but
it
is
referenced
in
the
policies.
H
A
E
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
the
same
in
terms
of
programs.
I
think
the
issue
is
that
a
lot
of
those
pieces-
and
they
have
specific
end
dates
not
that
they
can't
be
extended,
but
there
may
be
things
may
shift
around
where
our
council
may
decide
to
utilize
or
the
property
owner
frankly
may
decide
to
use
those
lots
for
different
purposes
and
that's
not
to
say
that
council
couldn't
find
different
locations
for
those
things,
but
I
don't
think
there's
any.
E
E
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
we've
committed
to
having
state
parking
for
the
next
10
years
and
three
years
from
now
the
leases
expire,
the
property
owners
aren't
interested
anymore
or
you
know,
council
has
decided
to
do
something
else
with
those
lots,
because
the
in
the
unlikely
event
that
you
know
there
isn't
as
much
of
a
need,
then,
as
there
is
now
for
those
types
of
things
I
don't
know,
I
I
just
think
that's
why
it
makes
more
sense
as
a
policy
as
opposed
to
a
program.
From
my
perspective,.
A
T
H
H
A
N
W
A
I
don't
know
how
many
the
commissioners
read
the
the
letter
from
the
league
amendment
voters,
but
I
thought
that
the
the
description
of
what
they
listed
under
4.1
of
the
things
that
needed
to
be
part
of
a
of
a
bmr
housing
approval
streamlining
process
was
like
wow.
That's
what
I
would
have
written
down
and
putting
a
specific
goal
of
being
able
to
prove
a
blow
market
rate
development
in
12
months
or
less
in
my
mind,
should
be
something
we
should
be
aiming
for.
A
F
AC
Yes,
I
agree,
I
think,
a
lot
of
what
they
listen
is
spot
on.
I
don't
know
in
terms
of
staff
capacity
if,
if
that
turnaround,
time
is
actionable,
but
I
think
in
terms
of
setting
a
target
that
we
would
want
to
hold
ourselves
accountable
to
to
make
sense
the
piece
I
only
observed
this
afternoon
and
I
wish
I
had
had
a
better
chance
to
dig
into
it-
was
the
matrix
report
on
that
had
been
done.
J
No,
I
agree
with
that
approach.
When
I
read
the
letter,
I
thought
it
was
pretty
spot-on.
The
league
is
always
pretty
good
at
being
able
to
provide
girls.
Excuse
me:
that's
okay.
My
two
daughters
are
with
me
here:
apologies
but
yeah
when
they
write
something
of
a
recommendation
or
a
letter
with
suggested
ideas.
They
always
provide
some
top-level
knowledge
perspective.
So
I.
J
N
N
I
definitely
would
like
to
understand
kind
of
like
metrics
of
improvement
at
some
point,
just
for
any
all
consideration
around
like
you
know
what
were
the
appreciable
gains
of
the
streamlining
like
you
know
our
development,
you
know
from
our
days
from
an
application
being
submitted
to
you
know
the
project
being
approved
was
x
days.
For
this
you
know
type
of
zoning
and
and
now
the
streamlining
resulted
in.
You
know
this
many
fewer
days.
AE
I'm
with
commissioner
hey
meyer,
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
review
the
whole
document
very
thoroughly.
I
think
it
came
in
a
little
bit
later.
I
got
it
later
than
or
I
saw
it
later
than
I
would
have
liked
to
so.
I
I
agree.
Streamlining
is
something
we
definitely
need
to
look
at,
because
I
didn't
look
at
it.
I
don't
have
the
ability
to
make
a
determination
on
that.
AE
I
also
don't
know
if,
by
streamlining
the
bmr
we're
streamlining
the
entire
project,
because
very
often
with
the
bmr,
we
have
the
market
rate
as
well,
and
I
just
don't
want
to
see
that
you
know
we're
sacrificing
quality
of
the
whole
in
order
to
streamline
just
that
portion.
So
I
don't
know
enough
about
it.
I'd
like.
R
A
AE
I
A
A
Some
of
those
I
believe
are
already
coming
by
the
have
already
been
put
forward
and
they're
going
to
be
included
in
some
of
the
next,
but
the
next
budgeting
cycle
with
council.
So
council
is
taking
a
look
at
that.
So
to
me,
the
matrix
study
was
an
improvement
of
the
overall
process
streamlining
for
everybody,
and
so
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
hamer
that
you
know
what's
that,
what's
you
know
what's
council
looking
to
try
to
do,
there
is
for
a
general,
but
then
taking
the
further
step
of
when
it's
a
100
bmr
project.
H
E
Yeah,
I
think
I
know
I
sound
like
the
the
conservative
here,
but
I
I
view
the
housing
element
as
like
a
very
high
level
plan,
and
then
I
view
zoning
ordinances,
and
you
know
two
to
four
year.
Council
goals
is
like
the
actual
implementation
and
deciding
how
to
effectuate
those
things,
and
so
it
just
seems
really
strange
to
me
to
commit
to
very
specific
timelines
in
a
in
a
a
multi-year
plan,
but
that's
not
to
say
that
we
shouldn't
shoot
for
those
goals
and
list
them
right.
E
I'm
not
sure
I
would
say
that,
but
but
I'm
also
fine
with
saying
you
know,
our
goal
is
to
reduce
you
know
the
num
the
amount
of
time
it
takes
for
this
whole
process
by
you
know,
20
or
whatever
the
number
whatever
makes
the
most
sense
and
oh
by
the
way.
You
know,
we've
already
started
this
process
through
this
through
this
matrix
study.
That's
going
on
that
we're
going
to
review
next
year,
like
those
would
be
the
sort
of
things
that
you
know.
I
would
think
we
want
to
highlight
to
hcd.
E
E
J
Yeah
and
I
think
that's
a
challenge
right
when
you
work
as
a
team
with
a
multi-year
document,
you
have
to
understand,
like
many
of
us,
do,
that
this
isn't
just
here
and
now,
but
you
know,
let's
throw
a
bone
at
him.
It
doesn't
work
like
that
because
it's
not
just
up
to
us.
It's
up
to
council
to
prove
to
buy
in.
I
think
at
this
point
in
time,
having
had
this
experience
at
the
school
board
level
with
multi-year
documents.
J
I
agree
with
chris
there's.
Also
legal
liability
issues
there
too,
that
we
don't
want
to
get
ourselves
involved
with
in
general.
You
commit
to
yourself
for
one
thing
and
then
once
the
state
realizes
that
that
didn't
happen,
for
whatever
reason,
there's
always
follow-up
right.
So
I
agree
with
chris's
perspective
on
this
on
this
on
this
one,
it
sounds.
H
A
Six
month
or
nine
months
or
twelve
months
or
whatever
any
kind
of
a
specific
date,
but
is
there
support
around
that?
It
certainly
sounds
like
there's
support
around
what
people
know
of
the
matrix
document
and
what
council
is
doing
there,
but
obviously
they're,
not
all
well
informed
of
it
is
there
support
for.
H
A
For
staff
to
look
at
developing
a
a
bmr
expedited
process
or
not,
I
haven't
heard
that
that's
I'm
not
clear
on
whether
that
are
people
on
board
with.
I
think
commissioner
meyer
was,
but
I
didn't
get
a
sense
for
others,
whether
the
idea
of
having
a
separate
expedited
process
for
bmr
or
not.
I
didn't
get
a
sense
on
that
question.
J
A
H
A
I
don't
know
what
other
people
thought,
but
it
sure
read
to
me
like
there
are
a
lot
of
these
things
that
were
oh
and
we're
going
to
need
to
put
money
into
it.
I
know
we're
going
to
put
money
into
it
and
now
we're
going
to
put
money
into
it,
and
I
didn't
there's
nothing
in
here
that
says
where
that
you
know
I
think
michaela
was
you
know
I
can
articulate
what
we're
getting
the
reason
I
asked
the
question
and
the
staff
early
on
is
to
try
to
understand
the
variability.
A
A
I
didn't
finish
my
comment
here,
so
I
was
just
finishing
my
thought
here,
so
it
was
so
it
just.
It
felt
like
there
was
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
input
in
this
thing
that
says
we're
gonna
fund,
this
we're
gonna
fund
that
but
I,
but
when
we
got
when
it
got
to
4.3
it
didn't
seem
like
there
was
a
didn't,
seem
like
a
clear
plan
for
where
is
that
additional
money
going
to
come
from?
And
that
was
a
concern
to
me.
AC
J
AE
A
N
I
I
absolutely
did
I
just
if
anyone
was
gonna
go
first,
then
yeah
so
I'll
start
off
first.
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
did
find
kind
of,
like
just
completely
missing
in
some
of
these
programs,
was
an
acknowledgement
around
the
you
know:
the
nexus
between
commercial
development,
the
growth
of
office,
space
and,
basically,
housing,
affordability
in
in
the
city.
N
You
know,
I
I
look
at
the
last
arena
cycle
numbers
and
honestly,
I
feel
very
discouraged
by
the
totals
of
affordable
housing
units
that
were
constructed,
and
you
know
that
is
all
under
this
kind
of
current.
I,
I
would
say
a
paradigm
around
you
know,
commercial
development
is
is
very
important
because
it
gives
us,
you
know
precious,
affordable,
housing
funds
that
we
use
for
our
affordable
housing.
N
You
know
in
my
mind,
that's
still
not
something
satisfactory
in
terms
of
pursuing
the
attainment
of
the
goals,
and
so
you
know
I
I
noticed
both
in
the
public
comment,
and
you
know
as
part
of
emails,
that
this
is
a
concern
shared
by
the
community
as
well.
You
know,
we've
had
former,
you
know
like
mayors
and
city
council
people-
and
you
know
even
former
commissioners
kind
of
speak
to
that
concern
around.
N
There
is
a
serious
lack
of
either
acknowledgement
or
action
being
taken
as
part
of
this
program
that
and
any
that
that
happens
to
you
know
indicate
that
we
are
going
to
also
account
for
that
as
part
of
our
development.
You
know
I
I
did
notice
in
this.
You
know
housing
element.
You
know
document
that
it
said
that,
let's
see,
if
I
can
pull
it
up
specific
quote,
that
said,
I'm
getting
it
right.
Anyway,
there
was
another
piece
in
there.
N
N
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
really
want
to
you
know
throw
out
there
for
the
rest
of
the
commission
to
to
you
know
kind
of
munch
on
and-
and
you
know,
if
there's
enough
support,
I
think
that
it
would
be
wise
for
us
to
recommend
to
the
council.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
anything
specific.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
anything
you
know
in
in
terms
of
like
a
timeline
that
we're
deciding
here
as
as
the
epc,
but
you
know
whether
the
council
decides.
N
You
know,
hey
it's
a
good
idea
to
look
at
the
the
the
nexus
between
jobs
and
housing
and
acknowledging
that
we
are
definitely
over
balanced
towards
the
jobs
side
of
things
and
whether
they
want
to
do
you
know
like
anything
from
rezoning,
industrial
or
you
know,
increasing
housing,
affordable,
housing
fees,
whatever.
That
is,
I
I
I
do
think
it's
extremely
worth
it
to.
N
You
know
for
us
to
recommend
that
the
city
council
identify
as
part
of
these
goals,
some
policy
and
or
and
a
program
that
could
account
for
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance
associated
with
new
commercial
growth.
You
know
I'm
not
talking
like
north
facial
or
anything
like
that,
because
obviously
we
need
that
for
this
cycle,
but
moving
forward.
If
we
want
to
be
very
serious
about
boosting
housing
affordability,
then
we
have
to
acknowledge
that
jobs
are
a
significant
impact
of
that.
N
If,
if
we
want
to
also
try
and
lobby
other
cities-
or
you
know,
use
our
state
lobbyists
to
try
and
you
know
kind
of
push
for
other
policies
as
well,
that
that
helps
spread
the
burden
around.
You
know,
I'd
be
all
for
that
too,
but
just
in
general,
the
fact
that
there's
not
a
discussion
of
that
outside
of
the
analysis
that
was
made
in
the
housing
element
draft
you
know,
even
if
we're
not
required
to
do
so.
N
If
we
want
to
you,
know
kind
of
really
acknowledge
the
reality
of
you
know:
new
commercial
space
and
the
impacts
that
it
has
on
our
housing
market.
Then
I
would,
you
know,
strongly
put
out
there
for
everyone
that
you
know
we
should
consider
recommending
to
council.
You
know
that
that
they
identify
some
way
of
acknowledging
and
addressing
that.
So
that
is
what
I'm
positioning
for
for
everyone
here.
AE
AE
AE
It
goes.
Development
by
development
and
developers
often
will
maybe
ask
and
get
some
outreach
from
the
community
to
find
out
what
they
want
to
do.
So.
My
question
is:
is
there
anything
that
we
can
do
in
the
housing
element
to
try
to
encourage,
as
greystar
did
with
the
development,
the
housing
development
at
el
camino
and
castro
they
allowed
for
the
original
tenants
of
the
retail
to
come
back
at
the
same
sort
of
lease
rate
for
five
years,
and
maybe
that's
something
we
could
encourage?
A
E
Oh
yeah,
the
topic
changed,
but
I
guess
to
address
both
of
those
I
I
I
completely
agree
that
they're
it
makes
sense
to
address
retaining
valuable
neighborhood
businesses.
I
just
don't
think
the
housing
almost
the
right
place
for
that.
I
think
that's
part
of
that's
that's
part
of
a
a
separate
process
where
we're
looking
at
you
know:
preservation
of
retail
and
other
things.
Unless
staff
knows
of
a
place
in
here
that
I've
missed
where
you
can
talk
about
businesses
locally
serving
the
village
centers.
E
Perhaps
there
is
a
place
where
that
can
be
weaved
in,
but
I
think
the
the
meat
of
that
policy
would
be
through
through
a
a
separate
process,
aside
from
the
housing
element
and
then,
of
course,
you
get
into
what
is
a
valuable
neighborhood
serving
business
and
what
isn't,
which
is
always
a
fun
discussion,
but
we'll
save
that
for
another
night
on
the
jobs
housing
linkage.
You
know
I
I
in
the
in
the
draft.
E
I
I
would
be
happy
to
have
you
know
a
narrative
or
something
in
there
talking
about
how
we
plan
to
use
that
as
a
model
as
we
look
at
additional
precise
plans
throughout
the
city
or
maybe
even
if
we,
if
and
when
we
reopen
the
general
plan,
I'm
not
sure,
I'm
not
sure
I'd
be
willing
to
go
beyond
that
in
a
housing
element,
but
but
I
think
it
makes
complete
sense
to
talk
about.
You
know
this
has
been
jobs.
E
Housing
linkage
has
been
the
forefront
of
our
conversations
over
the
last
several
years.
We
as
as
is
already
pointed
out
in
the
draft
report.
You
know
we
have
a
jobs,
housing
imbalance,
that's
made
pretty
clear
in
all
the
data
that
was
set
forth
in
the
in
the
report
and
we're
being
very
open
and
honest
about
that
with
the
htc.
E
So
I'd
be
happy
to
talk
about
the
example
of
east
wizman
and
how
you
know
there
is
a
commitment
to
you
look
at
that
going
forward.
But,
frankly,
each
individual
area
or
precise
plan
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
different.
There
are
going
to
be
areas
that
might
need
to
be
more
jobs
heavy
than,
and
there
might
be
more
areas
that
might
need
to
be
more
housing
heavy,
and
so
anyway,
I'm
I'm
okay
with
with
beefing
that
up
and
talking
about
it
a
little
bit
more.
I
Thank
you
chairman,
so
I
I
think
commissioner
clark
did
a
great
job
of
of
laying
out.
I
think
how
he
said
how
I
guess
I
felt,
but
he
said
it
better
than
I
could
have
you
know.
These
are
important
questions
and
I
think
the
jobs
housing
linkage
is
arguably
one
of
the
most
questions,
most
important
questions
we're
going
to
wrestle
with
here.
I
I've
never
done
a
housing
element
before
I'm
still
pretty
new
to
this,
so
I
don't
always
know
what
should
or
should
not
be
done
in
a
housing
element,
but
I'm
starting
to
feel
like
these
are
issues,
important
issues
and
once
we
should
talk
about,
I
just
don't
know
that
we
should
put
them
in
here
into
the
housing
element
and
that's
you
know.
I
chris
chris
described
ways
to
beef
up
sort
of
the
the
hat
tip
to
the
linkage.
That
sounds
fine
with
me.
I
AE
I
feel
like
development
after
development
we're
chasing
our
tails
and
that's
really
the
crux
of
like
where
we
are
and
why
we're
there
and
it's
a
huge
conversation.
So
aside
from
the
the
housing
element,
this
is
not
the
place
to
do
it.
I
am
happy
to
to
say
yeah,
let's
beef,
that
up
as
well,
but
I
I
am
in
an
agreement
that
I
would
recommend
to
the
council.
AE
Maybe
this
is
just
like
agenda
seven,
where
you
just
want
to
talk
about
something
to
to
put
forth
to
counsel
that
maybe
we
should
ask
the
questions
you
know
given
choices,
why
do
developers
choose
commercial
there's
a
reason
and
how
can
in
what
ways
can
we
incentivize
that
housing
is
just
as
attractive
as
commercial
if
we
do
turn
to
mixed
use?
And
things
like
that,
so
I
think
it's
a
good
conversation
to
have
so
if,
if
we
could
just
recommend
that
we
have
that
conversation,
I'm
happy
to
do
that
anything.
AE
We
can
do
to
beef
up
the
language
here
to
use
east
wissman
as
a
sort
of
a
point
to
say
we
are
making
strides
if
we
can
say
we're
exploring
different
ways.
Even
I
mean
I
know,
explore
was
already
a
word
that
we
talked
about,
but
if
we're
exploring
things
then
we
may
maybe
we
can
explore
that
too.
I
don't
know
so
I'll
leave
it
for
discussion
for
the
the
commission.
J
Thank
you,
sir.
No,
I
agree
by
sarah
and
not
only
explore,
but
also
explore
this
and
other
things
right,
but
I
think
that
dialogue
is
pretty
interesting.
We
all
see
the
same
issues
here
of
importance
and
how
valuable
that
is
to
try
to
understand
and
remedy
as
much
as
we
can,
while
we're
on
the
commission.
N
You
know
something
you
want
walks
into
the
housing
element
or
whether
you
decide
it's
something
that
you
want
to
boomerang
back
around
as
a
work
item
whatever
that
may
be.
I
just
think
it's
important
that
we
start
to
be
very
clear
on
acknowledging
you
know
if
we
keep
doing
the
same
thing,
we're
gonna
get
not
just
the
same
results,
but
increasingly
worse
results.
So
that
is
that
is
the
ask.
H
F
A
You
know
the
way
you
know
the
way
rose
market
was
preserved
and
the
guy
and
the
initially
pete's
over
there
at
the
corner
of
el
camino
and
castro
was
great
and
I'd
love
to
see
that
guy,
preserving
that
kind
of
thing
and
we've
seen
some
of
it.
So
it
I
don't
know
if
the
eric
about
the
the
item,
for
you
know
a
maybe
a
separate
action.
It's
not
a
housing
element
item,
but
it's
a
you
know.
A
E
Yeah,
just
two
quick
suggestions
on
the
preservation
of
the
retail.
I
think
it
would
be
fine
to
mention
that
in
a
comment
to
council,
you
know
we
we
addressed
the
question
of
whether
you
know
these.
These
rezoning
shirts
should
occur
or
the
you
know
they
should
be
included
and
occur,
and
I
think
it's
perfectly
valid
to
say
you
know.
E
Yes,
we're
we're
on
board
with
that.
But
you
know
one
of
the
things
we'll
want
to
make
sure
is
considered.
Is
you
know
the
preservation
of
of
not
just
the
retail
space
itself,
but
also
some
of
the
more
valuable
community
serving
retail
that
really
impacts
the
the
neighborhoods
around
them?
I
I
think
I'd
be
perfectly
fine.
E
E
If
council
is
okay
with
it,
I'd
be
perfectly
fine
with
the
epc
recommending
that
you
know,
maybe
we
we
state
if
council's
okay
with
it,
we
state
that
you
know-
and
we
plan
to
use
that,
as
maybe
I'm
struggling
with
whether
I'd
call
it
a
model.
But
you
know
something
like
that
where
we
do
a
jobs,
housing
linkage,
analysis
whenever
we
do
a
future
precise
plan,
or
maybe
general
plan
amendments
or
or
broader
or
we're,
looking
more
broadly
at
the
general
plan.
E
A
AC
A
So
it
sounds
like
we
have
consensus
to
you
know
reference
the
a
specimen,
precise
plan
to
you
know
reference
that
and
tie
that
as
a
potential
framework
for
future
precise
plans,
but
not
necessarily
incorporate
a
not
not
incorporate
a
city
level,
jobs,
housing.
Linkage
at
this
point,
I
think
that's
what
I'm
hearing.
N
Yep,
so,
just
to
be
clear,
I
am
not
supporting
a
recommendation
of
a
city-wide
jobs,
housing
linkage.
I
am
very
much
supporting
and
in
support
of
how
what
commissioner
clark
said
in
terms
of
hey.
You
know
we
have
this
really
cool
thing
that
we
did,
and
you
know
whether
it's
communicated
to
council
as
like,
hey.
We
think
it's
worthwhile
for
you
guys
to
consider
this
consider
not
adopt
not
implement.
Not.
You
know,
legislate
that
hey.
N
The
statement
that
I'm
saying
and
supportive
of
is,
we
ought
to
communicate
to
council
that
the
commission
feels
that
those
are
worth
the
time
to
consider
to
address
that
issue,
and
if
I
did
get
that
more
or
less
right
with
how
commissioner
clark
was
phrasing.
I
also
think
I
heard
commissioner
or
vice
chair
yin
kind
of
support
that
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
I'm
not
speaking
to
a
city-wide
jobs,
housing
linkage
as
a
policy.
N
I
am
saying
that
more
or
less
we
ought
to
convey.
Aside
from
the
you
know,
like
expansion
of
you
know,
discussion
of
like
what
we've
done
with
the
swiss
men
in
the
draft.
I'm
also
saying
that
we
should
convey
to
the
council
in
some
shape
or
form
that
the
commission
thinks
that
considering
these
issues
and
having
these
discussions
is
worth
the
time
and
then
it's
up
to
them
how
they
want
to
go
about
it.
E
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
if
I
mischaracterize
your
your
intentions
there,
commissioner
nunez,
I
didn't
mean
to
I
misunderstood,
so
I
think
for
me
it's
it's
very
simple.
As
the
current,
as
the
document
currently
reads,
it's
like
there
was
this
job
housing
linkage
thing
that
we
did
with
the
equisment
precise
plan.
Look
at
it,
it's
pretty
cool
and
I
and
I
think
what
I'd
what
I'd
recommend
that
we
we
do
is
say.
E
A
And
I
think
it's
also
consensus
that
we
would
not
necessarily
incorporate
the
the
if
there's
a
it's
a
framework
for
if
there's
a
wave
that
makes
sense
within
the
housing
element
for
the
preserving
neighbor
neighborhood
serving
retail,
then
that'd
be
great,
but
I
guess
it's.
We
need
staff
to
understand.
If
that's
you
know,
if
there's
a
way
to
incorporate
it,
it
makes
sense.
H
A
H
AC
Just
to
kick
us
off,
I
I
will
say
like
the
revised
inventory
and
I
think,
a
lot
of
the
feedback
that
had
been
prevented
presented
in
february.
Thank
you
for
incorporating
it.
The
one
site
and
I'm
still
scratching
my
head
around
and
we
heard
emily
say
today-
is
the
csa
site.
I
don't
believe
that
there
are
any
plans
for
that
in
the
next
eight
years
to
transition
to
anything
other
than
office
space.
AC
So
if
staff
has
more
information-
and
that's
just
like
that-
it's
such
a
valuable
resource
for
it
as
it
is
served
in
community
that
I
I
didn't
know
much
about
that
piece.
So
that's
the
one
I'd
like
to
see
removed
the
two
other
sites
that
were
presented
tonight
during
public
comment.
It
sounds
like
there's
fairly
good
reason
from
staff
and
maybe
not
to
lean
in
the
direction
of
adding
them,
but
I'd
be
eager
to
hear
what
the
other
commissioners
have
to
say.
AE
Yeah
I
agree
that
staff
had
given
sufficient
reason
to
and
they
had
their
reasons
didn't
go
into
detail
about
why
they
didn't
want
to
include
those
two
sites,
and
it
sounds
perfectly
reasonable
to
me.
So
I'm
going
to
defer
to
their
judgment
on
that
and
yeah
earlier
when
I
mentioned
the
charleston
site,
I'm
just
putting
it
out
there
as
a
possibility,
since
we
have
such
limited
land,
and
that
seems
like
an
opportune-
an
opportunity
to
investigate.
AE
N
Yeah,
I
definitely
would
also
say
that
I
found
the
csa
incorporation
to
be
a
little
bit
like
odd,
because
even
if
it
did
redevelop,
then
we
might
like
what
would
happen
to
csa.
That's
a
pretty
good
location
for
them.
So
I
I
I
don't
I
haven't
talked
to
csa.
I
don't
know
what
their
intents
and
plans
are,
but
it
did
strike
me
as
like
the
other
thing
I
I
I
do
want
to
reiterate
or
iterate
on
supporting
the
rei
best
buy
site.
N
Like
all
economically
viable
use
of
of
his
land,
maybe
they
won't
have
the
best
and
highest
use
of
the
land
in
terms
of
like
monetary
compensation,
but
there's
you
know,
I
believe
the
standard
is.
You
know
like
what
like
what's
left
over.
You
know
like
how
much
how
much
money
you
know
is
actually
there
that
they
can
still
make
and
and
not
be
deprived
again
of,
like
all
economically
viable
use
of
the
land.
E
Yeah,
I
I'm
generally
fine
with
the
stock
recommendation
on
this.
I
think
well
I'll,
let
staff
chime
in
on
the
csa
site,
but
my
guess
is
that
you
know
it.
It
never
hurts
to
have
additional
uses
available
for
your
site.
Land
swaps
happen
all
sorts
of
interesting
things
happen
and
while
it's
an
amazing
organization,
obviously
in
a
pretty
solid
location
now
it
doesn't
mean
there
won't
be
even
amazing,
even
more
amazing
facilities
and
locations
in
the
future.
E
I
think
we're
a
little
late
in
the
game
to
be
adding
things
that
require
significant
analysis.
If
it's,
if
it's
really
simple,
to
add
something
as
and
also
you
know,
as
as
recommended
by
staff.
With
this
this
site
list,
you
know
we
we
have
a
pretty
significant
buffer,
or
at
least
a
reasonably
significant
buffer.
So
I
don't
think
we
necessarily
need
that
site,
but
if
there's
an
easy
way
to
add
it
as
a
back
pocket
site
or
something
like
that,
that
doesn't
require
significant
analysis.
E
Then
I
don't
think
I'd
necessarily
be
opposed
to
that,
but
I
think,
as
others
have
said,
the
the
likelihood
of
of
that
that
property
owner
being
interested
in
in
doing
residential
is
at
least
in
the
near
future,
seems
seems
low.
But
those
things
can
change
on
a
dime
as
the
market
changes
so
we'll
see.
Maybe
we
can
ask
how
they
feel
about
that
and
how
much
effort
is
is
required
to
add
something
as
a
back
pocket.
O
Yeah
there's
no
real
effort
to
adding
something
as
a
back
pocket.
It's
you
know,
there's
there's
also
not
a
whole
lot
of
cost
either,
because
the
you
know
will
be
the
opportunity
of
future
councils
to
kind
of
pick
from
the
the
menu
that
we're
setting
up
for
them
at
a
later
date.
So
not
not
a
real
amount
of
effort
or
cost
there,
and
we
certainly
don't
need
to
plan
for
density
or
design
or
anything
like
that
at
this
stage.
O
E
E
J
Thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
like
the
ideas
presented
so
far.
I
like
the
two
back
pocket
suggestions
and
I
also
agree
with
the
staff
recommendations.
Just
thinking
out
loud
it'd
be
pretty
interesting.
If
maybe
csa
could
maybe
reach
out
to
the
los
altos
school
district
to
see,
if
there's
a
possibility
of
a
transfer
of
rights
there,
somehow
I'm
not
sure
if
it
would
work
out
or
not,
but
be
pretty
exciting,
to
see
thanks.
F
F
A
If
we're
not
going
to
add
those-
and
I
would
not
add
the
site
at
ring
store,
if
you
know
to
me
there,
we
actually
have
people
who
want
to
redevelop
and
want
to
put
in
housing
and
the
other.
We
have
no
idea,
and
so
I'm
just
I'm,
I'm
I'm
troubled
by
the
what
I
see
it
seems
to
be
an
inconsistency
to
me.
So
here's
the
noise.
N
O
A
And
that
wasn't
my
point.
It
was
I
just
to
me
at
going
after
a
location
that
has
not
expressed
interest
in
residential,
has
other
intentions
in
mind
and
has,
and
we
you
know
that
part
of
the
the
inventory
is
supposed
to
be
those
things
where
we
have
a
realistic
expectation
of
their
summerless
expectation
of
it
happening,
and
if
there's
no,
nothing,
we've
seen
nothing
from
the
current
owner
of
the
rai
site,
then
that
to
me
seems
very
inconsistent
with
that.
That's
often
so
it's
that's
what
I'm
I'm
not
advocating,
adding
either
one.
A
AE
Oh
yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that,
at
least
for
me,
the
consistency
issue
is
that
the
staff
has
already
given
recommendations
to
not
add
those
to
because
of
whatever
reasons,
but
for
the
other
site.
It
was
a
request
to
ask
council
to
investigate
it,
because
I
do
not
know
what
is
going
on
with
that
site,
so
not
knowing.
I
just
put
it
out
there
to
recommend
to
council
to
put
in
a
back
pocket.
Now.
AE
Mr
anderson,
I
understand
what
you're
saying
we
don't
need
a
back
pocket
necessarily
buffer,
because
we
have
the
30
percent,
and
maybe
it
doesn't
need
to
be
that.
But
the
recommendation
just
to
look
at
into
it
as
a
possibility
is,
is
still
there,
because
we,
I
did
not
have
information
on
that
site
and
it
just
seemed
like
a
good
opportunity.
But
if
staff
has
already
said
these
two
projects
we've
looked
at
and
we've
just
we've
determined
that
it's
not
a
good
idea
to
put
them
on.
That
is
information
to
me
that
says:
we've
already
investigated.
H
A
F
O
E
I
think
my
at
the
risk
of
money
in
the
water-
I
think
my
recommendation
would
be
not
that
that
the
epc
formally
recommended
council
that
would
be
added
as
a
backbone,
but
that
we
between
that.
We
sort
of
like
that
that
the
epc
was
interested
in
exploring
adding
that
site
as
a
as
a
back
pocket
site
just
for
some
additional
buffer.
But
others
may
feel
differently.
AC
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
chime
in.
I
don't
based
on
what
I've
heard
from
staff
and
where
I
think
we
are
with
the
back
pocket.
The
charleston
plaza
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
in
town
this
housing.
So
I
like,
I
just
don't
think
it's
close
to
services
that
we're
adding
a
bunch
of
housing
on
the
other
side
of
the
freeway.
It's
just.