►
Description
Live teleconference meeting of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 2021.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
A
2020.
no
questions
or
changes,
okay
and
then
we'll
open
up
for
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
would
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
minutes?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
pre
or
press
nine
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
using
star
six.
The
pc
clerk
whitehall
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
eric
whitehall
are
any
attendees
raising
your
hand
to
comment
on
the
admins.
A
A
A
Section
four
of
the
agenda
is
oral
communications.
This
person,
the
meeting,
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
epc
on
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda.
Tonight.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items
at
this
time.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
a
non-agendized
item?
A
A
D
D
Much
of
the
language
in
this
current
ordinance
is
out
of
date,
and
in
recent
years
the
city
has
experienced
an
increase
in
the
number
of
projects
that
utilize
density
bonus.
There's
a
couple
examples
on
the
screen
right
now
and
just
to
kind
of
demonstrate
the
breadth
and
depth
of
projects
that
we've
seen
through
density
bonus,
1101,
west
el
camino
is
an
ownership
project
and
it
includes
five
affordable
units.
D
If
staff
has
all
that
information
up
front
to
determine
eligibility,
the
proposed
ordinance
also
clarifies
where,
in
the
city
far
is
the
density
metric
that
will
be
used
to
determine
base
density
and
the
existing
density.
Bonus
ordinance
includes
language
that
allows
the
city
to
consider
a
density
bonus
greater
than
what
is
allowed
under
state
law.
D
But
overall,
though
they
provide
greater
consistency
with
the
bmr
program,
staff
is
also
proposing
some
site
cleanup
items
as
well,
including
moving
the
density
bonus
ordinance
to
the
administration
article.
This
just
creates
more
consistency,
as
the
density
bonus
includes
application
requirements
and
findings,
which
would
typically
be
found
in
the
administration
section.
D
D
A
A
E
F
The
city
of
mountain
view
has
some
very
specific
kind
of
intersections
with
specific
other
codes,
things
like
our
bmr
code,
our
use
of
far
as
a
density
standard.
Things
like
that,
and
so
some
of
those
details
are
unique
to
mountain
view,
but
some
cities
take
the
language
straight
from
the
density
bonus
state
law,
some
of
them
just
reference
it.
It
really
is
all
over
the
map.
E
D
G
F
You
know,
certainly
we
want
to
stay
on
the
right
side
of
you
know:
sb
330,
which
limits
how
we
can
change
certain
rules
and-
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
can-
that
the
ultimately
the
way
that
we
write
our
code
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
of
state
density,
bonus
law,
and
so
we've
we've
refined
all
of
those.
But
I
you
know
it's
a
lot
of
very
fine
grain
detailed
things.
G
G
D
Yeah,
I
would
say
that
in
terms
of
the
language
and
the
ordinance,
it
provides
the
direction
that
was
needed
and
then
because
we
have
that
kind
of
more
clear
direction.
We're
able
to
provide
examples
and
further
kind
of
explanation
within
the
administrative
document.
The
administrative
guidelines
document
as.
H
Thank
you
just
quickly
the
process
for
a
developer
to
come.
Do
they
are
they
required
to
have
like
a
pre-meeting
before
they
even
turn
an
application?
I
was
just
wondering
if
it
might
be
easier
for
the
staff
to
just
go
ahead
and
calculate
the
base,
for
them
tell
them
what
it
is
and
then
you
know
walk
them
through
and
show
them
how
you
got
to
those
numbers
and
that
way
everyone's
on
the
same
page
from
the
get-go
and
then
walk
them
through
the
options.
F
F
You
know,
you
know,
find
the
answer
right,
that's
that's
the
ideal
and,
as
anna
said,
I
think,
we've
gotten
there.
I
mean
you
know
anna's
worked
really
hard
on
this.
We've
all
refined
it
a
number
of
times
to
to
get
it
to
that
point,
where
it's
it's
clear
and
objective,
and
we
we
have
confidence
that
anybody
can
come
forward
on
another
level.
You
know
there's
a
customer
service
side
to
what
you're
talking
about,
and
certainly
we
do
strive
to
provide
outstanding
customer
service.
H
F
Yeah
I
mean
we
certainly
have
meetings
for
large
and
complex
projects.
We
have
many
meetings
before
developers
even
put
together
an
application
and
and
during
those
meetings
we
can
have
those
conversations
to
clarify
how
things
are
complicated,
calculated
provide
that
customer
service,
but
ultimately,
when
an
application
is
submitted,
it
does
have
to
show
its
work
that
it's
complying
with
the
code.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
staff
report
in
the
presentation.
It
was
very
helpful
and
I
wonder
just
a
little
bit
and
maybe
anna
you
can
explain
so
in
the
staff
report.
It
talks
about
how
and
the
density
bonus
ordinance
includes
language
that
the
city
can
consider
a
density
bonus
greater
than
what's
authorized
under
state
law.
Do
you
have
any
idea
what
the
ceiling
could
potentially
be
and
in
terms
of
that
bonus
density,
that
the
city
just
ballpark
I
mean
it
more,
is
better
and
when
it
comes
to
affordable
housing,
but.
D
I
You
can
tell
I'm
new
because
I
can't
figure
out
where
the
raise
hand
button
is,
but
thank
you
but
being
completely
new
to
this.
Rather
than
a
couple
of
questions.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
quick
comments.
I
guess
I
would
make
because
my
aunt
my
questions
already
got
answered.
I
think
one.
I
love
it
that
we're
doing
code
cleanup
code
cleanup
is
not
exciting,
but
it's
actually
really
important.
I
If
what
you
care
about
is
people
being
able
to
read
it
and
use
it,
so
I'm
actually
kind
of
weirdly
excited
that
we're
doing
code
cleanup,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
good
and
smart
thing
and
I'm
glad
that
planning
does
that
same
with
the
creation
of
guidelines,
anything
that
makes
it
easier
to
use,
and
I
do
appreciate
actually
the
quick
turnaround
on
the
on
the
questions
and
especially
kind
of
clarification.
That's
added.
I
J
H
Yeah
I
had
a
really
quick
question
again.
This
one
was
noticing
that
some
of
the
precise
plans
used
the
far
and
some
the
density
was
there
a
reason
why
we
did
this
switch.
Is
it
because
we
found
that
one
was
better
and
then
we
moved
to
one
version
so
moving
forward?
Will
it
be
consistent
or
were
there
other
reasons
and
we'll
have
both
continuing
on.
F
F
There
was
a
lot
of
council
direction
at
the
time
that
they
felt
that
the
number
of
units
that
you
could
fit
inside
a
building
was
was
less
meaningful
to
the
effect
on
the
community
and
the
effect
on
the
the
form
and
character
and
even
the
effect
on
things
like
the
the
population
being
served
was
less
important
than
the
actual
form
of
the
building
in
the
building
envelope.
So
we
actually
adopted
in
the
general
plan
this
this
statement
that
in
these
areas
where
we
are
anticipating
change,
the
general
plan
change
areas.
F
We
are
going
to
make
far
the
density
standard,
and
so
that
is
what
we
implemented
in
the
new
precise
plans:
el
camino,
san
antonio
east
wisman
and
north
bay
shore,
based
on
that
direction
in
the
general
plan,
and
so
we
don't
have
a
dwelling
units
per
acre
standard.
In
those
precise
plans,
we
just
have
an
far
standard,
which
is
a
is
a
density
metric
got.
A
K
Actually,
I
wanted
to
thank
the
staff
for
taking
the
time
to
clarify
this
just
a
little
historical
tidbit
from
me
when
we
first
tried
to
follow
the
state
density
bonus,
many
of
us
on
the
commission
at
that
time
felt
like
we
had
our
hands
tied
because
it
was
so
complex
and
so
difficult
to
really
understand
from
our
perspective
that
it
was
really.
You
know
we
felt
like
there
was
nothing.
K
We
could
say
that
the
developer
came
forward
and
they
said
this
is
what
we
can
do
and
we
can
have
this
because
it's
in
the
state
density
bonus.
So
initially
that
was
really
really
tough.
So
to
bring
this
to
a
clarification
point
and
to
pro
provide,
you
know
a
booklet
with
guidelines,
and
this
sort
of
thing
is
just
a
huge,
huge
step
forward.
So
anna.
K
I
know
that
that
is
not
an
easy
task,
so
I
appreciate
your
huge
efforts
and
and
the
staff
to
not
only
clarify
for
your
use
but
to
clarify
for
us
to
try
to
understand
how
the
how
the
developers
are
are
taking
advantage
of
that
or
utilizing
it
to
not
only
to
their
benefit
but
to
the
city's
benefits
as
well.
So
just
wanted
to
add
that
little
historical
tidbit.
So
thank
you
very
much.
G
Yeah,
I
do.
I
have
another
question
which
is
specific
to
a
little
bit
of
the
language
limitations
to
waivers
and
incentives
refers
to
some
public
health
or
safety
standards.
That
sometimes
cannot
be
mitigated-
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
might
have
some
examples
to
help
me
understand
that
this
is
an,
I
think,
f
general
provisions
for
density,
bonus,
f,.
F
Sure
I
mean
this,
this
hardly
ever
comes
up,
but
if,
for
example,
a
request
for
a
waiver
would
be
in
conflict
with
some
building
code,
you
know
some
building
safety
code
like
you're,
you
know
the
building's
more
likely
to
fall
down
in
an
earthquake
because
they're
trying
to
move
some
wall
somewhere
or
something
you
know,
then
that
would
not
be
an
eligible
waiver
it
it's
really
something
that
hardly
ever
comes
up.
I
don't
think
you
know
the.
A
So
other
questions
I
just
I
do
have
one:
it's
not
so
much
a
question
about
the
way
the
ordinance
is
written.
Commissioner
schmiezing's
question
and
the
commissioner's
question
about
the
differences
between
the
el
camino
and
san
antonio
persist
plans
versus
north
bay
shore
and
east
westman
to
me,
highlight
a
side
benefit
of
reviewing
the
density
bonus
law
and
how
it
changes
our
ordinances.
A
I
didn't
see
anything
in
here
that
would
indicate
how
updates
to
the
density
bonus
law
would
be
brought
back
to
us
as
part
of
maybe
as
part
of
the
administrative
guidelines
or
something
that
would
ensure
that
we're
still
aware
of
these
things
so
that,
as
we're
doing
our
deliberations,
it's
been
valuable,
they're,
broader,
broader
items
rather
than
the
specific
details.
But
I
don't
see
anything
that
would
and
did
I
miss
it.
That
would
help
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
lose
that
knowledge
that
we
do.
F
F
A
Thank
you
know
the
questions
so
we'll
move
on
to
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comments
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
nine
on
your
phone.
Then
users
can
mute
and
unmute
them
mute
themselves
by
using
star
six.
The
pc
clerk
shouldn't
be
whitehall,
we'll
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
like
whitehall.
Are
there
any
attendees
who
have
raised
their
hands
or
requested
time
to
speak.
B
L
L
While
it
may
be
in
the
city's
interest
to
steer
developers
away
from
proposing
density,
bonus
projects
and
toward
applying
as
a
gatekeeper
or
area
plan
project.
The
density
bonus
ordinance
guidelines
should
not
serve
that
purpose.
In
fact,
state
density,
bonus
law,
preempts,
local
policies,
goals
or
objectives,
not
the
other
way
around.
L
The
city
needs
to
address
the
legality
of
trying
to
force
developers
to
choose
between
using
the
local
base,
far
bonus
process
and
using
the
state
density.
Bonus
law.
In
fact,
density
bonus
for
density,
bonus
purposes,
isn't
the
real
maximum
allowed
density.
The
general
plan
nominal
maximum,
plus
the
far
bonus
received
by
providing
community
benefits,
providing
those
benefits,
results
in
a
ministerial
approval
of
the
additional
far
right.
So
how
is
this
any
different
than
requiring
normal
projects
to
comply
with
the
litany
of
local
development
regulations
in
order
to
be
approved
at
the
base
max
density?
L
This
requirement
is
patently
anti-ownership
housing
development
using
the
density
bonus
law,
and
what
about
the
notion
that
the
city
can
require
whatever
additional
information
it
deems
necessary
to
process
the
density
bonus,
concession
waiver
application,
dbl
applications
are
already
covered
by
the
project.
Streamlining
act
deemed
complete
application
process,
I.e
the
dbl
application
information
just
needs
to
be
posted
and
publicly
available,
and
the
city
gets
one
shot
at
asking
for
more
information.
L
Now
this
state
density
bonus
law
is
clearly
a
powerful
tool
for
enabling
developers
to
include
very
low
low
and
modern
income
housing
units
in
their
projects.
The
purpose
of
this
law
is
to
encourage
cities
to
offer
incentives
to
housing
developers
that
will
contribute
significantly
to
the
economic
feasibility
of
lower
income
housing.
L
This
proposal
falls
short
of
that
goal
and
it
should
bia
encourage
the
city
to
outreach
to
builders
to
help
shape
this
ordinance,
because,
with
this
draft
ordinance
and
guidelines,
the
city
signals
that
it
is
much
more
interested
in
protecting
the
bonus,
far
program
and
leveraging
unsubstantiated
community
benefit
fees
extracted
from
projects
in
the
precise
plans
than
working
with
state
density
bonus
law.
Thank
you
very
much.
M
M
And
so
I
I
largely
am
very
much
supportive
of
the
direction
that
the
staff
recommendation
is
heading
in.
I
think
that
if
we
do
want
to
be
a
little
bit
more
expensive
and
to
be
quite
honest,
also
just
reduce
the
friction,
not
only
between
the
way
that
the
laws
and
technical
requirements
work
between
what
the
city
standards
and
state
standards
are,
but
also
just
generally
interpersonally
right
between
the
state
between
developers
between
community
members
between
you
know
this
body
or
another
body
in
the
city.
M
M
You
have
no
say
in
it,
then
why
don't
we
just
align
with
sp
35
standards,
whether
it's
in
city
we
can,
then
you
know
make
sure
that
we
provide
incentives
on
top
of
that
to
drive
certain
designs
or
you
know,
have
that
development
occur
in
certain
places.
So
it's
a
way
to
keep
our
local
control
while
acknowledging
that
sometimes
the
state
comes
in
and
says
we
gotta
do
things.
So
thanks
a
lot
for
listening
guys.
N
Hello,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
all
right
awesome.
My
name
is
emily
ann
ramos.
I
am
with
mountain
dew
yindy.
We
are
advocates
for
more
housing
in
our
city
and
beyond.
We
are
mountain
view,
residents
and
workers
who
seek
solutions
to
our
areas,
housing
shortage,
and
we
would
like
to
echo
and
support
the
pre.
N
The
comments
of
the
previous
speaker,
mr
nunez,
that
we
thank
the
staff
and
the
commission
for
working
on
this,
and
we
hope
that
you
can
be
more
aligned
with
have
the
local
ordinances
more
aligned
to
state
law,
to
make
things
a
much
easier,
and
if
you
were
to
modify
our
local
ordinances,
please
modify
them
in
a
way
to
allow
more
housing
in
our
fair
city
and
welcome
mr
dempsey
to
the
epc.
Thank
you
so
much.
C
J
J
I'm
not
sure
if
you
guys
can
hear
me,
I
think
so
good
evening,
commissioners,
nicole
wright
with
the
city
attorney's
office.
So
as
I
understood
the
comment
that
was
raised,
I
guess
I
didn't
understand
it
as
it
applied
to
the
community
benefits,
but
as
to
the
requiring
that
reserve
funds
be
set
aside
for
ownership.
You
know
for
hoa
use
related
to
ownership
units
and
yeah.
L
I
So,
if
that's
the
case,
if
it's
the
case
that
those
requirements,
the
the
putting
the
money
into
the
hoa
can
be
put,
is
in
the
guidelines
does
it
need
to
be
stated
in
the
guidelines,
it
would
be
helpful
to
state
the
guidelines
that,
in
fact,
is
not
community
benefits.
Kind
of
conversation
no
longer
applies,
I'm
sure,
there's
a
better
way
to
say
it,
but
does
that
point
need
to
be
clarified
in
the
guidelines
itself,
or
is
it
made
clear
elsewhere
in
the
ordinance.
J
So
so
I
think
by
including
the
language
that's
included
in
the
draft
and
the
proposed
ordinance
it.
It
creates
a
new
obligation
for
hoa
reserve
funds
for
ownership
units
that
didn't
previously
exist.
It
currently
exists
for
our
bmr
units,
but
not
as
applied
to
density
bonus,
and
so
I
think
the
prior
project
that
was
referenced
earlier
by
mr
anderson
was
I'm
sorry.
Maybe
it
was
commissioner
schneezing
that
was
basically
referenced
indicated
that
there
was
some
discussion.
I
don't
recall
the
ins
and
outs
of
it,
but
some
discussion
of
using
community
benefits
for
reserve.
J
I
think-
and
I
think
that
was
in
the
absence
of
some
other
mechanism
requiring
that
and
so
including
it
here
in
the
ordinance,
basically
creates
that
mechanism
for
that
obligation
and
I'll
let
either
eric
or
anna.
If
you
guys
want
to
add
anything
to
that,
because
you
guys
know
the
ins
and
outs
of
that
a
little
bit
more
than
I
do.
D
C
A
A
Okay,
just
a
general,
I
guess
a
general
comment.
While
I
understand
the
concern
from
the
builders
that
they
would
like
us,
every
city
in
the
state
to
align
to
the
density
bonus,
I'm
I'm
over
the
view
that
the
vmware
and
ordinance
that
we
put
in
place
is
something
that
we
have.
The
commission
and
the
city
council
have
looked
at
conscientiously
as
to
what's
the
right
thing
to
do
for
mountain
view,
so
laying
some
additional
requirements
beyond
the
stand,
the
minimum
standards.
A
Quite
frankly,
that
would
be
the
density
bonus,
provides
as
long
as
they're
within
permitted
under
state
law
to
me
is
not
an
unreasonable
thing
to
do,
but
to
for
us
to
be
able
to
look
at
how?
What
do
we
need
to
do
to
make
sure
that
what's
happening
in
the
city
is
right?
For
our
city
is
our
obligation.
K
Vice
chair
cranston,
I
I
certainly
agree
with
you
and
I
think
the
idea
is
to
get
some
consistency
across
all
of
the
ordinances
within
within
mountain
view,
and
I
think
that's
really
what
the
staff
is
has
excellently
done,
and
I
I
do
support
the
recommendation
by
the
staff
to
to
the
council
based
on
this
ordinance.
I
think
it's
a
smart
thing
to
do
and
the
more
more
clarity
we
can
get
around
these
ordinances,
the
easier
it
is
for
the
staff
and
for
the
developers
to
work.
J
K
A
C
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
echo
my
fellow
commissioners.
I
thought
that
this
was
a
very
well
put
together,
ordinance
and
appreciated
the
flexibility
of
pointing
to
state
law
and
also
allowing
for
this
to
be
superseded
by
both
changes
in
state
law
and
actions
by
council,
yeah
and
thought
that
it's
very,
very
thoughtful,
very
well
put
together
and
I
think,
will
be
personally
helpful
in
the
future.
E
H
Yes,
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
do
feel
that
getting
everybody
sort
of
on
the
same
base
line
of
understanding
is
key
before
you
enter
any
sort
of
negotiation.
So
it
is
much
appreciated
that
we
are
clarifying
the
ordinances
so
that
it's
understandable
by
everyone
just
to
start
with,
and
I
think
that
what
vice
chair
cranston
had
said
was
what
I
was
feeling
as
well.
H
H
K
So
I
would
like
to
move
that
we
adopt
a
resolution
of
the
environmental
planning
commission
of
the
city
of
mountain
view,
recommending
that
city
council
adopt
an
ordinance
to
repeal
in
its
entirety,
division
11
of
article
4
of
chapter
36
of
the
mountain
view,
city
code
and
add
a
new
division.
8
of
article
16
of
chapter
36
of
the
mountain
view,
city
code
related
to
density,
bonus
with
modifications
to
36.45
parentheses
g
to
specify
for
developments
that
do
not
provide
a
sufficient
number
of
affordable
units
to
qualify
for
a
density.
A
A
B
A
A
A
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
your
hand
and
zoom
or
press
star
nine
on
your
phone
when
users
can
unmute
or
mute
using
star
six
rick
whitehall
will
start
the
timer
for
you
when
your
time
was
up
quickly.
Has
anyone
requested
this
opportunity
to
speak.
B
A
K
K
A
I
don't
see
their
hands,
so
it
sounds
like
we
have
one
nominee
so
with
that
we'll
open
it
up
for
public
comment,
so
the
nominations
are
closed.
Would
any
member
the
public
on
the
line
like
the
right
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
click
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
line
on
your
phone
from
these
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six
or
white
hall
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
click
whitehall.
I
K
K
A
I
Well,
I
I
I
I
couldn't
refuse
that
well,
thank
you
and
and
and
for
everyone.
Thank
you
really
for
the
warm
welcome
that
I've
received
from
everybody
to
join
epc.
It
really
makes
volunteering
and
local
government
really
quite
enjoyable.
I
have
to
say
shout
out
to
anybody
watching
it's
great
to
be
on
these
commissions.
I
For
me,
I
actually
am
an
attorney
by
training.
The
bulk
of
my
career
is
actually
working
for
the
state
legislature
on
consumer
protection
matters.
So
that's
the
bulk
of
what
I've
done
is
look
at
code
up
in
sacramento,
so
I
work
for
tech
down
here
now
and
I'm
just
I'm
very
humbled
and
honored
that
I
get
to
do
this
with
especially
with
such
good
people.
So,
to
the
extent
that
you
know
a
little
bit
of
the
future
of
mountain
view
rests
on
our
hands.
I
J
A
F
F
One
of
them
is
the
google
middle
field
park
master
plan,
which
has
has
been
getting
a
little
bit
of
news
recently.
We
do
have
some
materials
about
it
on
our
website.
If
you
want
to
look
into
it
a
little
bit.
If
you
go
to
the
the
active
projects
page
on
our
website,
you
can
find
some
information
about
it.
F
F
We
also
have
a
request
for
a
rezoning
which
has
been
in
the
process
for
a
few
years
now
and
is
now
kind
of
moving
forward
again
at
555
middle
field,
that's
kind
of
near
the
highway,
85
overpass,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
a
study
session
with
them
as
well.
So
as
a
rezoning,
that's
also
a
legislative
action.
C
F
A
What
was
out
of
that
number
one
but
then
also
the
last
time
we
talked
about
it.
Commissioner,
schmiezing
and
commissioner
dempsey
were
not
on
the
commission,
and
you
know
we
only
had
an
introduction
at
the
end
of
2019
on
it.
It's
been
quite
a
while,
and
my
own
sense
is
that
this
is
something
that
may
have
as
much
of
an
impact
potentially
on
the
future
development
of
mountain
view,
as
any
precise
plant
has
done.
So
I
think
just
bringing
us
all
back
up
to
speed
would
be
helpful.