►
From YouTube: 02-16-2022 - Meeting of the City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission (EPC)
Description
Live teleconference of the Meeting of the City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2022.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
2022
meeting
of
the
environmental
planning
commission
of
the
city
of
mountain
view
at
7
02
pm
this
evening,
we
will
have
a
translation
services
in
spanish
and
chinese
for
items.
5.1
and
6.1
zoom
translator
functions
identified
as
a
globe
is
located
in
the
bottom
of
your
zoom
screen.
Please
click
the
globe
and
click
it
and
select
the
language
you
prefer
english,
spanish
or
chinese.
If
you
do
nothing,
you
will
hear
english
deliberation,
but
you
will
not
be
able
to
hear
english
translation
or
spin
of
spanish
chinese
speaker
comments.
A
Please
welcome
anna
jimenez
and
ivy
ii,
who
will
provide
translation
services
tonight
hannah
our
turn
review
to
provide
spanish
language
instructions
on
how
to
set
up
the
interpretation
function.
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
Thank
you
item
three
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
meeting
minutes
the
approval
of
the
environmental
planning
commission
minutes
from
the
january
19th
2022
meeting
first
we'll
take
epc
discussion,
any
feedback
from
commissioners
on
the
meeting.
A
We'll
open
up
for
public
comment
would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
comment
on
this
line
item
if
you'd
like
to
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6..
The
pc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
Mr
abu
talbei,
do
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
the
meeting
minutes.
A
Okay,
we
will
bring
it
back
to
the
commission.
Do
I
have
a
motion
then,
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
january
19th
meeting.
E
F
G
A
A
Adam
foreign
agenda
this
evening
is
foreign
communications
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
observed
for
persons
wishing
to
address
items
that
are
not
on
the
agenda
this
evening,
speakers
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
a
non-agendized
item.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
on
the
line
like
to
speak
on
an
item
that
is
not
an
agenda
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button,
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone.
A
A
They
will
close
open
communication
oral
communications
and
bring
it
back
to
the
agenda
item.
Five
is
public
hearings.
We
have
two
first
item
tonight
is
the
5.1
is
consideration
of
text
amendments
to
chapter
28,
subdivisions
and
chapter
36,
zoning
of
the
city
code
to
establish
procedures
and
standards
related
to
urban
lot,
splits
and
dual
urban
opportunity
developments
in
compliance
with
california,
senate
bill,
9
and
other
minor
text
amendments.
F
A
Chapter
36
related
to
inactive,
permit
applications.
As
a
reminder,
we
have
translation
in
spanish
and
chinese
this
evening.
If
you
run
zoom,
please
click
on
the
globe
on
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
To
choose
your
preferred
language.
If
you
do
nothing,
you
will
hear
english,
but
you
will
not
hear
the
english
translations
of
chinese
spanish
public
comment.
H
H
H
Can
you
still
see
it?
Thank
you
yep.
Okay,
thanks!
So,
let's
see
the
item
in
front
of
you
consists
of
proposed
text,
amendments
to
chapters
36
zoning
and
28
subdivisions
of
the
municipal
code
to
implement
california
senate
bill
9..
H
Additionally,
staff
is
proposing
a
minor
amendment
within
the
administration
section
of
the
zoning
code
related
to
the
closure
of
inactive
planning.
Permit
applications,
california,
senate
bill,
9
or
sb9
requires
ministerial
approval
of
certain
housing
development
projects
and
lot
splits
on
r1
single-family
residential
zone
properties.
H
Sb9
was
passed
by
the
california
legislature
on
september
1st
2021
signed
into
law
by
governor
newsom
on
september
16
2021
and
took
effect
on
january.
1St
2022
sb9
requires
approval
of
the
following
two
unit:
housing
developments,
meaning
two
homes
on
an
eligible
r1
law.
Whether
the
proposal
adds
two
new
housing
units
or
adds
one
new
unit
to
an
existing
unit.
H
H
H
H
The
duo
development
provisions
could
be
used
in
concert
with
the
urban
lot
split
standards,
resulting
in
a
maximum
potential
to
create
up
to
a
total
of
four
primary
dwelling
units
on
a
qualifying
r1
lot.
So
in
other
words,
if
a
lot
is
subdivided
by
an
urban
lot
split,
each
resulting
lot
may
contain
two
primary
dwelling
units.
H
H
Cities
must
allow
a
minimum
unit
size
of
800
square
feet
and
wave
development
standards
that
would
preclude
construction
of
800
square
foot
units
no
more
than
one
parking
space
is
required,
however,
properties
within
a
one-half
mile,
walking
distance
of
a
high
quality
transit
corridor
or
major
transit
stop
as
defined
by
state
law
or
within
one
block
of
a
car
share.
Vehicle
location
do
not
need
to
provide
parking.
H
H
H
For
this
reason,
staff
proposes
to
largely
maintain
the
existing
r1
development
standards
for
duo
developments
and
only
adjust
those
standards
where
sb9
establishes
either
more
restrictive
standards,
for
example,
occupancy
acknowledgements
or
less
restrictive
standards,
for
example,
setbacks,
because
the
side
and
rear
setbacks
for
duo
developments
will
be
reduced.
Staff
proposes
to
prohibit
the
construction
of
second
story
decks
in
association
with
newly
constructed
units
of
a
duo
development.
H
This
prohibition
on
second
story
decks
is
consistent
with
the
sb
330
requirements,
as
it
would
not
lessen
the
potential
for
additional
housing
units
or
intensity
on
any
lot.
However,
prohibiting
second
story
decks
could
reduce
potential
privacy
concerns
resulting
from
the
reduced
setbacks
for
duo
developments,
since
sb9
will
allow
for
smaller
lots
than
what
the
existing
city
code
allows
for
and
or
for
two
primary
dwellings.
On
one
lot,
staff
proposes
to
reduce
the
minimum
landscape
coverage
requirement
within
the
front
setback
area
from
50
percent
to
25.
H
H
D
Thank
you,
sir.
I
have
a
quick
question
for
those
in
active
permits:
will
they
be
giving
notice?
What
would
the
city
be
giving
them
notice
about
their
possible
status
change
ahead
of
time,
or
will
this
just
be
done
automatically.
D
H
So
essentially,
this
will
apply
to
applications
that
are
currently
active
and
it's
something
that
we'll
be
notifying
applicants
of
when
we
provide
a
completeness
and
comment
letter
to
them
outlining
items
that
they
need
to
resubmit.
Language
related
to
this
will
be
included
in
that.
A
Commissioner
clark,
I'm
just
curious
about
the
the
second
story:
deck
prohibition
is
that
is
that
a
common
prohibition
that
we're
seeing
in
in
other
cities
or
and
does
that
preclude
like
even
a
small
balcony
or
or
what's
the
definition
of
of
deck?
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
getting
at.
H
It
is
something
that
we've
seen
in
some
of
our
neighboring
jurisdictions
and
the
prohibition
would
include
balconies,
really.
The
intent
is
to
take
into
consideration
the
the
potential
for
forefoot
side
and
rear
setbacks,
and
you
know
we
do
want
to
allow
the
flexibility
to
you
know
allow
second
story
units,
but
we
want
to
also
sort
of
strike
that
balance
and
and
take
those
potential.
Private
privacy
concerns
into
consideration,
and
that's
sort
of
where
that
that
prohibition
is
is
coming
from.
A
Understood
yeah,
I
think
that
makes
sense.
I'm
just
well
I'll
get
into
the
comments
later.
Thank
you
appreciate
it.
J
Thank
you.
I
I
wonder
if
we
could
walk
through
some
of
the
questions
that
came
in
from
the
public
comments
submitted
by
serge
bonte.
Is
there
a
sense,
or
is
there
an
actual
cut-off
date
for
how
long
the
lot
split
applies,
given
that
there
have
been
so
many
subdivisions
in
mountain
view,
in
the
past.
H
So
I
did
see
serge's
question.
I
think
what
he
was
asking
is
if
a
lot
was
established
by
a
prior
subdivision,
if
it
was
eligible
for
an
urban
lot
split
and
what
sb9
says
and
what
our
proposed
amendments
prohibit
is
a
lot
that
was
subdivided
by
an
urban
lot
split
from
being
subdivided
again
by
an
urban
law
split.
J
Okay,
thank
you
that
that's
really
helpful,
and
then
he
also
raised
the
idea
about
whether
what
is
the
process
for
these
going.
The
tentative
parcel
maps
going
before
council
is
that
something
you
can
comment
on.
H
Yes,
so
for
the
urban
lot
splits,
those
will
just
be
a
ministerial
approval,
so
it
will
be
a
ministerial
preliminary
personal
map,
followed
by
a
parcel
map,
and
it
will
all
be
reviewed
at
staff
level.
J
H
So
espionage
actually
prohibits
cities
from
requiring
off-site
improvement,
so
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
require
that.
K
Well,
thanks
a
lot
for
the
presentation
and
for
the
report,
I
did
have
a
few
questions.
The
first
one
is
in
exhibit
one
on
page
25.
I
did
notice
that
it
mentioned
that
the
sale
of
the
unit
from
my
reading,
it
seems
like
it's
prohibiting
a
sale.
It
says
each
primary
dwelling
unit
of
a
dual
urban
opportunity.
Development
may
be
rented
independently,
but
shall
not
be
sold
or
conveyed
separately
from
the
other
unit,
and
so
I'm
definitely
hoping
to
understand
some
of
the
reasoning
behind
that.
H
So
essentially,
if
someone
wanted
to
pursue
an
sb9
project
with
the
intent
of
selling
one
of
the
units,
the
way
to
do
that
would
be
through
the
urban
lot
split
with
the
duo
development.
It's
really
intended
for
there
to
be
two
primary
units
on
one
legal
lot
and
in
order
to
sell
one
of
those
as
a
separate
unit,
they
would
need
to
do
a
type
of
subdivision
called
a
condo
map
and
basically
create
lots
around
the
buildings.
H
K
So
so
it
sounds
like
in
one
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
avoid,
or
that
you
know
this
provision
is
trying
to
avoid.
Is
the
need
for
a
further
kind
of
amendment
to
like
our
subdivision
code?
Am
I
hearing
that?
Well.
H
I
think
it's
also
we're
also
trying
to
prevent
future
irregularly
shaped
lots.
You
know
we're
sort
of
trying
to
to
the
best
of
our
ability.
You
know
plan
for
for
more
regular
lot
patterns
with
this,
and
we
could
foresee
some
issues
if
we
allowed
condo
mapping
of
these
dual
urban
opportunity
developments.
I
think
it's
it's
sort
of
a
a
matter
of
us
trying
to
to
prevent
potential
issues
with
with
irregular
lot
patterns
as
well,
and
creation
of
non-conforming
zoning
and
building
conditions.
K
Okay
and
have
we
done
some
kind
of
assessment
on
the
impact
of
how
many
of
how
this
provision
would
impact
the
number
of
applications
that
would
be
submitted,
as
you
know,
kind
of
you
know,
maybe
if
I
know
that
I'm
not
gonna
wanna,
that
I
have
to
rent
it
versus
being
able
to
sell
it,
I
might
just
not
even
submit
an
application
in
the
first
place.
Have
we
done
some
sort
of
analysis
to
quantify
to
what
extent
this
provision
might
detract
or
dissuade
people
from
submitting
these
applications.
H
I
think
it's
it's
probably
too
soon
for
us
to
tell
at
this
point
I
think,
based
on
staff's
initial
interactions.
With
you
know,
members
of
the
public
and
potential
applicants
it
seems
like
more
people,
are
interested
in
pursuing
the
urban
lot
split
option
and
I
think
potentially
it
could
be
because
the
duo
development
is
somewhat
similar
to
the
existing
adu
provisions,
but
yeah
we
haven't
been
able
to
to
do
that
analysis.
H
At
this
point,
I
think
it's
it's
still
a
bit
early,
but
that's
something
that
we
can
definitely
you
know
look
into
as
as
this
progresses.
K
K
Another
question
that
I
had
is
around
the
I
believe
currently
the
bmr
program
that
we
have
set
up
kind
of
requires
any
development
under
seven
units
to
pay
a
fee,
for
you
know
like
our
bmr
fund,
and
I
think
in
in
the
grander
scheme
of
things
you
know
if
a
one
affordable
housing
unit
is,
you
know
like
up
to
a
million
dollars
or
some
crazy
number
these
days,
and
you
know
we
have
someone,
that's
trying
to
bring
a
new
kind
of
sb9
application
in
that
15
to
25
000
that
they
might
have
to
pay
as
part
of
that
bmr
impact
fee
might
also
be
another
prohibitive
factor
for
someone
wanting
to
pursue
an
sb9
project,
and
so
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
around
you
know.
K
Have
we
looked
at?
You
know
what
those
impacts
might
be
and
if
not
in
what
ways
could
we
kind
of
reduce
that
impact?
Whether
it's
you
know
waving
of
the
fee
or
you
know,
putting
some
kind
of
conditional
waving
after
you
know
three
years
of
proven
residency
at
the
site
or
something
just
just
so
we're
not
dissuading
people
from
actually
submitting
these
applications.
L
So
staff
is
not
proposing
any
changes
to
the
bmr
regulations
and
administrative
guidelines.
At
this
point,
we're
really
it's
really
focused
on
the
zoning
regulations
in
subdivision
and
kind
of
you
know,
amendments
to
the
bmr
program.
Are
you
know
not
within
the
scope
of
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here.
K
Okay
and
what
scope
would
that
be,
and
would
that
be
something
that
the
city
council
would
have
to
look
at,
or
you
know
what
would
be
the
path
to
to
looking
at
that.
L
Yeah,
it
would
be
direction
from
city
council
to
you
know,
take
a
look
at
our
at
our
bmr
guidelines
and
her
for
that.
K
Okay,
awesome
and
then
last
question
guys.
Thank
you
for
your
patience,
so
in
page
nine
of
that
staff
report
it
under
that
table.
I
did
also
notice
that
it
said
if
a
development
standard
precludes
construction,
blah
blah
blah.
K
It
says
the
development
standard
shall
be
waived,
and
so
you
know
just
given
the
kind
of
you
know
desire,
I'm
sure
for
clarity
on
both
sides,
especially
given
that
this
is
intended
to
be
a
ministerial
process
you
know
is:
are
there
ways
that
we
might
be
able
to
provide
more
clarity
around
what
specific
standards
would
be
waived,
maybe
in
some
kind
of
like
schedule
or
sequencing?
I
don't
just,
for
example
like
oh.
K
If
your
initial
plan
is
not,
you
know
complying
with
our
initial
set
of
standards,
then
you
know
the
first
one
that
will
be
waived
would
be,
I
don't
know
like
far
or
the
the
balcony,
whatever
it
is
right
just
so
we
you
know,
give
clear.
You
know
direction
every
step
of
the
way
and
we
don't
artificially
create
some
kind
of
situation
where
we
are
in
a
way
kind
of
de
facto
having
an
approval
barrier
in
place.
K
H
So
it's
really
it's
a.
It
would
be
an
automatically
waived
sort
of
situation.
So,
if
you
know
if
an
applicant
were
to
submit
a
proposal
and
the
proposal
demonstrated
that
any
given
development
standard
would
preclude
construction
of
what
they're
allowed
under
sb9,
then
the
city
would
be
required
to
waive
it,
and
this
is
similar
to
the
existing
adu
regulations
and
staff
regularly
meets
with
applicants.
H
N
A
I
just
have
one
question
in
the
in
the
questions
that
I
submitted
earlier.
I
don't
know
that
I
got
a
clear
feedback
on
the
question,
so
my
question
was
specifically:
will
the
fact
that
a
sb9,
lot,
split
or
duo
was
done?
The
the
fact
that
it's
linked
to
sb9
be
specifically
recorded
when
it's
filed
with
a
county
for
the
property,
because
the
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
that's
since
there
it
doesn't
allow
multiple
lot
splits.
A
H
A
H
You
know
fairly
substantially.
So
you
know
in
the
effort
to
try
to
to
make
sure
that
these
projects
are
are
approved
in
a
streamlined
manner.
We're
recommending
not
requiring
recorded
documents
as
part
of
these
projects.
L
They
don't
distinguish
them
once
it's
signed
by
the
city
engineer.
Their
function
is
really
just
to
you
know,
record
and
maintain
the
recreation
of
all
the
maps.
It's
the
city's
responsibility
to
maintain
records
and
moving
forward
to
verify
whether
a
previous
sb9
urban
lot
split
has
been
done
and
if
somebody
is
trying
to
then
further
do
another
urban
law
split
on
that
urban
law
split.
A
Would
a
title
search
show
that
if
someone's
going
to
buy
a
property
that
requires
it
to
have
a
residence
in
it
for
three
years
and
they're
selling
it
within
the
three
years
that
the
requirement
that
it
be
owner
occupied
during
the
balance
of
three
year
period
be
shown
during
that
title
search?
That's
what
I'm
looking
to
try
to
understand.
L
Right,
so
we
would.
We
are
not
proposing
to
have
any
sort
of
the
affidavit
that
they
would
be
submitting
actually
be
recorded
with
the
county.
F
O
I
have
a
yeah.
I
wanted
to
respond
to
something
that
the
chair
you
had
said.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
The
sb9
doesn't
actually
require
residing
on
the
property
for
three
years.
It
actually
requires
that
an
affidavit
be
signed
by
the
the
property
owner
that
they
intend
to
reside
on
the
property
for
three
years.
So
that
is
the
requirement.
So
a
subsequent
purchaser
would
not
be
required
to
live
there
for
three
years.
P
O
No,
that
is
not
a
requirement
of
sb9
sb9,
only
requires
that
the
property
owner
sign
an
affidavit
that
they
intend
to
make
it
their
primary
residence
for
at
least
three
years.
So
if
they,
if
they
move
away,
you
know
if
there's
a
bona
fide
reason
to
move
away,
there's
nothing
to
enforce
against
them.
It's
an
intent
to
live
there
for
three
years
or
more
and
a
bona
fide
purchaser
is
not
bound
by
that.
G
G
Is
that
what
we're
saying
I
guess
or
is
that
I
guess
that's
more
of
a
real
estate
question.
I
guess
the
the
question
that
maybe
the
chair
and
I
are
trying
to
get
to
is
how
how
has
this
enforced
the
three
year
I
understand
sandy.
You
were
saying
that
it's
just
a
sign
affidavit
that
the
intention
is
to
live
there
for
three
years,
but
in
reality
the
enforcement
is
not
something
that
the
the
city
can
go
about
like
knocking
on
the
door
and
seeing
if
they're,
that's
not
gonna
happen.
G
So
where
is.
G
O
I
mean
that
that's
true
of
a
lot
of
other
aspects
of
a
property.
You
know
to
know
whether
or
not
a
kitchen
was
renovated
with
permits,
so
the
purchaser
does
have
an
obligation
to
to
do
their
due
diligence
with
the
city
to
see
what
is
allowable
on
their
property.
If
they're
thinking
about
doing
an
urban
lot
split,
one
would
do
that
due
diligence,
so
just
because
they
were
unaware
that
there
was
a
prior
urban
last
flight
would
not
allow
them
to
have
their
own
urban
lot
split.
So
that's
just
kind
of
buyer!
O
O
Be
a
recorded
map
as
well.
You
know
with
the
county,
so
that
says
on
its
face,
that
there
was
an
urban
lot
split.
O
There
will
be
yes
when
the
when
the
first
urban
lot
split
occurs.
It's
recorded.
You
know
it's
a
subdivision
map,
it's
recorded
with
the
county.
So
if
you,
if
one
went
to
look
at
the
official
records
with
the
county,
you
would
see
that
there
was
a
prior
urban
lot
split
and
therefore
there
can't
be
a
subsequent
urban
lot
split,
perfect.
E
Thank
you
chairman,
so
forgive
me,
but
I
think
I
I
thought
I
understood
this
at
the
beginning
of
the
conversation
and
now
I
think
I'm
a
little
confused.
So
hopefully
you
you
can
help
me
understand
this,
and
I'm
I'm
happy
to
direct
this
to
any
of
staff,
including
this
league.
E
H
So
it
is
mandated
under
sb9,
but
the
specific
mandate
under
sb9
is
that
the
applicants
submit
this
affidavit
stating
that
they
intend
to
reside
in
one
of
the
units
as
their
primary
dwelling
for
a
minimum
of
three
years.
So
the
affidavit
is
mandatory,
but
the
actual
residency
requirement
is
it's
not
it's
not
mandatory.
It's
it's
an
intent.
So
it's
a
little
tricky
for
for
cities
to
enforce
and
to
you
know,
figure
out
the
correct
approach
for,
but
that's
that
is
the
mandate
under
sb9.
E
O
It
would
I
it
would
be
fairly
challenging
to
bring
an
action
against
a
person,
because
you
would
have
to
prove
that
they
didn't
intend
to
reside
there
at
the
time
that
they
signed
the
affidavit.
O
So
they
do
sign
under
penalty
of
perjury,
but
it
would
be
a
challenging
enforcement
action
unless,
unless
that
individual
did,
you
know
had
a
bunch
of
urban
lot
splits
happening
at
the
same
time
where
you
could
kind
of
put
the
evidence
together
that
clearly
they
couldn't
have
intended
to
make
all
of
these
properties
their
primary
residents
so
absent
that
kind
of
action
it.
It
would
be
challenging
to
prove
up
that
they
did
not
intend
to
reside
on
that
property
for
three
years.
O
I
doubt
that
hcd
would
intervene
in
that
type
of
scenario,
so
it
would
be
the
city
most
likely
if,
if
anyone
who
could
potentially
bring
some
sort
of
enforcement
action,
okay.
E
A
Okay,
there's
a
follow-up
question
in
the
response
to
question
four
of
the
it
says
the
residence
requirement
runs
with
the
land
and
not
the
property
owner.
If
the
property
is
sold
within
three
year
period,
the
new
owner
would
be
subject
to
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
as
well.
How
would
that
be
communicated
to
a
potential
buyer.
H
A
I
thought
the
intention
the
law
was
to
allow
people
who
have
a
have
a
home
to
add
a
second
unit
that
they
can
rent
out.
Okay
and
the
three-year
period
made
sense
to
me
because
it
says:
okay,
I'm
gonna
add
this
to
my
property:
I'm
gonna
rent
it
out
cool
okay,
but
if
the,
if
they're,
not
if
there's
no
way
of
actually
ensuring
that
they're
going
to
rent
it
and
if
they
immediately
sell
the
property,
then
that
obligation
of
the
three
years
goes
away.
H
So
there
there
are
various
eligibility
requirements
under
sb9
and
I
guess
one
of
them
would
be
the
the
prohibition
on
subdividing
on
an
applicant.
A
single
applicant
subdividing
adjacent
lots
pursuant
to
sp9,
but
for
the
reasons
that
we've
discussed,
the
the
three-year
owner
occupancy
requirement
is
pretty
difficult
for
the
city
to
enforce.
H
A
Okay,
as
a
reminder,
we
have
translation
in
spanish
and
in
chinese
in
the
meeting.
Please
click
the
globe
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
to
choose
your
preferred
language.
If
you
wish
to
hear
an
english
translation
of
spanish
chinese
public
comment,
please
click
the
english
option,
we'll
open
a
public
comment
with
any
member
of
the
public,
like
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hem
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six.
A
A
You
can
we'll
give
each
three
minutes.
A
M
Okay,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you,
chair
cranston,
vice
chair
yen
and
epc
commissioners,
I'm
robert
cox,
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
steering
committee
of
livable
mountain
view.
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
sb9
implementation
in
general.
We
support
the
staff
recommendations.
M
A
B
N
R
B
S
N
Great
thank
you
very
much
good
evening,
commissioners.
I'm
albert
jeans,
long-time
resident
of
mountain
view.
First
of
all,
I
have
to
commend
staff
on
this
very
challenging
topic.
As
we've
seen,
it's
there's
a
lot
of
devil
in
the
details,
and
I
learned
a
lot
of
that
just
by
going
through
this
little
exercise
that
I'm
going
to
show
you
now
next
slide.
Please.
N
As
you
know,
I
always
like
to
visualize
things.
So
when
this
came
out,
my
staff's
report
came
out.
I
started
building
what
I
thought
were
reasonably.
You
know
shaped
houses
and
things
like
that
to
see
exactly
what
I
could
build
on
this
slot,
so
this
is
shown
next
to
my
own
home
in
the
foreground,
which
is
a
standard
single
family
home
in
mountain
view.
N
Next
slide,
please
so
yeah.
This
gives
you
an
idea
of
the
the
layouts
inside
the
buildings.
They
are
three
bedroom
one
and
a
half
bath.
It's
essentially
town
houses,
two
of
them
have
built-in
garages
to
have
carports
and
what's
written
in
the
numbers.
Besides,
the
lot
size
are
the
some
of
the
existing
zoning
conditions,
and
some
of
these
I
learned
since
I
submitted
this-
are
incorrect,
for
example,
on
the
setback
from
the
flag
of
the
flag
on
the
flagpole
the
flag.
Lot.
N
If
you
have
two
stories,
I
think
it
says
you're
supposed
to
have
another
10
feet
a
set
back
there
for
that
yard.
There's
a
lot
of
little
things
like
that.
I
learned,
as
I
went
through
the
code
and
everything
zoning
codes
and
stuff.
For
example,
the
24
feet
you
know
for
the
length
of
the
driveway
if
it's
running
into
another
driveway,
that's
at
right
angles
to
it
things
like
that,
so
you
have
to
turn
around,
and
so
I
what
I
found
interesting
about
this.
N
The
far
is
the
most
restrictive
constraint
in
all
this
and
it
pretty
much
limits
building
on
each
locked
about
1600
square
feet
or
you
know,
two
800
foot
800
square
feet
lots,
and
I
also
learned
that
since
submitting
this,
if
you
look
at
the
draft
ordinance
page
18,
it
actually
says
the
rear
setback
is
the
rear
set
back
in
the
draft.
Ordinance
is
still
five
to.
I
think,
we're
actually
15
to
20
feet
if
it's
adjacent
to
a
lot
that
has
a
backyard
there.
N
So
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
details
in
the
ordinance
and
I
urge
you
to
check
through
it
with
a
fine-tooth
comb
to
see
if
there
any
things
like
that.
Still
hang
around
next
slide.
Please
and
yeah.
You
said
that,
of
course
you
don't
want
a
second
floor
deck
because
that
could
infringe
on
people's
privacy.
But
as
this
shows,
if
you
have
one
of
these
in
the
back
of
your
yard
and
one
off
to
the
side,
you
know
you
have
no
privacy
at
all.
Now,
I'm
your
whole
lot.
N
Your
whole
backyard
is
now
exposed
to
your
neighbors,
and
so
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
major
concerns
we
all
have
about
this
law,
and
I
know
there's
not
much.
We
can
do
about
it.
For
now
I
mean
there
are,
of
course,
other
plans.
I
mean
people
are
trying
to
get.
You
know
about
initiatives
put
together
stuff
to
try
to
dampen
the
effect
of
this.
The
other
thing
is
of
course,
parking.
N
B
P
Hi,
my
name
is
kelsey
baines.
I
am
a
renter
in
mountain
view
and
I
grew
up
in
a
duplex.
It
was
a
housing
type
that
my
mom
could
afford
to
purchase
as
a
female
head
of
household.
So
I
think
duplexes
are
great.
P
I'm
glad
that
we're
going
to
be
legalizing
them
everywhere
and
I
really
appreciated
the
the
commission's
questions,
particularly
the
ones
that
were
sort
of
aimed
at
how
do
we
make
this
more
possible
for
more
residents
to
be
able
to
add
more
more
housing
to
existing
neighborhoods,
and
it
does
seem
like
the
I
don't.
The
sort
of
thrust
of
the
proposed
amendments
are
really
aimed
at
restricting.
P
So
I
would
like
to
see
more
amendments
that
are
aimed
at
promoting
this
development
and
making
it
more
feasible
for
people,
certainly
like
the
restrictions
around
ownership
to.
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
more
ownership
opportunities
there.
These
are
lower
cost
opportunities
to
purchase
and
I
don't
really
understand
I'm
not
a
planner,
so
I
don't
really
understand
why
irregular
lots
are
bad
or
why
that
would
be
something
we
want
to
avoid.
P
I
also
don't
love
the
idea
of
mandated
front
yards.
I
think
something
like
a
soup
can
be
very
nice
in
certain
contexts
and
then
my
own
experience
as
a
renter
during
covid
is
that
balconies
are
very
important,
so
it
would
be
nice,
I
think,
for
future
renters
to
be
able
to
have
a
balcony,
but
the
other
thing
I
would
encourage
you
to
look
at
is
r2
and
r3
zoning.
So
I
spoke
with
someone
recently
who
was
an
immigrant.
P
She
wanted
to
bring
her
extremely
low
income
parents
to
live
with
her
and
wanted
to
build
a
unit
for
them
and
actually
was
in
r3
and
was
told
by
staff
that
since
it
was
a
small
lot,
she
could
only
build
one
new
unit
which
was
fine,
but
then
restrictions
around
affordability
came
into
play,
so
she
had
to
pay
a
large
fee.
She
couldn't
build
on
site,
so
I
think
there
are
some
barriers
that
could
be
taken
on
as
a
part
of
this
process.
A
B
T
I
don't
even
need
the
full
time
so
bruce
england,
speaking
for
mountain
view,
coalition
for
sustainable
planning.
Very
briefly,
we've
had
a
long-standing
position
in
favor
of
advancing
housing
in
mountain
view,
at
all
affordability
levels
and
so
sb9,
where
it
makes
sense
and
where
it's
reasonable.
We
support
it.
So
we're
interested
in
hearing
what
you
all
have
to
say
and
looking
at
staff
recommendations.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah,
it
looks
like
a
kevin
ma
would
like
to
speak
kevin
just
give
me
one
moment
I'll.
Allow
you
to
talk.
R
Evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
kevama,
I'm
a
resident
of
san
antonio
neighborhood,
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
and
the
commissioners
for
all
their
work
on
this
duty
to
fulfill
state
law.
My
comments
are
related
to
commissioner
clarkson
nunez's
questions
is.
I
think
that
the
second
story-
deck's
ban,
is
a
bit
premature.
R
I
mean
nothing
prevents
any
other
person
from
making
just
a
single
single
family
home
two
floors
with
a
rooftop
deck.
Even
with
the
setbacks,
I
could
still
see
in
people's
backyards
like
you're,
not
saving
any
privacy
here,
and
it
just
seems
like
a
dig
against
people
who
want
to
have
a
new
room
in
an
r1
lot
location,
which
is
already
more
than
half
the
city
at
this
point,
so
I
think
that's
a
bit
odd.
I
also
think
that
the
premature
ban
on
a
sale
seems
a
bit
odd.
R
R
B
A
Commissioner
clark,
I'm
happy
to
start,
I
think,
I'm
generally
supportive
of
the
of
the
proposed
amendments.
Overall,
my
one
comment
is
the
the
one
that
I'm
a
little
uncomfortable
with
is
I
I
completely
understand
the
the
desire
to
ensure
some
level
of
privacy
with
reduced
setbacks
with
respect
to
balconies.
A
I
I
do
think
that
the
way
that
we're
approaching
it
is
a
little
bit
restrictive.
So
my
thought
process
is,
you
know
when
you're
adding
additional
far
or
you
know,
buildings
to
a
property.
It's
important
to
maintain,
especially
in
our
our
our
nice
climate
here,
some
level
of
outdoor
space
options,
and
so
I
happened
to
the
other
night.
A
I
was
just
looking
at
the
way
that
san
francisco
approached
this,
which
I
thought
was,
and
they
have
some
it's
just
a
handful
of
slides
that
I
won't
share
here,
but
they
they
have
some
really
good.
Visuals
on
you
know
what
a
you
know.
Maybe
you
wouldn't
allow
a
balcony,
but
you
might
allow
a
a
a
rooftop
deck
on
the
second
floor.
That's
set
back
even
further.
A
You
know
it
doesn't
take
up
the
entire
second
story.
Anyway,
there
are
some
really
great
visuals
that
the
san
francisco
planning
commission
just
reviewed
a
few
weeks
ago-
that
I
think
might
be
I'm
not
saying
we
should
be
fully
as
permissive
as
they
are,
but
I
think
they've
they've
looked
at.
A
You
know
balconies
versus
rooftop
spaces
that
are
don't
take
up
the
entire
floor,
that
you
know
ensure
there's
some
level
of
privacy
and
I
think
they
they
look
at
some
setbacks
there
that
are
greater
than
four
feet
so
anyway,
I
don't
I
I
may
be
the
only
one,
but
I
just
think
that
you
know
looking
at
an
approach.
A
That's
a
little
bit
more
permissive
of
outdoor
areas
for
for
these
units
might
be
more
appropriate
and
I
understand
those
who
have
one-story
single-family
homes,
but
the
reality
is
in
most
of
mountain
view
that
single-story
single-family
home
can
morph
into
a
two
or
three
story
home
pretty
easily
under
the
current
code.
So
it's
it's
not
there
in
perpetuity,
and
I
understand
folks
is
desire
not
to
have
people
staring
in
their
backyards.
A
A
You
know,
process
through
the
planning,
commissioner
council,
so
I
I
just
think
anyway,
that's
my
my
one
plug
to
maybe
look
at
being
a
little
bit
more
liberal
on
the
outdoor
spaces,
and-
and
hopefully
we
wouldn't
have
to
do
that,
work
from
scratch.
We
could
just
look
at
what
a
few
other
cities
are
doing.
That
are
a
little
bit
more
permissive,
but
otherwise
I'm
supportive
of
the
proposed
text.
Amendment
text
amendments.
I
really
appreciate
all
the
work
the
staff
put
into
this
on
a
on
a
short
timeline
in
response
to
state
legislation.
E
So
I
I
would
just
like
to
pursue
with
staff
robert
cox's
question
about
what
are
historic
resources
for
purposes
of?
What's
excluded
from
these
provisions
can
can
staff
help
me
understand
what
is
our?
What
is
the
definition?
What
is
the
rule?
How
do
we
know
what
is
what
is
excluded
as
being
a
historic
resource.
E
L
They
would
contact
the
planning
department
to
ask
if
they
did
not
know
whether
or
not
their
their
property
was
included
on
on
the
historic
register.
So
staff
is
also
currently
starting
the
update
to
the
historic
register
and
and
the
historic
ordinance,
so
both
of
those
will
be
being
updated
over
the
next
couple
years,
but
we
do
have
a
list
right
now
that
is
available
for
people.
J
A
continuing
celebration,
which
is
echo
what
commissioner
clark
said,
I
think
and
steph,
has
really
pulled
together.
An
exhaustive
response
to
what
state
legislation
has.
I
do
share
the
concern
about
potentially
going
too
early
and
in
terms
of
the
second
floor
balconies,
but
I'm
interested
to
be
hearing
the
rest
of
the
commission
response.
G
Yes,
I'm
also
generally
supportive.
I
think
it
was
very
thoughtful
and
they've
incorporated,
as
staff
has
incorporated
sb9
regulations
into
our
zoning
code
in
a
reasonable
way.
I
I
did
have
one
comment
and
I
was
hoping
that
when
the
zoning
code
does
come
out
that
it
has
a
diagram
also
showing
that
helps
people
to
understand
what
canon
can
be
done
easily.
G
G
Maybe
you
know
in
the
future
we
can
find
out
how
we
can
gain
some
more
green
in
the
city
so,
but
if
we
could
also,
I
don't
know
if
staff
could
look
into
perhaps
doing
an
informational
guide.
Much
like
you
do
for
the
adus,
that's
also
very
helpful
for
people
who
are
coming
to
the
planning
office
to
look
into
it.
G
One
comment
also.
This
is
related
to
a
lot
of
what
the
public
commenters
have
made.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
if
someone
wants
to
sell
a
lot,
it's
totally
feasible.
You
just
choose
path
b,
which
is
the
split
lot
instead
of
the
dual
duo,
so
there's
nothing
really
prohibiting
the
sale
of
it
in
any
way.
You
just
go
one
path
versus
the
other.
I
don't
think
one
is
more
difficult
than
the
other
just
to
clarify.
G
That's
correct!
Okay,
great,
so
I
hope
that
alleviates
some
of
that
concern-
and
I
know
you
guys-
are
bringing
up
the
balconies
and
balconies
are
always
nice.
I
understand
why
staff
would
want
to
try
to
limit
that,
especially
if
you're
only
four
feet
away
from
the
property
line.
Once
you
have
a
balcony
you're
like
almost
in
someone
else's
yard,
but
there
is,
if
that
is
going
to
be
considered,
I'd
only
consider
it
where
you
have
the
20
foot
setback
in
the
front,
not
where
it's
so
tight
four
feet
to
the
sides
or
the
rear.
G
I
don't
I
don't
remember
what
the
current
zoning
code
is
for
balconies.
On
the
second
floor
in
the
standard
single
family
zoning,
maybe
you
guys
could
answer
that
on
the
front
and
if
there's
a
prohibition
there.
H
On
the
front,
I
believe,
if
my
memory
serves
me
right,
they
they
need
to
comply
with
the
front
yard,
setback
of
20
feet
and
they're
allowed
on
the
front
or
the
rear.
If
they're
on
the
rear,
they
would
need
to
be
set
back
even
further,
so
it
would
be
25
of
the
lot
depth,
plus
an
additional
five
feet
for
the
rear.
G
K
Thanks
sorry
was
that
the
end
of
your
comment
vice
chair
again
or
on
the.
K
Please
awesome
yeah,
so
I
I
also
feel
pretty
good
about
you
know
most
of
the
the
staff
report
and
I
am
going
to
go
back
to
the
sale
of
the
the
lot.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
just
to
clarify
what
what
was
those
two
paths
like
path,
a
and
path
b
can.
Can
we
get
those
clarified
again.
H
K
If
I
own
this
unit
here,
I
can't
like,
or
if
I
own,
both
of
the
units
here,
I
can't
then
sell
the
second
one.
I
would
have
to
rent
it
or
can.
H
K
Okay,
yeah,
and
so
I
guess
like
I
still,
I
still
feel
a
little
is
that
mandated
by
sp9
by
the
way.
H
My
understanding
is
that
that
is
not
mandated
by
sb9,
so
that's
certainly
something
that
we
can
look
into.
Okay,.
K
Yeah,
because
definitely
I
I
feel
very
supportive
around
like
the
balcony
issue,
for
example.
Super
feel
supportive
around
that
feel
very
supportive
around
making
it
easy
for
people
to
you
know,
check
a
like
historical
register
and
make
sure
we're
publicizing
things,
make
sure
we're
getting
information
out
there
pretty
well.
I
also
feel
really
supportive
about
making
sure
that
we
are
providing
as
many
different
you
know,
diverse
range.
I
mean
it's
one
of
our
city
goals.
Right,
I
mean
we're
going
through
the
housing
element
in
a
bit
for
a
reason.
K
Right
like
we
want
to
make
sure
we
provide
as
a
significant
a
range
of
affordability
and
and
kind
of
you
know,
type
of
ownership
or
rental
options
for
all
types
of
scenarios,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
am
feeling
pretty
strongly
about
right
now
is
that
I
would
not
want
to
create
a
limitation
whereby
we
take
one
of
those
options
off
the
table
for
the
city,
because,
right
now,
with
with
the
housing
crisis
and
the
ongoing
housing
crisis
right,
I
mean
it
really
is
all
hands
on
deck
and
and
that's
just
something
that
I
would
feel
that
you
know-
that's-
that's
probably
the
biggest
kind
of
hair
in
the
suit
for
me
right
now,
but
I'll
kind
of
let
it
go
back
to
other
commissioners
as
well.
E
You
chairman:
well,
I
just
want
to
offer
a
couple
of
comments
before
we.
You
know
we
get
down
to
voting.
You
know
I'm
actually
feeling
pretty
supportive
of
what
staff
has
done
and
appreciative
as
well
on
the
balcony
question,
I'm
fine
with
the
way
that
the
staff
cut
it.
E
I
think
privacy
is
an
important
value
when
it
comes
to
densifying,
and
I
think
it's
you
know
it's
always
important
to
to
have
some
respect
for
those
that
came
before,
namely
the
neighbors
on
the
question
of
sale
versus
making
sure
it
stays
rented.
You
know
I'm
glad
to
know
that
there
are
options
to
split
for
sale,
so
people
can
do
that
if
they
wish
and
it's
never
a
loss
if
a
unit
ends
up
only
being
for
rent,
because
we
need
rental
housing.
E
E
D
D
I
like
the
options
that
you
set
forth
in
terms
of
the
balcony
issue.
If
you
can
put
that
in
the
guide
or
what
you
can
and
can't
do,
that'd
be
even
better,
but
I
think
also
something
that
we
might
think
about
is
how
do
you
want
to
promote
this
awareness
of
sb9?
D
What
does
the?
What
does
the
epc
normally
do
to
spread?
The
word
out.
Do
you
all
have
some
sort
of
outreach
to
neighborhoods
through
their
associations
to
give
them
the
update
and
let
them
know
what
it
is
that
they
should
be
able
to
expect
once
we
finalize
the
guide
or
what's
the
next
step
from
here
on
out.
A
That
was
kind
of
direct
to
bpc.
We
don't,
we
don't
have
a
formal
communication
process.
I
would
defer
to
staff.
Is
that
would
there
be
any
plans,
brittany
or
stephanie,
to
commit?
You
know
to
make
this
more
widely
understood
or.
H
Yeah,
so
to
speak
on
the
the
guide
that
a
few
commissioners
have
suggested,
that's
certainly
something
that
staff
fully
intends
to
do,
and
you
know
I
think
that
will
be
beneficial
both
for
the
public
and
staff
just
to
have
a
more
straightforward.
F
H
Fully
intend
to
do
that,
we
will,
you
know,
we'll
continue
to
publicize
as
we
move
forward
with
the
sp9
process,
this
information
on
our
city
website
and
will
be
available.
You
know
for
any
questions
if
we're
directed
by
council
to
do
additional
outreach,
that's
definitely
something
that
we
can
look
into
as
well.
For
adus
we
did
host
a
zoom
webinar,
so
we
could,
you
know,
potentially
look
into
options
like
that.
If
you
know
if
the
epc
and
council
are
our
recommending
of
that.
A
I
guess
maybe
a
question
before
my
comment,
so
the
do
the
do
cinco
family
does
r1.
Allow
some
kind
of
group
deckish
kind
of
thing
today
or
is
that
not
allowed
within
the
r1
unit?.
H
A
Then
I
think
it
was
mr
jeans
raised
the
question
of
is
the
is
that
is
the
the
setback
in
the
back
clear
at
four
feet.
Or
was
he
correct
and
it
appears
to
be
still
say
that
it's
15
or
20
feet
in
the
back.
P
H
The
initial
the
setback
for
a
duo
development,
which
is
the
two
unit
development
allowed
under
sb9-
that
is
four
feet
for
the
side
and
the
rear
and
20
feet
for
the
front.
You
could
potentially
subdivide
a
lot
through
an
urban
lot
split
and
build
a
single
family
home
on
one
of
the
resulting
lots.
If
you
were
to
build
a
single
family
home,
the
existing
r1
development
standards
would
apply.
A
H
A
A
A
I'm
I'm
not
generally
supportive
of
the
idea
of
balconies
over
a
forfeit
setback,
but
I
am
intrigued
by
what
commissioner
clark
has
has
communicated
that
potentially
san
francisco
is
looking
at
something
that
might
permit
something
on
areas
that
are
that,
where
there
is
more
space,
I
think
vice
chair
yin
mentioned
something
like
that.
I
I
don't
know
that.
That's
something
that
we
necessarily
put
in
me.
That's
a
investigate.
What
san
francisco
is
doing.
I
wouldn't
want
to
delay
moving.
F
A
Here,
but
I
do
think
there
could
be
some
merit
if
council
was
also
supportive,
that
of
investigating
what
san
francisco
has
proposed
if
there's
options
for
so
it's
not
a
complete
fan
of
any
kind
of
a
deck
at
all.
But
if
there's
areas
of
the
property,
where
there
is
more
setback,
then
then
that's
that's
no
worse
than
what
we
have
today.
So
I
think
that
may
be
worth
exploring.
A
I
would
be
reluctant
to
give
a
uniform.
You
know
it's
allowed
everywhere,
so
I
don't
know
whether
that's
a
maybe
it's
a
request.
Maybe
a
would
be
a
comment,
at
least
on
my
part,
the
council
saying
with
it
you
know:
would
they
also
direct
staff
to
to
look
at
this
investigate
this
further
and
then
maybe
come
back
later
with
a
potential
amendment
to
this
to
permit
something
like
that,
I
would
be.
I
would
be
supportive
of
something
like
that,
but
a
uniform
decks
are
allowed
everywhere.
A
I
would
I
would
not
necessarily
be
supportive
of,
I
think,
other
than
that.
I
think
it's.
I
think
it
met
my
my
expectations
and
overall
and
would
be
I'm
supportive
of
the
of
the
of
the
staff
report
since
I've
kind
of
been
pointing
at
mr
clark.
Do
you
have
a
whatever
can
respond
to
my
questions
or
comments,
or
I
was
just
going
to
say.
I
I'm
I'm
supportive
of
that.
I
think
what
I
it
was.
It
was
really
just
a
handful
of
slides
from
the
san
francisco
planning
commission.
A
A
I
do
this
I'll
share
that
with
with
staff
and
if
they
they
think
that
this
is
clearly
not
an
apples-to-apples
comparison
between
mountain
view
and
san
francisco,
then
I
don't
want
to
labor
the
council
with
it,
but
if
there,
if
there
may
be
some
opportunities
to
explore
and
the
council
would
be
supportive
to
you
know-
create
some
some
outdoor
spaces
in
a
few
situations
and
perhaps
they
can
raise
that
possibility
with
the
council
if
they
feel
feel
that
feel
that's
reasonable.
But
so
I
I
can
share
those
with
with
staff.
A
If
you
want,
and
then
I
was
just
going
to,
if
there
were
no
further
comments,
it
was
just
going
to
move
the
staff
recommendation
for
the
proposed
text
amendments
with
the
copy
out
that
we
we
just
take
a
look
at
what
san
francisco
is
doing
for
the
for
the
outdoor
spaces,
the
roof
decks
or
the
or
the
balconies
to
see.
If
that
might
be
applicable
here.
A
Yes,
I'll
just
move
that
I'll
just
move
the
epc
recommend
the
council
that
they
approved
the
proposed
tax
amendments
to
comply
with
california
senate
bill,
nine,
to
establish
clear
procedures
and
expectations
for
the
automatic
closure
of
inactive
permit
applications
and
and
and
review
the
the
materials
that
will
provide
just
about
the
the
outdoor
spaces.
But
I
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
provide
direction
to
staff
to
I
I
just
don't
know
if
it's
an
apple
capitals
comparison.
A
So
I
I
apologize
for
not
bringing
this
up
in
advance,
but
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
see
if
we
have
a
possibility
to
explore
them
so
sandy,
did
you
confirm
whether
or
not
we
have
to
read
the
entire
thing
or
not?.
O
We
we
don't
have
to
read
the
entire
title
of
the
ordinance,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify-
and
I
I'm
pretty
sure
this
is
what
commissioner
clark
was
saying.
But
the
motion
is
to
find
that
the
that
the
ordinances
are
exempt
under
sequa,
as
recommended
by
staff,
and
to
recommend
that
the
city
council
adopt
an
ordinance
amending
chapter
36.
A
A
So
seconded
by
commissioner
gutierrez
mr
abhitabi,
can
you
call
the
role
please.
K
Sorry,
all
right,
so
I'm
sorry
I
had
to
raise
my
hand.
I
don't
know
if
there's
like
my
first
time
doing
this,
there's
like
a
point
to
kind
of
like
for
deliberation
on
that
motion,
or
was
it
once
the
motion
is
in.
It
goes
into
the
vote
right
away.
K
Yeah
for
just
a
kind
of
friendly
amendment
to
add
a
fourth
point,
to
recommend
that
the
city
council
consider
or
have
some
discussion
on
the
potential
waving
of
bmr
in
luffy's
for
the
sp9
projects.
A
Is
there
a
second
to
that
or
the
offering
is
a
friendly
amendment?
So,
mr
clark,
do
you
do
you
accept
that
as
a
friendly
man.
A
I
guess
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
it's
to
raise
the
topic
in
the
staff
report
and
just
say
that
there
may
you
know
at
some
point,
the
council
may
want
to
consider
the
the
bmr.
A
The
bmr
impacts
of
the
sorry,
the
the
fees
associated
with
with
bmr
on
on
these
units,
I'm
not
sure
they
can
do
it
as
part
of
all
of
this.
They
may
have
to
completely
revisit
it,
but
they,
I
guess
they
could
opine
on
whether
or
not
they
they
do
eventually
want
to
visit.
I'd
have
to
definitely
have
to
help
me
out.
I'm
not.
I
guess
I
guess
it
could
be.
A
It
could
be
a
a
short
paragraph
and
a
staff
report
that
the
you
know
the
epc
suggested
that
they
may
want
to
consider
this
at
some
point,
but.
A
I
I
would
be
fine
with
that.
I
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure.
A
A
A
K
Yeah
as
long
as
I,
I
think
that
would
suffice
just
to
make
sure
that
the
council
has
it
on
their
radar
that
the
and
luffys
are
applying
to
you
know
currently,
as
as
it
stands
to
these
espionage
projects,.
A
O
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
so
is:
is
that
part
of
the
motion,
or
is
it
that
you
that
that
there's
a
desire
to
include
it
in
the
staff
in
the
transmittal
of
the
discussion
of
the
of
the
epc
meeting
that
there
was
this
comment
about
about
council
looking
into
waiving
bmr
fees
for
sb9
projects?
K
A
And
I
would
like
commissioner
clark,
certainly
assessing
what
the
impact
would
be,
would
be
more
the
the
guidance
as
opposed
to
a
specific
recommendation.
One
way,
the
other
at
this
point
without
really
looking
at
it.
So
yes
be
aware
of
it,
but
it's
not
a
specific
recommendation
to
change,
because
richard
gutierrez.
D
Yeah,
I
have
a
quick
question
so
in
terms
of
procedure,
is
it
the
majority
sentiment
or
the
epc
to
have
that
be
included
as
a
suggestion
or
where
the
rest
of
the
members
feel?
Because
I
think
that's
that
that
begs
the
question
right.
A
A
A
The
commissioner
yin:
are
you
supportive
of
that
by
just
communicating
that
to
council
you're
on
mute?
Please.
G
Sorry
I
was
going
to
make
the
suggestion
that
you,
you
just
go
ahead
and
take
a
straw
poll
to
see,
if
that's
the
majority
sentiment
to
be
put
on
the
trend,
that's
what
I'm
doing
yeah
exactly
that's.
Why
I
I
undid
my
lower
hand
my
hand
raised
and
before
we
do
that
I
just
wanted
to
just
add
a
little
quick
thing.
As
to
my
reasoning,
why,
I
wouldn't
add
it
commissioning,
is
I
totally
understand
you're
trying
to
like
lower
the
barriers,
and
I
appreciate
the
effort
in
that
direction.
G
For
me
personally,
I
think,
because
the
bmr
program
is
a
little
bit,
I
feel
very
strongly
tied
to
it.
I
feel
really
proud
that
we
did
that
in
because
affordability
is
such
a
huge
issue
in
the
city.
Now
I'm
reluctant
to
take
anyway
funds
from
that,
and
if
someone
had
the
funds
to
be
doing
this,
it's
an
expensive
process
anyways.
I
know
it
is,
and
it
takes
a
lot
of
time
and
planning,
but
it
seems
like
in
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
it's
not
huge
compared
to
all
sorts
of
other
items.
G
Like
you
know,
the
codes
for
structure
and
energy
efficiency
that
they
have
to
to
to
build
towards
also,
I
just
wouldn't
want
to
take
any
funds
away
from
the
bmr
program.
It's
just
a
fraction
when
you're
doing
such
little
number
of
units,
but
I
feel
like
any
little
bit
helps.
E
I
guess,
since
we're
straw
polling,
I
I
actually
agree
very
much
with
what
vice
chair
yin
said.
E
I
mean
I
would
be
fine
to
flag
it
that
that's
okay,
to
have
the
council
think
about
it,
but
I
would
not
be
in
support
of
essentially
supporting
that
as
a
policy
move
by
the
city
council,
because
I
would
be
worried
about
underfunding
the
bmr
program
and
I
think
it's
there's
no
evidence
to
say
that
I
don't
think
we
know
enough
about
who's
going
to
actually
try
to
do
these
sb9
conversions,
to
judge
whether
or
not
we
should
be
cutting
fees
for
them.
We
just
don't
know
who's
doing
it.
E
That's
until
we
have
that
data
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
play
around
with
the
funding
for
bmr.
If
we
don't
actually
know
that
it's
going
to
have
a
positive
impact,
so.
A
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
majority
of
the
commission
is.
It
becomes
an
item
that
we
raise
essentially
an
item
of
awareness,
there's
not
a
specific
recommendation
to
make
a
change
or
otherwise,
but
it's
to
alert
council
that
they
may
want
to
look
at
this
at
some
point
being
nods
majority
of
okay.
So
with
that,
are
there
any?
Is
there
any
other
debate
on
the
motion
to
that
was
put
forward
by
commissioner
clark
and
second
by
commissioner
gutierrez?
J
M
A
A
Item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
item
six
study
session,
so
thank
you,
brittany
and
stephanie.
This
study
session
regarding
the
housing
housing
element
update
for
the
2023-2031
housing
element
as
a
reminder
to
everyone.
We
have
translations
in
spanish
and
chinese
at
this
meeting
if
you're
on
zoom,
please
click
the
globe
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
To
choose
your
preferred
language.
If
you
do
nothing,
you'll
hear
english,
but
you
will
not
be
able
to
hear
the
english
translations
of
spanish
or
chinese
public
comment
before
the
item
starts.
E
A
Thank
you
thanks.
As
a
result,
we
will
have
a
different
process
for
this
item.
We
will
do
the
staff
presentation.
First,
then
public
comment
general
questions
from
the
commission
and
then
commissioner
dempsey
will
leave
the
commission.
While
we
discuss
what
was
item
two
in
the
agenda,
inspection
on
the
back
pocket
items
and
then
commissioner
dempsey,
will
return
to
the
commission.
While
we
discuss
the
remaining
questions,
the
commission
will
then
discuss
the
remaining
remaining
few
questions.
We
are
now
staff
proceed
with
the
staff
presentation
today
by
alan
yao
project
planner
and
eric
anderson,
advanced
planning
manager.
U
A
U
U
At
our
last
study
session,
we
provided
background
information
on
the
housing
element
project
and
we
posed
two
specific
questions
for
epc
regarding
the
key
requirements
and
challenges
and
potential
policy
topics.
Tonight
we
will
provide
a
progress
update
on
two
of
those
key
components
of
the
housing
element.
U
So
the
two
key
components
of
the
housing
element
we
will
cover
tonight
are
the
sites
inventory
and
the
goals
and
policies
section.
So
first,
the
site's
inventory.
It
is
a
inventory
where
we
have
to
identify
sites
that
can
reasonably
accommodate
the
regional
housing
needs
allocation,
known
as
arena,
which
is
a
number
of
units.
The
city
must
plan
for
over
the
next
eight
years
of
the
housing
element.
U
From
our
last
study
session,
the
project
team,
we
moved
forward
with
that
methodology
that
we
presented
and,
as
you
can
see,
overall,
the
draft
sites
inventory
yields
unit
capacity
that
will
meet
our
arena
units
as
well
as
provide
at
least
25
percent
buffer
for
the
harder
to
reach
low
and
moderate
income
level
arena
numbers
similar
to
many
bay
area
cities.
The
above
moderate
units
are
more
easily
accommodated
for
with
just
the
pipeline
projects
alone.
We
exceed
the
4880
above
moderate.
U
U
Just
so
you
know,
the
draft
site's
inventory
is
drafts,
and
you
know
it
will
continue
to
change
as
we
move
forward
to
adoption
hearings
at
the
end
of
the
year
so
again,
with
identifica
identification
of
the
real
projects
and
the
potential
sites
pipeline
projects,
opportunity,
sites
and
rezoning
projects.
The
city
is
able
to
meet
the
arena
and
the
arena
buffer
recommendations.
U
U
So
we
wanted
to
talk
to
epc
and
council
and
get
feedback
in
advance
regarding
these
back
pocket
inventories.
So
these
specific
sites
will
not
be
part
of
the
site's
inventory.
However,
if
the
site's
inventory
isn't
sufficient,
these
areas
could
be
added
to
the
site's
inventory
and
in
cases
where
it
couldn't
be
sufficient
could
be
due
to
no
net
loss,
meaning
a
site
is
developed
with
a
non-residential
use
or
builds
at
a
lower
assumed
unit
count
or
if
hcd
finds,
our
inventory
isn't
adequate
when
they
do
the
draft
review.
U
U
And
then,
our
next
section
after
the
slice
inventory,
is
to
cover
the
draft
goals
and
policies.
The
draft
goals
and
policies
build
upon
the
existing
goals
and
policies
that
we
have
identified
in
our
last
fifth
cycle.
Housing
element:
it
does
incorporate
input
from
community
outreach,
other
city
priorities
and
the
epc
and
council
direction
that
we
got
from
the
initial
list
of
16
policies
from
our
last
study
session.
U
To
get
to
this
short
list
of
goals,
staff
consolidated,
revised,
reduced
redundancy,
increased
usability
that
kind
of
went
into
these
next
slides
that
I'm
gonna
this
next
slide.
I'm
gonna
show
you
so
the
four
goals
that
we
identified
serve
to
address
the
housing
supply
issues,
to
provide
housing
services
and
to
promote
equal
housing
opportunities
for
all
and
to
address
governmental
constraints.
U
U
First,
in
response
to
the
housing
crisis,
the
legislator
required
acd
to
create
incentives
for
jurisdictions
that
comply
with
the
housing
element
requirements
and
have
enacted
local
pro
housing
policies
to
accelerate
housing
production
and
further
the
state's
housing
goal.
This
program
is
open
to
all
jurisdictions
of
state
and
applications
are
accepted
on
a
ruling
basis.
U
U
So
that's
just
an
update
on
that
program
and
then
the
second
item
is
the
review
of
over
density
sites.
This
was
identified
in
council
strategic
road
map,
so
this
is
addressing
housing
densities
of
parcels
that
currently
have
more
residential
units
than
what
is
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
or
general
plan.
U
U
So
if
epc
and
council
are
interested
in
maintaining
existing
housing
stock,
particularly
those
likely
to
be
more
naturally
affordable,
staff
recommends
targeted
updates
to
the
non-conforming
section
of
the
code.
These
updates
could
include
expanding
the
rights
of
property
owners
to
improve
or
add
onto
non-conforming
buildings.
U
So
the
question
is:
does
epc
support,
staff's
recommendation
to
study
targeted
updates
to
the
non-conforming
section
of
the
zoning
code
to
expand
the
ability
to
maintain
and
preserve
the
number
of
residential
units
on
lots
that
do
not
conform
to
allowed
densities
in
the
r1
and
r2
districts?.
U
A
So
next
we
will
go
to
public
comment
as
a
reminder
we
have
translations
in
spanish
and
chinese
at
this
meeting.
Please
click
on
the
globe
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
To
choose
your
preferred
language.
If
you
wish
to
speak,
you
wish
to
hear
english
translations
of
spanish
and
chinese
public
content.
Please
click
the
english
option.
It
will
open
up
the
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
speak
on
the
line
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star.
A
B
M
Yes,
okay,
thank
you,
chair
cranston,
vice
chair
yen
and
epc
commissioners,
I'm
robert
cox,
speaking
on
behalf
of
steering
committee
of
livable
mountain
view.
We
thank
staff
for
their
careful
selection
of
sites
to
meet
mountain
view's
arena
requirements.
We
support
the
methodology
of
designating
pipeline
opportunity
rezoning
sites.
We
believe
that
the
opportunity
sites
selected
have
a
good
opportunity
for
being
redeveloped
in
the
time
frame
of
the
upcoming
arena
cycle.
We
do
note
that
several
important
local
village
centers
are
listed
as
opportunity
sites.
M
We
agreed
that
these
sites
are
currently
underutilized
and
could
support
housing
as
well
as
restaurants
and
retail,
but
we
believe
that
that
should
be
done.
But
if
that
should
be
done,
the
functioning
retail
on
the
site
must
continue.
It
is
not
sufficient
for
the
sites
to
be
replaced
with
residential
and
a
mere
token
retail
presence
like
a
single
bubble,
tea
place,
coffee
house
or
dog
hair
salon,
local
businesses,
support
sustainability,
consumer
quality
life
and
provide
employment
opportunities
in
a
vital
sales
tax
base
for
our
city
on
the
housing
goals.
M
We
strongly
support
staff's
consideration
of
programs
that
will
extend
the
life
of
aging,
naturally
affordable,
housing
and
mountain
view.
This
constructive
action
would
enhance
the
richness
of
life
of
our
vulnerable
populations,
who
have
too
often
lived
under
the
threat
of
displacement
from
our
community.
Finally,
we
urge
caution.
M
Several
items
in
the
pro
housing
designation
application
are
of
particular
concern,
particularly
especially
accommodating
150
percent
of
the
current
or
draft
arena,
reducing
or
eliminating
parking
requirements,
the
absence
or
elimination
of
public
hearings
and
the
waiver,
or
significant
reduction
in
development
impact
fees
needed
to
maintain
a
livable
mountain
view.
Thank
you
for
listening
to
our
views.
I
yield
my
time.
B
Next
hand
I
see
raised
is
for
salim
demurji,
so
I'm
going
to
allow
you
to
talk
and
you
can
begin
when
you
see
the
timer
all
right.
S
Okay,
yeah
first
off,
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
the
pronunciation
that
was
perfect,
and
I
also
want
to
thank
staff
for
looking
into
the
pro
housing
designation.
It's
awesome
that
the
city
is
on
a
good
track
to
get
priority
access
to
affordable
housing
funds.
We
all
know
that's
a
major
constraint
to
hitting
our
targets
before
I
get
into
the
rest
of
my
comment.
I
just
want
to
start
off.
Why,
like?
Why
am
I
here?
I'm
a
26
year
old
I
two
years
ago.
S
I
did
not
know
who
you
know
the
mayor
was
I
didn't
know
what
epc
was.
I
didn't
know
what
a
housing
element
was,
and
the
only
reason
I
had
figured
out
any
of
this
stuff
is
because
I
graduated
from
college
and
majority
of
my
friends
were
deciding
between
leaving
the
area
or
moving
back
in
with
their
family,
and
most
of
the
people
who
stayed
here
are
still
living
with
their
family.
S
S
If
any
of
you
attended
them,
the
housing
crisis
is
affecting
people
really
personally,
and
I
think
it's
incumbent
on
the
city
not
to
ask
what
do
we
need
to
do
to
get
hcd's
approval
but
ask
what
do
we
need
to
do
in
order
to
meet
the
housing
needs
of
the
city?
S
The
current
plan
in
front
of
you
does
not
do
that
number
one
like
the
the
concept
behind
this
back
pocket
rezoning.
Basically,
is
we
the
this
idea
that
we
should
only
care
about?
What
can
we
get
past
hcd
and
not?
What
do
we
need
to
do
to
build
the
homes
that
people
need?
Second,
the
site
inventory
is
basically
a
status
quo.
Side
inventory
I
mean
that's
how
it
was
designed,
and
we
know
the
status
quo
is
not
working
for
people
and
it
would
be
a
disservice
to
the
people.
S
The
working
people
who
showed
up
to
these
meetings
to
ask
for
a
real
plan
to
the
housing
crisis
only
to
get
this
there's
just
no
way
the
city
can
accommodate
an
almost
four-fold
increase
in
our
housing
targets,
while
excluding
r1
lots,
r2
lots
and
every
residential
lot
with
an
existing
density
greater
than
a
triplex
we're
relying
on
commercial
sites
like
the
target.
Next
to
me
that
has
plenty
of
people
going
there.
S
There
are
a
lot
of
commercial
sites
that
just
it
does
not
seem
very
realistic
that
all
of
these
will
get
converted
into
100,
affordable
housing,
and
I
I
hope
we
have
a
realistic
plan
that
takes
into
account
actual
rates
of
development
in
the
current
cycle,
we're
on
track
to
develop
about
one
in
five
of
our
sites
in
the
site
inventory.
S
So
you
should
apply
a
lot
of
scrutiny
to
excitatory.
The
claims
have
a
lot
higher
likelihood
of
development
than
that.
We
need
a
real
plan
to
housing
crisis.
We
can't
just
try
to
get
a
plan,
that's
flimsy
that
we
think
we
can
get
by
state
regulators,
that's
doing
a
disservice
to
mountain
view,
residents
who
are
overburdened
with
rent
or
facing
displacement.
B
V
Great,
thank
you
very
much.
Commissioners.
My
name
is
bill.
Lambert,
I'm
a
resident
of
mona
loma
neighborhood.
You
know
I
apologize
for
being
late
to
this
meeting,
but,
prior
to
the
meeting
I
was
attended.
A
two
and
a
half
hour
meeting
of
the
the
monoloma
deal,
a
group,
the
facilitator,
dealing
with
the.
V
Questions
surrounding
the
monologue
monologue
park
and
the
mona
loma
school-
you
know
it's
if
you
haven't
watched
that
or
paid
attention
to
it.
I
highly
encourage
you
to
do
so
because
it
really
points
out
the
sort
of
challenges
of
land
use
in
mountain
view
that
have
come
about
with
increased
residential
growth,
and
so
you
know,
as
you
discuss
this
this
this
proposal
by
the
by
the
city,
I
would
encourage
you
to
think
about
the
infrastructure
that
is
required
to
support
the
increased
growth
infrastructure,
meaning
schools,
meaning
transportation.
V
I
mean
parks
and
open
space,
meaning
everything
that
goes
into
making
a
community
livable.
And
it's
all
about
context.
I
think
it's.
The
most
important
thing
is
you
can
look
at
housing,
but
you
have
to
look
at
the
housing
also
in
the
context
of
everything
else.
That
makes
makes
residences
a
place
where
people
want
to
live
and
enjoy
their
life
and
be
successful,
and
you
know
and
be
sort
of
sort
of
self-fulfilled.
V
So
just
think
of
that,
as
you
discuss
this
project,
thank
you
very
much.
B
C
All
right
yeah,
thank
you
for
taking
some
comments
here.
My
name
is
tony
roth:
I'm
a
resident
of
cuesta
park.
C
The
application
should
be
restricted
to
include
housing
policies
that
are
already
adopted
by
mountain
view,
and
it
shouldn't
be
used
to
basically
as
a
driver
for
new
policies
around
you
know
the
housing
stock.
C
Many
of
the
proposals
in
the
application
are
aimed
at
sharply
increasing
the
construction
construction
activity
beyond
mountain
view's
renault
allocation
and,
to
give
some
perspective,
the
eleven
thousand
arena
units
that
we
are
talking
about.
They
amount
to
more
than
25
percent
of
mountain
view's
housing,
stock,
current
and
under
construction,
and
that
reno
allocation
is
also
by
far
the
highest
per
capita
in
all
of
santa
clara
county.
C
C
There
seems
to
be
construction
on
every
block
in
mountain
view
these
days,
so
clearly,
construction
is
not
unattractive
and
I
find
it
very
difficult
to
see
what
case
can
be
made
for
reducing
the
developer
impact
fees.
Under
these
circumstances,
they
are
important
to
help
maintain
the
quality
of
life
that
we
all
enjoy
here,
and
the
same
goes
for
the
minimum
parking
requirements.
C
The
pro
housing
application
includes
many
more
troublesome
proposals,
such
as
removing
public
hearings
for
some
projects
and
several
other
items,
as
robert
cox
has
pointed
out,
I
very
much
recommend
you
look
through
them,
so
to
summarize,
I'm
supportive
of
applying
for
the
pro
housing
application,
but
it
should
be
based
on
mountain
view's,
current
policies
and
where
possible
goals
should
be
selected
to
further
mountain
view's
own
housing
goals.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment.
P
Thank
you
good
evening
again.
My
name
is
kelsey
baines.
I
am
a
resident
of
rex
manor.
I
live
in
multi-family
housing
and
I
do
want
to
start
by
saying
there
is
ample
street
parking
despite
there
being
quite
a
lot
of
apartments
here,
I
have
the
choice
to
park
on
the
street
if
I
wanted,
but
I
would
much
rather
park
in
the
parking
lot
and
I'll
say
that
I
live
in
a
two-bedroom
apartment
and
we
have
one
car.
P
So
we
don't
need
you
know
two
parking
spots
per
bedroom
or
what
have
you
but
I'll
get
on
topic.
So
I
am
part
of
the
campaign
for
fair
housing
elements,
and
I
do
want
to
note
that
fair
housing
is
something
that
wasn't
mentioned
in
the
staff
presentation
and
I
do
think
it's
an
important
part
of
the
discussion
that
we
should
center
in
our
discussions
of
the
housing
element,
especially
as
we
look
at
sites.
P
Most
of
them
seem
to
be
concentrated
on
high
traffic
corridors,
and
you
know
places
that
have
fewer
resources
relative
to
downtown.
So
I
would
like
to
see
a
downtown
precise
plan.
I
also
I
agree
with
also
all
of
saleem's
comments,
but
I
don't
really
understand
this
concept
of
the
back
pocket
rezoning
in
that
like.
Why
are
we
keeping
policy
changes
that
we
need
to
get
people
housed
in
our
back
pocket?
P
If
we
know
these
are
policy
solutions,
let's
bring
them
to
the
table
and
and
get
them
done
in
the
next
decade.
I
also
just
wanted
to
point
out
now
that
we're
not
looking
at
r3.
I
do
support
you
know,
thinking
about
how
to
prevent
displacement
in
non-conforming,
r1
and
r2
places.
P
P
F
R
Fundamentally
we're
given
a
plan
right
now
that
basically
does
no
zoning
changes
and
if
we
see
our
last
previous
arena
results,
we've
basically
failed
miserably
on
our
low
and
moderate
income
brackets
again.
Rena
is
based
off
of
specific
income
brackets
that
you
do
need
to
match
individual.
R
R
We
have
built
a
lot
of
above
moderate
income,
but,
as
we
can
see
from
you
know,
day
to
day,
rents
are
still
going
up.
Family
single
family
homes
have
risen
by
10
during
the
pandemic,
we're
not
really
making
this
place
any
better
affordable.
I
know
that
some
people
say
that
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
county,
we're
doing
much
better,
that's
a
very
low
bar
right.
The
rest
of
the
county
is
facing
school
closures
because
they
do
not
have
enough
young
people
moving
in
with
families,
because
everyone
else
decided
that
it's
so
expensive.
R
Here,
there's
no
point
in
spending.
You
know
12
15
years
for
a
condo
built
50
years
ago,
like
we,
we
should
be
doing
better.
We
should
be
creating
a
place
that
everyone
of
all
ages
of
all
backgrounds
can
have
a
space
without
overcrowding.
That's
the
I
live
on
latham.
The
reason
there's
so
many
cars
is
because
so
many
people
have
to
bundle
together
in
the
same
apartment,
because
it's
so
expensive
to
live
here,
and
I
really
don't
want
to
spend
my
20s
in
these
meetings
at
9
00
p.m.
R
On
a
wednesday
night
trying
to
say
that
we
should
have
more
focus
on
the
biggest
cost
of
all.
Our
lives
is
on
the
place
we
live.
We
cannot
be
a
community
if
there's
enough
people
just
worry
day-to-day,
like
making
rents,
making
payments
making
mortgage
payments
making
any
any
kind
of
these
kind
of
things
that
drag
on
everyone's
minds.
Like
people
talk
about
retail
like
why
are
there
retails,
like
the
retail
workers,
can't
afford
here
they
have
to
live
in
san
jose
in
the
east
bay?
R
You
know
we
have
janitors
and
workers
commuting
from
the
central
valley
to
be
here
sure
they
made
a
choice
to
get
the
wages,
but
this
is
not
really
doing
anyone's
favors.
You
have
teachers
who
cannot
interact
with
the
students
after
school
because
they
might
have
to
commute
half
an
hour
away.
You
have
firefighters
that
might
be
commuting
from
antioch,
like
there's
a
firefighter
serving
on
the
gilroy
city
council.
R
W
W
I
know
in
in
totality
the
arena
numbers
will
be
met
because
of
all
the
approved
projects
in
the
city
for
the
next
cycle,
but
I
I
am
worried
about
meeting
the
affordable
housing
portion
of
of
those
requirements
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
some
solutions.
I
mean
we
keep.
You
know
bringing
these
up
meeting
after
meeting,
but
I
am
not
seeing
any
good
solid
solutions
for
increasing
the
affordable
percentage
of
the
housing
in
mountain
view.
W
For
example,
the
enforcement
of
the
15
percent
requirement
that
the
developer
has
to
designate
you
know
to
affordable
housing.
Unfortunately,
mountain
view
allows
the
developers
to
opt
out
and
pays
a
fee
in
lieu
of
providing
the
affordable
housing.
You
know
15
of
what
they
build
and
I
think
the
the
city
should
really
consider
making
it
a
requirement
and
not
allowing
any
opt-outs
for
the
developers-
and
I
know
people
have
said
in
the
past.
W
Well,
you
know,
if
you
make
it
a
requirement,
then
the
developers
always
come
back
and
say
it
was
too
expensive
to
to
give
15
for
affordable
housing
is,
is
not
financially
viable
for
them.
Then
I
would
say
you
know,
seek
out
some
other
solutions
to
remedy
that.
I
think
vice
chair
yin
in
the
last
meeting
session,
the
first
one
that
we
had
on
housing
element.
W
She
actually
mentioned
seeking
community
land
trusts
to
subsidize,
to
subsidize
the
you
know,
15
percent
or
even
more
percentage
of
affordable
housing
from
the
developers,
and
I
have
not
seen
any
efforts
or
suggestions
or
studies
from
the
city
staff.
To
even
look
into
that.
W
I
would
really
like
to
urge
the
staff
to
look
at
serious
solutions
to
change
the
situation,
so
we
have
actual
affordable
housing
in
mountain
view,
because
I
think
that's
the
dilemma.
There
are
lots
of
rental
signs
that
I
see
around
my
neighborhood
and
elsewhere.
So
people
can
rent
for
a
lot
of
money,
but
it's
not
affordable.
A
A
Hello,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
yes,
hello,
my
name
is
isaac
stone.
I
live
in
mountain
view.
I
wanted
to
make
a
couple
comments.
I
think
staff
has
done
a
very
good
job
in
selecting
a
site
inventory
that
meets
the
arena
requirements,
but
I
would
quibble
with
one
point
in
the
staff
report
where
they
said
they
selected
a
good
number
of
sites
to
meet
mountain
view's
housing
needs,
I
think,
as
long
as
we
have
a
job
to
housing,
imbalance.
A
Are
not
met.
Apparently,
the
imbalance
is
about
two
to
one,
which
means
we
need
to
have
an
inventory
that
is
double
our
current
housing
to
meet
our
housing
needs,
which
is
not
nearly
enough
in
the
arena
cycle,
and
we
will
just
keep
building
just
barely
enough
to
meet
state
requirements
over
and
over
again
every
eight
years.
I
think
that
we
should
be
more
bold
and
a
lot
more
housing.
You
eliminate
r1,
you
eliminate
r2,
saying
there's
not
enough
density.
You
eliminate
r3,
because
we
don't
want
to
displace
people.
A
We
eliminate
rmh,
because
we
don't
want
to
get
rid
of
our
mobile
home
development.
That
leaves
hardly
anything
we
need
to
do
better.
I
would
suggest
looking
again
at
r1
and
r2
and
thinking
about
ways
that
we
can
develop,
that
aren't
high
rises,
but
do
allow
more
density.
We
currently
have
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
B
F
I
Hi,
I'm
david
watson,
I
been
a
resident
of
mountain
view,
my
entire
life
I
growing
up
the
there
were.
I
had
you
know,
friends
in
high
school
who
didn't
go
into
the
tech
industry
and
all
of
them
have
been
forced
to
to
move
out
of
town
by
the
high
high
cost
of
housing.
I
have
I
have
two
daughters
now
and
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they'll
be
able
to
choose
where
they
live,
not
just
based
on
which
industry
they
they
decide
to
go
into
one
day.
I
So
I
I
want
to
start
by
saying
that
the
the
there
it
appears
like
there's
going
to
be
a
a
serious,
a
serious
problem
with
the
number
of
lack
of
low
and
very
low
income
housing.
The
sites
in
the
inventory
are
projected
for
lots
of
below
market
rate,
while
actual
product
projects
being
built
have
been
way
way
way,
fewer,
so
to
reach
the
bmr
target.
The
city
should
list
many
more
sites
and
donate
land
for
all,
affordable
projects
or
both
according
table.
Two.
I
On
page
seven
of
the
staff
report
opportunity
sites
are
projected
to
be
5400
out
of
six
thousand
eight
hundred.
Eighty
percent
bmr
units,
whereas
actually
proposed
projects
in
the
pipeline,
are
on
track
to
be
one
thousand
eight
hundred
out
of
the
eight
thousand
two
hundred,
which
is
twenty
two
percent
vmr
units.
I
So
I
I
think
that
we
really
are
are
currently
on
track
to
be
significantly
behind
in
terms
of
the
low
and
very
low
income
housing.
Further,
I
wanted
to
bring
up
that.
I
I
think
that
one
of
the
the
biggest
things
standing
in
the
way
of
building
affordable
housing
in
in
mountain
view,
is
the
the
parking
requirements,
thanks
to
the
in
lieu
parking
options
that
were
provided
in
downtown
mountain
view,
as
well
as
san
jose
and
some
other
places,
it
was
possible
to
calculate
in
donald
trump's
the
high
cost
of
free
parking,
how
much
we
are
effectively
charging
development
developers
by
requiring
that
they
build
parking
and
often
it
it
that
part.
I
The
the
required
parking
makes
up
the
largest
single
fee
of
all
of
all
fees
for
new
housing,
and
that
includes
for
affordable
housing
developments.
I
I
think
that
we
should
take
a
serious
look
at
our
our
parking
parking
minimums
and
consider
changing
them
to
be
parking.
Maximums,
specifically
with
the
goal
of
making
it
possible
to
more
cheaply,
build,
affordable,
housing
again
and
again,
the
city
finds
that
it
costs
more
than
they
expected
to
build
new
units
and
again
and
again
that
is
caused
by
the
very
high
cost
of
required
minimum
parking.
A
I
A
So
we
will
move
to
the
general
questions,
we're
going
to
jump
ahead
to
question
the
monastery's
question
and
specifically
the
so
the
back
pocket
and
specifically
the
topic
of
the
general
plan
village
center
sites.
So
we'll
ask
commissioner
dempsey
to
delete
visit.
Y
A
J
Y
Sure
so
the
first
step
was
to
look
at
our
history
of
adu
production
and
to
project
that
forward
and
that's
where
we
ended
up
at
the
roughly
100
or
so
estimated
adus.
Y
There
is
a
regional
study
out
now
that
we're
relying
on
for
how
to
allocate
adus
to
different
income
levels,
and
so
that
looked
at
adus
that
have
actually
been
built
in
the
region
and
what
you
know
are
they
used
for
you
know
family
members,
are
they
used?
Are
they
rented
out?
Are
they
you
know
and
they're
kind
of
allocated
to
those
different
purposes
and
deemed
housing
for
different
income
levels
based
on
those
different
purposes,
and
so
we're
planning
on
using
those
that
study
to
allocate
among
the
different
income
levels.
Y
When
they're
actually
built
yeah,
that's
that's
actually
a
good
question.
I
think
that's
something
that
we
need
to
actually
look
into
more
because
obviously,
as
part
of
our
process
of
approving
adus,
we
don't
ask
people
you
know.
Is
this
going
to
be
rented
lower
income
or
anything
so
when
they're
actually
constructed?
Y
I
don't
know
matt,
you
have
any
inkling
about
where
hcd
might
end
up
with
that
on
the
aprs.
Z
Yeah
good
evening
everybody,
so
I
I
see
hcd
encouraging
jurisdictions
to
actually
do
surveying
or
documenting
of
how
those
units
are
going
to
be
used
when
they're
approved,
so
some
some
jurisdictions
just
have
the
owners
fill
out
a
little
questionnaire
to
say
you
know
how's
how's,
the
unit
being
used
is
it
you
know
rented
to
somebody
outside
the
family?
Is
it
occupied
by
a
family
member
is
rent
charged?
If
so,
how
much
and
just
keeping
records
of
that?
Z
E
So
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
a
general
question
or
a
question
one
question,
but
I'll
ask
you.
Nonetheless,
you
can
tell
me
if
now's
the
time
I
note
for
table
two
and
I
don't
want
to
get
too
much
into
the
details
of
this,
but
the
for
the
pipeline
projects.
There
tends
to
be
an
abundance
of
over
above
moderate
units
allocated
to
it
in
a
small
number
of
low
moderate,
and
then,
when
you
look
at
opportunity
sites,
it's
actually
flipped
around
and
that's
a
pretty
big
glaring
difference
that
the
truth
is.
E
I
didn't
understand
why
that
happened,
and
so
I
guess
my
question
is
without
getting
into
too
much
detail.
Can
you
explain
to
me
why
those
the
concentrations
of
numbers
are
flipped
in
that
table
too
between
pipeline
projects
and
opportunity
sites?
It
is
the
methodology
we
use
to
allocate
how
much
is
low
moderate.
How
much
is
above
to
those
sites
is
that
the
same
methodology
that
hcd
uses
when
they
look
at
our
plants.
Y
I'm
actually
going
to
throw
this
one
to
two.
I
think
bev,
probably
the
best
one
to
answer
this
one,
but
in
terms
of
hcd
direction,
maybe
matt
can
chime
in
as
well
but
go
ahead.
Q
Sure,
thank
you
eric
and
good
evening
to
everyone.
It's
really
an
excellent
question,
and
you
know
our
goal
in
working
with
staff
is
to
not
only
meet
the
arena,
but
as
some
you
know,
members
of
the
public
and
mentioned
you
know
how
we
can
really.
Z
Yeah
I'll
just
tag
on
to
that.
With
regard
to
this
question
about
a
certain
percentage
of
pipeline
projects
being
affordable,
that's
based
on
the
known
affordability
of
those
projects,
so
you
have
an
actual
project
proposal
and
you
can
tell
either
be
a
regulatory
agreement
or
other
means
how
much
of
those
units
are
actually
going
to
be
affordable.
Z
If
the
density
is
above
that
default,
minimum
density
of
30
units
or
more
there's
the
potential
to
actually
count
the
whole
site
as
affordable,
because
theoretically,
it
could
support
formal
housing
development.
However,
that
would
be
a
very
aggressive
assumption
and
could
lead
to
problems
down
the
road
in
terms
of
the
no
net
loss
provisions.
Z
That
still
represents
this
potential
to
support,
affordable
housing
development.
So
it's
it's!
It's
a
balancing
of
trying
to
make
reasonable
assumptions
accommodate
the
re
demonstrate
how
the
city
can
accommodate
its
arena
within
the
guidelines
that
hcd
has
laid
out,
but
also
make
sure
that
in
the
future,
as
sites
actually
build
out,
we
haven't
overshot
or
overestimated
the
affordable
housing
unit
potential.
To
the
extent
that
you
have
a
situation
where
no
net
loss
rules
require
the
city
to
rezone
additional
sites
to
make
up
for
that
lost,
affordable
housing,
development
potential.
Z
I
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
blending
of
that
it's
tempered
by
reality,
but
is
showing
that
that
it
is
possible
for
these
sites
to
develop
with
higher
levels
of
affordable
housing.
Thank
you.
Y
Yeah,
I
would
just
add
on
to
that
that
you
know
the
driving
one
of
the
driving
factors
of
whether
affordable
housing
gets
built
is
really
the
available
funding
right.
Every
affordable
housing
development
is
is
at
a
loss
you
know,
and
so,
if
the
funding
isn't
available,
then
the
no
matter
how
many
sites
we
zone
for
it.
You
know
that's,
that's
that's
the
the
constraining
factor,
and
so
that's
why
traditionally,
rena
has
been
primarily
a
process
of
identifying
sites,
rather
than
necessarily
a
process
of
specific
forecasting
of
affordable
units.
K
Yep
thanks
for
the
report,
I
had
a
question
around
kind
of
the
parameters
and
definitions
around
what
you
know
what
cycle
a
project
would
actually
fall
into
so
like,
for
example,
right
we're
going
to
cycle
six
or
we're
planning
for
that
and
then
got
cycle
five.
So
in
terms
of
determining
a
project,
does
it
fall
into
cycle
five
or
cycle
six,
or
can
we
even
count
it
for
cycle
six?
What
does
that
look
like
so?
K
Would
it
be,
for
example,
the
project
had
to
have
been
approved
by
the
council
or
or
something,
and
it
had
to
have
started
before
the
next
cycle
was
approved
by
hcd
like
how
do
you
yeah?
I
I
think
you
guys
get
what
I'm
getting
at
like.
How
do
you
define
what
cycle
a
project
can
count
to.
Y
Hey
so
matt,
what
is
the
latest
from
hcd
on
this.
Z
Thanks
yeah,
based
on
our
latest
conversations
with
them,
we
believe
that
we're
able
to
count
units
towards
the
sixth
cycle
that
will
actually
be
constructed
and
occupied
in
the
sixth
cycle.
So
if
they
were
approved
but
construction
hasn't
yet
started,
those
potentially
will
be
counted
as
six
cycle
units.
N
A
Thanks
other
professional
questions,
krishna
tears.
D
Y
We
have
generally
developments
that
serve
low
and
very
low
populations,
and
we've
done
quite
a
few
of
those
specifically
especially
targeted
to
the
very
low
we
just
had
a
development
open
at
950
el
camino,
where
the
taco
bell
used
to
be
so
that's
a
very
recent,
affordable
housing
project
that
was
completed.
Y
The
moderate
income
units
have
historically
been
a
challenge
in
our
arena.
I
think
you'll
see
in
our
next
apr
that
we
really
haven't
been
successful
in
getting
them,
but
we
are
seeing
some
innovative
developer
proposals
for
mixed
income,
housing
that
includes
moderate
and
above
moderate
housing.
But
again,
the
combination
of
low
and
moderate
doesn't
really.
D
Yeah
and
that's
my
concern
right
natural
aging
buildings,
I
get
that
they
have
the
chance
to
be
able
to
be
modified
one
way
or
another.
I
I
I
support
the
ability
for
owners
to
be
able
to
do
that
right
to
help
themselves
out
that
way
and
also
help
the
community
out,
but
I'm
not
too
optimistic
about
the
targeting
of
certain
sites
related
to
low
income,
housing
or
moderately
priced
housing.
I
would
love
to
see
something
added
on
to
the
possibilities
to
those
sides.
D
I
also
understand
that
we're
limited
with
what's
out
there
and
we're
also
limited
with
what
it
is
that
we
receive
as
a
proposal
from
a
developer
right,
and
so
I'm
wondering
and
bear
with
me,
because
I
am
new
to
this
process,
but
I
I
love
to
be
able
to
also
suggest
or
look
into
or
figure
out
if
there
are
any
incentives
that
we
can
provide
to
to
to
gain
steam
towards
this
vision
of
looking
at
things
differently.
D
I
know
there's
some
there
already,
but
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
enough
to
be
able
to
turn
the
the
page
a
to
a
brighter
story
and-
and
that's
what
worries
me,
because
I
know
right
now-
no
matter
how
much
we
build
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
catch
up
and
if
we
build
too
fast
and
we're
not
smart
about
it.
It's
going
to
bite
us
in
the
in
the
end.
D
So
I'm
I'm
optimistic,
but
I'm
cautiously
optimistic
because
I'm
still
more
worried
about
what
the
future
will
lie
in
store
for
us
within
not
the
next
five
to
ten
years,
but
within
the
one
to
the
three
year
mark,
because
I
see
that
there's
a
lot
of
changes
happening
just
quickly.
I
know
a
lot
of
the
friends
that
I
had
who
worked
at
google
or
at
apple
they're,
not
here
anymore,
because
of
covid
there
they
moved
right.
They
were
able
to
move
out
of
the
area.
D
So
a
lot
of
these
areas
that
I'm
at
familiar
with
like
latham
street
there's
vacancies
but
they're
not
really
being
filled
up.
A
lot
of
young
people
are
moving
out
and
I
caller
brought
this
up
before
that.
Affordability
is
a
big
issue,
so
if
you
don't
have
families
that
want
to
stay
because
they
don't
feel
they
can
afford
to
be
here.
D
I
think
that
explains
why
you
have
a
lot
of
housing-
that's
built,
but
that's
above
average,
right
above
bmr
rates,
because
they're
the
ones
coming
in
on
contract
for
a
few
years
they're
here
we
move
out
next,
so
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
see
if
there's
something
there
that
we
can
look
at
together
to
see
if
we
can
try
and
problem
solve
this
a
little
bit
better
thanks.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
couple.
One
of
the
things
that
wasn't
entirely
clear
to
me
is
do
if
something's
included
in
the
list
that
we
showed
at
hcd
does
it
have
to
have
completed
rezoning
legislative
action
prior
to
the
beginning
of
2023,
or
our
item
can
items
that
be
that
we're
working
through,
but
they
have
not
yet
cleared
council
be
included
on
that
list.
Y
So
there
are,
there
is
a
one-year
deadline
if
we
adopt
our
housing
element
by,
I
believe,
may
2023
so
or
sorry
a
three-year
deadline.
If
we
adopt
by
may
2023,
if
we
don't
adopt
by
may
2023,
then
we
only
have
a
one-year
grace
period
to
to
enact
those
rezonings.
Is
that
correct
matt?
Do
I
have
that
right.
Z
Yes,
with
a
qualification
that
it's
really
about
having
the
element
found
to
be
in
compliance
with
state
law,
right.
A
Y
A
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
is,
do
do.
Are
there
things?
Does
everything
have
to
get
through
the
process?
If
we
look
at
a
series
of
actions
that
we
believe
will
contribute
to
the
housing
element
and
that,
but
some
of
them
are
still
in
process
the
time
that
we
submit
it
will
hcd,
accept
it
and
certify
it.
While
we
continue
to
work
through
the
details,
or
does
everything
have
to
be
done,
signed
sealed
delivered
before
they
will
ever
accept
anything?
A
It
sounds
like
it's
a
former,
but
it
sounds
like
hcd
would
probably
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
would
probably
ask
a
lot
of
questions
about
those
things.
We're
still
in
process.
Is
that
fair.
Z
So
there
there
are
many
programs,
as
as
ellen
outlined
in
her
her
presentation
before
talking
about
sites,
inventory
programs
and
policies
that
will
be
implemented
over
the
eight
year
period
of
the
sixth
housing
element
cycle.
So
post
adoption
among
those
programs.
If
there
is
a
program
calling
for
rezoning
necessary
to
fully
accommodate
the
arena,
then,
as
eric
mentioned,
that
needs
to
be
completed
within
three
years
of
the
statutory
deadline
for
adoption
of
the
housing
element
update
as
long
as
we're
able
to
get
that
certification
by
may
of
2023.
Z
So
you'd
have
three
three
years
to
complete
any
rezoning
that
hadn't
been
done.
Yet
that
was
needed
to
accommodate
the
arena
and
then,
if
we're
not
able
to
get
that
certification
by
may
of
2023,
then
there's
a
one-year
deadline
from
january
2023
to
get
those
rezonings
done.
But
a
lot
of
other
actions
will
not
be
subject
to
those
timelines,
but
need
to
be
done
within
that
housing
element
planning
period.
The
eight
year
period.
A
Okay,
thanks:
does
anybody
remember
what
percentage
over
did
we
come
into
this
cycle
on.
A
Where
we
so
you're
showing
is
roughly
25
percent
over
identified
on
the
low
and
moderate
and
61
percent
on
on
above,
how
does
that
compare
to
how
we
entered
cycle
five.
Y
Y
I
I
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head
if
it
was
an
exact
number,
but
it
was
probably
very
very
close.
You
know
if
it
was
over.
It
was
just
because
you
know
we
stopped
at
a
particular
site
and
that
site
gave
us
a
few
extra
units
over,
but
because
there
was
no
net
loss,
no,
no
net
loss
law,
the
there
was
no
reason
to
identify
a
buffer.
A
A
And
then
my
last
question
is
this:
is
kind
of
a
can.
It
be
included
kind
of
a
question.
Some
one
of
the
things
that
we've
discussed
in
previous
meetings
is,
you
know,
being
able
to
drive
additional
housing
around
things
like
the
caltrain
sites,
and
you
know
the.
A
A
There
are
actions
like
that,
something
that
would
be
permitted
within
the
policy
and
actions
to
look
at.
How
do
you?
How
do
you
make
sites
that
are
not
necessarily
close
to
those
more
accessible
to
people
that
aren't
in
those
locations?
Is
that,
and
then
is
that
is
that
something
that
can
be
included
in
our
actions
and
our
policies,
or
is
that
just
totally
off
the
mark
by
you
know
by
hcd.
Y
I
I
would
say
it's:
it's
not
off
the
mark
if
it's
a
value
that
the
city
has
and
and
wants
to,
you
know,
encourage
and
propagate
through
that
through
the
housing
element.
I
would
say
that,
for
things
like
transportation
infrastructure,
which
I
think
is,
is
what
you're
alluding
to
you
know
kind
of
improved
connectivity
in
neighborhoods,
improved
access
to
transit,
improved
transit
services
to
to
neighborhoods
for
things
like
that,
we
would
tend
to
look
at
other
chapters.
Y
Z
So,
to
the
extent
that
there's
a
opportunity
to
improve
the
access
say
between
housing,
where
there
are
numbers
of
lower
income
or
minority
population
and
making
connections
better
to
jobs,
services,
community
amenities
and
so
forth,
they
would
be
very
happy,
I
think,
to
see
programs
around
improving
that
connectivity
and
access.
G
One
quick
question:
can
staff
remind
me
if
a
site
is
chosen
and
put
in
for
this
cycle?
If
it
doesn't
develop,
can
we
count
it
in
the
next
cycle.
Y
There
are
limitations,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
limitations
are
ongoing
or
just
for
this
cycle
bev.
I
think
you're,
probably
a
good
one,
to
answer
this.
One.
Q
Yeah,
the
the
rules
may
change,
and
so
again
you
know
there's
been
comments
about.
You
know:
how
can
we
increase
the
the
buffer,
whether
it's
for
low
and
moderate
or
other.
C
Q
We
had
intentionally
wanted
to
kind
of
balance
this
inventory
again
to
not
only
meet
the
arena,
but
consider
that
you
know
if
we
place
too
many
units
into
this
cycle.
You
know
what
how
how
are
we
to
you
know
address
the
seven
cycle,
whatever
that
may
look
like
and
what
those
regulations
state.
Q
You
know
what
those
may
look
like
as
well,
and
so
within
this
draft
inventory,
we
did
look
at
you
know
fifth
cycle
sites
and
if
it
made
sense
to
include
those
at
this
time
we
have
not.
But
but
again
the
inventory
may
change
as
we
progress
through
this
process,
and
so
I
think
we've
tried
to
build
in
enough
flexibility
and
remain
conservative
in
in
our
assumptions
so
that,
if
things
kind
of
come
on
or
come
off,
we
can
continue
to
fine-tune
and
hopefully
meet
the
the
to
the
satisfaction
of
hcv.
Z
I
was
just
gonna
tag
on
to
that
that,
for
the
sixth
cycle,
at
least
as
a
loss
currently
written,
the
rule
with
respect
to
sites
that
have
been
identified
in
prior
cycles
is
that
if
you
have
a
non-vacant
site
that
was
included
in
one
prior
housing
element
cycle,
you've
got
to
have
a
program
to
rezone
that
site
and
you're
going
to
include
it
in
the
sixth
cycle.
You've
got
to
have
a
program
to
rezone
that
site
for
by
right
development
for
a
housing
project
that
contains
at
least
20
percent,
affordable
units.
Z
If
you
have
a
vacant
site,
that
requirement
isn't
triggered
until
it's
been
used
in
two
prior
consecutive
housing
element
cycles.
So
in
this
case
the
both
the
fourth
and
fifth
cycles
for
a
vacant
site
to
be
included
in
the
sixth
cycle,
then
you'd
have
that
that
requirement
for
the
the
rezone
for
buy
right
for
20
percent
for
projects.
G
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
because
I
know
that
sometimes
you
know
planning
things
just
takes
time
and
if
you've
allocated
it
and
that's
the
intention,
the
city
has
really
very
little
way
to
force
a
developer,
to
propose
a
project
or
property
owner.
So
it's
I'm
just
glad
to
see
the
flexibility
and
that
they'll
allow
for
this
to
be
in
the
next
cycle,
but
with
the
incentive
that
eventually,
please.
Let's
do
something.
Okay,
great.
A
So
again,
a
kind
of
a
sub
question
of
question.
Two,
it
says:
does
the
epc
support
the
inclusion
of
general
plan
village
centers
among
the
pros
proposed
back
pocket
rezoning
and
so
just
eric
just
to
make
sure
we
said
the
general
plan
ones
are.
The
ones
are
not
necessarily
the
ones
that,
because
the
village
center
structure
on
el
camino
is
different.
So
this
would
be
things
like
the
montaloma
or
the
the
one,
the
one
at
the
corner
of
frankfort
and
and
middle
field.
Y
Right
so
these
are
the
small
neighborhood
shopping
strip
malls
that
are
integral
to
neighborhoods,
like
blossom
valley
like
on
cuesta
miramani
or
like
malama,
plaza
on
ranksdorf
and
and
middlefield.
A
Y
So
we're
in
the
staff
report,
we
listed
the
ones
that
are
identified
in
the
general
plan,
and
then
we
also-
and
you
can
include
this
as
part
of
your
discussion-
identified
two
other
sites
that
are
not
currently
identified
in
the
general
plan,
but
have
similar
characteristics
and
the
two
others
that
are
not
identified
in
the
general
plan.
But
have
similar
characteristics
are
malama
plaza
and
bailey
park,
which
is
on
the
corner
of
montecito
and
shoreline.
A
All
right
so,
first
turning
in.
G
Y
I'm
sorry
yeah
the
transit
center
commissioner
dempsey
can
join
us
for
so.
If
you
want
to
hold
that
question
for
when
commissioner
dempsey
is
around.
A
This
is
specifically
boston
valley,
shopping
center
in
cuesta
and
miramonte
grant
park
plaza,
that's
the
one
kind
of
as
you
come
down
to
37
and
cross,
get
away
from
el
camino
and
then
valley
park,
which
is
where
the
safeway
is
on
shoreline
montana
plaza,
which,
with
a
small
safeway,
is
there
and
then
any
others
that
will
fall
into
that.
So,
commissioner
clark,
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
I'm
fine
with
the
inclusion
of
all
those.
K
So
I
have
some
questions
for
this.
So
I'll
start
off
by
asking
about
the
target
site.
Have
we
gotten
any
indication
or
kind
of
word
that
there's
any
thinking
around
redeveloping
that
site
to
to
housing.
Y
Y
However,
there
was
a
an
application,
probably
about
10
years
ago
or
so,
to
tear
down
the
existing
target
building
and
rebuild
it
with
another,
a
different
target
building
that
ultimately
wasn't
pursued,
but
certainly
that
is
indication
that
the
building
has
has
reached
near
the
end
of
its
useful
life.
F
Y
It
is
part
of
the
san
antonio
precise
plan
and
again
that
again
just
to
clarify
that's
not
part
of
the
village
center
discussion
right
now,
yeah.
K
Okay,
cool
well
as
far
as
the
blossom
valley
component
goes
just
because
my
understanding
is
that,
as
far
as
the
general
plan
goes,
it
looks
like
it's
designated
neighborhood
mixed
use.
Is
that
correct.
K
And
then
the
one
on
grant,
I
think
it's
a
like.
I
forgot
what
it
is
grant
park,
it's
a
precise
plan,
essentially
right.
It's.
Y
Currently,
in
a
precise
plan
that
doesn't
allow
residential.
K
Yeah,
okay,
cool,
but
then
in
the
general
plan
I
think
it's
designated
as
mixed-use
corridor.
That's
correct!
So
if
some
developer
out
there,
you
know
was
kind
of
like
trawling,
our
general
plan,
what
would
be
able
to
prevent
them
from
coming
in
and
you
know,
kind
of
submitting
an
application
for
an
sb35
style
project.
Y
Well,
I
don't
know
enough
about
sb35
to
say,
however,
the
certainly
under
the
the
housing
accountability
act
now
they
would
certainly
be
able
to
propose
a
project.
However,
there
would
be
challenges
in
determining
development
standards
and
that
process
could
add
difficulty
or
challenges
to
reviewing
the
project
that
they
may
not
want
to
pursue.
Okay,
yeah.
K
Just
because
I
actually
I'm
very
aware
of
instances
where
there
have
been
discrepancies
between
you
know,
zoning
and
general
plans
and
with
sp
35
at
that
stage,
whether
the
zoning
or
general
plan
indicates
that
some
residential
can
be
put
in
place
there.
K
It
we're
kind
of
out
of
luck
in
terms
of
being
able
to
have
any
kind
of
control
over
that
project
right,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
thinking
through
this
you
know
these
sites
from
is
also
we
want
to
make
sure
we
get
this
approved
by
hcd
last
I
heard
we
were
allocated
about
a
million
dollars,
which
is
a
lot
of
money
to
be
putting
towards
this.
K
You
know
item
and
one
of
the
key
you
know
aspects
of
this
is
the
the
afh,
I
believe
the
affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing,
and
so
you
know
as
part
of
what
the
hcd
will
be
looking
at.
You
know
we're
gonna
be
getting
rated
or
graded,
or
you
know
considered
for
how
equitable
the
distribution
is
of
our
precise
plan
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
did
notice.
K
Is
that
really
very
few
if
any
of
the
sites
on
the
inventory
map
were
placed
in
you
know
the
south
of
el
camino
region?
K
You
know
there
are
very
high
performing
schools
down
there,
which
again
kind
of
lends
itself
towards
that
equity,
and
so,
when
it
comes
to
these
two
sites
with
the
blossom
valley
and
that
you
know
grant
park
precise
plan
area,
I
think
it
would
be
a
pretty
strong
consideration
to
kind
of
proactively
zone
that
to
clear
up
those
discrepancies
and
to
be
able
to
actually
exert
a
lot
more
control
over
any
kind
of
project
that
you
know
right
now.
K
We
wouldn't
have
as
much
control
over
if
someone
you
know
wanted
to
get
one
over
on
us,
and
I
think
that
you
know
if
we
wanted
to,
it
would
be
wise.
This
is
just
my
opinion,
throwing
it
out
there
for
for
everyone.
It
would
be
wise
to
put
those
sites
into
the
inventory
map
as
a
way
to
make
sure
that
we
are
also
hitting
those
fair
housing
requirements
that
the
hcd
is
going
to
be
looking
for
and
also
making
sure
that
we're
giving
ourselves
a
lot
more.
K
A
K
I
would
recommend
that
it
be
included
in
the
primary
inventory
list,
especially
to
make
morosa
hitting
those
fair
housing
requirements
that
we're
going
to
be
getting
graded
on.
J
Thank
you.
Like
commissioner
clark,
I
I
support
including
these
lives.
I
I
do
think
I
I
am
sure
commissioner
nunez's
concern
about
the
distribution
of
these
sites
throughout
the
city,
and
I
also
think
there's
some
pragmatic
considerations
for
why
we
wouldn't
want
to
lead
with
this
and
see
how
our
current
buffer,
that
the
staff
and
the
consultants
have
identified
can
allow
us
to
get
to
those
numbers.
J
I
think
it's
just
a
more
nuanced
process,
and
I
would
want
to
make
sure
that
before
we
make
that
recommendation,
we
really
understand
what
the
other
units,
what
the
opportunity
sites
really
look
like,
because
as
much
as
we
want
to
be
proactive
and
see
what's
coming
in
our
pipeline,
I
think
these
areas
in
particular
we
need
to
just
look
at.
Why
are
there
like
what
is
the
possibility
of
it
being
rezoned
and
developed
in
a
way
that
would
actually
generate
units
in
this
housing
cycle?
A
A
K
Yeah,
I
I
would
be
happy
to
have
those
as
the
back
pocket
sites
and
still
hold
the
you
know,
recommendation
that
we
include
the
two
south
of
el
camino
sites
in
the
in
the
inventory
map.
J
J
G
Like
my
predecessors,
I
agree
that
the
blossom
valley
and
grant
should
be
looked
at
and
I
I
do
think
the
other
two
sites
can
be
looked
at
as
well.
I
would
look
at
them
in
that
order,
though
the
first
two
and
then
the
latter
two,
just
because
I
don't
well
we'll
just
leave
it
at
that
and
I
feel
like
I
would
look
at
them
in
order
to
include
them
in
the
inventory.
If
we
don't
make
our
numbers
so
definitely
as
back
pocket.
D
I,
like
commissioner
yen's
perspective
and
crisp,
but
I'll
go
with
alex's
perspective
on
this
one.
I
like
that
approach.
A
Okay,
so
you'd
prefer
to
bring
them
into
the
first
two
in
the
inventory
and
the
other
two
in
the
back
part.
Okay,
all
right,
so
I'm
I'm
in
support
of
of
the
four
as
part
of
the
backup.
I
am
going
to
ask
staff
a
question.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
name
for
the
plaza
at
the
corner
of
rankstork
and
central
expressway,
it
would
seem
to
be
even
more
available
than
the
valley
park
or
montalomo
plaza
might
be.
A
Does
it
does
it
not
fit
into
the
credit
the
criteria
looking
at
number
one
and
then
what
about
the
charleston
center,
where
the
rei
and
best
buy
and
bed
bath
and
bond
beyond,
have
disappeared?
Do
they
fall
into
this
category
or
would
they
would
they
be
different?.
Y
Y
A
Okay,
so
I
think
I
swear
therefore
I
would
I
would
I'd
suggest
that
we
also
you
know,
consider
you
know
out
of
one
of
your
candidate
sites,
that,
whatever
you
want
to
call
the
the
hobies
plaza
corner
of
ranks
dwarf
and
central,
do
others
what
that
I'm
saying
for
that
being
nods,
the
vice
chair
yen?
Yes,
mr
gutierrez?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
so
it
looks
like
we
have
vice
chair
yen.
A
G
Oh
yes,
I'm
in
favor
of
that
I
was
nodding.
I
just
had
another
little
add-on
to
what
I
was
going
to
say
earlier,
but
that
doesn't
affect
this.
A
Okay,
all
right
so
where
oh
there's,
a
ellen
you've
got
get
your
your
consensus
there.
All
right!
You
wanna
before
you
bring
commissioner
dempsey
back
questioning,
I'm
gonna
is
that
does
he
want
it.
G
Sure
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
I
believe
robert
cox
had
mentioned,
and
I
I
was
reminded
when
you
said
walkable
neighborhoods,
that
if
these
areas
that
have
retail
and
commercial
are
going
to
be
looked
at
that,
maybe
there's
a
provision
that
retains
all
that
retail
on
the
ground
floor.
Because
we
are
aiming
for
walkable
neighborhoods
neighborhood
centers.
And
it
would
be
a
shame
to
take
that
away
where
we
would
be
taking
away
from
our
intention.
As
a
city.
A
A
All
right
all
right
can
we
can
you,
reach
commissioner
dempsey
and
bring
him
back
into
the
meeting.
A
Welcome
back
okay!
So
we'll
continue
through
the
back
pocket
zoning
list.
A
The
next
one
was
the
transit
transit
center.
Is
there
comment
support
discussion
around
the
inclusion
of
that
as
part
of
the
back
bucket
list.
G
I
know
some
work
has
already
been
done
on
it.
I
was
just
curious
whether
or
not
there
was
any
discussion
on
lowering
the
train,
pushing
it
down
a
little
bit
and
then
talking
about
air
rates
over.
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
caltrain
even
brought
up
or
if
it
was
mentioned,
as
a
possibility
of
developing
housing
over
the
train
line.
Y
Yeah,
I
don't,
I
don't
believe
it's
been
part
of
discus
the
discussion.
One
of
the
challenges
here,
I
think,
is
that
we
are
we're
actually
planning
to
do
a
pedestrian
underpass
under
the
train
as
well.
So
you
know
kind
of
coordinating.
All
of
that.
It
you
know
under
under
castro
or
sorry.
Y
The
extension
of
castro
right
across
central
is
going
to
be
a
pedestrian
underpass,
so
I
do
know
that
caltrain
being
the
primary
property
owner
of
the
parking
lots
would
have
a
lot
to
say
about
that,
and
then
it
also
significantly
affects
the
feasibility
and
the
ultimate
kind
of
overall
project
costs,
so
that,
as
as
the
report
said,
there's
still
a
lot
of
work
to
do
on
the
question
of
development
feasibility
and-
and
so
I
think
that
all
of
that
would
be
kind
of
wrapped
up
in
that
discussion.
Y
A
So
we're,
I
guess
my
general
thing
is
I
I'm
okay
with
including
on
the
list
because
of
the
complications
of
caltran.
I
would
probably
not
make
it
the
first
thing
you
spend
a
lot
of
time
on.
I
think
just
some
of
the
other
areas
may
have
more
opportunity
to
make
progress
faster
and
therefore
be
better,
potentially
better
candidates
to
to
step
in,
if
there's
a
gap
in
the
existing
list.
A
A
A
A
I
think
reasonably
well,
not
just
in
the
village
center
areas,
and
so
perhaps
one
strategy
is
to,
but
we
may
be
reaching
our
the
eir
of
the
the
coa
for
the
initial
eir
study
that
we
did
when
we
did
the
el
camino
real
precise
plan
so
like
one
possibility
that
we
might
want
to
look
at
is
perhaps
reopening
that
eir
and
studying
higher
densities
in
certain
areas
along
the
corridor,
not
just
the
village
centers.
A
I'm
not
saying
we
lead
with
that,
but
if
that's
something
that
might
be
of
interest
that
down
the
road
or
you
know,
we
need
other
options
at
some
point.
I
think
I
would
be
open
to
that.
I
don't
know
about
others,
but
I
I
think
I
wouldn't
just
focus
on
the
village.
A
I
I
would
focus
on
the
village
centers
first,
but
I
think
there's
also
some
other
opportunities
to
to
further
develop
an
el
camino
real,
and
you
know
one
area
that
I'm
specifically
thinking
of,
for
example,
is
the
large
empty
lot
that
the
hospital
district
has
between
phyllis
and
grant
rowe.
That,
I
think,
is
an
example
of
some
place
where
destiny
might
not
be
too
bothersome,
at
least
at
least
right
along
el
camino.
A
I
think
that
el
camino
is
a
little
different
than
the
meanwhile,
it's
a
village
center
overlay,
el
camino,
is
also
a
little
more
community
serving
one
of
the
elements
of
the
village
center
overlay
in
el
camino
is
that
it
requires
100
percent
ground
floor
retail
in
those
locations,
and
some
of
these
lots
have
a
lot
of
space
where
portions
of
the
lot
are
very
heavily
used
and
other
portions
of
the
lot
that
are
not
heavily
used.
A
So
I
would
be
I'd,
be
I'm
interested
in
preserving
the
retail,
but
I'm
not
necessarily
convinced
that
it
has
to
be
100
of
the
ground
floor.
Space
has
to
be
retail.
If
you
add
more
density,
I'd
like
to
preserve
the
square
footage
associated
with
it,
but
not
necessary
if,
if
it
makes
sense
to
in
the
relay
out
the
space
so
that
part
of
it
becomes
kind
of
hidden
away
and
is
residential
in
its
apartment,
complex
and
that
doesn't
to
me
have
to
be
first,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
first
floor
retail.
A
So
I
I
think
we
should
look
at
that
per
square
retail
requirement,
but
I'd
like
to
preserve
the
square
footage,
but
I'm
not
necessarily
stuck
on
the
idea
of
keeping
100
of
the
of
the
first
floor,
purely
retail,
so
I'd
like
to.
In
addition
to
the
far
question
I
think
that's
worth
at
least
evaluating,
and
I
would
agree
with
the
commissioner
clark
that
there
may
be
other
spots
along
el
camino
that
we
could
look
at
that
that
might
break
the
eir.
So
maybe
we
should
open
that
up
as
consider
opening
that
up
as
well.
A
K
I
I
feel,
there's
a
big
chunk
of
this
already
focused
on
the
el
camino
corridor.
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
adding
this,
as
you
know,
kind
of
very
low.
On
the
list
I
mean
this
is
the
backup
anyway,
but
if
it
could
be
the
backup
backup,
I
would
probably
be
more
comfortable.
J
Yeah,
I
ain't
going
to
include
it.
I
do
think
tech
as
some
of
the
public
sentiment
earlier.
I
think
parking
is
the
issue
to
do
right.
I
think
I'd
really
want
to
see
the
investments
in
transit
that
are
planned
happen,
because
that
that'll
make
it
a
little
bit
more
feasible
to
to
see
that
ground
for,
for
retail
and
and
not
not
struggle
as
much
with
the
circulation.
G
Yeah,
I
would
definitely
go
with
the
general
plan:
village
centers
as
our
first
backup
and
then
the
others
behind
it.
I
think
there
are
a
slew
of
issues
and
again
for
the
planning
commission.
We
see
the
benefits
of
planning
and
it
takes
a
little
bit
of
time
so
for
things
that
require
a
lot
of
changes
and
reasoning.
I
just
I
think,
maybe
yeah
we'll
just
the
village
centers
number
one,
the
others
fall
away
as
backup.
A
I
think
mr
anderson
in
our
earlier
meeting
was
you
know,
we're
not
we're
not
deciding
on
what's
in
or
not
it's
the
giving
staff
the
guidance
to
say
this
is
worth
putting
here
on
your
list.
To
maybe
look
at
is
that
myth
you're,
not
you're,
not
looking
us
to
to
say
this
goes
on
for
sure
and
you're
just
looking
us
to
say,
here's
one
that
you
consider,
including
right.
Y
So
I
think,
ultimately
how
this
is
going
to
go.
Is
you
know
if
the
council
ultimately
directs
us
to
include
these
different
categories
of
areas
in
the
housing
element
as
backup
sites?
We
will
include
them
in
this
round
the.
Ultimately,
it
will
be
up
to
council
in
a
future
date
when
we
actually
start
working
on
these,
for
the
any
other
nominations
that
epc
may
have,
and
there
may
be
a
majority
of
commissioners
who
agree
with
those
nominations
for
other
areas.
Y
I
know
there
have
been
many
sites
that
were
been
brought
up
in
the
public
comment
to
be
added
either
to
the
inventory
or
to
the
back
pocket
list.
Y
A
All
right,
so
that
address
your
question,
mr
dempsey,.
E
It
does
mr
chair,
thank
you,
I'm
a
little
confused
since
I
missed
part
of
it,
but
yeah.
That's
fine!.
A
J
Just
to
question
eric
on
that
point,
so
when
I'm
thinking
about
south
of
el
camino,
like
if
in
concept-
and
I
think
this
isn't
one
of
the
policy
goals,
if
in
concepts,
we
wanted
to
entertain
conversations
with
churches
or
other
non-profit
land
owners,
like
is
this
the
space
where
we
would
say
something
like
that?
Or
would
you
prefer
to
move
that
to
a
different
part
of
a
conversation.
Y
If
you
want
to
so
right
now,
many
churches
actually
already
allow
residential
a
lot
of
them
are
zoned
r1,
and
so
those
in
order
to
accommodate
multi-family
housing
may
need
to
be
may
need
to
have
their
zoning
changed.
Y
So
I
would
say,
in
order
to
encapsulate
it
into
a
re-zoning
kind
of
list,
you
should
talk
about
it
now
or.
J
I
certainly
don't
have
the
knowledge
of
the
inventory,
but
when
I'm
thinking
about
what's
happening
south
of
el
camino,
the
large
you
know
larger
lots
right
there,
schools,
which
is
a
different
jurisdiction
right,
there's
churches.
I
just
think
if,
if
we
only
really
have
two
sites
that
are
currently
zoned
for
housing
and
that
we
could
look
at
in
this
next
cycle
and
we
we
need
to
demonstrate
an
equitable
distribution
of
housing
across
our
city.
J
D
Yep
so
eric
quick
question,
so
I'm
glad
you
brought
this
up
in
terms
of
what
has
been
proposed
that
wasn't
originally
on
a
list.
Those
would
be
for
further
study
study
being
new
to
this.
How
long
do
you
think
that
would
take.
Y
Well,
we
would
be
able
to
come
back
with
a
draft
of
the
housing
element
that
would
include
this
and
then
you
would
be
able
to
vote
on,
or
you
know,
recommend
to
council
on
inclusion
as
part
of
the
draft
of
the
housing
element
in
in
may
all
right.
Thank
you,
the
actual
rezoning
and
what
what
it
would
take
in
the
rezoning
that
could
be
a
you
know,
year
plus
long
process,
but
you
know
to
to
figure
out
whether
we
should
include
it
in
the
housing
element.
We'd
come
back
really
quick.
D
K
Yeah,
I
would
also
be
supportive
of
a
overlay
for
sites
with
religious
association.
A
A
Yes
and
commissioner
clark
I'd
be
okay
with
it.
If
it
came
to
that
in
the
in
the
backup
list,
I'm
just
not
sure
how
to
how
to
frame
it.
I'm.
A
Yes
to
me
I
I
might
be
open
to,
but
it
feels
like
it
should
be
much
further
down
the
list.
What
would
be
my
sense?
It
sounds
like
you
got
that
air
yeah,
the
one
we
haven't
talked
about
is
I'm.
A
Y
So
the
developable
sites
in
mother
boulevard
are
pretty
few
and
far
between
I
mean
there.
There
are
a
few,
you
know,
strip
malls
there
there's
basically
two
strip
malls
and
then
the
rest
of
the
sites
are
just
tiny,
tiny,
tiny
sites
and
they
the
the
kind
of
developable
potential
on
those
tiny,
tiny
sites.
Y
You
know
we
just
we
don't
have
any
experience
of
seeing
multi-family
development
on
sites
of
that
size.
We've
just
never
seen
it
in
the
city,
so
we
don't
know
if
it
can
happen.
J
Of
good
news,
though,
there's
one
small
multi-family
project,
that's
coming
up
on
an
auto
site:
that's
been
vacant
for
at
least
35
years,
so
on
the
corner
of
central
and
moffat.
So
hopefully
that's
the
sign
in
the
right
direction.
J
A
Other
commissioners,
spirit
clerk-
yes,
mr
dempsey,
yes,
commissioner,
guitierrez,
yes,
cash
from
nunes,
yes,
durian,
yes
and
myself,
so
that's
all
seven
to
include
so
we
covered
all
of
the
ones
that
you
listed
here
on
the
primary.
It
looks
like.
A
A
Immediate,
I
had
two,
I
guess
two
once
kind
of
a
question
and
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
go
back
and
re-look
at
the
entire
san
antonio
precise
plan.
My
recollection
was
the
san
antonio
precise
plan
included
a
substantial
amount
of
residential
in
the
area
that
is
essentially
the
walmart
parking
lot
and
the
area
between
there
and
the
hetchy
right
of
way.
Okay,
where
the
new
school
will
be-
and
I
see
no-
I
mean
everything
that
I've
heard
says
that
walmart's,
like
you
know,
go
away
and
we're
not.
A
You
know
this
is
our
we're
happy
here.
It's
one
of
our
best
performing
sites,
so
don't
even
think
about
waiting
residential
here,
and
I
don't
see
any
indication
of
the
areas
below
that.
A
So
it
raised
a
question
in
my
mind:
is
there
residential
capacity
already
in
the
san
antonio
precise
plan
and
its
eir
that
could
be
potentially
put
someplace
else
and
in
my
mind,
the
caltrain
station
san
antonio
is
a
high
value
transit
center,
the
the
the
mta
site
that
or
whatever
it
is
the
sorry
san
francisco
vta
site
by
the
walmart
of
the
high
value
transit
center.
So
could
we
look
at
maybe
moving
adding
some
areas
over
in
del
medio
into
the
san
antonio
precise
plan?
A
Are
there
any
neighboring
so
that
whether
that
there
may
not,
even
though
it's
a
big
precise
plan,
there
may
actually
be
residential
capacity
in
that
precise
plan
that
could
be
added
without
having
to
do
like
the
commissioner
kirk
mentioned
on
el
camino,
a
full
new
eir,
and
so
I
I
thought
that
might
at
least
work
look
worth
looking
at.
Is
there
more
residential
capacity
essentially
already
within
the
eir
in
san
antonio,
and
I
don't.
A
Several
people
submitted
letters
on
it
and
I
just
and
maybe
commissioner
clark
you
can
give
us
a
mystery.
I
just
I
don't
understand
what
the
heck
it
is.
I
know
it's
a
big
vacant
lot
and
I
get
people
who
are
like
no,
don't
touch
it.
Other
people
like
oh,
let's,
put
housing
here
like
so
what
is
it
should
we
can?
Somebody
help
me
out
here.
A
That's
been
the
question
for
as
long
as
I've
been
in
mountain
view,
which
is
there
are
periodic
proposals,
do
something
with
it
that
are
met
with
fierce
resistance
and
eventually
they
sort
of
die.
There
have
been
a
number
of
proposals
over
the
years,
even
even
to
just
do
some
basic
landscaping
there
and
make
it
more
walkable
and
accessible
and
they've.
Just
there
was
even
a.
A
There
was
even
a
whole
plan
for
that
at
one
point
that
I
think
may
have
been
adopted
with
a
sort
of
michelle,
but
staff
will
know
more
than
I
do,
but
this
is,
this
is
going
back
to
2008.
9
2010
is
sort
of
the
last
time.
I
think
it
was
resisted
when
they
were
thinking
about
putting
a
perhaps
a
history
museum
or
something
out
there.
Anyway,
it's
a
it's
a
very
controversial
type.
It's
it's
a
sacred
site
for
a
lot
of
people.
G
I
don't
know
much
about
the
history
of
it,
so
I
can't
can't
add
to
that.
What
I
do
know
currently,
though,
is
that
well
we
have
shortage
of
park,
space
and
open
space
and
granted
it's
right
next
to
cuesta,
but
I
believe
there
are
things
in
motion
to
turn
that
area
into
a
native
planting
area
so
that
it
becomes
more
of
a
wild
like
place
that
has
biodiversity
and
natural
native
plantings,
so
it'll
be
different
than
cuesta
park.
G
Is
what
I'm
thinking
and
told
it's
my
impression,
and
since
we
have
so
little
of
it,
I
guess
it's
a
bonus.
It
would
be
nice
to
see
similar
areas
in
other
places
around
the
city
as
well,
but
that's
not
part
of
the
housing
element
that
would
be
in
another
discussion,
but
you
know
it
would
be
a
great
goal
to.
A
A
Yeah
there
it
is
so
I
won't
propose
until
others
feel
there
may
be
some
value
in
looking
at
san
antonio,
that
wasn't
something
everybody
else
discussed
actions
up,
good
bad
other
ones.
A
A
If
there's
no
others
and
we
move
to
what
was
the
original
question,
one
which
was
out
here,
does
the
epc
support
the
proposed
draft
site
inventory
methodology.
A
Nobody
wants
to
jump
on,
okay,
that
won't
be
a
bashful,
so
I'm
generally
supportive
of
the
of
the
methodology.
I
am
I'm
really
not
happy
with
the
buffer
for
the
low
and
middle.
A
I
would
really,
I
would
feel
better
if
it
was
you
know,
fifty
percent
on
on
on
each
level,
so
maybe
maybe
becomes
as
we
go
through
this-
that
we
need
to
pull
some
of
these
backup
sites
in,
but
I
just
we
have
not
demonstrated
as
a
city
the
ability
to
consistently
generate
you
know
below
market
rate
housing
and
if
her
inventory
list
is,
is
more
restricted
on
the
area
that
we've
had
the
most
trouble
with.
A
That
worries
me
so
I'm
well,
I
generally
agree
with
the
methodology
was
used.
I
am
of
the
view
that
by
the
time
we're
done,
we
should
probably
find
a
way
to
beef
up
that
below
market
and
middle
market
category
by
potentially
bringing
some
of
these
back
pocket
sites
into
the
list,
because
I'm
not
I'm
just
I'm
really,
I'm
I'm
skeptical
over
ability
with
a
with
a
limited
list.
That's
there
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
good
list.
We've
made
it's!
A
D
Yes,
no,
I
I
agree
with
you
chair.
I
and
I
think
that's
the
biggest
concern
I
have
when
I
look
at
the
methodology
and
what's
available,
I
think
if
you
do
eventually,
if
we
do
bring
in
these
other
sites,
that
also
gives
opportunity
for
developers
to
look
at
certain
things
a
different
way
and
to
start
thinking
more
along
the
lines
of
trying
to
meet
those
needs
right.
So
I'm
in
favor
of
what
you've
said,
support
that,
and
hopefully
we
can
hear
more
from
the
other
commissioners
and
understand
what
they're
thinking.
J
I
agree,
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
stronger
buffer
in
those
in
categories.
I
also
the
piece
I
didn't
love
about.
The
methodology
is
just
how
much
we
rely
on
areas
that
have
fallen
under
precise
plans,
and
I
know
how
much
work
go
into
the
precise
plans
and
how
much
outreach,
but
I
just
I
really
think
we
need
to
start
looking
at
alternative
sites,
particularly
across
the
city,
where
you
know
like
being
this
explicit
about
saying
that
an
area
that
zoned
r1
and
r2
is
an
area
with
very
little
opportunity
for
net
increase.
J
K
Yeah,
it's
I'll
I'll
piggyback
off
that
because
it
it
does
feel
hard
to
be
supportive
of
a
methodology
that
has,
in
my
view,
yielded
a
map
that
does
not
meet
the
equitable
distribution
requirement.
I'm
very
much
struggling
with
that.
I
feel
skeptical
about
some
of
the
sites,
I'm
just
knowing
some
of
the
sites
that
you
know
within
the
next
eight
years.
We
can
incredibly
say
that
there
will
be
new
housing
there,
but
I
mean
that
that's
part
of
the
exercise,
I'm
sure
we
I
mean.
K
Have
we
even
met
our
cycle?
Five
target?
You
know
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
we
will
so
I
mean-
maybe
that's
just
part
of
this,
but
you
know
it
does
feel
hard
to
support
it.
When
I'm
I'm
looking
at
the
equity
angle-
and
it
just
doesn't-
seem
well
distributed,
I'm
sure
the
math
makes
a
lot
more
sense,
but
the
visual
that
it
produces
in
terms
of
the
map
just
doesn't
produce
the
right
feeling.
G
I
too
am
generally
in
favor
of
the
methodology.
It
seems
like
a
logical
organization
of
how
you've
approached
it.
G
I
think
the
bigger
question
is
just
for
me
is,
I
think,
we're
always
over
overshooting
arena
numbers
for
the
market
rate
and
the
bigger
question
for
the
city,
I
think,
is
just
how
do
we
get
the
affordable
portion
up
higher
and
I
I
think
everyone
has
got
that
on
their
mind
and
it's
difficult
to
attain.
G
My
hesitancy
to
immediately
bring
in
a
whole
ton
of
different
sites
is
not
that
we
will
be
limiting
development
in
time,
but
again
I'll
just
go
back
to
the
idea
of
wanting
to
be
able
to
plan
things
in
a
way
that
will
will
work
for
the
city
as
we
get
denser,
because
there's
there's
no
question
about
that.
We
we
will
get
denser
and
how
we
do.
That
just
requires
a
little
bit
of
thought
and
planning.
G
Oh,
what
was
it
going
to
say
so
in
general,
I
I
support
the
draft
sites
inventory
method
methodology.
I
think
single
family
zoning
is
gone
with
sb,
nine
and
ten,
it's
just
it's
already.
You
know
you
can
get
four
hundred
percent
increase
in
units,
whether
or
not
we
get
them
in
a
short
amount
of
time
in
this
next
cycle
is,
is
up
for
grabs
so
we'll
find
out.
G
All
these
big
cities
are
very,
very
dense
and
the
prices
are
just
as
high,
so
I'm
not
against
more
density
at
all,
I'm
just
for
doing
it
in
a
way
that
provides
for
a
well-planned
city
and
that's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
of
time
and
to
immediately
put
a
whole
bunch
of
things
into
the
site
inventory
for
this
cycle
sort
of
takes
away
our
ability
as
a
city
to
to
do
that.
Well,.
E
I
think
I
would
only
add
you
know
working
on
housing
elements
really
frustrating
first
time,
I've
done
it
and
I
think,
what's
so
hard
about
it.
For
me
is
that
there's
a
way
in
which
this
is
much
more
about
compliance
than
it
is
about
really
setting
housing
policy
for
and
that,
maybe
that's
a
different
conversation.
Maybe
those
two
conversations
overlap,
but
I
think
that's
what's
so
hard
for
me
about.
E
Here,
and
so
it
feels
it
feels
very
incomplete
to
me,
but
for
purposes
of
your
question,
yes,
I
support
the
methodology.
A
You've
heard
from
clerk,
I
I'm
supportive
of
the
methodology.
I
think
I
give
staff
credit
for
a
lot
of
credit
for
for
coming
up
with
this
and
getting
us
to
the
stage
we
are.
I
I'm
not
going
to
relitigate
past
debates,
but
I
I
will
say
that
excluding
r3
from
this
probably
made
their
lives
a
little
bit
more
difficult,
and
so
that's
why
you
know
we're
we're
having
a
lot
of
back
pocket
things
and
that's
a
decision
that
was
made
and
that's
water
under
the
bridge,
but
I
think
they've.
A
I
think
they've
made
the
best
of
the
directions
they've
been
given,
and
this
is
a
a
good
methodology
that
they've
come
up
with
to
move
forward
on.
A
I
felt
like
there's
general
support
for
it
and
I'm
just
one
to
eric,
and
I
don't
know
what
you
need
there.
Y
Y
I
heard
cranston
gutierrez
and
hey
meyer
say
that
specifically.
F
A
Yes,
no,
yes,
commissioner
clark,
I
guess
the
question
I
would
have
is
is
whether
staff
feels
they
need
an
additional
buffer.
I
I
guess
I'm
I
am
fairly
comfortable
with
the
buffer.
That
was
provided
and
it
sounds
like
there
was.
You
know,
sound
reasoning
behind
it,
so
I
guess
I'm
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
say
we
absolutely
need
more
like
in
terms
of
somehow
knowing
more
than
than
staff
on
this
one.
G
I'm
comfortable
with
the
way
staff
has
worded
it.
I
feel
like
that's
why
we
have
the
back
pocket
sites.
If
we
don't
mean
it,
then
we
will
investigate
these
new
sites.
So
I'm
I'm
okay
with
just
keeping,
as
is.
A
F
A
Number
three
on
the
list
was:
does
the
epc
support
the
initial
list
of
draft
housing
element,
goals
and
policies?
Are
there
other
policies
that
should
need
to
be
that
need
to
be
included?
J
J
Let
me
just
get
to
the
right
page
of
the
staff
report,
the
supply
of
housing
that
meets
the
needs
of
the
city
like
if
we
want
to
be
explicit
about
tying
that
to
jobs
and
the
way
that
we
did
with
the
north
bay
short
precise
plan
and
really
recognizing
the
role
of
our
jobs,
housing
imbalance.
So
I'm
fine
with
these
goals
as
they
are,
and
but
I
I
also
would
see
room
for
being
a
little
bit
more
declarative
that
we
we
want
to.
K
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
a
goal
that
specifically
addresses
you
know:
reducing
or
mitigating
the
jobs,
housing
balance.
J
And
then
just
one
other
question,
I
guess
maybe
to
staff,
I
knew
on
the
topic
of
ending
homelessness.
I
think
it's
school
three
I
just
I
had
gone
to
tour
the
life
move,
site
and
part
of
what
they
were
saying
is.
You
know
we're
getting
close
to
functional
zero
in
mountain
view,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
know
that
the
goal
is
supposed
to
be
in
many
ways:
abstract
and
that's
just
the
level
where
we
are,
but
I
would
want
to
understand
what
do
we
really
mean
by
that?
J
Is
it
having
a
bed
for
everyone?
Does
it
include
vehicle
and
rv
dwellers
like
what
are
we
actually
working
toward
when
we
get
to
that
level
of
specificity,
because
I
think
absolutely
we
want
more
affordable
housing.
We
want
to
end
homelessness,
but
I
I
think
it's
going
to
be
trying
to
figure
out
will
how
does
that
translate
into
the
community
that
we're
in
if
right
now
we're
effectively
at
functional
zero
for
having
a
bed
for
people
who
want
it?
So
my
last
two
two
cents
on
that
in
that
piece.
E
This
is
just
a
kind
of
a
picking
point.
Maybe
you
could
throw
it
into
the
programming.
This
is
under
goal.
One
is
while
we
want
to
institute
strategies
to
prevent
or
mitigate
displacement.
There's
also
this
really.
I
I
saw
this
when
we
did
555
middle
field.
It's
not
just
displacement
that
we're
dealing
with
it's
coexistence
with
development
when
you're
doing
infill
and
it's
you
know,
life
is
doing
that.
Construction
is
hard
on
the
people
who
aren't
displaced
and
the
people
that
are
still
there
they're
just
right.
E
Next
to
a
you
know,
a
huge
earth
mover,
and
so,
if
there's
some
way
to
call
that
out
that
the
the
work
we
need
to
do
when
there's
infill
is
not
just
preventing
displacement
but
really
helping.
E
D
No
excellent
point,
commissioner
dempsey.
I
think
that
perhaps
maybe
the
quality
of
life
during
construction
during
construction
I'd
like
to
include
that,
if
possible,
I
like
that
along
with
what's
already
been
suggested,
and
I
think
this
is
slowly.
But
surely
this
is
what
like
a
third
meeting
right
now
and
I
see
us
agreeing
to
disagree
on
certain
things
and
agreeing
to
disagree
on
others,
and
I
like
the
way
we're
moving
forward.
So
I
just
want
to
thank
you
all
for
that
process
and
being
part
of
a
team.
G
They
themselves
are
in
charge
of
the
land
and
the
decisions
that
get
made
and
it's
in
perpet
in
perpetuity,
and
it
doesn't
time
out
so
I
know
it's
a
complex
structure
and
something
new
to
the
area,
but
I
didn't
know
if
staff
had
any
had
a
chance
or
time
to
do
more
research,
and
that
talked
to
other
cities
that
have
started
it.
I
think,
in
the
last,
even
a
couple
years
have
been
a
slew
of
new
cities
that
have
implemented
it
and
there's
you
know
stuff
to
be
learned
from
there.
G
Because
you
know
the
affordability
is
really
the
question
here,
not
how
many
units
we
can
zone
for
in
my
from
my
perspective,
because
we're
just
going
to
get
market
rate.
If
we
just
you
know
up
zone
everything,
I'd
rather
talk
about
the
actual
affordability
and
that
that
is
a
almost
guaranteed
way
to
do
so.
So
that's
it
that's
my
question.
G
Yeah,
whether
or
not
staff
has
done
some
outreach
and
investigated
clts
and
whether
or
not
that's
feasible
or
if
you
know
just
whether
or
not
that's
been
looked
into.
I
didn't
see
anything
specifically
about
that
and
and
I'm
going
to
look
to
you
guys
to
find
out
whether
or
not
that's
something
we
can
put
into
policy.
Y
Ellen
or
matt
has
there.
I
know,
there's
been
some
discussion
around
this.
Was
there
any
progress
at
this
point
on
that
question,.
U
Yes,
it
has
been
brought
up,
but
I
believe,
since
we
didn't
get,
I
guess
majority
support
or
anything
like
that.
We
haven't
initiated
any
formal
study,
but
I'm
I
think
the
housing
division
may
have
some
background,
so
we
can
provide
in
terms
of
information,
but
if
vice
chair,
yin
hat
and
the
other
commissioners
would
like
that
to
be
part
of
the
goals,
policies
and
programs,
you
know
that's
kind
of
what
we
can
talk
about.
I'm
sure
that's
incorporated.
G
G
G
Specifically
talking,
I
just
you
know
and
towards
looking
at
other
things,
but
if
we
could
call
that
out
as
something
to
investigate
and
research
more
deeply,
I
I
would
put
that
in
I'm
advocating
for
that.
Yes,.
U
Yeah
we
have
that
in
one
of
our
broad
policies,
so
we
can
highlight
that
just
pursuing
innovative
housing
options,
including
land
trust
and
middle
income,
housing.
U
Is
number
nine
policy
nuclear
one.
A
So
their
comments
just
some
general
concern,
so
in
general,
the
physical
level.
I
was
okay
with
them
on
goal,
one
I'm
I
mean,
while
it
kind
of
indicates
the
lowering
lower
income.
I'm
I'm
really
not
interested
in
doing
a
lot
of
work
and
trying
to
make
it
easier
for
the
market
rate
developers
to
do
more
than
what
they've
been
doing.
I
think
they've
they
figured
out
how
to
do
that.
A
Well,
if
we're
going
to
spend
time
on
policies,
I'd
really
rather
look
at
you
know
other
things
we
can
do
to
make
low
market
rate
more
more
attractive.
I'm
you
know,
I
guess
my
interpretation
of
the
vote
on
the
csfra
was.
I
want
to
keep
the
rental
housing
we
have
and
the
way
this
is
worded,
it
doesn't
necessarily
read
to
me,
like
part
of
our
goal,
is
to
keep
that
and
in
fact
some
of
these
things.
A
Solar
doesn't
necessarily
save
their
money.
Okay,
it
may
it
may
offset
things,
but
that's
a
good
thing.
You
mentioned
you
know
we're
improving
energy
efficiency
in
order
assignments,
so
I'd
love
to
see
something
that
actually
makes
it
that
might
make
it
more
attractive
for
people
to
you
know
you
know
to
improve
the
the
current
rental
housing
stock
and
make
it
viable,
as
opposed
to
heading
down
the
path
where,
even
in
the
past
of
the
only
answer
is
to
tear
it
down
and
so
I'd
love
to
I
wish
there
was.
A
A
Limitation
that
csfra
gives
okay
I'd
love
to
find
a
way
around
that
to
encourage
the
reader,
the
improvement
of
the
existing
housing
stock
without
having
to
trigger
the
you
know
the
problems
that
you
know
that
the
the
way
that
might
violate
csfra,
one
of
the
things
that's
not
discussed
in
here
is
one
of
the
biggest
problems
with
getting
blow
market
rate.
Housing
is
the
cost
of
construction.
A
I
would
love
to
see
something
in
here
I
mean
it's
if
we
could
build
up
the
whole
market
rate
housing
at
the
price
that
prometheus
pays.
A
great
start
pick
pays,
I
think
we'd
have
a
lot
more
of
it,
and
so
I
would
love
to
see
something
here,
whether
it's
a
policy
to
look
at
are
there
are
there
things
that
can
be
done
and
in
our
rules
and
regulations,
the
policies
that
they
would
help
in
the
construction
cost?
A
The
answer
always
seems
to
be
giveaway
fees,
those
kind
of
things
we
need
those
things
to
build
the
infrastructure.
Okay,
but
if
we
can
do
if
there's
things
that
are
making
it
that
make
it
more
expensive
to
build
the
housing,
how
can
we?
What
can
we
do
to
address
those?
Because
that's
if
we
could
get
more
for
a
money,
I'd
be
all
for
it.
A
On
following
up
on
the
last
one
of
the
following
commissioner
hammer
his
comments
on
goal
number
three,
the
lack
of
any
mention
of
the
safe
program
program
was
like.
What's
going
on,
okay,
it's
it's
working
people
there
something
over
the
next
eight
years
there
will
be
people
living
in
rvs,
okay,
they're,
not
all
gonna
disappear.
A
A
Those
are
my
those
were
my
comments,
mr
gutierrez.
D
Yeah
chair,
I
have
a
question
for
you.
I
like
the
idea
you
brought
up
about
trying
to
facilitate
growth
in
the
below
market
rate.
Well,
the
low
and
moderate
rate
for
housing.
So
so
I'm
wondering
are:
do
any
other
cities
have
like
a
rocket
pocket
approach
to
it
where,
if
developers
are
looking
to
improve
upon
those
numbers
instead
of
the
development
process
taking,
let's
say
three
years,
it's
a
year
and
a
half.
D
If,
if
that's
something
that
staff
could
research
to
see,
if
that's
even
an
option
to
ponder
or
just
discuss,
think
about
and
see
if
anyone
else
is
doing
that
that
might
be
intriguing
to
to
see.
If
we
can
do
something
like
that,
though,
I
think
it's
a
long
shot.
But
at
this
point
I
think
everything's
worth
exploring.
A
Are
there
questions
or
comments
so
eric
do
we
need
kind
of
it
sounds
like
there's
general
agreement
on
the
top-level
goals,
there's
feedback
on
on
maybe
some
of
the
policies,
but
we
haven't
gone
through
and
kind
of
voted
and
on
every
whatever
one
of
those
piles
place.
Do
we
need
to
do
that
or
do
you
have
you
feel
you
have
enough
to
go
forward.
Y
So
we
definitely
heard
I
mean,
assuming
that
vice
chair
yen
was
agreeing
with
previous
comments.
When
she
said
she
agreed
with
previous
comments,
then
we
have
three.
Y
Y
And
so,
if
there
are
any
other
commissioners
who
are
interested
in
besides
so
nunez,
heymeyer
and
yin
were
interested
in
jobs,
housing
balance
and
gutierrez,
dempsey
and
yen
were
interested
in
construction
impacts.
If
there
are
any
other
commissioners
who
are
interested
in
either
of
those
that
would
hit
four.
E
A
You
know
in
one
of
the
the
policies
so,
for
example,
supply
of
housing
that
meets
the
the
needs
of
the
city.
Perhaps
one
of
the
policies
could
describe
you
know,
you
know
exploring
opportunities
to
to
link
jobs
to
housing,
and
we
could
we
could.
A
You
know
include
an
example
of
east
whisman
and
and
some
of
the
other
examples
that
we've
we've
done
already
so
not
necessarily
committing
to
it
city-wide
but
saying
that
you've
we've
been
innovative
on
this
front
and
plan
to
continue
to
be
where,
where
opportunities
present
themselves,
I
would.
I
would
be
fine
with
including
something
along
those
lines,
and
then
I
think,
maybe
a
good
place
to
insert
something
along
the
lines
of
construction
and
quality
of
life
would
be.
A
There
was
a
there
was
an
existing
policy
in
here
that
I
thought
where,
where
it
sort
of
talked
about.
A
I
The
lines
of
and
and
mitigating
the
impacts
from
from
infill.
A
Development,
probably
in
one
of
those
policies
to
help
cover
things,
I
think
it's
one
of
one
of
the
first
four
policies
undergo
one
it
probably
could
be
weaved
in
there.
A
There's
the
first
three,
the
next
one
was
the
vpc
sport
stats
recommendation
on
the
study
targeting
updates
to
non-conforming
zones
and
and
we
you
presented
the
the
what
was
it
called,
not
most
favorite
nation
status,
but
the
pro
housing
designation.
A
Are
you
looking
for
feedback
on
that
or
not
you
didn't
ask
you
presented
it,
but
you
didn't
ask
a
question
about
it.
That
was
before
the
r1r2
thing.
U
A
N
A
My
understanding
of
it,
I
I'm
I've
I've
gotten
comfortable
with
the
the
targeted
update
strategy
or
the
targeted
approach
to.
I
think
I
think
it's
probably
the
best
approach
to
to
address
these.
These
non-conforming
sections
of
the
zoning
code.
G
I
I'm
supportive
of
this
I'm
a
little
hesitant
on
the
additions
allowing
for
additions,
because
I
don't
know
where
the
tipping
point
is
where
it
would
incentivize
someone
to
then
want
to
do
this
new
brand
new
building
and
then
displace
existing
residents.
So
I
do
want
the
naturally
affordable
housing
to
be
updated,
not
fall
into
disrepair,
but
I
don't
want
it
to
make
it
so
easy
that
the
property
owner
just
says.
G
Oh,
I
can
get
this
much
for
it
and,
let's
just
do
a
whole
brand
new
one,
add
a
ton
of
units,
and
you
know
you
could
turn
over
that
way.
So
I
don't
know
where
that
tipping
point
is,
but
in
general
I
am
supportive
of
the
structural
alterations,
modifications
to
a
degree.
I
don't
know
about
the
additions
and
rebuilding
as
long
as
it
doesn't
increase
or
go
beyond
the
non-conforming
status
that
it
already
has.
K
Yep
also
pretty
generally
supportive.
I
did
have
obviously
a
concern
with
the
potential
negative
consequences
could
include
the
displacement
of
existing
residents.
If
units
are
rebuilt
or
improved.
K
I
would
just
I
guess,
for
whatever
it's
worth,
if
there's
a
way
to
clarify-
or
you
know,
affirm-
that
if
treyo
or
sisfra
kind
of
conditions
apply
here
for
the
displacement
of
people
that
you
know,
I
think
that
that's
my
only
reservation
just
to
have
some
assurance
that
if
and
when
those
benefits
apply
or
protections
apply,
that
that
we're
ensuring
people
get
them,
that
this
doesn't
become
a
backdoor
for
displacement.
E
So
I'm
generally
okay,
with
with
leaving
sort
of
the
treatment
of
these
individual
sites
kind
of
in
the
hands
of
staff.
For
now-
and
I
think
you
know-
an
approach
of
relative
mercy
is
a
good
one.
There's
a
site
not
far
from
my
house.
That's
one
of
the
sites
noted
here
and
they've
been
wonderfully
quiet
for
50
years.
So
I
don't
see
any
problem.
E
You
know
showing
a
little
bit
of
flexibility,
so
they
can
keep
providing
honestly
housing
seniors,
that's
a
really
valuable
thing
in
this
community
and
I
don't
want
to
make
it
hard
for
them
to
keep
doing
good
work.
So
I
think
what
what
staff
has
recommended
is
good
for
me.
A
So,
overall,
I'm
supportive
of
the
approach.
I
guess,
if
my
only
concern
has
actually
nothing
to
do
with
it,
given
all
the
stuff
other
stuff
on
staff
time.
A
This
doesn't
feel
to
me
to
be
like
the
highest
priority
item,
and
so,
if
it's,
if
it's
so
I
I
I
support
their
perch,
but
it
boy
if
this
displaces
other
things
that
are,
you
know
working
on
the
housing
in
the
city,
then
I
would
hopefully
we
can
do
this
with
minimal
impact
on
staff's
time.
So
so
I
support
it,
but
I
you
guys
are
busy
and
I'm
just
worried
about
you
guys.
A
You
know,
should
this
be
high
high
up
on
the
list,
I
don't
know
is:
is
this
something
that's
a
persistent
problem
eric
for
staff
and
dealing
with
these
kind
of
things
or.
Y
Y
I
am
not
too
sure
what
prompted
the
council
to
put
this
on
such
a
high
priority
for
for
staff
to
address,
but
it
was
obviously
part
of
the
council
roadmap,
so
I
know
that
they
are
concerned
about
just
having
our
policies
kind
of
consistent
with
preserving
the
units
that
are
there,
and
so
I
think
that
was
a
big
goal
for
them
as
part
of
this
strategic
roadmap.
Y
But
again
we'll
see
what
they
say
in
a
couple
of
weeks
here
about
how
this
you
know
this
solution
lines
up
with
other
priorities
in
the
city
in
terms
of
timing.
A
All
right
again,
I
support
the
approach
we'll
defer
to
council's
prioritization
of
things.
Okay,
so
have
we
covered
everything
ellen
eric,
okay,
all
right,
then
we
will
move
to.
A
Y
Just
a
couple
minor
announcements
here
next
meeting
is
scheduled
for
march
2nd.
We
are
going
to
have
a
few
items,
there's
going
to
be
a
study
session
about
one
of
the
lasd
tdr
projects
office
building
in
east
wisman.
Y
The
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
was
just
kind
of
this.
Remind
people
of
the
city
process
for
absences.
There
is
a
council
policy
regarding
absences,
it's
council
policy
k2,
and
so,
if
you
are
going
to
be
absent,
you
do
need
to
let
either
me
or
chair
cranston
know
beforehand.
Y
Y
We
can
correct
that
in
the
minutes,
but
at
the
beginning
of
every
meeting,
if
somebody
is
absent,
we
do
have
to
have
a
general
consensus
about
whether
the
absence
is
excused
or
not,
and
so,
if
we
don't
hear
from
you,
then
we're
going
to
call
it
unexcused,
but,
like
I
said
we
can
correct
the
record
when
we
do
minutes.
A
G
Quickly,
yeah,
so
the
idea
of
land
trust.
I
don't
want
staff
to
take
up
their
time
doing
this.
It's
when
I
started
looking
into
it
it.
I
had
one
idea
of
what
it
was
and
then
the
more
I
researched
I
found
it
to
be
a
tool
that
is
seemingly
quite
effective
in
other
places,
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
for
us
to
just
like
try
to
coordinate
some
information
and
just
put
it
into
a.
G
I
don't
know
a
google
sheet
where
you
have
links
so
that
we
could
all
learn
a
bit
more
about
it.
I
mean,
if
staff
has
something
already
it'd
be
great
to
just
see
it,
but
maybe
we
can
pull
together
a
folder.
I
don't
know
if
that
is
the
problem
with
the
brown
act
just
to
share
information,
but
I
think
it's
worth
looking
at
and
I
know
you
know
it's
listed
in
policies
as
one
of
five
different
things
and
one
policy
number,
but
I
think
it's
I
don't
know.
G
Maybe
you
guys
would
feel
the
same
in
in
wanting.
G
G
A
I
was
a
chair.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
was
just
going
to
say
this
was
a
this
was
a
hot
topic
and-
and
I
think
it
made
it
into
one
of
the
council's
housing
strategies
a
few
years
ago-
and
I
remember
I'm
pretty
sure
there
was
sort
of
a
a
memo
or
a
a
a
reasonably
comprehensive
sort
of
set
of
information
about
land
trusts
and
how
they
were
used
at
the
time.
A
This
is
like,
maybe
three
three
four
years
ago
I
can
go
through,
and
none
of
that
I
think,
was
confidential.
I
think
it
was
all
public.
I
can
go
through
some
of
my
some
of
my
old
public
counsel
members
and
see
if
I
can
find
it
and
that
way
staff
doesn't
have
to
do
or
have
at
least
has
a
jumping
off
point.
A
Y
Yeah
and
and
sandy,
can
you
advise
us
on
this
just
as
far
as
you
know,
kind
of
sharing
information
between
commissioners
and
any
brown
act,
issues
that
might
come
up
there.
O
Yeah,
any
information
that
you
would
want
to
share
it
should
be
sent
to
to
eric
as
the
liaison
and
not
shared
with
you
know,
by
an
individual
commissioner,
with
the
arrest
of
the
commission
and
information
that
is
provided
to
all
commissioners.
A
Okay,
then,
we
will
close
the
meeting
at
1107
and
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting
is
march,
2nd
2022.
Thank
you,
everyone
and
have
a
great
evening.