►
Description
Teleconference meeting of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission Meeting for Wednesday, October 20, 2021.
A
A
B
A
A
A
Here,
okay,
so
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
call
attention
to
a
change
in
the
agenda
that
was
posted
on
the
city
website
with
the
gen
item
number
5.1,
this
will
be
removed
from
the
jensen
night
for
tonight's
epc
meeting
and
read
noticed
for
a
hearing
at
a
later
date.
A
Applicant
has
submitted
in
writing
and
requests
for
deferral
of
epc
consideration
on
the
project
application
and
that
a
hearing
be
taken
off
the
calendar
calendar,
so
the
applicant
may
submit
a
revised
project
application
addressing
staff
and
community
concerns
by
november
15
2021
upon
receipt
of
a
pro
of
a
project,
revised
project
application,
city
staff
will
view
the
application
for
complete
completeness
and
the
project.
Consistency
with
city
plans,
regulations
and
standards
as
what
is
done
with
the
original
application.
A
A
A
I'd
like
to
open
up
for
public
comment
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
minutes.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hem
button
in
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6.
The
epc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
C
Yes,
seeing
no
speakers
yet.
A
All
right,
then,
we
will
close
community
feedback
on
the
minutes.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
as
circulated.
E
I
moved
to
approve
the
mission
of
the
meeting
minutes
as
submitted
by
staff
for
may
19th,
2021
and
september
1st
2021,
noting
I
was
absent
on
the
september
first
meeting.
C
Yes,
commissioner,
hey
meyer.
C
I
apologize
commissioner
dempsey.
H
A
So
it's
approved
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
oral
communications.
This
portion
of
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
epc
on
any
matter
that
is
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
will
be
allowed
to
speak
for
any
topic
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
any
non-agenda
items.
Would
any
member
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
a
non-agenda
item?
A
A
I
Hi
good
evening,
chair
cranston
and
members
of
the
commission,
it
is
good
to
be
here
with
you
tonight
on
this
rainy
evening
and
we
have
you
all
to
our
agenda
items.
So
I'm
excited
to
get
started
on
our
study
session.
I
want
to
ensure
that
our
consultants
are
also
added
to
the
panelist
group.
I
have
stephanie
from
bae
and
beverly
choi
from
esa.
I
Thank
you
so
I'll
have
stephanie
share
her
screen
for
our
presentation
tonight.
She
is
our
lead
consultant
and,
like
I
said,
she
is
joined
by
bev
from
esa,
who
represents
the
other
third
of
our
consultant
team.
Lastly,
we
do
have
a
public
outreach
consultant
plan
to
place,
so
my
name
is
ellen
yao
and
I'm
a
senior
planner
with
the
city
and
I'm
the
project
planner
for
the
housing
element
update
we're
very
excited
to
present
to
you
tonight.
I
The
scope
of
the
housing
element
update
the
work
we
have
put
in
thus
far,
which
is
about
nine
months
from
the
beginning
of
this
year,
which
includes
community
outreach
that
we've
conducted
and
to
open
the
discussion
on
preliminary
policy
topics
right
now.
This
is
the
first
time
we're
bringing
this
to
epc
and
we
are
scheduled
for
a
study
session
with
the
city
council
on
november
16th,
so
we'll
be
presenting
the
same
information
along
with
input
from
you
tonight
stephanie.
If
you
wanted
to
start
sharing
your
screen.
I
So
the
housing
element
is
a
strategic
policy
document
and
it
will
get
guide,
housing
policy
and
programming
for
the
next
eight
years.
So
tonight
your
input,
any
questions
you
may
have
and
your
guidance
will
be
a
very
critical
part
of
developing
that
plan.
So
I'm
going
to
have
stephanie
start
the
presentation.
J
J
J
The
housing
element
needs
to
be
approved
by
the
state
department
of
housing
and
community
development.
It's
the
only
element
of
the
general
plan
that
needs
to
be
approved
by
a
state
agency,
which
means
that
it
needs
to
meet
certain
criteria
that
are
set
by
the
state,
but
it
can
also
be
a
plan
that
you
use
to
meet
local
housing
objectives
and
it
should
reflect
your
local
goals
and
priorities.
J
The
time
period
for
the
eight
year
cycle
is
somewhat
staggered
throughout
the
state,
but
all
bay
area
jurisdictions
have
the
same
eight
year
cycle
so,
like
I
said,
there's
some
required
components
of
the
housing
element
in
order
to
meet
state
requirements.
This
slide
lays
out
what
some
of
those
are.
J
There's
a
housing
needs
component
which
looks
at
demographic
and
housing
trends
to
identify
where
there
are
potentially
unmet
needs
in
mountain
view.
There's
an
evaluation
of
the
prior
housing
element
where
we
look
at
what's
working
and
what's
not
from
the
last
housing
element
cycle,
to
figure
out
what
we
should
carry
forward
and
what
we
should
modify.
J
There's
the
housing
sites
inventory
section
where
we
identify
sites
for
new
housing,
I'll
talk
about
that
more
in
a
slide
or
two
there's
a
constraints:
analysis
where
we
look
at
barriers
to
housing
production.
So
this
can
include
things
like
development
standards.
It
can
also
include
things
like
the
high
cost
to
build
housing,
and
then
all
that
comes
together
along
with
what
we're
hearing
through
the
community
and
outreach
process
and
from
you
and
other
elected
and
appointed
officials
to
inform
the
goals,
policies
and
programs
section.
J
J
The
way
that
this
number
of
units
is
determined
is
that
the
state
of
california
sets
for
the
next
eight
years.
The
total
projected
housing
needs
statewide.
They
then
divvy
that
up
between
all
of
the
regions
within
the
state.
So
in
our
case,
this
is
the
diane
county
bay
area
and
the
agency
that
sort
of
oversees
this
process
in
the
bay
area
is
the
association
of
bay
area
governments
or
abag
and
abad,
goes
through
a
process
to
then
allocate
these
units
to
each
city
and
county
in
the
nine
county
bay
area
region.
J
J
They're
looking
at
plan
bay
area
they're,
also
looking
at
various
factors
that
affect
which
cities
get
more
allocations
than
others,
so
they
want
to
assign
more
housing
to
areas
that
have
a
lot
of
jobs,
areas
that
have
access
to
transit
and
then
the
housing
element
is
required
to
show
that
the
city
has
the
ability
to
accommodate
the
number
of
units
that
are
called
for
in
its
arena
allocations.
J
This
is
done
primarily
through
identifying
development
sites
and
also
by
removing
potential
barriers
to
the
development
of
these
units.
It's
important
to
note
that
the
city
is
not
required
to
actually
build
the
units
in
the
arena,
but
rather
is
required
to
create
the
conditions
that
make
it
possible
for
those
units
to
be
built.
J
For
the
upcoming
arena
cycle,
you'll
see
in
the
blue
column
on
the
right
is
the
2023
to
2031
allocation,
so
mountain
view
will
be
required
to
plan
for
11
135
units.
I
should
note
that
these
are
draft
numbers
to
be
finalized
toward
the
end
of
this
year,
but
are
you
know
likely
fairly
close
to
the
actual
number
you'll
notice?
This
is
a
significant
increase
from
the
last
cycle
which
covered
2015
to
2023..
J
This
is
a
statewide
increase
in
arena
allocations,
so
we're
seeing
cities
and
counties
throughout
the
state
seeing
increases
in
arena
allocations,
but,
as
you'll
see,
mountain
view
has
quite
a
bit
more
than
during
the
last
cycle.
J
J
So
how
does
mountain
view
go
about
identifying
sites
that
can
accommodate
housing
in
order
to
meet
the
arena?
The
primary
way
that
you
show
that
you
can
meet
the
arena
is
by
identifying
sites.
I
should
note
that
there
are
some
other
ways
that
we
can
identify
enough
capacity
to
meet
a
portion
of
the
arena.
So
one
way
to
do
that
is
through
accessory
dwelling
units,
but
really
the
price
the
primary
way
that
cities
do
this
is
by
identifying
sites.
J
Those
sites
need
to
meet
a
set
of
criteria
that
are
defined
by
the
state,
so
they
need
to
be
zoned
for
residential
use,
have
access
to
appropriate
utilities
for
sites
that
were
identifying
to
meet
the
lower
income
need
they
need
to
be
zoned
at
least
20
units
per
acre
for
some
sites.
We
need
to
do
additional
analysis
to
demonstrate
that
those
sites
are
actually
likely
to
be
redeveloped
for
residential
uses
over
the
eight
year
planning
period,
so
that
means
for
sites
that
aren't
vacant.
J
We
also
need
to
think
about
the
fair
housing
implications
of
the
site's
inventory,
so
that
generally
means
not
clustering,
affordable
units
where
you
already
have
a
lot
of
affordable
units
trying
to
make
sure
that
your
affordable
units,
in
particular,
are
cited
in
locations
that
provide
access
to
high
resource
areas
so
areas
with
jobs,
good
quality
schools,
things
like
that,
and
then,
if,
if
we
find
that
there
are
not
enough
sites
in
mountain
view
that
meet
these
criteria
to
accommodate
the
full
amount
to
accommodate
the
full
arena,
then
we'll
need
to
re-zone
in
order
to
create
the
capacity
that's
needed.
J
We
know
that
mountain
view
has
created
a
lot
of
capacity
through
various
precise
plans
that
you've
adopted
over
the
last
several
years
and
there's
also
potential
for
some
other
sites
throughout
the
city.
So
at
this
point
in
time,
we're
hopeful
that
we
will
be
able
to
identify
enough
sites
without
needing
to
rezone,
but
right
now
we're
still
looking
into
the
site's
inventory
component
of
this.
J
J
J
There
are
also
no
net
loss
provisions
that
essentially
require
that
the
city
maintain
an
inventory
of
sites
throughout
the
eight
year
planning
cycle
so
that
you
always
have
enough
sites
to
meet
the
remaining
arena
in
your
that
you
haven't
yet
met
in
the
cycle,
and
so,
if
you
see
sites
that
are
used
for
a
purpose
other
than
housing
that
were
identified
in
your
site's
inventory,
you
need
to
make
sure
that
you
still
have
enough
capacity
left
to
meet
to
accommodate
the
remaining
arena.
J
They're
also
affirmatively
furthering
for
housing
requirements
that
are
strengthened
in
this
housing
element
cycle
that
require
the
city
to
use
the
housing
element
as
a
tool
to
combat
historic
patterns
of
segregation,
ensure
access
to
fair
housing,
and
that
comes
into
play
in
terms
of
assessing
needs
where
you
identify
sites,
your
goals,
policies
and
programs
and
in
your
community
outreach.
J
J
J
You
know
we
have
gotten
some
support
for
identifying
more
sites
that
are
needed
just
to
meet
the
arena.
Various
comments
related
to
development
standards
and
streamlining
the
development
process
in
order
to
make
it
easier
to
build
comments
related
to
addressing
displacement,
some
sort
of
specific
comments
about
down
payment,
providing
down
payment
assistance
and
re
residential
rehabilitation
assistance.
J
J
So
you
again
in
your
staff
report,
have
a
list
of
potential
policy
topics
that
we
want
to
discuss
with
you
today.
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these,
but
we
are
hoping
to
get
your
feedback
on
these
topics.
J
This
is
a
set
of
topics
that
we'll
use
to
guide
some
of
the
next
stages
in
terms
of
thinking.
What
thinking
about
what
the
city
should
do
over
the
next
eight
years
to
address
housing
needs
so
from
from
these
policy
topics,
we'll
be
sort
of
drilling
down
and
thinking
about
more
specifically,
what
some
appropriate
policies
might
be
and
what
the
city
can
really
do
to
implement
those
policies
through
specific
actions.
J
So
we're
hoping
to
get
your
feedback
today
on
whether
or
not
this
list
makes
sense
to
you
whether
or
not
this
is
there
are
things
that
are
left
out
or
whether
or
not
there
are
things
on
this
list
that
you
think
that
we
should,
you
know,
maybe
not
be
addressing
or
think
or
if
you
want
to
just
provide
feedback
on
how
we
should
be
thinking
about
some
of
these
topics.
J
All
that
would
be
really
helpful
for
us
to
get
feedback
from
you
tonight
so
to
wrap
up
the
questions
that
we
have
for
you
today
are
first,
whether
you
have
any
comments
regarding
the
new
housing
element
requirements
and
then,
secondly,
whether
you
support
the
initial
list
of
housing
element
topics
that
we
provided
and
whether
there
are
other
topics
that
should
be
included,
and
so
with
that.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
having
us
tonight.
I
think
that's
what
yeah
that's
my
last
slide
and
I'm
here
to
answer
questions.
J
A
Thank
you.
Next,
we
will
open
this
section
up
for
public
comment.
Would
any
members
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item
if
snow,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
zoom
wrist
star
nine
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6..
The
epc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
C
Yes,
we
do
bill
lambert
just
a
second
and
to
confirm
chair
cranston,
three
minutes.
C
K
Great
thank
you.
Thank
you,
commissioners,
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
evening,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
friends
of
mountain
view,
parks
at
the
time
residential
growth
is
being
planned.
The
growth
must
be
coordinated
with
community
investment
to
ensure
that
there
is
adequate
community
investment
in
transportation
services,
small
business
support
schools,
recreational
opportunities,
parks
and
accessible
open
space.
Simply
increasing
residential
density
without
the
community.
K
Investment
only
addresses
an
aspect,
a
certain
aspect
of
the
of
the
growth
in
mountain
view
and
harms,
especially
those
people
who
who
will
be
living
in
the
high
density
units.
If
those
community
investments
do
not
exist
or
not
are
do
not
already
exist,
then
realistic
plans
must
be
put
into
place
to
ensure
and
sustain
those
community
resources
for
the
community.
K
The
projected
plans
now
appear
to
encompass
all
of
north
mountain
view,
with,
for
example,
with
r3
zoning.
The
staff
report
only
addresses
residential
growth.
We
have
made
it
clear
that
north
mountain
view
is
already
woefully
deficient
in
parks
and
is
accessible
open
space.
Future
planning
must
include
the
assessment
and
so
and
the
development
of
solutions
for
providing
adequate
quality
of
life
for
all
residents
of
mountain
view,
including
those
who
will
be
living
in
these
high
density
developments.
K
C
All
right
next,
it's
going
to
be
a
tony
wrath.
Give
me
a
second
to
allow
you
to
speak
and
then
once
you
see
the
timer
go
ahead.
L
All
right,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
all
right,
yeah!
Do
your
members
of
the
commission.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I
would
like
to
ask
that
you
recommend
fulfilling
mountain
view's
arena
obligation
with
housing
in
existing
precise
plans
such
as
the
north
bay
shore
and
the
east
whistling
projects.
These
projects
together
provide
more
than
the
required
number
of
housing
units
under
arena,
which
is
already
a
quite
massive
allocation,
so
I'd
be
opposed
to
going
beyond
that
per
capita
right
now.
L
L
This
should
come
as
no
surprise
because
it
jeopardizes
the
character
of
mountain
view.
Neighborhoods.
It
is
allowing
buildings
that
are
three
times
taller
than
existing
buildings
or
more
with
five
foot
setbacks
next
to
singing
single
family
homes
and
that's
effectively
ignoring
the
existing
character
of
the
neighborhoods.
L
So,
finally,
the
r3
rezoning,
similar
to
what
the
previous
speaker
said,
ignores
several
of
the
enormous
resource
constraints
that
mountain
view
is
already
facing.
We
have
a
water
shortage,
we
have
a
lack
of
schools
and
we
have
traffic
problems
and
access
to
park
parks
is
an
important
consideration
that
is
entirely
absent
from
the
r3
proposal.
C
All
right
and
next
up
we
will
have
a
robert
cox.
I
will
allow
you
to
speak
and
once
you
see
a
timer,
you
may
start.
M
F
N
Okay,
chair
cranston
planning
commissioners,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
you
on
how
to
select
the
zoned
units
for
mountain
views,
arena
allocation
for
the
2013
to
2031,
housing
element,
sorry,
2023,
okay
and
selecting
zoning
areas.
Please
prioritize
units
in
existing
precise
plan
areas
like
north
bay
shore
and
east
twistman.
These
precise
plan
areas
were
vetted
with
the
residents
recommended
by
the
epc
and
approved
by
the
council,
since
there
is
no
existing
housing
in
these
areas
now
there
will
be
no
concerns
with
regard
to
residential
displacement
and
gentrification.
N
Please
consider
carefully
the
downside
of
using
our
three
rezoning
to
meet
the
arena
targets.
The
r3
rezoning
proposal
that
was
heard
by
the
council
in
april
does
not
have
broad
support
throughout
the
council.
It
will
seriously
impact
the
homeowners
living
adjacent
to
the
r3
areas
and
will
lead
to
less
affordable
housing,
even
if
all
the
rent
control
units
are
replaced,
because
not
all
of
those
who
have
a
first
right
of
return
will
return.
H
O
Evening,
epc,
commissioners,
my
name
is
kevin
ma,
I'm
a
four-month-long
homeowner
of
the
city
of
mount
of
view
as
a
new
resident.
What
I
want
to
see
for
the
city
is
to
encourage
more
people
into
the
city,
because
we
do
need
vibrancy
from
future
generations.
Maybe
it's
your
children,
maybe
it's
your
child
care
worker,
maybe
it's
your
cashier.
They
all
need
places
to
live
and
given
the
current
high
prices
of
housing,
that
is
getting
much
more
difficult
to
do,
and
this
pandemic
has
not
made
any
improvements
to
that.
O
Given
that
the
weight
the
wealth
gap
in
this
city
and
in
general
with
all
american
society
keeps
on
growing.
As
such,
I
do
want
to
see
a
housing
element
that
does
probably
take
into
account
the
possible
future
growth
of
the
city.
Past
housing
elements
drastically
underestimated
how
much
new
residents
there
will
be
in
here
and
as
such,
we
did
not
really
do
our
greatest
job
in
planning
things.
O
As
such,
I
urge
evc
and
staff
to
consider
a
housing
element
that
has
much
more
sites
than
what
the
arena
baseline
is
because,
inherently,
if
we
under
do,
if
we
don't
do
the
greatest
job,
inherently
we're
not
going
to
plan
accordingly,
where
the
correct
group
occur,
as
we
see
from
the
new
state
laws,
the
state
is
not
pulling
any
punches
these
days
and
trying
to
encourage
cities
to
encourage
more
housing
in
the
area,
because
housing
is
also
a
regional
issue.
If
one
city
does
not
build
enough
housing,
then
everyone
else
gets
prized.
O
I
would
like
to
ask
you
to
look
at
the
league
of
women
voters
letter
that
was
sent
two
days
ago
about
questions
around
streamlining
inherently.
We
do
want
processes
to
be
processes
and
not
some
kind
of
back
from
dealing,
and
that
really
involves
rules
to
be
predictable,
understandable
and
done
on
time.
Otherwise,
everything
becomes
a
game
of
who
do
you
know
and
staff
or
how?
Well
can
you
fudge
a
number
two
inherently?
O
We
also
need
to
look
into
our
affirmatively
further
and
fair
housing
goals,
inherently
to
bottle
up
all
new,
develop
in
only
certain
parts
of
the
city
and
leaving
other
things.
Unattached
is
kind
of
a
dangerous
distribution
of
new
population.
Inherently
everyone
in
the
city
should
have
equal
access
to
resources,
equal
access
to
schools
that
do
well
equal
access
to
parks
and
stuff,
but
that
can't
just
be
done
just
by
siloing.
Everyone
to
you
know
el
camino,
real
or
north
bay
shore.
O
So
we
shouldn't
put
all
our
eggs
in
one
basket,
especially
since
you
know,
if
we
did,
it
doesn't
really
make
a
great
planning
exercise
and
in
the
end
I
do
want
to
see
if
the
city
pursue
hdd's
per
housing
designation,
which
would
give
us
a
leg
up
for
money,
because
if
there's
complaints
about
not
enough
money
to
do
things
well,
if
we
aren't
doing
anything
to
get
more
money,
then
prescriptions
do.
Thank
you.
A
P
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Louise
katz,
longtime
resident
of
mountain
view,
I'm
particularly
concerned
by
the
letters
and
notions
bandied
about
where
they
talk
about
how
r3
is
going
to
give
us
these.
All
of
these
thousands
and
thousands
of
new
units.
The
real
question
is:
what
is
the
net
gain
and
I
don't
see
any
numbers
for
the
net
gain,
because
clearly,
the
neighborhoods
that
are
being
designated
are
not
empty
spaces,
so
we're
going
to
be
destroying
what
is
often
the
naturally
affordable
housing
to
create
more
housing.
P
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
the
words
that
we
use.
In
addition,
there
also
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
confusion
in
the
part
of
support
for
the
people
who
support
r3,
in
that
they
want
to
say
that
we're
going
to
have
affordable
housing
with
our
three
when,
in
fact,
there's
two
sets
of
standards.
There's
the
rent
control
housing,
which
makes
it
affordable,
naturally
affordable
for
some
people.
P
These
units
will
be
coming
down
and
then
there
is
affordable
housing
which
is
designated
by
our
government
based
on
income
of
households
and
clearly
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that,
in
mountain
view,
with
our
rent
control
laws,
we
have
many
many
more
rent
control
units
than
we
have
affordable
housing
units
which
are
basically
often
subsidized.
So
the
question
is:
what
is
the
fate
of
this
huge
mass
of
naturally
affordable
housing
under
rent
control?
P
My
reading
of
the
statute
indicates
that
when
someone
leaves
a
rent
control
unit
because
of
construction
because
the
building
is
being
torn
down,
if
they
don't
return,
the
rent
control
status
of
the
unit
remains.
But
the
statute
does
not
indicate
what
is
going
to
be
the
price
of
that
unit.
Is
it
going
to
revert
to
market
rate
and
then
start
the
rent
control
cycle
all
over
again
or
is
it
going
to
remain
as
the
prior
resident
left
it
if
that
prior
resident
does
not
return?
P
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
a
completely
backwards
and
upside
down
standard
that
we're
determining
how
many
naturally
affordable
rent
control
units
will
remain
in
our
city
based
on
whether
residents
can
or
will
return.
This
seems
to
be
a
huge
gap
in
how
we're
supposed
to
plan
for
affordability,
and
I
would
request
that
the
commissioners
put
off
their
vote
until
they
are
clear
as
to
what
is
the
fate
of
our
rent
controlled
units
that
will
be
torn
down.
P
P
Q
Yeah,
I
have
them,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
opening
up
the
presentation
now.
H
H
I'll
start
talking
I'll
start
my
time
or
two,
while
he's
doing
that.
I'd
like
to
just
provide
some
visual
support
for
some
of
the
previous
speakers
who
emphasized
that
we
shouldn't
rely
on
r3
rezoning
to
provide
the
housing,
that's
going
to
be
required
in
the
new
arena
numbers
and
the
reason
is:
that's
really.
H
You
know
counting
your
chickens
before
they
hatch,
as
previous
speakers
mentioned,
that
it
doesn't
have
much
support
among
the
council
or
the
residents
and
here's
why
here's
the
part
of
the
r3
base
map
and
I've
outlined
two
areas
that
I'm
going
to
show
you
what
they
actually
will
look
like
under
the
r3
current
r3
standards.
I
mean
the
proposed
r3
standards.
The
large
oval
is
on
farley
street,
a
large,
very
long
stretch
there
and
there's
a
small
circle
on
the
right
and
that's
actually
where
I
live
and
still
in
the
states.
Next
slide.
Please.
H
And
there's
these
so-called
zoning
overlays,
which
is
supposed
to
provide
correct
transitions,
but
neither
these
two
areas
says
any
overlays
next
to
it.
Next
slide,
please.
H
This
is
what
I
actually
see
from
the
street
from
my
curb
looking
across
the
street
at
my
neighbors,
and
if,
if
the
r3
update
goes
ahead,
it
will
allow
next
slide,
please
they
will
have
five-story
buildings
there
if
builders
and
they
certainly
will
take
a
for
take
advantage
of
the
bonus
and
even
if
you
set
back
50
feet
in
order
to
get
next
slide,
please,
in
order
to
give
you
a
45
degree,
daylight
plane,
it's
still
gonna,
look
pretty
jarring
and
completely
ruin
the
character
of
our
neighborhood.
H
H
H
It's
taking
time
to
look.
This
is
what
it's
going
to
look
like
and
I
don't
think
any
any
resident
would
want
this.
You
know
practically
in
their
backyard
again.
This
is
only
10
foot
setback
plus
the
10
foot.
You
know
for
the
canal,
if
you
again
go
with
a
45
degree,
daylight
plane,
which
I've
always
felt
is
insufficient.
Anyways
you
get
next
slide.
Please.
H
Still
a
pretty
you
know,
you
still
have
a
lot
of
people
looking
in
your
backyard,
no
privacy
and
again
the
character
is
completely
changed.
Next,
I
think
that's
the
final
slide
yeah.
So
in
conclusion,
these
are
slides
that
I've
shown
when
I
was
fighting
the
terrible
visioning
plan
and,
as
we
all
know
what
happened
to
that
you
know
after
three
years
of
work,
it
was
shell
and
so
yeah
don't
go
down
the
road
of
r3
rezoning.
Thank
you.
R
Can
you
hear
me
yes
I'll,
be
very
brief?
Just
I
actually
had
a
question
when
when
will
we
find
out,
especially
in
the
wessman
area,
what
type
of
r3
rezoning
has
happened
and
will.
R
C
S
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
kalasha
webster,
I'm
a
housing
advocate
for
people
with
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities
with
housing
choices.
I'm
calling
in
support
of
the
housing
policy
topics
being
presented
tonight,
especially
affordable
housing
for
targeted
populations,
including
people
with
developmental
disabilities.
S
S
While
these
units
have
provided
more
opportunities
for
people
with
developmental
disabilities
to
live
independently
in
their
community,
we
do
also
urge
you
guys
to
look
at
creating
more
opportunities
with
more
diverse
unit
sizes.
Currently,
all
of
the
units
that
we
have
been
allocated
for
people
developmental
disabilities
are
for
studios
and
there's
different
housing
needs
for
different
populations.
Oftentimes.
S
One
bedrooms
or
two-bedroom
units
would
be
more
desirable
for
these
clients
so
right
now,
it's
really
limiting
having
only
studios
who
is
allowed
to
live
independently
in
this
community,
and
we
also
look
urge
you
to
look
for
ways
that
you
can
create
more
inclusive
units,
I'm
a
deeply
affordable
rents,
as
many
of
our
clients
have
extremely
limited
incomes
being
dependent
upon
ssi
as
a
major
or
sole
source
of
income.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
U
All
right,
I
have
a
few
things
to
say:
my
name
is
daniel
hulse.
I
am
calling.
I
live
in
a
rent
control
department
and
I
just
want
to
make
a
statement
in
support
of
the
housing
element
process
and
of
several
things
that
were
brought
up
in
in
the
process.
I
think
you
know
we
are
currently
in
a
housing
crisis
in
in
mountain
view
and
in
the
bay
area
at
large,
and
we
really
need
to
build
more
units
and
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
you
know.
U
Oh,
we
need
this
or
we
need
that
or
who's
going
to
foot
the
burden
of
of
these
new
units.
The
fact
is,
we
need
the
new
units,
and
so
people
should
stop
being
so
whiny
about
like
who
gets
to
who
who
is
going
to
be
impacted
by
that?
U
The
primary
impact
to
of
a
new
apartment
is
a
new
place
to
live
for
someone,
and
so
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
looking
at
every
single
option
for
both
enabling
new
apartments
to
be
built,
including
the
r3
restructure.
I
think
we
also
should
be
expanding
r3
and
some
of
the
other
higher
density
zones,
especially
around
places
where
there's
transit
and
the
other
thing.
I
saw
a
recommendation
from
the
from
from
that.
U
From
from
the
housing
element
workshop
to
reduce
and
remove
parking
requirements,
I
think
that's
a
great
idea.
A
lot
of
affordability
in
terms
of
both
development
and
the
rental
side
in
terms
of
the
the
amenity
is
the
existence
of
parking.
U
G
All
right
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
kat
wortham
and
I'm
with
the
housing
action
coalition.
I
just
have
a
few
comments
on
the
housing
element
for
the
city
of
mountain
view.
First,
I'd
really
encourage
the
commissioners
and
then
later
on
the
council
and
city
staff,
to
look
at
ways
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing
across
the
city.
G
Lastly,
mountain
view
has
some
of
the
highest
park
fees
in
the
county
and
it
discourages
new
housing
development.
Lowering
those
park
fees
to
allow
for
more
development
to
occur
in
the
city
would
be
very,
very
helpful.
So
would
it
really
really
encourage
the
city
to
look
at
ways
to
lower
their
park
fees?
Yeah?
I
think
that's
the
end
of
my
comments.
Thank
you.
V
V
V
V
In
mountain
view,
people
still
keep
their
their
cars
if
they
do
not
allow
parking
they're
going
to
be
on
the
streets
and
everything
is
going
to
be
impacted,
and
you
know
that
to
the
effect
homeowners
near
r3
are
damaged
by
outrageous
attack
on
their
privacy
because
of
the
minimal
setback,
and
I
think
you
need
to
put
yourself
in
that
person's
place
when
you
think
about
voting.
Do
you
want
that
towering
over
your
home?
V
So
ask
yourself
that
and
try
to
be
in
that
position.
We
can't
zone
away
how
much
a
home
or
condo
costs.
They
will
clearly
and
honestly
push
our
poorest
out
of
mountain
view.
Building
this
new
housing
is
not
an
overnight
project
and
promising
the
right
to
rent
will
take
years,
and
many
cannot
wait
that
long,
so
they
will
move
out.
These
caps
is
correct.
We
need
to
look
at
the
net
gain.
There
are
too
many
points
that
are
not
well
thought
out
here.
No
wonder
the
truth
of
this
is
so
disappointing
and
so
destructive.
W
Thank
you,
epc
members
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I
agree
with
everything
that
the
previous
speaker,
kevin
moss
said
as
well
as
daniel
hulse
and
the
league
of
women
voters
letter.
I
am
a
patent
paralegal
at
nasa
ames
research
center
and
I
make
under
120
of
the
area
median
income
for
the
past
several
years.
I've
bounced
around
various
apartments
in
santa
clara
county
moving
each
time
my
rent
increased.
W
As
I
type
this,
I
am
sitting
in
one
of
the
newly
constructed
buildings
on
el
camino
riel.
So
I
consider
myself
living
proof
that
the
principles
of
supply
and
demand
do
in
fact
work.
Please,
if
you
can
remember
only
one
thing
from
this
meeting,
let
it
be
density
density
density.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
X
It's
very
interesting
to
hear
the
previous
person
commenting
on
density
density
density,
but
unfortunately,
that
comes
at
a
very
high
cost
for
us,
for
the
residents
of
mountain
view,
high
density,
without
careful
balanced
planning
to
preserve
and
have
an
environmental,
sustainable
city
for
us,
it's
we're
really
going
to
shoot
ourselves
in
the
foot.
I
think
so.
Rezoning
will
definitely
and
significantly
impact
the
open
space
the
existing
neighborhoods
and
their.
X
You
know,
privacy
and
compatibility
and
the
environmental
sustainability
for
for
all
of
us
who
live
here
according
to
october
project
list
that
the
city
just
released
just
this
only
in
this
years
or
on
this
month's
project
list,
the
amount
of
development
that's
taking
place.
It's
asking
for
1717
mature
heritage
trees
to
be
removed,
so
they
they
can
build
these
buildings
these
units.
X
This
will
have
you
know
a
tremendous
impact
to
our
demise,
really
for
not
having
clean
air
shade,
cooling
effect
and
today's
climate
change
and
extreme
weather
using
a
higher
percentage
of
affordability
is
something
I
did
not
see.
The
epc
or
actually
the
city
staff
recommends,
and
I
think
that
should
be
something
that
should
be
considered
to
increase
housing
in
mountain
view.
I
understand
the
arena.
X
Then
I
suggest
that
you,
the
city,
considers
increase
the
percentage
of
affordable
housing,
ask
for
more
than
15
percent
of
the
new
buildings
to
be
affordable.
You
know:
go
up
to
30
percent,
look
at
community
and
government
trusts
that
are
being
done
in
other
neighboring
cities
such
as
san
francisco
and
oakland,
to
support
more
affordable
housing
within
the
existing
precise
plants
and
the
development
plans
that
we
have
for
the
next
eight
years.
Thank
you.
Y
Thank
you,
edie
keating
mountain
view.
Homeowner
mountain
view
has
a
jobs,
housing
imbalance
on
average.
Every
housing
unit
built
means
fewer
commuters
on
the
road.
Until
we
all
drive
electric
cars,
even
after
we
all
drive
electric
cars,
reducing
commutes
is
important
for
addressing
the
climate
crisis.
Y
I
will
speak
to
three
policies,
though
I
support
many
more
to
address
displacement.
I
support
development
of
a
replacement
unit
standard
similar
to
sp
330
requiring
requiring
affordable
replacement
units
before
any
demolition
is
approved,
including
for
rent
controlled
units.
I
hope
the
city
will
explore
a
requirement
to
replace
demolished
rent
controlled
units
with
lower
income.
Bmr
units
bmr
units
will
have
much
better
resistance
to
resistance
to
rents,
increasing,
in
contrast
to
rent
controlled
units
which
jump
to
market
every
time
there
is
tenant
turnover.
Y
T
Hi,
I'm
david,
I
I
think
most
of
my
comments-
sort
of
fall
under
the
heading
of
making
sure
that
we
actually
meet
our
rha
goals
rather
than
arena
goals,
rather
than
just
doing
some
things
that
feel
good,
because
the
fact
is.
T
If
we
don't
meet
our
arena
goals,
then
we
will
lose
the
ability
to
control
where,
where
development
happens
in
mountain
view,
so
one
of
the
first
element
I'd
like
to
talk
about
is
that
we
should
be
taking
into
account
the
likelihood
of
development
based
on
historical
data
to
ensure
that
we're
zoning
enough
to
actually
reach
our
housing
goals.
For
example,
if
historically
only
20
of
zoned
parcels
are
developed,
we
need
to
zone
five
times
our
arena
allocation
in
order
to
actually
meet
our
allocation.
T
Also,
the
definition
provided
by
the
hcb
by
that
definition,
north
bay
shore,
counts
as
a
low
resource
neighborhood,
and
so,
while
we
have
a
large
number
of
units
that
we
expect
to
get
built
there,
we
should
make
sure
that,
in
order
to
show
that
we've
affirmatively
further
their
housing,
we
can't
be
putting
all
of
our
new
homes.
Just
in
this
low
resource,
part
of
town,
that'll
kind
of
look
bad
and
will
again
violate
our
our
allocation
requirements
in
item
two
on
page
12
of
the
staff
report.
T
There's
a
comment
about
having
existing
residents.
Do
a
two-thirds
or
55
vote
to
pass
a
parcel
tax
for
future
residents
who
are
not
yet
here
for
north
bay
shore,
and
I
would
point
out
that
this
again
will
totally
sink
any
ability
to
build
significant
to
build
the
the
ten
thousand
or
nine
thousand
new
units
that
are
hoped
for
in
north
bay
shore
to
try
to
meet
our
arena
goals.
So
those
are.
T
Those
are
all
important,
also
to
address
the
sort
of
some
of
the
previous
comments
about
worries
about
tall
buildings
or
density.
The
the
fact
is
that
we,
if
we
want
to
have
any
control
over
where
these
things
happen,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
units
actually
get
built
and
that
we
actually
meet
our
allocation.
T
The
fact
is
that
folks
will
show
up
and
give
that
same
presentation
about
tall
buildings
and
their
negative
impacts
on
them
to
every
every
single
individual
epc
meeting
and
the
more
the
more
meetings
that
we
put
up
where
we
have
non-buy
right
building
is
the
the
less
units
we
get
built
and
the
more
likelihood
that
we
violate
our
allocation.
So
really,
I
would
say,
buy
right.
Development
is
another
key
to
getting
things
done.
Thank
you.
Z
Hey
a
member
of
good
evening
to
you
guys,
I'm
actually
here,
I'm
actually
here
with
five
neighbors
five
homeowners
on
brenda
avenue,
and
we
are
here
to
object
to
the
new
r3
zone.
Hey
guys
make
some
noise
for
me
come
on
for
me,
okay,.
Z
All
right
so
yeah
hi,
so
we're
we're
not
a
big
fan
of
the
r3,
a
new
regulation,
and
aside
from
this
there's
a
couple
of
comments.
I
wish
to
make
the
first
one
so
when
I
heard
the
removing
the
restriction
for
parking,
I'm
a
little
shocked
because
I've
been
to
san
francisco
many
times
and
I
hated
it
because
it's
so
hard
to
find
parking
and
then
the
residents
living
there
paid
it
to
my
friend.
Z
So
it's
such
a
short-sighted
plan
to
houses
without
planning
problems.
So
that's
fine
and
the
second
one
is
one.
The
princess
speaker
said:
she's
the
leading
identity
works,
but
then.
N
R
A
E
A
A
C
Great
steve,
you
are
up
next.
AA
Hi
good
evening,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
here
the
opportunity
I
just
wanted
to
second
the
sentiments
of
albert
jeans
and
his
presentation
against
cr3
zoning
without
a
proper
transition
to
single
family
homes.
AA
AA
So
mountain
view
is
known
for
its
creativity
and
innovation,
and
I'd
like
to
see
that
kind
of
thinking
applied
to
the
our
hna
goals.
I'd
like
to
see
planning
proposals
that
incentivize
new
housing
to
be
distributed
across
mountain
view
with
more
accessory
dwelling
units.
AA
AA
C
Yes,
she
is
back
how
many
minutes
would
you
like.
C
All
right,
2-2
thompson,
you
are
back
up,
but
you.
O
B
Z
Z
Then.
The
second
comment
I
was
making
is
about
the
one
of
the
one
the
previous
speaker
said.
She
was
able
to
remain
in
the
silicon
valley,
but
she
also
made
a
point
she's
childless.
Then
what
you
know,
what
do
the
family
with
children?
What
do
they
do
if
they
live
in
this
newly
built
r3
area
and
there
is
no
school
being
built
to
support
this
infrastructure,
so
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
feasible
that
great
idea?
Z
And
lastly,
from
a
landlord
point
of
view,
I
actually
have
a
rental
house
in
our
three
zone.
I
can
just
know,
I
just
know
the
tenants.
I
have
a
three.
I
have
a
three
unit-
rental
rental
property,
it's
on
bonita
avenue.
I
just
know
the
tenants.
That's
currently
there
they're
gonna
have
to
go
there,
there's
no
way.
They're
gonna
be
able
to
hold
off
to
rent
somewhere
else
and
come
back
to
the
same
area,
so
their
life
will
be
destroyed.
So
please,
if
you
see,
please
kindly
consider
all
these
effects.
Thank
you.
Z
C
Oh
sorry,
just
a
second
looks
like
chuck
signed
off
emily
ramos.
AB
Wonderful
hi,
my
name
is
emily
ramos.
It's
easy
to
look
at
the
arena
goals
as
numbers
as
traffic
as
impacts,
but
they
are
so
much
more.
These
are
homes,
homes
for
friends,
homes
for
families,
homes
or
people
who
help
us
in
our
daily
lives.
The
people
we
build
connections
with
laugh
with
love
with
roll
our
eyes
with
and
raise
our
children
with,
and
with
regards
to
r3,
I
want
to
remind
people
the
displacement
projects
of
rock
street
and
montecito,
and
even
the
recent
570
south
range
store
some
of
these
projects.
AB
Actually
many
of
these
projects.
They
were
already
zoned
with
our
current
standards
of
r3
and
they
built
units
that
were
even
less
than
the
number
of
units
than
the
ones
currently
existing,
which
led
to
the
displacement.
Not
only
were
we
losing
affordable
units,
naturally
affordable
units
that
were
rent
controlled,
we
were
losing
a
total
amount
of
units
with
some
of
these
projects.
The
r3
zan
standards
as
they
currently
are,
are
insufficient
and
bad.
AB
We
must
up
to
update
our
r3
zoning
standards
and
I
hope
that
we
update
them,
along
with
the
anti-displacement
strategies
that
the
council
is
taking
up,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
have
an
opportunity
for
a
win-win
situation.
Here
we
can
zone
enough
to
allow
for
one-for-one
replacements
as
as
required
by
sb330.
AB
We
were
able
to
create
a
one-for-one
replacement
of
those
29,
naturally
affordable,
rent
controlled
units,
and
these
units
are
actually
being
a
one-for-one
replacement
as
a
bmr
unit
offering
a
first-rate
refu
return
for
those
existing
tenants.
We
want
these
win-win
situations,
so
we
need
to
have
the
r3
zoning
districts
updated
along
with
anti-strong
anti-displacement
tools.
We
need
to
build
more
housing,
we
need
to
bring
back
our
friends
home.
We
need
to
bring
back
the
people
we
lost,
who
got
this
place
home
these?
AB
This
is
what
we
hope
mountain
view
is
built
to
do
it's
built
to
be
our
homes.
It's
built
to
be
a
community,
it's
built
to
be
a
welcoming
community
with
diverse
and
and
different
amounts
of
incomes,
because
mountain
view
is
supposed
to
be
remain
a
welcoming
and
diverse
community.
Let's
get
our
arena
calls.
M
Thank
you,
epc.
I
appreciate
you
guys
having
this
community.
You
know
outreach
a
couple
things
I
wanted
to
address.
One
was,
I
was
looking
through
the
staff
report
and
I
noticed
on
page
eight
of
20
you
had
indicated
there
is
3771
above
moderate
units
built
as
of
2020,
and
the
required
amount
was
only
1093..
M
So
my
question
is:
why
has
the
city
allowed
such
a
disproportionate
amount
of
above
moderate
housing
to
be
developed?
We
are
not
meeting
the
very
low
low
or
moderate
rh
and
a
affordable
unit
numbers.
So
I
would
question
you
guys
and
I
would
ask
you
what
is
going
on
there
and
how
can
that
be
addressed,
and
then,
on
page,
nine
of
the
staff
report
indicates
that
the
jobs
to
the
household
ratio
is
2.74
jobs
per
household
in
2018.
M
That
might
be
more
now,
I'm
not
sure
I'm
not
I'm
not
anti
jobs,
but
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
balance,
and
so
the
more
we
allow
you
know
more
businesses
to
build
buildings
and
offices.
The
more
this
problem
is
going
to
persist.
So
what
I
would
ask
is
that
you
consider
how
do
you
balance
that?
M
Therefore,
I
would
agree
with
some
of
the
other
speakers
that
these
planned
communities
like
north
shoreline,
east
wisman,
look
at
those
as
re-zoning
them
for
residential
limit
the
number
of
businesses
that
can
go
in
there
and
add
resources.
Add
grocery
stores
require
that
as
part
of
the
planning
process
require
schools.
M
So
I
guess
what
I
ask
for
the
epc
is
to
consider
that
look
at
how
we
can
be
creative.
How
can
we
provide
all
the
different
components
in
these
areas
where
you
know
you
know
for
me?
I
am
I've
lived
here
for
20
years.
I
have
a
single
family
home
and
yes,
I
don't
want
a
large.
You
know
five-story
unit.
M
Next
to
my
home
and
there's,
you
know
a
number
of
reasons,
and
I
could
you
know
happy
to
debate
that
with
you,
but
I
think
there's
you
know
we
could
be
get
creative
and
look
at
these
other
areas
and
then
the
other
thing
I
would
say
is
that
for
some
sites
that
are
zoned,
commercial
or
industrial,
you
know
consider
having
those
rezoned
as
residential.
M
But
I
appreciate
your
time
and
those
are
my
comments.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
Our
last
speaker
is
jonah
mann.
B
Hi
thanks,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
we
need
more
density
and
more
mixed-use
zoning.
Everybody
loves
the
walkability
of
the
pedestrianized
castro
street
and
that's
only
possible
with
more
neighbors
or
the
businesses,
and
I
want.
I
think
we
should
expand
that
to
more
of
the
more
of
the
city,
and
that
requires
a
lot
more
neighbors
to
support
it.
B
R3
zoning
doesn't
go
far
enough.
Please
allow
for
a
much
greater
far
ratio
increase
height
limits,
remove
parking
requirements.
Density
itself
is
an
amenity
and
more
neighbors
are
a
good
thing.
We
should
be
zoning
to
allow
as
much
housing
as
possible.
I
think
it's
really
shamefully
anti-societal
to
hear
neighbors
afraid
of
having
a
five-storey
building
nearby.
I
think
that
allowing
more
people
to
live
near
us
is
just
a
good
thing
and
not
something
to
oppose
thanks.
A
C
A
We
have
three:
are
there
any
others
that
are
planning
on
speaking
here?
Please
raise
your
hand
now.
C
Plus
two
now
all
right
leona,
you
will
be.
AC
B
AD
Okay,
I
do
have
a
question.
One
of
the
proposals
is
that
there
be
a
10
foot
or
feet
setback
between
buildings
and
I'd
like
to
have
answered
the
question:
what
is
the
merit
of
establishing
a
10
feet?
Setback
between
buildings?
AD
C
Y
D
Can
you
hear
me
yes,
great?
Thank
you
good
evening,
environmental
planning.
Commissioners.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
speak
tonight.
First,
I
want
to
say
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
we
have
accurate
total
numbers
of
housing
currently
approved
across
the
city
and
what
is
required
by
law
in
the
new
mandates,
because
I
feel
like
I
get
different
answers
from
different
people
I
talk
to
and
there
seems
to
need
a
need
for
clarity.
D
I
think
the
priority
for
making
the
arena
numbers
should
come
from
existing
precise
plans
that
have
been
well
thought
out
and
have
gone
through
the
community
process.
Already.
I'm
really
concerned
that
this
proposal
will
put
four
to
nine
stories
if
they
use
the
bonus
bonus
that
the
developers
use
the
bonus
that
they're
allowed
immediately
adjacent
to
single
family
homes.
Only
with
a
five
foot
side
and
a
ten
foot
back
line
setbacks,
maybe
there
should
be
different
zoning
for
different
parts.
B
W
D
Development
that
maybe
there
needs
to
be
different
kinds
of
different
zonings
for
these
different
kinds
of
things,
and
then
I
also
want
to
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
quality
of
life
if
all
this
kind
of
building,
I
know,
there's
some
requirements
here
and
we
need
to
be
smart
about
it,
but
all
of
this
building
isn't
really
good
for
our
city.
We
seem
to
have
a
lot
of
people
talking
about
building
tall
and
building
dents,
but
that's
going
to
change
the
very
character
of
the
city
that
everyone
seems
to
love.
D
How
will
our
infrastructure,
our
streets,
our
schools,
our
parks,
be
able
to
handle
such
a
large
increase
in
housing?
Everyone
wants
to
live
in
mountain
view
in
a
place
that
they
can
afford,
but
if
we
allow
all
the
new
housing
development,
the
very
character
of
the
city
will
change
and
we
may
not
even
be
able
to
see
the
mountains
in
mountain
view.
D
You
know
I
I'm
I
don't
mean
to
be
crass,
but
I
remember
a
long
time
ago
before
I
came
to
mountain
view,
there
were
quite
a
few
other
cities
I
wanted
to
live
in.
I
wanted
to
live
in
palo
alto.
I
wanted
to
live
in
los
altos
heck.
D
I
wouldn't
even
mind
living
in
the
city
of
los
altos
hills,
but
I
could
never
afford
it,
so
I
had
to
go,
find
a
different
place
to
live,
and
this
is
where
I
found
my
home
in
mountain
view
and
then
lastly,
I
I
found
that
when
I
attended
some
of
the
workshops,
there
was
kind
of
a
pro
density,
biased.
I
didn't
find.
D
I
didn't
feel,
like
my
my
concerns
about
too
much
growth
and
the
concerns
about
where
the
growth
happens
was
taken
very
seriously
or
even
added
to
the
end
of
the
summary
documents,
and
so
when
I
saw
the
the
sample
of
input
received
to
date,
I
didn't
see
my
concerns
reflected
in
that,
and
so
I
was.
I
was
amazed
that
they
were
more
interested
in
talking
to
people
who
want
to
live
in
mountain
view
and
not
necessarily
their
own
long-time
residents.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
so
first
questions
from
commissioners
of
staff.
I
guess
just
one
brief
comment,
for
there
were
a
couple
people
who
had
wanted
to
try
to
get
some
specific
questions
answered.
I'd,
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
the
planning
department
with
your
questions.
They
should
be
able
to
address
those
for
you,
and
so,
if
you
reach
out
to
the
city
planning
department,
they
should
be
able
to
help
you
with
those
items.
A
Okay,
so
cute
commissioners,
questions
that
you
may
have
about
before
we
get
into
deliberation
and
discussion.
Commissioner
handmaier.
E
For
folks
who
are
still
on
the
line
eric,
could
we
answer
some
of
the
questions
just
about
the
notification
process,
some
of
the
really
process-based
ones,
and
then
I
can
chime
in
with
a
couple
questions.
Q
Sure,
well,
specifically,
about
notification:
yeah,
we
are
going
to
be
continuing
to
notify
all
residents
in
our
three
and
and
near
our
three
neighborhoods
as
items
are
scheduled
for
study
sessions
and
public
hearings.
Q
E
E
I
think
there's
another
question
about
the
the
about
the
benefit
of
the
10-foot
setback.
I
don't
know
if
the
consultant
would
want
to
speak
to
to
that,
and
I
I
think
my
big
point
with
this
is
there's
a
lot
of
public
outreach
that
is
yet
to
happen,
and
so
this
isn't
a
one
opportunity
and
I
encourage
the
folks
on
the
line
to
to
stay
engaged
because
really
this
affects
our
city
and
we
want
to
make
sure
the
process
is
inclusive
and
then
maybe
just
one
quick
question
for
staff
about
the
timeline.
E
My
understanding
is
the
goal
for
the
final.
Our
three
zoning
update
would
be
early
2023,
so
there's
all
of
calendar
2022
for
engagement
and
outreach
and
input.
So
please
stay
engaged.
E
E
I
heard
from
a
lot
of
the
public
comment
that
we
should
look
in
the
existing
precise
plan
areas,
but,
for
example,
I
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
the
most
recent
proposal
from
google
the
master
plan-
that's
a
20-year
time
horizon,
so
those
units
are
are
not
able
to
be
counted
in
this
current
cycle.
Is
that
accurate.
Q
Well,
we
don't
have
specific
assumptions
yet
from
google
and
vetted
by
hcd
and
and
work
through
on
our
site
inventory
process.
So
I
can't
say
how
many
of
those
units
would
be
considered,
probably
not
all,
as
you
say,
but
probably
not
none.
It
would
be.
J
Yeah,
I
think
that,
in
order
to
meet
the
affirmatively
furthering
for
housing
requirements,
you
would
want
to
be
looking
at
sites
sort
of
more
distributed
throughout
the
city
than
in
just
a
single
precise
plan
area.
J
Yeah,
I
think
probably
the
the
more
immediate
consequence
would
be
that
hcd
would
not
certify
the
housing
element,
and
would
you
know
say
that
your
site's
inventory
doesn't
meet
the
requirements
for
affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing,
and
so
you
know
that
would
be
sort
of
the
more
immediate
consequence.
J
If
you
don't
have
a
certified
and
approved
housing
element,
then
the
city
is
open
to
potential
lawsuits
for
not
having
a
certified
housing
element,
but
you
know
first,
there
would
be
that
step
of
trying
to
get
hcd
to
approve
the
housing
element
in
the
first
place.
Right.
F
I
I
had
a
couple
of
couple
of
comments
during
the
outreach
eric
are:
are
we
really
giving
people?
What
is
the
r3
zoning
ordinance
right
now,
because
there
were
comments
about
it
needs
to
be
updated
and
there
needs
to
be
some.
Q
Absolutely
it's
actually
great
that
you
bring
that
up
as
as
we're
developing
our
outreach
strategy
for
r3
really
really
clearly
showing
what
the
r3
standards
are
now
and
what
the
r3
requirements
are.
Now
is
a
big
part
of
that
messaging.
So,
yes,
yeah.
F
Because
people-
I
I
think,
the
you
know
the
input
from
the
community-
I
I
think,
if
they're
going
to
give
some
ideas
and
some
suggestions
of
how
we
can
improve
that
r3
zoning.
You
know
that
would
just
be
like
a
critical
piece,
so
they
have
got
a
baseline
of
what
is
it
now
and
what
what
do
we
need
to
do
to
make
that
more
relevant
to
us
today
and
how
would
that
work
and
then
the
other?
F
The
other
question
I
in
particular
had
was:
has
there
been
some
discussion
with
with
the
schools
and
even
maybe,
with
the
hospitals
about
their
existing
land?
It
are
there
places
that
housing
could
be
put
close
to
those
particular
areas
that
their
administration,
their
teachers,
their
nurses,
their
staff,
could
could
have
housing.
That
would
be
next
to
those
particular
areas.
F
You
know,
we've
done.
I've
done
a
few
housing
elements
as
you
know,
and
I
think
that
we
always
fall
short
in
the
in
the
moderate
area
and
that
was
brought
up
by
some
of
the
input
we
received
from
the
community
tonight.
So
I
I'm
wondering
if
there
is
an
effort
to
partner
with
these
different
areas
that
may
have
you
know
they
may
have
a
huge
parking
lot.
Can
we
take
it
underground
and
can
we
put
housing?
On
top
of
that
I
mean
there
are
a
number
of
creative
ways.
F
I
think
we
could
really
look
at
to
try
to
look
at
not
just
open
space
land,
because
people
still
want
that
open
space,
and
you
know
the
the
parks-
and
you
know
our
our
trees
and
our
canopy.
So
how
do?
How
do
we,
you
know
kind
of
try
to
try
to
think
out
of
the
box
if
you
will
and
and
look
toward
partnering
with
people
that
are,
you
know
they
seem
to
be
wanting
to
build
more
schools?
Well,
if
they
want
to
accommodate
that,
they
need
to
think
about
accommodating
the
teachers.
F
Q
There
was
one
project
on
middle
field
last
year,
or
so
that
was
approved
with
that
was
in
partnership
with
the
school
districts
to
add
a
significant
number
of
moderate
income
units
to
that
project
as
a
partnership
with
the
school
district,
the
the
the
land
that
the
school
districts
control
and
the
land
that
the
hospital
controls
you
know
they
are,
it's
ultimately
up
to
those
bodies
to
decide
how
that
land
is
to
be
used,
and
the
city
has
limited
leverage
in
that.
Q
You
know
in
the
case
of
the
hospital
we
may
need
to,
you
know,
do
a
rezoning
or
a
gatekeeper
process
for
that,
but
yeah.
It's
it's
an
intriguing
idea.
I
think
they
need
to
obviously
think
about
their
own
long-term
land
needs,
and
you
know
future
facilities
needs
and-
and
I
it
is
an
interesting
question-
whether
they're
considering
housing
for
their
employees
in
that.
F
I
know
we
don't
have
the
leverage
over
how
they
use
their
land,
but
I
think
it's
an
interesting
thought
to
enter
into
and
into
that
discussion,
so
just
wanted
to
provide
that
input
to
see
if
we
could
pursue
some
of
those
discussions
with
the
powers
that
be
and
and
see
if
we
could
utilize
some
of
that
land.
F
When
you
see
the
land
that
the
schools
have
it's
a
lot
and
I
know
they're,
they
provide
recreational
and
support
or
athletic
facilities,
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
you
know
they
need
to
be
engaged
in
the
housing
discussion
as
well.
O
A
AE
Thank
you
chair.
One
question
I
have
is
regarding
comments
from
the
public
about
you
know
our
so
far
we
have
not
been
able
to
provide
a
lot
of
the
below.
You
know
the
lower
income
bracket,
housing,
and
so
my
question
is
whether
we
have
had
been
making
efforts
to
seek
county
or
state
funding
to
build
more
affordable
units.
Q
Yeah
there
are
a
lot
of
partnership
and
funding
opportunities
that
we're
taking
advantage
of.
Unfortunately,
I
really
don't
know
in
in
detail
all
of
that.
It's
a
it's
a
different
division,
the
housing
division
that
that
manages
that.
But,
for
example,
you
know
the
the
crestview
hotel
project
is
something
that
we're
looking
into
to
create
units
out
of
that
project
site
in
partnership
with
the
county.
AE
Thank
you,
and
I
also
want
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
about
north
bayshore
and
east
wistman.
I
think
there's
confusion
as
to
exactly
why
those
units
cannot
be
maybe
all
counted
towards
vena.
If
you
could
clarify
that
a
little
bit,
that
would
be
helpful.
Q
Sure
so
the
the
large
proportion
of
the
units
in
east
westmin
and
north
bay
shore
that
were
studied
in
those
precise
plans
are
currently
being
proposed
as
part
of
master
plans.
So
the
middle.
Q
And
the
north
bay
shore,
the
shorebird
master
plan
in
north
bay
shore,
those
projects
are
supposed
to
are
the
the
application
for
those.
Those
master
plans
is
also
includes
a
long-term
development
agreement,
and
so
the
terms.
K
Q
Those
development
agreements
have
not
been
solidified,
yet
there
is
probably
going
to
be
a
phasing
program
in
those
development
agreements
where
some
units
will
be
built
in
the
nearer
term,
and
some
units
will
be
built
in
the
longer
term
so
because
the
arena
is
only
a
eight-year
period,
it
can
really
only
accommodate
about
half
of
those
master
plans
depending
on
the
phasing
of
those
da's.
Q
A
Q
Project
that
was
recently
approved,
the
you
know,
we're
reviewing
additional
projects
in
east
wismen
and
and
of
course,
you
know,
depending
on
the
timing
of
the
you
know,
there
are
certainly
other
opportunities.
The
other
part
of
the
arena
process
is
just
identifying
sites
right.
So
you
know,
one
of
the
challenges
here
is
making
the
argument
to
hcd
that
a
given
site
that
may
have
an
existing
industrial
building
or
an
existing
office
building
is
likely
to
be
redeveloped
in
the
next
eight
years.
Q
It's
kind
of
a
subjective
question,
but
if
we
provide
enough
evidence
that
it's
the
type
of
site
that
housing
developers
have
been
interested
in,
we
can
use
that
in
our
arena,
whether
or
not
there's
specifically
an
application
there.
So
there
are
certainly
more
opportunities
than
just
the
master
plans
and
the
you
know,
applications
that
are
under
review
for
accommodating
arena
sites.
M
AE
AE
I
would
like
to
also
get
clarification
on
what
stephanie
earlier
said
that
the
reno
sites
need
to
be
more
distributed
across
the
city
and
they
don't
like
them
to
be
like
the
size
to
be
concentrated
in
these
two
precise
plant
areas.
AE
Could
you
yeah,
could
you
maybe
explain
that
in
a
little
bit
more
details,
please.
J
Yeah
so
part
of
the
affirmatively
furthering
for
housing
requirements
for
the
housing
element.
One
of
the
things
that
hcd
is
looking
at
is
whether
or
not
you
are
placing
affordable
units
in
areas
where
there
are
already
a
concentration
of
affordable
units
or
lower
income
populations,
and
whether
or
not
the
distribution
of
the
units
in
your
site's
inventory
is
making
it
so
that
you
are
essentially
placing
all
of
your
units
that
would
be
affordable
to
lower
income
households.
J
In
sort
of
you
know,
one
discrete
or
a
few
discrete
areas
of
the
city.
So
that's
so
you
know
there's
sort
of
one
component
of
that
of
not
wanting
to
concentrate
affordable
housing
within
you
know
certain
defined
areas
of
the
city
and
to
really
think
more
broadly
about
whether
or
not
there
are
opportunities
to
distribute
those
affordable
units
throughout
the
city.
Another
component
of
that
is
the
access
to
high
resource
areas
and
so
sort
of
separate
from
the
concentration
question.
J
If
there's
access
to
jobs
and
transit-
and
so
you
know,
depending
on
how
all
of
this
inventory
works
out,
you
also
want
to
be
looking
at
which
areas
of
the
city
offer
those
kinds
of
resources
and
the
extent
to
which
you're
providing
affordable
housing
opportunities
in
those
areas
that
are
close
to
those
resources
or,
if
you're,
not
thinking
about
how
you
can
bring
those
resources
to
areas
where
you
would
be
having
affordable
housing.
AE
One
of
the
speakers
mentioned
that
the
north
bay
shore
area
is
considered
low
resource
area.
I
also
understand
the
city
is
trying
to
have
you
know
a
school
builds
in
that
area.
So
what
factors
contribute
to
the
fact
that
hcc
considers
low
north
bay
shirt
to
be
a
low
resource
area.
J
Yeah,
there
are
a
number
of
factors.
The
schools
is
one,
the
you
know:
access
to
jobs,
access
to
transit,
there's
environmental
justice
components
that
come
into
play
there.
So
are
there
public
health?
You
know
potential
public
health
concerns.
These
are
the
various
things
that
hcd
is
looking
at
to
see
whether
or
not
an
area
is
a
low
resource
or
a
high
resource
area.
J
AE
R
AF
Mountain
view,
because
I
would
be
curious
to
see
what
that
looks
like
or
which,
which
parts
of
mountain
view
are
considered
low
resource.
I
think
that
would
be
very
helpful,
at
least
for
me
to
understand
it
to
know
kind
of
what.
AF
AF
Helpful
two
other
things
I
wanted
to
ask,
and
forgive
me
this
has
already
been
covered,
but
when
will
the
planning
commission
again
see
r3,
specifically
as
either
in
a
study,
session
or
vote?
When
do
we
see
that
next.
AF
So
spring
2022
last
question
I
had
is
simply
I've
heard
this
mentioned
a
couple
of
times
as
part
of
the
larger
discussion
of
what
we
need
to
find
in
some
place
other
than
where
the
precise
plans
are
that
maybe
we
could
build
something
and
I've
heard
quest.
Questa
annex
mentioned
a
couple
of
times.
What
is
the
legal
status
of
the
property
at
quest
to
annex,
because.
Q
Oh,
I
am
not
an
expert
on
quest
to
annex.
I
do
know
that
it
is
zoned
pf
and
so
that
makes
it
off
limits
for
housing
from
a
zoning
perspective.
But
I'm
not
aware
of
kind
of
environmental
issues
with
the
site.
A
Your
hand
up
at
one
point
go
ahead.
AG
Hi,
thank
you
for
all
the
presentations.
It
was
really
helpful
to
see
had
a
ton
of
little
questions
here
and
there,
as
people
were
speaking
and
see
if
I
can
kind
of
capture
them
here
now
in
in
a
sort
of
clear
form.
Stephanie,
you
were
answering
questions
that
vice
chair
lowe
had
about
the
precise
plans
in
north
bay
shore
and
from
my
understanding
about
the
fair
practices,
and
you
know
making
sure
that
we're
not
creating
ghettos
so
to
speak,
I'm
not
so
concerned
about
that
in
either
precise,
planned
areas.
AG
In
fact,
you
know
we
took
great
care
to
make
them
walkable
bikeable
to
have
amenities
parks
and
I
feel
like
it's
going
to
be
a
nicer
place
to
live
than
where
I
am
now
so
that,
for
me,
personally,
is
not
a
concern.
I
understand
it's
it's
low
resource
because
nothing
is
built
there
yet
and
but
it
will
be,
and
so
I'm
I'm
wondering
back
to
an
earlier
question
as
to
when
will
the
development
sort
of
oh,
I
forgot
what
you
called
them
eric.
It's
just
sort
of
these
long-term
development
master
plan
phases.
Q
Yeah
it'll
be
a
concurrent
process.
I
think
we'll
have
enough
information,
given
the
projected
timeline
for
the
master
plans.
AG
AG
AG
I
think
in
reality
it
is
very
difficult,
even
given.
First
right
of
return
that
tenants
who
are
at
a
low
income
would
be
able
to
leave
for
two
years
and
come
back
it's
possible,
but
I
think
there's
a
very
low
chance
of
that.
That's
not
to
say
that
you
know
nothing
is
going
to
change
and
you
can't
change
anything.
I
am
open
to
looking
at
r3.
It's
always
good
to
look
at
it.
AG
AG
Q
Q
Yeah
I
mean
I
the
I
think
the
first
step
is
obviously
replacement
right.
You
know,
I
think,
that's
the
first
kind
of
fundamental
step
and
sb
330
tries
to
get
to
this
there's
aspects
of
density,
bonus
law
that
require
replacement
of
rent
stabilized
units.
Q
So
that's
the
first
step.
The
next
step
is
attendant
relocation
right
and
and
providing
funding
for
them.
If
you're
talking,
specifically
about
kind
of
how
do
you
ensure
that
somebody
who
was
living
in
a
place
has
access
to
that
place
after
during
the
period
of
construction?
Q
Q
Study
sessions
with
the
city
council
to
kind
of
talk
about
those
issues,
but
it
certainly
is
a
you
know
something
that
we're
studying
as
part
of
our
displacement
response
strategy.
AG
Okay,
great
yeah,
it
was
first
rate
of
return
and
also
the
relocation.
I
guess
is
what
I
was
looking
for.
I
didn't
know
if
there
were
programs
that
were
in
place
and
whether
those
were
economically
feasible
you
know
does
that
then
cause
the
developer
to
say.
Oh,
we
can't
afford
this.
It
doesn't
pencil
out
we're
not
doing
any
of
these
anymore.
You
know
it's
it's!
It's
all
cyclical
the
tail
chases
the
mouth
chases
it
just
yeah,
so
many
factors
involved.
I
just
yeah.
AG
There
was
oh
yes,
there
do,
we
know
of
any
community
investment,
trust
or
land
trusts
that
have
worked.
I
I
know
we're
looking
at
trying
to
hit
the
moderate
income
and
the
low
incomes
and
the
below
incomes
and
they're
hard
to
hit,
and
someone
in
the
public
had
asked
why
we
were
doing
so
many
above
market
rate,
and
it's
because
the
city
doesn't
build
or
develop
these
properties
developers
do
and
in
order
to
make
things
pencil
out,
they
have
to
charge
the
above
market
rates.
AG
You
know
in
order
to
get
the
below
market
rates
to
be
feasible
is
what
we're
told
from
developers.
So
in
that
respect
we
have
a
lot
of
development
for
above
market
rate.
For
that
reason,
and
our
policies
and
ordinances
which
we
updated
to
require
more
below
market
rate
units.
AG
Just
aren't
at
this
point
sufficient
for
what
the
state
wants
to
see,
and
you
know
honestly,
it
would
be
great
if
the
state
could
help
with
the
funding,
but
we're
not
there
they're
just
you
know
you
know
pushing
real
hard
on
the
gas
pedal
to
get
the
city
to
do
what
it
can.
First.
AG
So
I
guess
the
question
is:
do
we
have
any
precedence,
or
just
even
not
just
in
california
but
elsewhere,
where
community
investment
trusts
or
land
trusts
work
for
varying
economic
levels?
It
is
a
high
sort
of
land,
cost,
land,
construction
or
sorry
con
cost
of
construction
area
here,
but
has
do
we
have
any
precedent
for
it?
Does
anyone
know,
maybe
the
consultants
I
don't
know
where
it
can
work.
J
So
I
know
that
you
know
community
land
trusts.
Have
you
know
they?
They
are.
You
know
something
that
exists
and
has
been
effective
in
various
places.
Whether
I
don't
have
a
you
know,
I'm
not
sure
if
I
have
a
model
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
I
can
say
this.
J
Would
you
know
transport
to
mountain
view
and
it's
something
that
could
work
here,
but
it's
certainly
something
that
we
can
keep
in
mind
as
we
move
forward
through
the
next
steps
of
this
process
as
something
to
look
into
for
what
the
options
for
that
might
be,
and
you
know
trying
to
think
of
what
some
case
studies
might
be.
That
could
be
a
good.
You
know
a
good
model,
for
you
know
thinking
about
how
we
can
move
forward,
something
like
that
in
mountain
view,.
AG
Okay,
well,
that's
good
to
hear
yeah.
I
know
it
must
be
new,
it's
not
popular
and
it
hasn't,
you
know
proven
itself
all
around
the
country,
otherwise
everyone
will
bring
it
up,
but
if
it's
something
that
has
been
proven
to
work
and
we
can
modify
it
for
mountain
view,
it's
it's
definitely
worth
looking
into
and
if
yeah,
if
that
is
something
we
can
do,
I'd
I'd
be
for
it.
E
E
A
lot
of
cities
are
working
with
nonprofits
and
giving
them
nonprofit
housing
developers
to
give
them
the
first
right
of
refusal
and
having
a
waiting
period
where
they
have
acquisition
rights
prior
to
market
market
developers,
and
that
seems
to
be
penciling
out
to
be
fairly
effective
to
at
least
give
non-profits
the
opportunity
to
acquire
the
noaa
housing
and
wait,
or
you
know
it
takes
no
longer
to
get
the
funding
together
to
do
that
piece
and
I
think
berkeley
has
also
done
a
fair
amount
with
community
land
trusts,
but
I
don't
know
their
model
quite
so
much.
AG
AG
A
Several
questions
so
everybody
seems
to
be
focused
on
north
bay
shore
and
e
swiss
man.
I
am
of
the
belief
that
there
is
still
considerable
residential
development
potential
in
san
antonio.
Am
I
wrong.
Q
There
is,
I
mean,
there's
a
very
old
target,
building
there
and
there's
several
other
kind
of
what
you
would
consider
underutilized
sites,
given
the
the
densities
that
are
allowed
again.
It's
a
question
of
how
do
we
make
the
argument
to
hcd
about
whether
those
are
you
know
subjectively
likely
to
be
developed
in
the
eight
years,
but.
AC
Q
Yeah
there's
a
lot
of
capacity
left
in
el
camino,
real
as
well
a
lot
of
underutilized
states.
Still,
you
know
a
few
near
ranksdorf
and
and
ortega,
certainly
a
few
other
underutilized
sites
all
along
el
camino.
So
those
are
potentially
more
opportunities
for
trying
to
make
that
argument
to
hcd.
A
Okay
and
then
I
kind
of
I
tried
to
ask
this
question
in
the
in
preparation
of
this-
I'm
not
sure
that
the
answer
that
I
got
necessarily
made
it
clear
to
me,
but
maybe
it's
not
clear,
I'm
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
with
how
do
you,
how
will
stephanie
and
beverly
and
ellen
and
eric
put
together
something
that
says:
hey
hcd
if
they
build
in
north
bayshore.
A
We
are
meeting
these
economic
balance
targets
that
we're
trying
to
do
and
that
we're
making
sure
that
they're
racially
diverse,
that's
one
of
the
new
requirements.
How
do
you?
How
do
you
communicate?
How
do
you
even
come
up
with
something
when
there's
nothing
there
today,
and
I
just
I
struggled
with
how
how
do
we?
How
do
we
actually
do
something
that
they
would
ever
believe.
Q
Stephanie,
I
know
you've
thought
about
this.
I
wonder
if
you
can.
J
Yeah
so
I'll
start
in
bed.
Let
me
know
if
I'm
missing
anything
so
there's
there's
sort
of
a
set
of
essentially
filters
that
we're
looking
at
for
all
you
know,
essentially
all
the
sites
in
the
city
to
determine
whether
or
not
they're
sites
that
are
eligible
for
the
site's
inventory
and
the
housing
element.
So
there
are
some
basic
criteria
that
sites
need
to
meet
in
order
to
be
included
in
the
site's
inventory.
They
need
to
be
zoned
for
residential
use,
have
access
to
appropriate
utilities
for
sites
that
were
saying.
J
This
is
a
site
for
that
that
could
accommodate
a
portion
of
the
lower
income
arena.
Those
need
to
be
zoned
at
least
20
units
per
acre,
so
we're
looking
at
all
the
sites
and
saying
you
know:
do
these
sites
meet
these
criteria
for
sites
that
have
an
existing
use
on
them?
That
would
need
to
be
redeveloped
in
order
to
create
housing.
J
There's
an
additional
level
of
analysis
that
needs
to
be
done
to
demonstrate
to
hcd
that
that
is
something
that
could
potentially
is.
You
know
reasonably
likely
to
happen
within
the
planning
period.
J
J
Lacking
that
you
know,
we
need
to
sort
of
be
able
to
make
the
case
that
this
hasn't
happened
yet,
but
here
are
the
reasons
why
it's
likely
to
happen
here.
I
would
say
all
of
this
also
involves
us
being
in
communication
with
hcd
throughout
this
process.
We've
already
had
calls
with
them,
and
you
know
exchanging
emails
to
try
to
make
sure
that
the
way
that
we're
thinking
about
this
lines
up
with
the
way
that
they
would
think
about
this
so
before
we
get
to
a
full
site's
inventory.
J
I
should
say
there
are
also
there's
also
additional
analysis
that
would
be
required
for
particularly
small
sites,
which
they
define
as
being
less
than
half
an
acre
or
particularly
large,
which
they
define
as
more
than
10
acres,
where
we
kind
of
need
to
do.
The
same
thing
show
that
there's
precedent
for
sites
like
this
developing
with
the
type
of
housing
that
we're
portraying
on
that
site
in
the
site's
inventory.
J
There
are
also
special
criteria
that
apply
if
you
want
to
reuse
sites
from
prior
housing
elements.
So
if
you
have
a
site
that
you
identified
in
your
last
housing
element-
and
you
want
to
identify
it
again
as
a
site,
the
requirement
is
that
if
the
site
is
non-vacant-
and
you
identified
it
in
your
last
housing
element,
then
you
need
to
rezone
it
to
allow
housing
by
right
if
at
least
20
percent
of
units
in
that
development
are
affordable.
So
if
someone
comes
in
with
with
a
proposal
for
that
site,
that's
at
least
20
affordable.
J
You
need
to
allow
housing
by
right.
If
the
site
is
vacant,
it's
the
same,
except
that
you
have
to
have
identified
it
for
the
prior
two
housing
element
cycles,
so
you've
got
sort
of
an
extra
cycle
there.
So
you
know
there
are
sort
of
various
ways
that
we
need
to
look
at
these
sites.
J
In
terms
of
you
know
whether
or
not
each
cd
is
going
to
view
it
as
a
realistic,
you
know
a
realistic
development
site
for
meeting
arena,
but
you
know
we
were
sort
of
starting
large
and
filtering
down
based
on
all
those
criteria.
I
mean,
while
having
conversations
with
acd,
to
make
sure
that
what
we're
you
know
the
way
that
we're
portraying
this
is
something
that
they
will
accept,
and
you
know
maybe
sort
of
try
to
have
those
conversations
that
they
really
understand
where
we're
coming
from,
if
there's
a
gap
there.
AC
No
thanks,
stephanie.
I
think
that
was
really
thorough
and
you
had
mentioned
it
already
and
eric
had
as
well
it'll
be
really
important
to
look
at
those.
You
know
case
studies,
those
precedents,
those
other
development,
residential
development
projects
that
the
city
has
seen
in
recent
years,
so
that
we
can
help
justify
some
of
the
the
density
assumptions
related
to
you
know
what
that
realistic
unit
capacity
looks
like
for
again
these
newer
areas
where
there
is
no
development
or
very
little
development,
and
so
you
know
in
terms
of
going
through
the
process.
AC
We've
gotten
we've
received
a
lot
of
great
data
from
from
the
city,
we'll
continue
to
have
conversations
as
we
work
through
some
of
those
assumptions,
because
I
think
we'll
have
definitely
the
the
ability
to
kind
of
play
out
different
scenarios
and-
and
you
know,
start
off
first
on
a
conservative
level
just
so
that
we,
you
know,
have
enough
sites
to
to
meet
the
arena
and
also,
we
might
have
mentioned
it
already.
But
in
terms
of
the
you
know,
11
000
plus
units
for
the
arena.
AC
A
A
AC
A
It
forward,
have
you
done
any
analysis,
says:
okay,
we
had
identified
another
2
000
units
and
we
think
we
have
a
good
chance
of
still
being
able
to
support
those
or
no
we're
gonna
have
to
take
all
those
out.
I
just
do
we
have
any.
Are
we
starting
from
zero
or
are
we
starting
from
something
that
is
or
is
that
still
a
work
in
progress.
AC
We're
still
working
through
those
details
and
and
again
because
you
know
the
period
is
still
open
in
which
units
can
still
be
counted
towards
the
fifth.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
determination
properly
as
to
what
will
go
into
this
upcoming
cycle
so
we'll
continue
to
monitor
the
the
the
number
of
units
over
the
next
few
months.
A
And
then
just
two
last
questions
and
I've
heard
the
some
of
the
comments.
We
need
to
streamline
our
approval
process
but
in
fact
mountain
view
produced,
I
think,
more
residential
units
in
the
entire
south
bay
than
any
other
city,
even
in
san
jose,
and
so
do
you
have
reason
to
believe
that
our
development
review
process
is
broken
when
we're
already
producing
more
than
our
big
neighbor.
Q
Yeah,
just
to
clarify
that
that
was
just
in
the
in
the
last
year
in
the
2020
arena,
certainly
not
the
case
before
then
yeah
I
mean
I
think
part
of
that
is
just
demand,
and
so
developers
may
be
willing
to
wait
out
or
kind
of
kind
of
work
through
a
very
rigorous
review
process
that
we
have
here.
We
are
very
exacting
and
have
high
expectations
on
development
here,
and
that
leads
to
a
better
product,
and
I
think
there
are
always
some
trade-offs
there.
Q
You
know
something
that
we're
working
actively
towards
towards
improving,
there's.
Also,
potentially
opportunities
in
you
know
a
kind
of
internal
opportunities
for
for
making
things
streamlined.
But
again
we
want
to
make
sure
that
those
don't
come
at
the
cost
of
improving
the
quality
of
development.
A
It
was
suggested
by
at
least
some
of
the
input
that
we
may
not
actually
allow
unbundled
parking,
and
we
have
seen
projects
have
unbundled
parking
and
my
are.
Q
It's
only
explicitly
identified
in
a
few
of
the
new
or
precise
plans
as
a
policy.
In
some
cases
it's
allowed
for
a
certain
number
of
spaces
per
unit.
Q
In
other
cases,
it's
it's
flatly
allowed
in
other
cases,
so
in
older
zoning
districts,
where
the
zoning
district
doesn't
or
you
know,
city-wide
zoning
districts
kind
of
the
standard
zoning
districts
rather
than
the
precise
plans
where
the
standards
don't
apply
to
unbundled
parking,
we
would
have
some
discretion
in
the
review
process
to
limit
it
or
allow
it
based
on
the
context
of
the
neighborhood
concerns
about
spillover
parking
and
the
like.
Q
A
All
right
thanks
second
round
of
questions,
mr
dempsey.
AF
So
one
of
the
one
of
the
comments
I
saw
a
couple
times
actually
in
the
community
outreach
comments,
and
I
believe
these
were
from
developers
was
that
one
of
the
reasons
that
there
were
costs
and
delays
had
to
do
with
staff.
Presumably
there
wasn't
enough
staff.
There
were
delays
because
all
the
planners
were
working
on
something.
So
I
just.
H
AF
Like
to
know
is
that
is
that
concern
if
we're
hearing
it
from
the
developer
community
or
it's
showing
up
in
the
comments?
Do
you
consider
that
a
well-founded
point?
Is
there
any
reason
to
talk
about
whether
or
not
additional
staffing
would
help
cut?
You
know
the
time
to
get
permits
out,
or
is
that
kind
of
off
base?
And
really
what
takes
time
is
people
send
in
you
know
incomplete
applications?
Q
You
know
the
zoning
compliant
projects
where
we're
under
state
law
to
respond
within
30
days
to
applications
to
you
know,
move
the
project
forward
to
manage
the
project
and
in
you
know,
for
those
you
know
we
are
under
those
state
obligations,
and
we
are
you
know,
following
the
you
know,
the
state
law
and
our
own
local
ordinances,
it's
really
and-
and
so
you
know,
the
staff
capacity
to
deal
with
those
really
always
going
to
be
there,
because
that's
the
highest
priority.
Q
The
second
priority
are
those
things
that
the
council
really
wants
us
to
work
on.
So
the
the
strategic
roadmap
option,
actions
like
the
r3
zoning
and
you
know
potentially
doing
them
off
a
precise
plan-
things
that
things
that
councils
identified
that
that
they
want
us
to
work
on
the
you
know
every
once
in
a
while
council's
gonna,
say:
okay,
you
know
we
have
some
room
in
the
things
that
we
want
staff
to
work
on
so
and
and
there's
some
staff
available.
Q
So
we'll
open
up
this
gatekeeper
process
right-
and
I
might
it's
it's
just
a
guess-
but
my
guess
is
that
some
of
the
concern
about
there
not
being
enough
staff
is
the
inability
for
staff
for
the
city
to
kind
of
open
up
this
gatekeeper
process,
because
the
city
has
other
priorities.
Q
Q
E
Last
question
on
that
same
vein,
I
think
in
some
of
the
coming
tonight
and
then
some
of
the
letters
received
there
were
comments
about
that
park
and
luffy's
and
just
mountain
views
fees
relative
to
other
cities.
Are
there
any
plans
to
to
reassess
to
recalibrate
those?
I
know
we
hear
that
a
lot
from
developers
that
our
fees
are
just
so
high
and
that
is
part
of
what
makes
it
prohibitive
to
build.
Q
So
there
was
the
recent
ordinance
amendment
that
gave
some
relief
to
that
through
on-site
popos.
You
know
publicly
accessible
private,
open
spaces,
privately
owned,
open
spaces
and
but
they're
they're.
Q
We
will
be
further
studying
kind
of
more
comprehensive
review
of
kind
of
our
parkland
needs.
I
believe
that's
through
a
process
that
ccsd
is
working
on
the
parks
and
recreation
strategic
plan
and
that's
something
that
is
on
the
current
road
map.
You
know
strategic
roadmap,
the
council
adopted,
but
again
I
don't
know
too
many
details
about
that
project.
Certainly
something
out
of
that
is
you
know
that
the
parkland
dedication
requirements
certainly
going
to
come
out
of
that,
but
at
the
moment
the
only
things
that
we
are
for
sure.
Q
Q
Yeah,
so
if,
if
it
is
a
constraint
as
it
comes
out
in
the
housing
element
process
that
could
lead
to
future
ordinance
changes
or
policy
changes
on
that,
so
we'll
have
to
see
where
that
discussion
goes
thanks.
A
All
right
any
other
questions
from
questions.
If
not,
can
you
put
up
the
the
first
of
the
questions
that
it
asked
us
to
review?
A
I
can
just
read
it
off:
does
the
epc
have
any
comments
regarding
the
new
key
housing
element
requirements
so
any
specific
feedback
from
commissioners.
A
I'll
just
pitch
in
when
I'm,
I
guess,
I'm
this
increased
focus
on
the
you
know,
making
sure
that
whatever
we
do
is
is
balanced
from
an
economic
standpoint.
A
racial
standpoint,
I
think,
is
very
critical.
T
A
Am
I
am
concerned
about
that
and
it
seems
like
these
new
requirements
raise
that
that
bar
even
higher
at
the
state
level,
and
so
I
I
really
think
that
whatever,
as
you
develop,
this
making
sure
that
whatever
we
do
can
really
address
those
those
elements
so
that
whatever
we
put
in
place
really
drives
a
good
balance
of
the
development,
and
we
think
about
that
through
the
process,
not
just
hey,
we
got
to
have
more
spaces,
but
that
we
that
we're
generating
the
spaces
that
address
the
needs
of
the
community
and
the
population
that
we
have
both
economically
and
racially
going
forward.
A
So
I
just,
I
really
think
that's
I
don't
think
that
was
adequately
developed,
communicated
in
the
in
cycle
five
and
I
so
I
will
be
looking
for
that
in
particular,
as
we
go
into
cycle
six
here,
commissioner
phillis.
F
And
I
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
approach
the
community
outreach,
I
think
the
the
list
that
is
initially
there.
It's
like
with
anything
as
we
had
so
many
people
that
wanted
to
come
forward
and
speak
tonight.
I
think
that
was
their
you
know.
Maybe
they
they
felt.
F
That
was
their
only
time
that
they
could
speak
out
and
get
engaged
so
to
be
really
transparent
with
the
process
and
the
timeline,
because
the
timelines
we
have
quite
a
bit
of
time
to
get
additional
input
and
really
record
people's
pros
and
cons
from
you
know.
The
initial
round
of
you
know
community
outreach.
F
I
think
it's
really
really
important
that
all
of
the
opinions
are
representative
represented
fairly
and
and
of
course,
you
know
just
make
sure
that
their
voice
has
been
heard,
so
they
they
don't
become
frustrated,
because
I
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
benefits
of
the
city
is
that
we
have
lots
of
people
who
have
very
strong
opinions
and
they
are
wanting
to
put
their
input
in.
F
So,
let's
make
sure
we
publicize
that-
and
you
know,
give
a
very
clear
understanding
of
exactly
how
how
much
time
they
have
to
provide
even
more
input
and
encourage
them.
You
know
they
said:
let's
update
the
r3
zoning,
so,
as
I
mentioned
before,
I
think
if
we
just
say
this
is
what
the
current
zoning
look
r3
zoning
is
and
how
would
you
suggest
to
update
that
you
know
get
some
input
from
that
perspective.
F
E
Thanks,
I
I
think
the
the
list
is
a
good
one
and
I
I
get
the
comments
about
prioritizing
community
engagement
and
and
outreach.
E
I
think
in
this
next
cycle,
what's
really
important
to
me
and
is
the
the
need
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing.
I
think
it's
tempting
to
see
these
big
numbers
and
say
hey.
We
have
these
great
big,
precise
plans
that
will
eventually
allow
us
to
get
there.
But
strong
communities
are
diverse
communities,
they're
integrated
access
to
services,
access
to
high
quality
education
transit.
E
I
think
in
some
ways
we
could
look
at
the
high
arena
number
in
mountain
view
and
say
hey:
why
is
it
so
high
for
us
and
I
think
in
some
ways
it
might
be
a
compliment
right
to
see
that
we
have.
We
have
an
abundance
of
jobs,
we
have
transit.
We
have
all
of
these
amenities
that
make
mountain
view
a
desirable
community,
and
where
can
we
open,
open
arms
and
really
look
to
say
we
want?
E
We
want
more
neighbors
throughout
the
city,
so
I
think
that's
that's
a
priority,
and-
and
I
also
say
this-
I
current-
I
think
I'm
I'm
the
only
renter
on
the
planning
commission.
I
think
I'm
the
only
one
who
lives
in
an
r3
zone.
I
grew
up
in
an
r3
zone
in
mountain
view,
next
to
single
family
residential
next
to
multi-family,
and
I
think
there's
precedent
in
our
community
for
doing
this
well
and
in
a
way
that
addresses
concerns
about
compatibility.
E
So
I'm
just
I'm
really
excited
about
the
process,
we're
going
to
undertake
to
get
more
input
and
to
really
see
how
we
can
get
to
an
r3
standard
that
would
make
us
all
proud
and
to
continue
to
to
call
mountain
view
home
and
welcome
new
neighbors
in
a
way
that
that
is
inclusive
and
reflects
these
priorities
and
and
helps
us
really
address
the
housing
crunch.
And
for
those
of
you
who
saw
the
recent
joint
venture
poll
and
76
percent
of
the
their
their
survey
said.
E
A
Vice
chair
low
on
on
the
and
this
is
on
question
one,
the
the
things
regarding
the
new
element
requirements.
AE
AE
A
So
any
other
comments
on
the
first
question.
Sorry,
commissioner,
ian.
AG
Apologies,
I
wanted
to
just
go
ahead
and
reiterate
a
little
bit
of
what
I
said
earlier
and
also
just
sort
of
tag
along
to
what
both
chair
and
vice
chair,
cranston
and
lowe
had
mentioned,
which
is
just
balancing
things
out
and
we're
here
to
address
the
needs
of
the
community
as
whole.
So
for
me
the
public
outreach
is,
is
key,
we'll
probably
hear
just
more
of
more
extreme,
perhaps
sides
of
things,
but
it's
important
to
hear
as
many
voices
as
we
can
and
it
is
such
a
complex
puzzle.
AG
I
think
that
if
we
can
the
way
things
are
the
way
things
are
structured,
the
economy,
how
we
get
housing
now
intensifying
has
its
merit.
It
provides
a
lot
of
benefits,
however,
if
we're
just
looking
at
numbers
and
we're
just
shooting
for
the
maximum
numbers.
I
think
that
does
a
little
bit
of
a
disservice
and
we
do
need
to
balance
it
out
with
other
things
like
infrastructure
and
open
space
and
access
to
all
kinds
of
amenities
for
everyone,
current
residents
and
future
residents,
especially
as
we
grow
now
again.
AG
The
way
we
do
these
things
now
require
in
order
to
get
the
numbers,
the
practical
numbers
that
we
want
for
affordable
housing.
It
requires
a
huge
amount
of
density,
and
that
comes
as
a
sacrifice
at
a
sacrifice
of
a
lot
of
other
things
which
don't
get
accounted
for
and
don't
have
a
cost
associated
or
value
associated
to
them
that
we
can
place
in
a
number
chart.
AG
So
that's
where
I'm
just
putting
in
another
plug
for
balance
things
change,
things
will
always
change.
Mountain
view
is
not
going
to
stay
the
same
forever
and
that's
just
a
fact
of
life.
How
fast
that
changes
is
something
we
can
debate
and
in
how
many
cycles
that
changes?
It's
also
something
we
can
debate
for
me.
I
think,
looking
in
the
north
bay
shore,
east
westman,
el
camino
san
antonio
areas
as
a
priority,
that's
what
I
would
do,
r3,
as
I
said
before,
I'm
open
to
looking
at
that.
AG
I
think
there's
possibilities,
but
I
don't
I
mentioned
this
before.
I
am
concerned
about
context
and
how
things
transition
that
that
is
key,
because
we
have
constituents
that
do
live
here
and
their
concerns
are
our
concerns
as
well,
because
the
situation
is
the
way
it
is
or
the
economic
process
is
how
things
get
developed,
how
we
get
our
affordable
housing
it
we're
in
a
tight
situation.
It's
just
you
know,
I
feel
like
we're
like
chasing
ourselves
all
the
time.
AG
So
the
only
thing
I
can
think
of
to
break
out
of
it
is
to
find
new
ways
of
funding,
and
that's
why
I
brought
up
the
land,
trust
and
the
cits.
If
we
can
look
at
that,
that
might
be
a
way
to
kind
of
sneak
past
sort
of
what
we
always
do
and
if
we
can
keep
doing
what
we're
doing
we're
just
getting
more
of
the
same
so
yeah.
If
we
could
really
look
at
that
I'd
appreciate
it
thanks.
AF
So
you
know
for
such
a
broad
topic.
I
guess
you
know
how.
AF
I'm
just
going
to
state
the
obvious,
which
is
really
hard.
It's
really
hard
for
me.
I
don't
think
there's
gonna
be
an
answer.
That's
gonna
make
everybody
happy,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
competing
and
even
mutually
exclusive
values
here.
So,
at
least
for
me
I
this
is.
This
is
really
hard.
I
will
say
for
what
it's
worth.
You
know
I
am
worried
about
displacement
if
we
start
doing
a
lot
of
redevelopment
of
some
of
the
existing
r3.
AF
I
am
one
of
the
other
things
I'm
really
worried
about.
Is
this
resource
question,
particularly
where
it
touches
on
the
schools?
I
think,
and
I'm
a
little
worried
that
being
so
focused
on
housing.
We
haven't
been
quite
as
focused
on
the
sort
of
the
ancillary
services
that
need
to
come
with
housing
and
I
would
hate
to
see
a
situation
where
we
put
all
these
people
and
then,
unfortunately,
those
parents
have
to
drive
halfway
across
town
at
eight
o'clock
in
the
morning
to
get
their
kids
to
school.
That's
not.
AF
Be
that's
not
going
to
be
good
for
anybody,
so
I'm
going
to
look
forward
to
definitely
learning
more
about
resource
availability
throughout
this
throughout
mountain
view
and
how
the
how
the
state
views
that
I
have
a
few
more
comments
but
I'll
save
it.
I
guess
for
question
two.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
T
A
Some
first
question
all
right,
stephanie
or
ms
gannon:
can
we
pull
up
the
slide
that
stephanie
had
that
showed
the
the
policy
topics
that
were
listed
and
because
the
next
question
is,
does
the
pc
support
the
initial
draft
of
housing
element
policy
topics?
Are
there
other
policy
topics
that
should
be
included?
J
A
So
I
can
see
everybody
okay,
so
question
two
is:
does
the
epc
support,
the
initial
list
of
draft
housing,
element,
policy
topics
and
other
policy
topics
that
should
be
included?
And
I
guess
I'm
gonna
you'll
get
this
as
I
can
to
talk
through
this?
I
don't
know
that.
I
don't
necessarily
believe
that
all
these
are
are
equal
in
their
in
their
and
their
their
importance.
A
A
That
if
you
there's
some
that
you
feel
like
hey,
this
needs
to
be
ex
focused
on.
You
know
at
a
much
much
stronger
level
than
others.
I
would
encourage
you
to
articulate
that
as
well,
so
who
would
like
to
go
first.
A
Okay,
oh
that,
commissioner,
hereby.
E
AE
Thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
I
think
a
lot
of
the
items
on
this
list
are
very
important
in
particularly,
I
think
affordable
housing
production
rises
to
the
top
for
me,
and
I
also
would
like
to
suggest
adding.
AE
I
know
this
is
a
long
list,
but
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
add
one
on
access
to
nature
and
green
spaces
if
the
new
housing
element
can
include
policies
or
programs
to
help
ensure
development
projects,
do
a
better
job,
integrating
nature
with
built
environment
and
provide
you
know:
high
quality,
green
spaces
with
equitable
access
to
all
residents,
so
that
you
know
our
health
outcomes
can
all
improve.
AF
So
this
is
a
really
comprehensive
list.
I
I
don't
know
how
I
would
add
anything.
Any
new
bullet
points
to
it.
I
I
wish
we
had
time
to
kind
of
go
through
and
rank
them
by
priority.
Two
small
things
that
I
guess
I
I
wanted
to
add
to
some
existing
bullet
points.
There's
just
two
things
under
county
partnerships.
AF
AF
Of
interesting
to
see,
if
there's
any
way
for
the
cities
to
get
a
hold
of
some
of
those
properties,
instead
of
auctioning
them
off
and
taking
the
money,
if
there
was
some
way
for
us
to
have
those
properties
kind
of
come
back
to
us
at
a
discount
and
then
start
trying
to
use
them
for
some
form
of
affordable
housing
purpose.
So
just
for
what
it's
worth
I'd
be
interested
to
know,
if
that's
even
possible
illegal,
the
the
other.
AF
I
would
just
add
to
the
data
data
efficiency
bullet
point
streamlining
mining
in
general,
and
I
think
that
that's
at
least
worth
talking
about
whether
that
is
a
better
departmental
coordination.
Talking
about
the
roi
of
additional
staffing
doesn't
mean
we
have
to
do
it.
AF
I
just
think
that
it's
an
important
question
to
talk
about
of
what
else
we
could
do
better
on
our
side
on
the
city
side
to
get
things
quickly
out
the
door,
because
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
actually
have
pretty
good
control
over
the
rest
of
the
things
we
struggle
with
it's
pretty
hard
to
get
a
grip
on.
That's
it.
AG
Yeah,
I
also
wouldn't
add
anything
it's
pretty
robust
list
for
for
me
right
now.
Just
taking
a
quick
look,
I
would
say
it's.
Affordable
housing
production
to
get
to
the
to
the
crux
of
the
affordable
housing
issue.
Is
that
funding
capacity
and
partnerships
to
get
that
done
in
a
new
way
and
displacement
in
the
preservation
of
improvement
of
naturally
affordable
stock,
that
that's
the
sticky
one
for
the
r3,
so
that
that's
big
and
sustainability
and
the
the
maintaining
what
makes
it
so
nice
to
live
in
mountain
view?
AG
I'm
not
saying
it
has
to
stay
the
way
it
is,
but
it's
the
greenery
that
vice
chair
lowe
had
mentioned,
I
think,
is
hugely
important
to
health,
mental
health,
the
sustainability
all
of
it.
It's
it's
the
reason
why
the
developers
are
willing
to
go
through
our
review
and
they
know
that
people
want
to
live
here.
The
jobs
are
here:
if
you
keep
it
nice,
it
will
always
be
a
place.
People
want
to
live,
you'll,
get
high
quality
with
the
development,
the
high
standards
and
then
for
the
infrastructure.
AG
AG
Or
sorry,
not
tier
two,
it
would
be
at
the
top
if
we're
looking
at
what
we
consider
most
important.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Capelas.
F
I
I
think
this
is
a
very
you
know,
a
good
good
beginning
of
a
list
and
I
think,
underneath
funding
capacity
and
partnerships.
The
partnerships
that
I
mentioned
before
I'd
like
to
make
sure
that
we
pursue
as
many
partnerships
as
makes
sense
and
what
I
think
I
mentioned
schools
and
hospitals-
that's
you
know,
certainly
a
place
to
help
us
look
at
how
they
can
contribute
to
adding
the
affordable
housing
production
so
that,
and
certainly
the
sustainability-
and
you
know
the
open
space
and
the
nature.
F
A
Okay,
so
I
also,
I
think,
it's
a
it's
a
good
list
I
do
have.
I
guess
I
guess
an
observation
in
some
respects
and
then
one
clear
addition
that
I'd
like
to
see
one
of
the
things
that
the
state
some
of
the
laws
that
made
it
through
to
the
governor's
offices
here,
were
ones
that
looked
at
the
conversion
of
potentially
underutilized
retail
locations
to
turn
those
into
mixed
use
or
residential.
There
are,
I
can
think,
of
a
few
small.
A
B
A
Be
revitalized
if
we
looked
at
something
that
said,
okay,
you
can
turn
a.
I
think
what
in
the
plan
is
called
the
general
plan
is
called
a
neighborhood
center
into
something
that
that
actually
added
some
residential
into
what
is
largely
a
parking
parking
lot
today.
A
I
really
would
like
to
find
a
way
to
preserve
the
naturally
affordable
stock
and
make
sure
that
we're
doing
right
things
from
an
equity
standpoint.
One
of
the
things
I
was
struck
by
in
the
staff
report
is
that,
if
you
just
add
a
lot
of
density
and
that
density
needs
to
be
needs
to
come
with
access
to
to
those
high
quality
things
like
parts
and
things,
and
my
observation
is
that
that
occurs
through
precise
planes.
Okay,
I
look
at
the
east
western
precise
planet.
A
If,
over
the
next
10
20
years
that
gets
built
out,
you
know,
people
will
have
access
to
parks,
they'll
be
able
to
walk,
they'll,
be
green
space
and
I'm
kind
of
over
the
view
that
the
most
extreme
version
of
the
r3
zoning
doesn't
do
any
of
that.
Okay,
it
puts
development
in
kind
of
a
haphazard
path
across
the
city.
A
At
carabella
previously-
and
I
know
I
voted
against
the
moving
head
on
terra
bella,
but
I
think
carabello,
the
problem
with
tarabella
was
that
it
was.
It
was
really
two
areas
we're
trying
to
make
one,
so
maybe
there's
some
opportunities
for
what
I'd
call
smaller
precise
plans.
That
might
make
sense.
A
You
know,
as
can
we
could
we
look
at
the
east
side
of
terra
bella?
Is
there
something
that
could
be
done?
You
know,
I
think
I
look
at
the
the
valley
park.
Safeway
area,
there's
a
lot
of
open
space
there,
and
could
we
do
something
that
they
continue
to
allow
the
retail
but
actually
brought
in
some
residential
in
those
areas
without
dropping
in
five-story
apartment
buildings
in
the
middle
of
of
a
neighborhood?
And
so
I
think
one
of
the
other
topics
could
be.
A
Are
there
other
areas
that
might
make
sense
to
do
to
get
to
do
the
kind
of
thing
that
part
of
what
the
r3
zoning
is
intended
to
do
is
increase
density,
but
do
it
in
a
way
that
actually
plans
a
neighborhood
rather
than
just
doing
a
peanut
butter
across
the
city?
So
I'd
like
to
see
at
least
consider
are
there
other
other
places
that
could
be
that
could
that
we
could
look
at
some
additional
precise
plans
in
here?
A
I
guess,
as
I
I
know,
I
don't
know
that
it's
necessarily
a
policy
topic
or
not
be
included.
I
am.
I
am
very
concerned
that
the
housing
element
over
estimates,
what
the
r3
zoning
will
accomplish
and
may
count
too
much
on
r3
zoning
delivering
what
is
needed
and
I
would
be
very
concerned
about
the
process,
banking,
on
r3
zoning,
solving
the
whole
problem
for
the
city.
A
So,
as
you
look
through
this,
I
don't
it's
not
necessarily
a
policy
topic,
but
I
just
it
was
apparent
to
me
from
the
discussion
the
feedback
from
the
community
that
there
is
not
consensus
around
what
our
three
zoning
rezoning
should
be.
You
know,
losing
rent
control
units
and
to
turn
them
into
town
homes.
A
I
think
most
of
us
would
agree
is
probably
not
what
we
really
wanted
the
r3
to
be,
but
is
is
the
proposal
you
know,
I
don't
think,
there's
consensus
around
that
so
I'd
like
I,
I
really
want
to
preserve
that
financially,
affordable
stock.
I
want
to
preserve
the
city
has
voted
to
keep
rent
controlled
units.
Let's
find
a
way
to
keep
them.
A
Can
we
look
at
ways
to
doing
things
that
help
preserve
that,
and
maybe
some
you
know,
tax
incentives
to
for
developers
to
improve
the
property
that
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
past
into
the
I
can
never
pronounce
it
csfra
or
whatever
it's
the
rent
control
thing.
A
Is
there
weight
things
that
we
could
do
that,
encourage
them
to
to
keep
those
things
viable
and
vibrant
and
and
and
and
positive,
without
having
to
turn
around
and
pass
huge
fees
on
to
the
to
the
renters?
So
those
would
be
those
are
kind
of
my
comments
on
on
this.
A
Then,
just
I
guess
any
kind
of
general
comments
from
commissioners
outside
of
the
two
questions
that
you'd
like
to
pass
on
to
staff
and
the
consultants.
Just
one
last
item.
E
I
think
I
just
like
to
echo
your
comments
share
about
the
r3
zoning
and
what
our
current
policies
do
is
incent
developers
who
are
able
to
redevelop
what
we
consider
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing
and
and
replace
it
with
units
for
above
moderate
income
levels.
And
so
I
think
what
we're
all
looking
for
is
a
solution
that
gets
us
to
more
to
outcomes
that
that
don't
we're
looking
for
solutions
that
promote.
E
Promote
an
outcome
where
we
can
welcome
more
residents
and
retain
the
ones
we
have
and
do
it
in
a
way
that
is
compatible
with
existing
neighborhood
character.
And
so
I
just
I
really
hope.
The
folks
who
are
on
tonight
know
that
this
is
an
ongoing
process
and
that
our
community
and
our
the
vision
for
this
community
will
be
defined
by
input
so
from
the
people
who
most
vehemently
disagree
with
updating
these
standards.
To
those
who
want
to
see
a
lot
of
change.
It
just
has
to
be
a
representative
process.
A
Are
be
any
other
comments
from
commissioners
right?
I
guess
my
way
just
one
last
one
last
comment
is
I
guess
what
I'm
kind
of
expecting
that
we'll
see
in.
Would
you
say
in
spring
when
we
see
this
again
is
not
a
here's.
A
You
know
here
here's
the
answer
to
everything,
but
options
on
different
things
that
could
be
included
in
the
program
that
we
can
look
at
and
discuss
and
and
and
just
you
know,
debate
the
narrative
is
that
you
know
your
expectation,
eric
and
ellen
and
stephanie
and
beverly.
I
I
can
take
that
chair
cranston.
So
that's
a
great
point.
I
think
it's
a
great
way
to
wrap
up
what
we're
saying
right
now,
so
we
want
to
present
to
you
some
of
the
outreach
that
we've
done
and
like
these
policy,
because
we
wanted
to
get
input
from
you.
We
are
anticipating
coming
back
sometime
in
the
spring,
in
about
three
or
four
months
where
we
will
develop
out
some
of
these
policy
directions.
I
Looking
at
other
programs
things
that
you've
mentioned,
like
many
land
trusts,
partnerships
with
other
entities
like
schools
and
hospitals
and
then
also
we'll
have
a
little
bit
more
in
terms
of
updates
with
the
site
inventory
like
we
said
we
are
continuing
our
discussions
with
hcd,
so
we'll
hopefully
have
a
little
bit
more
data
on
that.
I
So
the
next
time
we
come
back,
we
will
have
some
of
those
to
present
to
you
and
after
that
round
of
study
session,
we
will
be
kind
of
taking
all
that
input
again
and
finalizing
our
draft
housing
element
and
we'll
probably
come
back
for
one
more
round
when
we
have
the
actual
draft
element
to
review.
So
that's
kind
of
the
long
view
picture
of
it
we'll
come
back
with
at
a
midpoint
with
draft,
get
some
input
and
then
actually
develop
out.
The
housing
element
document.
A
Great
all
right,
there's
no
other
comments
from
commissioners.
Commissioner
palace.
F
Just
one
last
comment
to
thank
the
staff
and
our
consultants.
This
is
a
a
huge
huge
effort
and
very
complex
and
something
that's
not
not
easy
for
any
of
us
to
know
exactly
what
the
right
direction
is.
So
thank
you
for
all
your
tough
work
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
hard
work
ahead
of
us.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Q
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
mention
that
the
next
regularly
scheduled
epc
meeting,
which
I
believe
would
have
been
november
3rd
canceled
for
lack
of
items.
Although
we
are
looking
at
having
on
november
17th
we're
going
to
have
potentially
a
tentatively
scheduled
review
of
the
north
bay
shore
master
plan.
A
And
do
you
have
do
you
have
any?
Have
you
heard
anything
about
the
council's
timeline
for
for
I
I
guess
when
we
talk
to
sound
like
we
will
go
we'll
probably
leave
the
year
with
six
commissioners
and
wouldn't
have
a
seventh
commissioner
until
we
start
next
year
that
still
seem
like
the.
Q
Health
council
yeah
the
interview
process
is
going
on
fairly
soon.
I
think
I
don't
know
exactly
when
the
the
the
interview
process
was
going
to
be,
but
yeah
so
they're
they're
going
to
be
interviewing
for
both
commissioner's
spot
who's,
terming
out,
as
well
as
the
commissioner
schmeezing
spot,
who
left
same
time.
E
Question
about,
do
you
think,
there's
any
chance
for
annual
holiday
gathering.
Q
Yeah,
well,
you
know
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
being
very
still
very
cautious.
Of
course
you
know
get
togethers
in
person,
but
you
know,
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
and
I
will
you
know
we
need
to
let
loose.
So
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
so
I'll
I'll
look
into
some
options
and
and
reach
out
with
some
of
those
options.
A
A
video
of
a
of
a
movie
crew
that
did
a
virtual,
a
virtual
dinner
at
when
they
when
they
released
their
movie
and
they
ordered
for
each
person
the
same
set
of
food
and
delivered
it
out
across
to
the
the
team
members,
and
then
they
were
supposed
to
to
go
through
and
eat
them
at
the
same
order.
Of
course,
some
people
skip
the
dessert
right
away,
but
it
was,
it
was
actually.
It
was
actually
quite
interesting
to
watch.
A
L
A
All
right,
so
with
that,
I
guess
we
will
do
another
announcements.
We
will
adjourn.