►
Description
Live Teleconference of the Meeting of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission of March 15, 2023.
A
Foreign
good
evening,
everyone
welcome
to
the
environmental
Planning
Commission
meeting
March
15
2023
I
now
call
the
meeting
to
order
at
7
03
pm.
We
will
have
interpretation
services
in
Spanish
and
Chinese
for
item
5.1
via
Zoom.
The
zoom
translator
function
identified
as
a
globe
is
located
at
the
bottom
of
your
Zoom
screen.
Please
click
the
globe
and
select
the
language
you
prefer
English
or
Spanish
or
Chinese.
If
you
do
nothing,
you
will
hear
English
deliberation,
but
you
will
not
be
able
to
hear
English
translation
of
Spanish
or
Chinese
speaker
public
comment.
A
B
C
A
For
those
joining
us
in
person,
please
note
that,
due
to
our
hybrid
environment,
audio
and
video
presentations
can
no
longer
be
shared
from
the
lectern
request
to
show
an
audio
video
presentation
during
a
meeting
should
be
directed
to
EPC
at
mountainview.gov
by
4
30
pm
on
the
meeting
date.
Additionally,
due
to
our
hybrid
environment,
we
will
no
longer
have
speakers
line
up
to
speak
on
an
item.
Anyone
wishing
to
address
the
EPC
in
person
must
complete
a
yellow
speaker
card.
A
Please
indicate
the
name
you
would
like
to
be
called
by
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak.
In
the
item
number
on
which
you
wish
to
speak,
please
complete
one
yellow
speaker
card
for
each
item
on
which
you
wish
to
speak
and
turn
them
into
the
EPC
clerk
as
soon
as
possible,
but
no
later
than
the
call
for
public
comment
on
the
item,
you
are
speaking
on
instructions
for
addressing
the
commission
virtually
may
be
found
on
the
posted
agenda.
Now
I'll
ask
the
EPC
clerk
to
proceed
with
roll
call.
A
Thank
you
now
on
to
item
3.1
environmental
Planning,
Commission,
meeting
minutes
of
March
1st
2023.,
we'll
start
with
ABC
discussion.
If
there
is
any
any
comments,
we
will
go
to
public
comment.
If
anyone
in
attendance
would
like
to
provide
comments
on
the
minutes,
please
fill
out
a
yellow
speaker
card
and
provide
it
to
the
EPC
clerk.
If
anyone
on
Zoom
would
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
minutes,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
Zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
commute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six
six.
F
C
D
D
A
You
now
on
to
oral
Communications.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
EBC
on
matters
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
the
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items.
If
anyone
in
attendance
would
like
to
provide
comments
on
non-agenda
items,
please
fill
out
a
yellow
speaker
card
and
provide
it
to
the
EPC
clerk.
A
Okay,
then,
we
will
close
that
and
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
item
5.1
2023
to
2031
housing
element.
Now,
normally,
public
hearings
have
a
different
order,
but
due
to
the
complexity
of
this
project
and
the
need
for
conflict
of
interest
recusals,
we
were
we're
going
to
hold
the
items
in
this
order.
First,
we'll
have
staff
presentation,
followed
by
public
comment
and
at
the
closure
of
public
comments.
We'll
then
have
the
commission
ask
questions
and
deliberate
and
then
take
action
so
we'll
first
have
the
staff
presentation
by
Ellen
Yao
project
planner.
L
All
right
good
evening,
thank
you,
chair
yin
and
commissioners
before
you
this
evening,
for
your
consideration
is
the
six
cycle
housing
element.
This
is
for
the
period
of
2023
to
2031..
My
name
is
Ellen
Yao
and
I'm.
The
project
planner
I'm
joined
here
over
tonight
by
with
Eric
Anderson,
my
Advanced
planning
manager.
Also
here
with
us,
is
our
consultant
Stephanie
Hager
from
Bae
and
Bev
Choi
from
ESA.
L
I
will
go
over
the
latest
comments
we
received
I'm
going
to
highlight
Council
Direction
received
in
December
hcd
comments
and
overall
Community
feedback
that
we
received
on
the
December
draft.
Then
I
will
also
provide
an
overview
of
the
changes
to
the
draft,
specifically
in
the
two
major
components
of
the
housing
element,
that
is
the
site's
inventory
and
the
programs.
Lastly,
I
will
go
over
the
next
steps
and
recommendations
for
the
project.
L
L
L
The
comments
included
re-categorizing
pipeline
projects
that
didn't
have
any
preliminary
or
informal
applications
submitted,
so
we
cauterized
it
from
pipeline
to
opportunity
sites
because
we're
required
to
do
that.
That
meant
that
we
had
additional
analysis
needed
for
non-vacant
sites,
so
we
had
to
demonstrate
that
existing
uses
on
these
non-vacant
sites
would
not
impede
residential
development.
L
Lastly,
hcd
also
had
comments
to
ensure
that
we
included
all
segments
of
the
community,
particularly
those
with
limited
English
proficiency,
so
to
sum
up
our
December
draft
and
the
revisions.
So
each
of
hcd's
comments
highlighted
here
and
Council
Direction
highlighted
in
the
last
slide,
and
all
of
that
was
considered,
and
we
made
revisions
to
the
latest
draft
that
is
before
you
tonight
and
the
next
part
of
this
presentation.
I
will
go
over
the
site's
inventory
and
program
changes.
L
So
again,
for
that
inventory,
changes
based
off
of
the
comments
we
recategorize
pipeline
projects,
we
re-zoned
back
pocket
sites
and
then
we
also
made
minor
modifications
to
remove
or
add
sites
based
on
new
information
from
Property
Owners.
As
you
can
see
on
this
chart,
the
buffer
ranges
are
within
hdd's,
recommended
15
to
30
percent.
L
L
As
I
said,
because
we
had
to
recategorize
some
sites
into
the
opportunity
sites,
we
have
to
do
a
non-vegan
site
analysis,
so
under
housing
element
law.
If
we
rely
on
non-vacant
sites
to
accommodate
50
percent
or
more
of
lower
income
Arena
units,
the
housing
element
must
provide
evidence
to
show
that
the
current
use
won't
impede
residential
development.
Generally,
the
evidence
can
be
comprised
of
various
factors
that
make
it
a
unique
site
for
to
be
categorized
as
an
opportunity
site,
but
typically
it
falls
into
three
major
categories
which
is
shown
on
the
screen
right
here.
L
First
is
market
and
development
Trends.
This
will
reflect
existing
uses
on
the
site
that
has
similar
characteristics
to
projects
that
have
gone
through
the
entitlement
and
approval
process,
and
it
shows
that
you
know
usually
they're
older
buildings
or
properties
with
low
floor
area
ratios
and
therefore
are
very
likely
to
redevelop.
Another
is
if
their
site-specific
information,
that's
specifically,
if
we've
gotten
letters
from
Property
Owners
stating
that
they
do
have
interest
in
doing
so
and
redeveloping
and
then.
L
Housing
element
is
a
result
of
you
know
many
months
of
analysis,
Outreach
policy
development,
multiple
meetings
with
EPC
and
Council,
and
so
you
know
we
sit
on
a
very
robust
Foundation
of
Mountain
View
efforts.
This
includes
existing
housing
policies
and
many
other
housing
program
successes.
So
the
housing
element
is
comprised
of
four
major
goals.
L
L
And,
lastly,
for
the
city,
you
want
to
assure
that
we
are
as
an
entity
an
effective
Steward
of
Housing
Solutions,
and
that
means
funding,
advocacy,
Partnerships
and
overall
community
outreach
and
engagement.
So
each
of
these
four
goals
is
associated
with
a
broad
range
of
programs
that
is
highlighted
in
chapter
three
of
the
housing
element
and
we
are
required
to
strive
and
complete
those
programs
within
the
cycle.
L
So
the
next
several
slides
will
go
over
the
program
changes
that
we've
made
since
the
December
draft.
Again.
This
includes
hcd's
response
letter
received
on
January,
17th,
Council
Direction
and
all
the
community
outreach
thus
far
and
Community
input
that
we
have
so
staff
has
been
working
with.
You
know.
Various
stakeholder
groups
and
we've
revised
these
programs
to
address
those
issues
on
the
following,
slides
you'll
see
the
public
comment
on
the
left
and
on
the
right
what
City
action
we've
taken.
L
This
is
highlighted
in
the
staff
report
as
well,
but
this
is
just
an
overview
and
a
summary.
So
a
little
bit
more
detail
is
included
in
the
staff
report
and
you
can
see
the
direct
changes
in
the
red
line.
Version
of
the
housing
element
so,
first
to
program
1.1
and
we've
organized
this
based
off
the
program
changes
so
for
program.
1.1
people
had
interest
in
back
pocket
sites
being
rezoned,
so
we
added
those
back
pocket
sites
and
we
are
rezoning
other
areas
that
been
identified
in
the
back
pocket.
L
We
are
also
preserving
and
adding
language
for
preservation,
standards
to
neighborhood
commercial
shopping
centers,
and
then
we
also
allow
Emergency
Shelters
by
right,
which
is
consistent
with
state
law
ab2339,
which
took
into
effect
at
the
beginning
of
this
year
and
program.
1.2
public
comment
included
eliminating
parking
requirements
in
residential
development
throughout
the
city,
so
originally
this
was
just
to
eliminate
parking
requirements
for
100,
affordable
based
off
of
council
Direction
with
additional
feedback.
L
We've
made
those
changes
to
also
exempt
parking
for
residential
projects
in
transit,
oriented
areas,
these
mostly
target
precise
plans
areas
and
then
also
for
those
that
are
outside
of
the
precise
plan
areas
to
include
exemptions.
If
those
projects
can
provide
enhanced
Transportation
demand
management
measures,
projects
usually
are
required
to
provide
those
TDMs,
but
if
they're
able
to
go
above
and
beyond,
then
those
parking
exceptions
are
available
to
them
in
program
1.3.
We
added
language,
clarifying
economic
feasibility
and
the
cumulative
effects
of
Standards
to
ensure
that
we
can
strive
to
reduce
constraints
to
Housing
Development.
L
That
was
a
major
concern
that
we
heard
from
the
community
to
ensure
that
they
can
build
to
their
allowable
density
and
ensure
economic
feasibility
for
these
projects.
We
also
received
comments
regarding
development
process
such
as
adding
in
exemptions,
the
gatekeeper
process
or
eliminating
the
process.
Overall,
there's
a
lot
of
different
comments
on
that,
so
the
changes
that
we
made
was
to
review
additional
gatekeeper
exemptions.
There
are
some
that
are
already
listed
in
the
municipal
code.
L
We
are
also
committing
to
holding
one
gatekeeper
meeting
annually
and
then
we
also
included
a
review
of
our
two
sites
throughout
the
city.
These
will
be
special
considerations
to
focus
on
high
opportunity
areas
and
areas
near
Transit
and
services,
and
this
is
because,
right
now,
with
sb9,
R1
properties
do
have
the
ability
to
have
higher
density
than
just
a
duplex,
and
so
this
is
kind
of
reevaluating,
our
existing
code
and
development
standards.
L
Familiar
with
program,
1.4
we've
had
this
at
the
beginning
of
our
essentially
our
first
draft,
but
we
had
interest
in
increasing
the
density
number
in
the
previous
draft
and
also
adding
additional
metrics
and
objectives.
So
we
added
65
units
proposed
on
these
religious
and
institutional
sites,
south
of
El
Camino,
with
a
time
frame
of
2027..
We
also
clarified
that
there
will
be
additional
actions
if
these
units
don't
happen.
So
it's
kind
of
a
continual
process
we'll
do
Outreach.
L
1.8
is
for
the
Parkland
ordinance
update
some
of
the
comments
we
received
circled
around
how
Park
and
Luffy's
were
calculated
the
concerns
that
the
cumulative
impacts
of
all
fees
for
projects
made
projects
infeasible.
So
this
program
specifically
targets
how
we
can
reduce
the
cumulative
impact
of
fees
as
an
overall
stack
and
then
also
specifically,
to
ensure
that
the
constraint
of
Parkland,
which
was
identified
as
a
high
constraint,
in
our
analysis,
that
we
can
lower
residential
Park
in
Luffy's
and
so
to
ensure
steps
to
achieving
that.
L
People
also
had
concerns
about
when
they
are
applying
for
BMR
units
that
they
are
required
to
provide
certain
information
like
Social,
Security
numbers
and
community
members
also
had
concerns
about
the
you
know:
housing
laws
and
housing
rights,
and
you
know
where
they
can
for
assistance
and
help
without
concerns
about
landlord
retaliation,
so
included
in
these
program
changes.
You
know
we
revised
to
clarify
that
you
know
we
want
to
ensure
that
housing
is
available
to
households,
otherwise
that
are
otherwise
left
out
of
the
Mountain
View
housing
market.
L
We
because
we
heard
that
assessing
these
BMR
programs
is
an
issue.
You
know
we
included
details
on
how
we
can
remove
those
barriers.
This
included
increasing
our
Outreach
and
technical
assistance.
We
have,
you
know,
eviction
protection
program
that
meets
at
the
library,
so
a
lot
of
it
is
getting
the
information
out
to
address
landlord
retaliation.
We
are
going
to
be
looking
at
how
we
can
improve
those
programs
of
getting
Outreach
and
proactively
helping
tenants
who
have
concerns.
L
C
L
Plan
so
that
includes
program
1.4
for
the
church
and
institutional
sites.
This
includes
program
4.5,
which
is
we're
doing
Partnerships
with
developers
to
provide
affordable
housing.
So,
on
the
left
hand
side
you
can
see,
we
had
very
specific
comments
on
how
we
can
quantify
and
ensure
that
we
are
furthering
fair
housing
throughout
the
city.
So
we've
taken
those
those
input
and
some
of
the
changes
that
we've
highlighted
in
the
program
are,
on
the
right
hand,
side.
So,
in
program
1.4,
we
added.
We
clarified
that
the
metric
is
65
units
on
these
sites.
L
This
is
to
further
site
south
of
El
Camino
in
program,
4.5
65
units
of
affordable
housing
in
downtown,
and
if
that
doesn't
come
into
fruition,
we
also
have
next
steps
to
consider
city-owned
land
and
then
separately,
we're
doing
another
level
of
note:
net
loss,
Serena
you're
required
to
do
a
no
net
loss
across
the
entire
Arena
house.
Income
levels
we're
doing
one
specifically
just
for
lower
income
in
areas
south
of
El
Camino.
So
this
gives
us
a
metric
of
ensuring
that
lower
income
units
are
located
south
of
El
Camino
and
one
other
comment
was
rezoning.
L
L
Under
3.1
for
homelessness
prevention
and
services
for
the
unhoused,
we
had
specific
comments
about
domestic
violence
and
and
providing
shelter
for
children
and
women.
So
we
currently
right
now
partner
with
the
county.
As
part
of
that,
you
know
we're
looking
at
how
we
can
expand
those
Partnerships
and
how
we
can
provide
additional
funding
right
now.
It's
through
cdbg
funds,
so
we'll.
L
That
in
in
that
program
and
then
under
displacement
prevention
and
mitigation
program
3.2,
we
had
comments
about.
Let's
ensure
that
we
are
measuring
how
effective
these
programs
are.
So
we
have
Treo
so
as
part
of
our
action.
We're
looking
at
measuring
how
Treo
is
effective.
The
metric
is
ensuring
That
Mountain
View
residents,
who
are
part
of
this
program
going
back
and
ensuring
that
they're
actually
being
able
to
be
residents
of
Mountain
View,
regardless
of
having
to
go
through
relocation
efforts.
L
Again,
there
was
concern
about
local
replacement
requirements
that
is
being
evaluated
through
our
displacement
response
strategy,
so
we
are
again
highlighting
it
under
3.2
and
then
we
had
interest
in
providing
funding
and
support
for
household
experiencing
eviction
and
specifically
looking
at
amendments
for
mobile
home
tenants.
They
have
shared
their
concerns
about
increasing
rent
on
their
on
their
property
and
on
their.
L
Under
4.1
is
our
development,
streamlining
and
processing
revision.
We
had
requests
to
specifically
include
Matrix
study
recommendations
and
to
look
at
code
compliant
projects
that
can
go
through
a
ministerial
review
process,
so
we
will
be
evaluating
which
projects
multi-family
projects
that
can
be
eligible
for
ministerial,
approve
approvals.
This
will
streamline
development
review
projects
for
residential.
L
We
are
also
looking
at
a
lot
of
implementation
for
our
Matrix
study
recommendations
at
the
beginning
of
the
process
for
the
Housing
Development.
It
was
hard
to
identify
what
those
timelines
were,
but
now
we
have
very
specific
action
items.
Listen
the
housing
element,
including
those
Matrix
study,
recommendations.
L
For
4.5,
we
had
comments
from
hcd
and
from
the
community
to
ensure
that
we
are
facilitating
opportunity
sites,
development
that
tenants
right
now
who
are
in
the
RVs
on
the
East
Evelyn
site.
The
site
was,
you
know,
vacant
city-owned,
knowing
that
we
were
going
to
redevelop
and
knowing
that
we
had
this
opportunity
to
use
the
land
in
the
interim
we
have
residents
there
now
we
are
also
looking
at
transitioning
them
out.
L
L
L
Okay,
so,
though,
that
multiple
slides
later
that
captured
all
of
the
changes
that
we
made
in
the
draft
that's
presented
before
you,
you
will
note
that
in
exhibit
e
of
attachment
one,
there
are
modifications
and
we
are
still
making
some
modifications.
So
you'll
see
a
desk
item
for
additional
modifications
since
the
publication
of
the
draft.
So
in
terms
of
hierarchy,
we
have
the
publish
draft
in
the
Reza.
We
have
additional
amendments,
in
exhibit
e
and
in
front
of.
L
You
is
desk
item
for
additional
additional
revisions
to
exhibit
e,
so
I'm
going
to
go
over
a
few
of
those
changes
in
the
next
couple
of
slides.
So
you
know
we
continue
to
do
our
Outreach
to
stakeholders,
we're
still
re
receiving
comments
and
trying
to
incorporate
them
and
you'll
see
that
in
those
attachments
in
front
of
you.
G
M
G
Anybody
that
might
be
watching
on
YouTube
or
somewhere
else
trying
to
get
into
the
zoom
meeting.
For
the
for
this,
there
was
a
typo
on
the
link
for
the
for
for
the
zoom
meeting
on
the
agenda
and
we
have
posted
on
the
site
where
you
get
find
the
agenda
online.
The
the
list
of
meetings,
if
you
click
the
the
link
in
the
list
of
meetings
that
says
meeting
details,
we've
posted
a
new
link
to
the
zoom
meeting
on
that
page
on
the
meeting
Details
page.
So.
I
G
L
L
So
the
changes
will
be
presented
in
the
next
couple
of
slides
and
they've
also
been
posted
online
and
emailed
to
you
directly
and
printed
in
front
of
you.
So
first
one
is
to
program.
1.3
again
we
had
additional
comments
on
how
we
can
reduce
and
eliminate
standards
that
would
constrain
economic
feasibility,
wanted
commitments
to
a
very
specific
objective,
quantifiable
policies
that
will
facilitate
the
development
of
Maximum
units
on
a
site,
and
then
they
wanted
clarification
on
the
R2
up
zoning
program.
L
For
the
1.8
Parkland
Ordnance
update,
we
had
comments
about
specifying
the
specific
fee
reduction
and
ensuring
that
we're
committing
to
meaningful
action,
and
then
we
made
that
modification
on
exhibit
e
and
in
your
packet
in
front
of
you.
This
includes
a
specific
Target
fee
reduction
of
at
least
20
percent
on
average
based
off
of
typical
residential
projects.
L
For
2.6,
we
had
a
request
for
a
very
specific
metric
of
40
units
by
2027.,
and
the
intent
of
this
comment
was
to
ensure
that
we
had
a
metric
to
meet
at
a
certain
point
during
our
planning
period
and
then
to
also
ensure
that,
if
things
didn't
pan
out
that
we
would
have
next
steps
which
meant
continued
Outreach.
And
so
we
added
that
that
was
part
of
our
plan.
L
We
just
added
specific
metric
and
timeline
into
that
program
to
set
to
specify
that
we
would
do
the
additional
Outreach
and
the
policy
changes
to
reduce
affordable
housing
constraints
for
3.2
displacement,
prevention
and
mitigation.
We
had
comments
specifying
that
there
was
interest
in
preserving
or
acquiring
50
units
or
five
buildings
as
a
specific
metric
through
tenant
cooperatives
and
community
and
or
Community
Land
trusts,
and
then
to
also
invest
10
million
dollars
from
the
BMR
program
to
support
those
attendant
cooperatives
and
Community
Land
trusts.
L
So
we
included
to
acquire
and
Preserve
at
least
50
percent,
at
least
50
housing
units
that
would
remain
affordable
and
then
to
also
develop
funding
Partnerships
to
invest
at
least
10
million.
And
then
we
also
added
an
action
item
to
create
a
community
ownership
plan.
So
currently
we
don't
have
any
clts.
You
know
you
know
could
take
on
this
work.
L
I
want
to
highlight
that,
since
the
certification
of
the
eir,
you
know
they
have
been
changes
to
the
housing
element,
but
the
changes
as
you've
known
is
slight
site.
Inventory
changes
modifying
some
program
details
and
overall
we
have
evaluated
that
those
changes
to
the
housing
element
don't
affect
the
actual
conclusions
or
the
analysis
captured
in
the
eir.
L
So
we've
also
included
in
exhibit
5
to
the
staff
report,
a
SQL
memo
highlighting
those
changes.
So
you
know
as
part
of
tonight's
recommendation.
The
EPC
should
consider
that
certified
eir
under
this
new
revised
housing
element
on
the
slide
you'll
see
a
couple
of
those
key
dates
that
has
brought
us
to
today.
L
So
we
are
here
tonight
to
recommend
Council
action,
so
I
want
to
highlight
that
we
are
recommending
the
specific
adoption
schedule
that
we
adopt
the
housing
element
without
hcd
certification.
There
are
several
reasons
why
the
timing
of
that
is
kind
of
critical
for
the
city.
You
know
we
have
submitted
multiple
drafts
of
hcd
already
and
we've
had
multiple
meetings
with
HC
staff
and
they
have
supported
our
process
for
adopting
prior
to
their
certification.
L
You
know
we
have
specifically
revised
and
responded
to
those
comments
that
hcd
has
highlighted
in
their
letter
and
again
we
did
talk
to
hcd
and
they
stated
that,
since
our
comments
are
minimal,
that
this
process
of
moving
forward
and
getting
it
adopted
prior
to
their
certification
does
make
a
lot
of
sense,
because
if
we
were
to
submit
prior
to
that,
it
would
add
on
additional
time.
So
some
of
the
issues
of
if
we
were
not
to
go
through
this
schedule
of
tonight's
hearing
and
bring
into
Council
for
adoption
in
April.
L
L
This
requires
that
the
well
aside
from
the
million
here
there
are
a
lot
of
other
funding
opportunities
that
require
a
compliant
housing
element
and
those
deadlines.
You
know,
come
up
in
April,
August,
September
and
some
all
the
way
to
December.
So
you
know
as
quickly
as
possible
is
approving
and
adopting
the
housing
element,
the
better
we
have
in
terms
of
accessing
those
funding
opportunities
and
if
we
are
still
without
a
housing,
compliant
housing
element
there,
the
city
isn't
able
to
deny
certain
non-compliant
projects.
C
L
L
L
and
so
I've
shown
on
this
screen.
Here
is
the
recommended
action
for
tonight
again
to
consider
the
2023-2031
housing
element,
update
environmental
impact
report
and
then
to
also
recommend
the
city
council,
adopt
a
resolution
amending
the
general
plan
to
adopt
the
housing
element
for
the
period
of
2023
to
2031..
A
Thank
you,
Planner
yeah,
this
portion
of
the
meeting.
Oh
sorry,
let
me
reread
this.
If
anyone
in
attendance
would
like
to
provide
comments
on
this
item,
please
fill
out
a
yellow
speaker
card
and
provide
it
to
the
EPC
clerk.
If
anyone
on
Zoom
would
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
Zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six.
A
D
D
Do
have
three
in-person
speakers
and
then
we
have
a
a
fourth
in-person
speaker
who
will
actually
be
providing
translation
for
a
zoom
speaker.
So
maybe
we
can
wait
and
do
that
one
last
and
and
I
believe
our
our
protocol
is
to
provide
double
time
for
that
but
yeah
we
do
have
three
in-person
speakers,
so
Chris
Martinez.
G
I
G
D
N
So
it's
just
something
we
really
it's
something
we
have
to
do
with
the
contractors.
We
have
to
hold
them
to
a
higher
standard
health
care
benefits.
Apprenticeship.
For
me,
I
college
was
not
an
option.
I
just
wasn't
in
the
family
funds
to
go
to
college.
The
apprenticeship
taught
me
a
craft
taught
me
a
trade
I
can
be
proud
of
a
lot
of
these
youths.
Need
that
and
a
lot
of
these
contractors
don't
give
that
to
these
youth.
N
So
this
nice
Hall
that
we're
in
right
now,
Carpenters
construction
workers
built
it
and
I
just
hate
to
see
the
you
know:
mistreatment
of
these
construction
workers.
So,
when
you're
moving
forward
with
these
projects,
it'd
be
great
to
hold
these
contractors
and
developers
to
a
standard
that
can
lift
us
all
up,
and
you
know
local
hire
super
important,
I've
spent
I,
don't
know
how
many
nights
in
a
hotel
room
away
from
My,
Wife
and
Kids
watching
my
kids
grow
up
through
the
phone.
N
It's
it's
so
important
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
jobs
for
the
people
in
the
community.
It's
going
to
help
with
your
tax
revenue
anyways.
You
know
so
just
things
to
think
about
so,
hopefully
moving
forward
with
these
great
projects,
so
you
guys
can
hold
these
contractors
and
developers
to
a
higher
standard.
Thank
you.
M
Good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Albert
luster
with
the
Carpenters
Local
Union
405.
I'm.
Here
today
to
see
it's
great
that
we
see
so
many
changes
to
the
housing
element,
but
we
all
we
also
got
to
think
about
the
workforce
going
to
build
these
projects.
I
mean
to
speak
about
the
the
Anita
area,
labor
standards,
implementation
to
the
next
housing
element
area
standards
include
liberal
wage,
Health,
Care,
apprenticeship,
local
hire,
they're,
probably
having
a
livable
wages
because
help
us
work.
M
The
working
men
and
women
balance
the
wages
with
the
current
inflation
in
the
last
two
years
in
the
last
few
years
and
provide
the
basic
needs
for
the
family.
So
how,
since
How,
could
a
necessity
for
All
Humans?
We
cannot
have
our
neighbors
in
our
community
not
seek
medical
attention
because
their
employer
failed
to
provide
medical
benefits.
Instead,
they
become
a
better
to
the
system,
apprenticeship,
programs.
It
provides
a
pathway
for
minorities.
M
Behind
locally
ensures
that
our
citizens
have
time
to
spend
time
with
their
families
been
involved
in
our
community
instead
of
spending
time
in
the
road
trying
to
make
ends
meet.
I
would
like
to
ask
the
community
and
our
elected
officials.
What
are
we
doing
to
ensure
that
we
we're,
including
the
area
labor
standards
in
the
new
housing
elements?
Are
we
doing?
Are
we?
Are
we
going
to
adopt
the
same
area,
labor
standards
as
our
neighborhood
and
every
cities,
Redwood
City
and
mellow
Park
in
a
new
housing
element
which
included
local
hire,
apprenticeship
and
legal
wage?
H
Hey
friends,
I'll
keep
it
brief.
You
guys
know
that
I
love
all
this.
It's
so
much
fun.
I
could
comment
a
lot
of
it,
but
right
now,
I'm
just
gonna
focus
on
program,
3.2
and
two
lines:
the
mobile
home,
rent
stabilization
ordinance.
We
have
a
lot
of
working
people
in
the
Parks.
We
have
a
lot
of
seniors.
We
have
a
lot
of
people
who
are
vulnerable
on
fixed
income,
and
five
percent
year
over
year
is
what
we
were
fighting
to.
Try
to
stop.
H
The
mhrso
is
great
I
think
that
it
could
be
improved.
There
are
some
Regional
cities
that
have
tighter
protections
that
they
have
found
would
like
would
be
effective,
still
provide
a
fair
rate
of
return,
but
allow
people
to
stay
in
their
homes
longer
be
able
to
afford
to
continue
to
live,
eat
clothe
themselves.
H
So
what
we're
looking
for
is
just
a
more
specific
item
on
a
quicker
timeline,
so
something
that
is
urgent
because
we
don't
want
to
be
priced
out,
and
that
is
more
specific
about
what
where,
instead
of
just
studying
you
know,
match
Regional
cities
that
have
strong
protections.
We
know
that
they
can
do
it.
Mountain
View
has
been
a
leader
and
can
match
them
or
do
better.
It's
up.
You
know
I
know
we
can
do
it
thanks.
O
Can
you
hear
me
yes,
I
just
want
to
add
a
on
top
of
what
Alex
just
said.
We
are
trying
to
change
those
two
lines
and
we
appreciate
your
support
on
adding
your
concern
about
our
issues
under
3.2
of
the
housing
element.
What
we'd
like
to
do
is
change
those
two
items.
I
think
we
didn't
give
to
these
staff
enough
information.
Previously.
O
But
basically
we
need
to
get
a
much
better
NGA
tour,
especially
for
our
seniors
and
people
have
fixed
incomes.
We
also
have
to
move
the
date
that
is
suggested
from
20
20
21
27
to
2023,
because
the
university
do
not
have
a
finite
amount
of
time
to
get
their
space
rents
down
to
a
useful
level
down
to
a
variable
level.
O
P
Evening,
Commissioners
staff,
my
name
is
Kevin
Ma
I'll
be
representing
the
League
of
Women
Voters
of
Los
Altos
Mountain
View
area
tonight,
with
the
revisions
posted
today
on
exhibit
e,
as
well
as
a
minor
change
in
terms
of
prioritization
of
staff
for
affordable
housing
in
terms
of
all
departments.
We
are
in
full
support
of
this
document.
P
We
thank
the
city
for
working
hard
in
these
past
months
to
take
input
from
the
public
to
ensure
that
we
are
creating
a
drought
that
is
accountable
and
enforceable
so
that
we
can
make
a
significant
change
in
terms
of
our
housing
crisis
and
we
look
forward
to
the
implementation
phase
over
the
next
eight
years.
Thank
you.
Q
Q
Just
using
a
few
of
the
examples
here
so,
for
example,
the
parking
requirements
that
were
reduced
I
think
it
makes
perfect
sense
to
eliminate
them
for
a
hundred
percent.
Affordable
projects.
I
do
not
see
that
for
reducing
them,
were
you
know
completely
eliminating
them
for
residential
areas.
We
already
have
recent
State
Law
changes
that
remove
the
minimum
parking
requirements
in
Old,
Mountain
View,
for
example,
and
we
have
not
seen
the
impact
of
that
yet
and
so
by
reducing
the
parking
requirements.
Q
Further,
it's
potentially
going
to
be
a
real
problem
for
people
that
live
in
those
areas.
I
can
tell
you
that
on
trash
day,
it's
difficult
in
my
area
to
find
parking
on
the
street,
so
it
doesn't
take
much
to
take
it
over
the
edge.
Another
thing
I
wanted
to
highlight
is
the
inclusion
of
the
back
pocket
sites
in
the.
Q
County
and
not
just
the
largest,
it
has
like
by
far
the
largest,
so
it's
not
really
prudent
to
be
adding
a
whole
lot
more
sides
to
this
without
any
kind
of
forward-looking
planning
for
infrastructure,
and
you
know,
schools,
water.
What
have
you
so
I
think
some
were
you
know.
Emphasis
needs
to
be
put
onto
that.
Q
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
annex
was
paid
for
by
in-lu
fees,
so
park
fees
right.
So,
if
that's
on
the
table,
what
guarantee
do
the
residents
have
that
those
illu
fees
that
are
now
reduced
are
not
diverted
away
from
parks
in
the
end,
and
you
know
we
need
those
parts
if
we're
going
to
have
more
residents
and
the
Questa
Park
Annex
is
in
the
perfect
space,
so
I
think
it
really
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
develop
it.
Thank
you.
R
R
This
was
a
step
that
needed
to
be
taken
to
be
compliant
and
we're
we're
pleased
to
see
that
that
was
taken,
I'm
sure
there
are
difficult
decisions
that
have
been
made
and
will
have
to
go
through
Council
process,
but
we
think
they
are
going
to
allow
this.
This
housing
element
significantly
more
likely
to
be
certified.
We
will
have
some
small
comments
following
this
session.
R
There's
been
a
lot
of
edits
in
the
last
last
couple
of
days,
but
we're
really
here
to
just
express
our
appreciation
for
the
Prof
process
and
and
confidence
that
the
discussions
with
the
state
have
have
been
constructive
and
clear,
and,
and
this
is
very
close
to
getting
across
the
finish
line.
Thank
you.
S
T
Commissioners,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
tonight.
My
name
is
Olga
Mello
and
I'm
speaking
tonight
on
behalf
of
the
Fondo
de
solidad
de
Mountain
View,
the
Fondo
de
solidade
Mountain
View
is
a
group
of
Latina
immigrant
women
in
Mountain
View
that
supports
the
economic
well-being,
mental
health
and
housing
stability
of
Latino
families
in
our
community.
In
2021,
we
formed
the
fundo
as
a
mutual
Aid
Relief
Fund
to
support
undocumented
Latino
families,
who
fell
through
the
cracks
of
most
economic
recovery
programs.
T
Thanks
to
the
support
and
Trust
of
the
city
of
Mountain
View,
we
successfully
redistributed
a
million
dollars
in
coveted
relief
funds
to
400
families
in
2021,
and
we
are
currently
Distributing
another
800
000
in
relief
funds
to
families
this
year,
a
post-pandemic.
Our
main
goal
is
to
improve
the
long-term
housing
stability
of
our
working
class
renter
community
in
Mountain
View
by
following
in
the
footsteps
of
other
communities
in
the
Bay
Area
and
California
in
bringing
the
community
land
trust
and
limited
Equity
housing
Cooperative
models
to
Mountain
View,
along
with
the
supportive
Copa
topa
policy.
T
We
would
respectfully
like
to
suggest
that
you
update
the
housing
element
to
commit
resources
to
and
accelerate
the
research
and
execution
of
these
community
housing
models,
as
well
as
to
commit
goals,
commit
two
goals
for
reducing
displacement
of
Mountain
View
working
class
renters
via
community
housing
at
the
at
the
unit
or
building
level.
We
look
forward
to
reviewing
the
changes
that
were
made
to
the
housing
element
today
and
discussing
them
with
the
city
council.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
attention.
A
The
recusals
are,
first
okay,
we're
going
to
discuss
multiple
programs
in
the
housing
element
that
require
one
or
more
Commissioners
to
recuse
themselves
due
to
conflicts
of
interest.
These
programs
include
program
1.1
zoning
ordinance,
update
for
consistency
with
state
laws
related
to
Zoning
for
Emergency,
Shelters
and
rezoning
sites
for
the
inventory
program,
1.2
eliminate
minimum
parking
standards
for
residential
and
Transit
oriented
areas,
affordable
housing
developments
and
other
cases
in
program,
1.3
review
and
update
ordinance
and
precise
plan
residential
standards
and
program
1.4,
religious
and
Community
assembly
sites
for
housing.
A
U
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Let's
see
here,
man
I
should
have
all
my
glasses
here:
okay,
I'm,
sorry
I
am
recusing
myself
from
discussions
about
program,
1.2
subsection
B,
whether
to
eliminate
minimum
parking
requirements
for
residential
development
in
transit,
Orient
oriented
areas,
including
the
El
Camino
Real,
precise
plan
area
due
to
the
proximity
of
my
residence
to
the
El
Camino
Real,
precise
plan
area.
J
The
good
news
is
we're
close
enough
to
the
finish
line
that
we're
getting
these
very
specific
items,
but
that
also
means
that
there
are
recusals
associated
with
it.
So
I'm
recusing
myself
from
discussions
about
program,
1.1,
subsection
F,
where
it's
discussing
whether
or
not
to
allow
Emergency
Shelters
by
right-of-way
or.
I
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
had
a
quick
question
for
staff
by
removing
the
requirement
for
that
parking.
When
we
see
a
development
proposal
in
that
area,
is
there
still
a
staff
like
a
traffic
impact
study?
That's
done
so
we'll
still
end
up
talking
about
that.
Whether
the
requirement
is
there
or
not,.
I
G
V
G
We're
actually
developing
a
TDM
ordinance
now,
and
so
the
goal
of
that
TDM
ordinance
is
to
standardize
kind
of
TDM
procedures.
It
can
also
set
up
a
framework
wherein
specific
Transit
oriented
areas
can
have
higher
expectations.
So
that's
already
the
case
that
we
have
higher
expectations
but
to
have
a
kind
of
standard
framework
that,
with
the
the
Citywide
TDM
ordinance
we're
going
to
adopt
that
and
then
we're
going
to
come
back
through
and
update
the
area
standards
based
on
their
Transit
capacity.
A
W
Adam
and
Cher
can
I
just
clarify
for
the
commission,
because
this
is
a
bit
different
than
how
we've
done
things
before,
but
because
we
need
to
deal
with
certain
conflicts
of
interest.
We're
going
to
be
voting
on
whether
or
not
we
want
to
include
each
of
these
programs
without
the
conflicted
Commissioners
present,
and
that
will
be
the
final
opportunity
to
vote
on
that
item.
A
All
right,
welcome
back
to
any
members
of
the
commission,
have
questions
or
comments
regarding
program.
1.1,
subsection
F
regarding
Emergency
Shelters
as
a
buy
right
use
in
areas
to
be
identified,
including
the
El
Camino
Real,
precise
plan
and
program
1.3,
subsection
H
regarding
increasing
density
in
R2
Zone
sites.
A
U
X
You
go
so
a
clarifying
question
actually
because
my
question
relates
to
1.4,
but
I
noticed
that
in
the
updated
programs,
or
exhibit
that
you
handed
out
early
that
staff
had
earlier
it
program.
2.6
also
lists
a
Litany
of
programs
here
so
I'm
just
wondering
with
regards
to
you
know
how
we
just
voted
on
program
1.3.
G
I
X
G
G
I
G
And
how
big
could
they
be
and
what
density
and
things
like
that-
and
we
were
doing
a
prototype
analysis
for
that
in
the
second
round
of
Outreach?
If
we
still
haven't
gotten
enough
interest
in
in
building
that
affordable
housing
on
those
sites,
then
we
will
reach
out
to
stakeholders
both
the
sites
themselves
and
the
developers
to
see
what's
gotten
in
the
way.
So
what
what's
still
holding
you
back,
you
know,
have
you
had
these
conversations?
Is
there
not
enough
money
on
the
table?
Is
it
you
know
some
standard
that
isn't
working?
G
G
X
G
X
So
by
2028,
okay
and
then
in
terms
of
like
possible
blockers
to
that
I
guess,
because
this
is
already
something
that's
been
essentially,
you
know
through
the
housing
element
committed
to
by
the
city,
you
know.
Is
it
safe
to
say
that
you
know
staff
is
to
some
extent
shielded
from
any
kind
of
council
work.
Prioritization
like
rerouting
away
from
saying:
hey
like
it
was
2027.
X
G
It's
certainly
our
Target
to
do
this
and
we're
we're
going
to
do
everything
that
we
can
to
make
it
happen
and,
like
I,
said,
the
best
process
for
doing
that
is
setting
up
the
standards.
You
know
doing
a
a
check
on
how
well
they're,
working
and-
and
you
know,
continuing
to
do
the
Outreach
and
the
the
pushing
on
it
over
the
whole
eight
years.
Okay,.
X
G
G
M
K
A
G
A
K
I
A
K
G
Yeah,
so
basically,
we
would
take
a
range
of
different
property
sizes
and
characteristics
that
are
representative
of
sites
that
we
want
to
look
at,
and
we
would
have
you
know
an
architect
that
we
would
hire
or
an
urban
designer
that
we
would
hire
go
through
and
kind
of
build
some
hypothetical
block
models
that
comply
with
development
standards.
We
would
be
looking
for
the
development
standards
that
are
act
as
significant
constraints
that
we
would
be
looking
for.
G
G
You
know,
and
things
like
that,
based
on
their
knowledge
of
of
the
the
economy,
we
would
be
doing
this,
for
you
know,
probably
a
half
dozen
or
so
different
sites
and
different
densities
and,
depending
on
the
variety
of
of
different
Parcels
for
R3,
which
we
can
kind
of
build
off
of.
We
did
dozens
of
of
prototype
analyzes.
So
we
can
build
off
of
that.
G
It's
not
starting
from
scratch,
and
it
would
largely
look
at
kind
of
maximizing
the
allowed
density,
because
that's
kind
of
the
fundamental
goal
to
make
sure
that
the
maximum
density
is
under
the
under
the
general
plan
can
be
built
and
really
looking
at.
What's
in
the
way
in
terms
of
Standards.
What's
in
the
way
in
terms
of
kind
of
the.
I
K
K
Are
where
English
is
not
the
primary
language
in
the
last
review
and
glad
that
we
did
the
Outreach
on
it
as
I
reviewed
this
one
of
the
things
there
are
points
in
the
housing
element
that
talk
to
some
of
this,
but
there's
not
a
I
didn't
and
my
question
is:
did
I
miss
something
that
talked
more
about
it?
The
city
of
San
Francisco
was
nice
enough
to
send
me
an
example.
This
week
of
a
right.
K
That
said,
more
specifically,
that
the
city
is
going
to
do
more,
not
just
when
people
call
in
for
translation
services
but
in
the
proactive
Outreach,
and
it
wasn't
clear
to
me-
I
didn't
really
see
that
explicitly
did
I
miss
that
as
I
reviewed
it
being
more
proactive
on
all
the
communications
to
reach
the
the
or
what
staff
called
it.
The.
G
You
know
both
the
tonight's
staff
report.
We
were
able
to
translate
into
Spanish
as
well
as
the
you
know,
the
the
main
four
chapters
of
the
housing
element
we
were
able
to
translate
and
post
online.
We
have
you
know
the
online
materials
are
are
translated.
Our
notices
do
include
you
know
the
just
a
very
brief.
You
know
with
interest
in
this.
You
know
contact.
G
You
know
our
our
multilingual
team
in
in
Chinese
and
Spanish.
So
there's
there's
kind
of
two
levels
of
what's
going
on
right,
there's
what
we
did
in
order
to
inform
the
housing
element
and
so
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
detail
in
our
Outreach
sections,
where
we
added
that
information
about
what
we
did
to
inform
the
housing
element.
G
I
think
there's
a
larger
question
that
I
think
you're
bringing
up,
which
is:
how
are
we
improving
our
city
processes,
so
future
planning
efforts
are
more
inclusive
and
that's
that's
an
ongoing
process
where
we're
getting
better
every
day
and
and
providing
more.
You
know
more
services
and
more
opportunities
every
day.
G
You
know
acronyms
and
things
like
that,
making
sure
that
people
understand
what
you
know
the
the.
Why
and
the
you
know
the
what
the
obligations
are
of
the
city
and
and
how
they
can
best
provide
input
and
a
lot
of
that
those
Basics
as
well.
So
a
lot
of
lesson
learned
in
the
process
and
we're
we're.
You
know
definitely
committed
to
continuing
that
as
we
do
more
long-range
projects.
I
I
I
M
J
J
M
J
G
G
I
G
I
G
G
G
To
them
they've
acknowledged,
and
you
know,
provided
you
know,
implicit
support
for
that
timeline.
They
are
willing
to
work
with
us,
as
we
said
between
now
and
April
11th,
to
make
sure
that
the
best
thing
you
know
what
we
can
submit
to
council
is
the
best
that
can
be,
and
so
we're
feeling
confident
about
this
schedule.
G
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
three
questions
here
for
staff.
First
related
to
item
1.8,
the
park
fees
walk
me
through
what
the
Practical
effect
of
reducing
those
Park
fees
might
be.
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
how
we
use
that
money.
I,
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
mean
smaller
Parks
we
purchase
in
the
future.
I
don't
know
if
it
means
less
maintenance.
I,
don't
know
what
it
means.
Walk
me
through.
What
the
Practical
impact
of
reducing
Park
fees
will
be
for
the
residents
of
Mountain
View.
G
Yeah
I'll
say
that
it's
that
very
question
that
made
it
kind
of
hard
to
craft
a
a
program
addressing
this.
We
wanted
to
provide
certainty
to
the
community
and
to
developers,
but
at
the
same
time,
there's
so
many
different
variations
of
how
compliance
with
the
Parkland
standards
can
happen.
It's
very
hard
to
predict
what
the
Practical
effect
might
be.
G
We
also
have
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
creativity
in
creating
opportunities
for
developers
and
Property
Owners
to
provide
publicly
accessible,
open
space
at
low
monetary
cost
to
them
and
low
low
impact
to
them
on
their
development
pro
forma,
and
we
want
to
take
advantage
of
those
opportunities.
As
best
we
can
I.
Think
that's
going
to
be
a
big
focus
of
our
analysis.
What
are
the
types
of
open
space
that
can
be
provided
on
site
and
really
provide
those
benefits
to
the
broader
Community
without
negatively
impacting
Developers?
G
G
G
I
will
say
it's
only
a
reduction
in
those
funds
available
relative
to
the
number
of
units
built.
We
are
expecting
a
lot
of
housing
to
be
built,
and
that
means
that
there
is
going
to
be
a
lot
of
money
available
right.
It's
the
ratio
that
goes
down.
It's
not
the
amount
of
Parkland
that
goes
down.
The
amount
of
Parkland
will
definitely
increase.
G
So
there's
there's
a
lot
that
we
can
also
work
on
to
to
find
other
sources
of
funding,
so
we're
looking
at
what
other
land
uses
we
might
be
able
to
Levy
fees
on
that.
Could
backfill
the
20
other
potential
grants,
or
you
know,
measures
you
know,
voting
measures
could
fill
backfill
the
20,
so
we
may
not
end
up
losing
the
ratio
at
all.
Y
Y
One
is
we
have
been
talking
to
hcd
about
our
methodology
for
evaluating
the
non-vacant
sites
and
they
have
sort
of
described
a
methodology
that
involves
looking
at
trends
that
suggest
that
sites
will
will
redevelop
and
connecting
the
sites
that
are
in
the
inventory
to
what
we've
seen
through
those
Trends.
So
that's
a
portion
of
the
analysis
that
we
provided
in
the
revised
document.
Y
Looking
for
us
to
connect
the
programs
to
the
likelihood
that
some
of
these
sites
will
redevelop,
and
so
we've
gone
through
that
exercise
eyes
in
the
most
recent
draft,
we
have
provided
that
language
to
hcd
and
asked
them
to
review
it
and
give
us
their
take
on
whether
or
not
the
way
that
we
have
a
revive
section
provides
what
they
are
looking
for
and
have
gotten.
You
know
confirmation
from
them
that
it
is.
Y
Y
I
know
that
you
guys
can
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
the
specifics
on
the
buffer
that
we
have
in
place,
and
maybe
I'll
turn
it
over
to
to
you
to
talk
about
the
some
of
the
some
of
those
impacts.
If,
if
we
were
to
need
to
rely
more
on
the
buffer
but
happy
to
help
answer
any
other
questions
needed.
E
Great
thanks
Stephanie.
Can
everyone
hear
me
great?
Thank
you
Eric.
Thank
you.
Stephanie
yeah
I
I
wanted
to
Echo
what
Stephanie
said
in
that
staff
has
been
very
diligent
in
our
conversations
with
hcd
all
along.
They
are
very
familiar
with
the
city's
inventory,
and
so
we
had
worked
numerous
times
specifically
on
the
non-bacon
sites,
analysis
and
identifying
the
very
unique
characteristics
that
are
present
within
each
site.
Each
site
is
not
going
to
have.
E
G
To
reiterate.
You
know,
I
know.
After
the
last
few
reviews
it,
it
may
feel
a
little
Hollow
to
say
that
you
know
we
have
hcd,
you
know,
review
of
our
our
draft
language
and
and
that
they've
you
know
provided
provided
feedback
and
and
positive
positive
feedback
on
on
our
draft
so
far,
and
that
will
continue
to
refine
the
draft
with
them.
That
being
said,
you
know
we.
We
do
have
a
really
good
relationship
with
them.
They
know
our
sites,
they
know
our
analysis
and
we're
we're
really
narrowing
down.
G
V
V
V
V
You
said
there
was
a
million
that
we
already
know
about
and
there's
an
April
funding
round
that
could
potentially
cost
us
more.
So
if
there's
any
additional
detail,
you
can
give
us
on
what
the
consequences
of
non-compliance
are.
I,
think
that's!
That's
something
worth
everybody
hearing
twice.
If
not
once.
G
Sure
so
overview
of
Builders
remedy,
it's
actually
a
fairly
old
law.
It
says,
if
you
don't,
have
a
compliant
housing
element,
then
you
cannot
enforce
your
zoning
or
general
plan
standards.
So
that
means
that
anybody
can
come
in
at
any
density.
They
want
in
practically
any
location
that
they
want,
and
so
the
reason
it's
never
really
come
up
before
is
because
it
only
came
into
play
when
you
wanted
your
entitlement
approval
and
it's
very
hard
to
time
that
against
when
somebody
doesn't
have
a
compliant.
G
G
There
are,
you
know,
we're
not
aware
of
anybody
else
waiting
in
the
wings
these
these
three,
we
kind
of
knew
they
were
interested
in
coming
in
even
before
January
31st,
and
so
it's
possible
that
a
longer
delay
could
give
time
for
for
people
who
weren't
otherwise
planning
to
do
so
to
prepare
an
application.
It's
not
something
that
you
can
do
overnight
right,
an
SB
330
preliminary
application.
Is
it's
a
lot
easier
than
a
standard?
G
Certainly
if,
if
this
goes
beyond
April
11th,
we
might
be
expecting
more
it'd
be
reasonable.
To
expect
more,
there
is,
of
course,
a
catch
for
developers.
They
do
have
to
provide
either
100
moderate
income
units
or
20
lower
income
units,
and
this
is
actually
more
than
our
standard
BMR
requirement.
So
there
is
probably
some
cost
benefit
that
a
developer
has
to
do
about.
L
L
They
require
the
PIP
requires
a
pro-housing
designation,
and
so
we
would
need
the
designation
by
by
March.
However,
they
are
not
issuing
Awards
until
May,
so
it's
likely
that
you
know
if
a
lot
of
cities
don't
have
the
pro
housing
designation,
therefore
not
qualifying
for
pip,
they
will
have
those
funds
available,
so
the
one
that
was
presented
on
my
slide.
That's
for
pith.
There
are
additional
funds
like
the
affordable
housing
and
sustainable
communities
Grant
right
now.
That
deadline
is
August
2023
that
is
possibly
up
to
15
million
for
Lot
12.
L
Could
also
use
other
funding
sources,
so
it's
available
to
them,
and
so
then
we
have
other
ones
coming
up
in
September
and
December.
That
includes
local
Housing,
Trust
Fund,
PDA
planning,
Grant,
infill
infrastructure
Grant
and
then
what
is
called
the
obag
grant
that
one's
a
big
one?
That's
Transportation
it's
about
8
million
right
now
that
doesn't
kick
into
place
until
December,
but
it's
hard
to
say:
if
we
postpone
it
now,
we
do
another
draft.
G
I'll
I'll
just
add
one
other
consequence
is
it.
You
know
it's
a
lot
of
work
working
on
the
housing
element
and
it
does
delay
us
being
able
to
work
on
other
Council
priorities
like
R3
and
downtown,
and
things
like
that.
So
you
know
we.
We
really
want
to
get
started
on
on
I,
keep
saying
this
I'm
getting
sick
of
myself
saying
it,
but
we.
I
A
U
G
U
I
U
In
terms
of
the
letter
from
Pharrell
in
your
discussions
with
hcd,
have
there
been
instances
where
they
have
also
identified
the
same
concerns
that
Pharrell
has
and
if
they
have
in
the
end,
once
these
have
been
addressed
in
our
conversations
with
them,
if
Pharrell
is
still
upset
with
the
way
it's
been
approached
or
not
resolved
according
to
their
liking,
what
what
is
the
end
goal?
Would
they
be
able
to
then
contest
the
findings
to
the
state
of
California
and
challenge
our
element?
Plan
or
I
mean
it's?
G
G
K
W
U
U
G
U
G
U
F
F
G
So
it's
it's
definitely
on
our
minds
and
we
want
to
verify
with
hcd
before
we
we
move
forward
on
that.
It's
certainly
a
great
opportunity.
There
is
a
lot
of
affordable
housing.
That's
proposed
in
those
three
projects,
but
yeah.
It's
just
something
that
we
want
to
double
check
with
the
hcp
before
giving
a
final.
K
First
of
all,
up
to
commissioner
Clark
question,
so
it
was
from
that
same
item
on
the
website.
I
read
that
we
will
not
have
a
certified
housing
element
until
hcd
says
we'll
have
a
certified
housing
element,
and
so,
even
if
Council
adopts
on
the
in
April,
it
wouldn't
be
until
I
think
you
said
June
when
they're
required
to
respond
that
we
would
if
they
said
yes,
we
would
not
have
a
certified
housing.
I
want
until
they
say
yes,
correct.
W
It
wouldn't
be
certified
by
hcd
until
it's
certified
by
them,
but
the
important
date
is
when
the
city
adopts
a
substantially
compliant
housing
element,
one
that
is
substantially
compliant
with
state
law.
So
if
the
council
adopts
it
on
April
11th
and
a
month
later,
hcd
certifies
it
as
substantially
compliant.
While
the
adoption
occurred
on
April
11th.
K
K
It
says
that
we
adopted
the
the
housing
element
was
put
out
there
last
week,
but
it
doesn't
really
say
that
plus
everything
has
been
included
in
exhibit
e
is
the
language
and
the
resolution
need
to
say
that
items
in
exhibit
e
are
part
of
what
we
would
be
approving
because
it
doesn't
it.
Doesn't
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
the
stuff
in
exhibit
e
is
covered
in
the
resolution
as
it
is,
it
was
circulated.
You
can
go
off
and
look
at
that
if
you
want,
but
I
was
just.
K
K
K
Was
that
I
read
that
section
and
I
guess
my
understanding
was
hcd
says
you
have
to
have
notified
the
community
about
the
housing
element
before
you
approve
it,
and
since
HC
exhibit
e
is
kind
of
a
moving
Target
at
what
point
is
the
community
notified
of
what
exhibit
e
is
to
be
compliant
with
that
and
it
wasn't?
It
wasn't
clear
to
me
that
we
were
meeting
that
criteria
when
I
read
that
that
was
my
specific
question.
I
K
G
Yeah
and
certainly
we're
going
to
comply
with
the
you
know
the
the
timeline
for
the
final
document
before
adoption
on
on
April
11th.
With
with
any
changes
you
know,
certainly
the
the
council
themselves
could
make
changes
right
on
the
on
the
dice.
That's
that
could
very
well
happen.
The
the
availability
date
that
I'm
aware
of
is
before
you
submit
it
to
hcd
for
their
review.
So
they
want
to
make
sure
that
the
public
has
adequate
time
to
review
the
document
before
they
accept
comments
from
the
public
about
the
document.
W
V
Yeah
I
had
one
more
one
more
question
that
just
occurred
to
me:
I,
don't
think
this
even
shows
up
in
the
helmet
the
housing
element,
but
I
was
hoping
you
could
expound
just
a
little
bit
on
sb10
I'll.
Tell
you
why
I
ask
in
talking
to
community
groups
that
had
been
raised
as
one
of
many
tools
that
the
city
has
to
increase,
density
and
and
increase
housing?
G
G
Now,
as
I
think,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
with
stakeholders
about
how
or
whether
to
include
reference
to
sb10
in
the
housing
element.
Our
concern
is
really
not
about
using
sb10
per
se
and
more
about
having
that
drive
the
policy
right.
If
there's
something
that
the
city
wants
to
adopt
and
it
doesn't
match
sb10
exactly,
then
we
shouldn't
use
sb10
if
it's
not
something
that
we
want
to
adopt.
So
let's
have
the
policy
Drive,
what
we're,
what
we're
actually
adopting,
rather
than
the
streamlining.
X
G
M
G
Know
affh
I
think
has
has
been
a
lot,
a
big
concern
by
the
community
and
by
the
state,
and
you
know
we
in
the
last
couple
of
months,
we've
done
quite
a
bit
to
shore
up
our
affh
kind
of
programs
and
so
I
think
you
know,
we've
we've
really
crossed
all
the
other
T's
and
dotted
all
the
other
eyes.
Our
other
comments
from
hcd
are
fairly
minimal,
we're
not
receiving
any
other
comments
from
the
public
other
than
about
the
site's
inventory.
G
You
know
certainly
we're
still
getting
comments
about
desired
programs,
and
that
can
be
discussion
with
the
EPC
tonight,
but
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
we've
we've
moved
a
long
way
in
terms
of
addressing
concerns
that
have
been
voiced
by
the
community
about
you
know
the
issues
like
affh
and
and
school
equity,
and
things
like
that.
So
we're
our
that's.
If,
if
there's
anything,
that's
that's
the
weakness,
but
again
you
know
we.
We
have
a
long
way
to
go
in
terms
of
conversations
with
hcd.
X
And
so,
following
along
that
response,
you
noted
the
affh
concerns
and
the
work
that
has
been
done
to
address
those
so
in
the
updated,
exhibit
handout
under
in
that
blue
text.
In
that
third
bullet
point
under
objectives
and
metrics,
it
says
that,
in
addition
to
the
65
units
from
program,
1.4
120
units
from
the
R1
update
expected
to
take
place
in
the
south
of
El
Camino
this
one
right
here,
objectives
on
metrics,
2.6
and
then
I
think
it
also
mentions.
X
There's
a
few
questions.
I'll
have
about
this
one.
It
mentions
there
that
the
city
and
I
guess
this
is
through
program
1.7,
one
point
I'm
looking
for
some
clarification
here,
the
city
will
develop
and
adopt
incentives
and
Zoning
to
facilitate
Property
Owners
south
of
El
Camino
other
than
other
than
churches,
yada
yada.
What
is
that
and
incentives?
Slash
zoning?
G
G
M
G
M
X
And
and
those
kinds
of
incentives
and
kind
of
zoning
changes,
that's
in
bullet
point
goes
on
to
say
that
it
would
Target
the
development
and
expectation
of
at
least
100
additional,
affordable
units
is.
That
is
that
are
those
changes
that
you
mentioned,
that
there's
a
plethora
it
seems
of
possible
approaches
we
could
take.
Is
that
where
those
100
affordable
units-
yes.
X
I
heard
you
mention
that
a
lot
of
the
affh
concerns
have
kind
of
been
ameliorated
as
part
of
this
draft,
and
so
given
that
this
is
the
affh
goal
and
it
you
know
seems
like
there's
still
a
grab
bag
of
potential,
Like
rules
and
regulations.
My
concern
is
that
it
does
not
seem
like
there
is
a
specific
prescribed
set
of
like
solutions
that
we're
going
to
actually
take.
It
says:
incentives
and
zoning.
G
So
what
hcd
likes
to
see
is
a
target
right,
an
outcome,
that's
what
they
really
like
to
see.
They
know
that
you
can't
do
all
the
detailed
planning,
work
and
you're
trying
to
solve
all
of
these
legislative
issues
and
solve
all
of
these
analytical
issues
on
a
city-wide
level
that
you
have
to
with
the
with
the
housing
elements.
X
Okay,
and
so
then,
if
all
of
those
in
2.6
with
regards
to
south
of
El
Camino,
were
to
actually
become
real
like
inhabited
units,
the
religious
sites
of
65,
the
R1
R2,
would
be
about
120,
and
the
additional
zoning
and
incentives
would
net
at
least
100.
So
if,
if
everything
were
to
go
minimally
maximally
well,
we
would
be
looking
at
285
units
south
of
El
Camino
I
I
was
looking
everywhere
else.
I
could,
on
the
like
inventory,
is.
G
So
there
are
other
programs
and
the
part
of
the
role
of
that
program.
2.6
is
to
really
compile
all
of
those
programs
that
we
have
that
are
addressing
areas
putting
affordable
housing
in
areas
of
highest
opportunity,
highest
access,
highest
education
and
and
so
on.
So
we
also
have
a
program
where
we
have
a
new
kind
of
mini
no-net
loss
where
we
will
track
Opera.
You
know
the
the
sites
south
of
El
Camino
and
around
downtown
and
ensure
that
we
always
maintain
lower
income
capacity
in
those
sites
right.
G
G
We
also
are
you
know
we
are
also
committing
to
facilitating
all
of
the
affordable
housing
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline,
many
of
which
go
to
the
you
know
the
highest
performing
and
most
exclusive
schools
in
Mountain
View.
So
there
are
certainly
a
lot
of
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
incentivize
the
development
of
sb9
units
and
adus.
G
X
X
Thank
you
for
the
clarification
that
would
be
in
the
best
case
scenario,
2.56
percent
of
our
Arena,
and
so
that's
my
concern
when
so
much
of
the
Economic
Opportunity
is
you
know
in
terms
of
like
residence
is
in
the
south
of
El
Camino
as
well
to
have
2.56
percent
of
our
possible
Arena
B,
affordable
units
in
the
south
of
El
Camino
I'm.
Finding
that
a
little
bit
I'm
trying
to
reconcile
that.
W
A
I
K
I
K
K
What
I
was
struck
by
was
the
Treo
action
item.
Trejo
is
a
critical
component
of
our
management
of
transition
in
the
community
and
the
way
the
action
items
worded
it's.
We
will
continuously
look
at
this
in
my
experiences.
Any
action
item
that
is,
we
will
continue
to
look
at.
It
means
that
we
never
actually
look
at
it,
and
so
I
would
prefer
that
there
was
something
in
here
in
that
3.2.
That
says
you
know
we
will
do
a
formal
review
of
the
Treo.
K
You
know
the
effectiveness
of
that
in
some
date.
Okay,
but
the
continuous
thing
to
me
says
it
never
actually
happens
and
I
everything
else
we
have
a
date
is
very
specific.
That
was
one
of
the
very
very
few
that
didn't
actually
have
we're
going
to
actually
look
at
it
at
a
specific
time.
I'm
at
this
point,
I'm
open
to
staff,
saying
when
that
should
be
I,
don't
know
when
the
trail
program
was
originally
put
in
place.
K
You
know
it
seemed
like
if
it
was
been
around
for
like
five
years,
whatever
five
years
from
that
was
we
should
you
know,
look
at
it
at
that
point,
but
I'd
rather
see
that
would
be
a
change.
That
I
would
request
from
the
the
high
level
we're
going
to
continue
to
look
at
it
to
we're
going
to
do
a
specific
review
at
this
point
in
time.
I,
don't
know
what
other
Commissioners
think,
but
it
just
it's.
K
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
if
we
have
housing
people
on
the
on
the
line
that
know
when
it
was
done,
it
was
the
way
the
language
is
worded
right
now.
It
says
continuously
monitor
conditions
to
identify
needs
for
updates
to
try
out
including
potential
necessary
increases
in
assistance.
It's
the
third
bullet
under
milestones
and
framework.
K
K
But
if
it
was
approved
in
2024
or
2014,
then
it
should
be
looked
five
years
later,
I
mean
I,
don't
know
when
it
was
done.
If
it
hasn't
been
done
in
a
while,
then
I'll
give
you
you
know,
say
2025.
so
I
just
it
since
I
didn't
have
the
background.
Behind
it
permission,
I
didn't
wasn't
quite
ready
to
put
in
a
date,
but
it
just
felt
like
it
shouldn't
be
more
than
halfway
through
it
shouldn't
be.
It
should
definitely
shouldn't
be
out
as
far
as
2020
2027.
K
G
Z
Yes,
hi
hi
thanks
Eric
and
thanks
for
the
question,
so
the
city
adopted
the
tenant,
relocation,
assistance,
ordinance
back
in
2010
and
the
city
actually
took
action
to
make
a
relatively
recent
update
to
the
Treo
a
couple
of
years
ago
now
we
are
including
additional
evaluation
of
the
trio
as
part
of
our
displacement
response
strategy
for
specific
parts
of
the
ordinance
but
I
think
to
commissioner
cranston's
question.
We
could
fold
in
an
overall
program,
programmatic
review
and
I.
Think
the
time
frame
Say
by
December
of
2024
would
would
be
feasible.
Z
A
U
U
So
so
then
I
can
bring
up
questions
if
I
have
about
3.2.
Yes,
okay,
great!
So
if
having
said
that,
and
with
that
clarification,
thank
you
so
much
I
have
a
quick
question
and
actually
a
suggestion
and
I'm,
hoping
that
we
have
some
consensus
on
the
around
this
one,
because
we
work
so
well
so
far.
Up
to
this
point,
so
it'd
be
great
to
continue
that
tradition.
U
So
as
I
look
at
3.2
under
objections
and
metrics,
the
first
bullet
point
says:
acquire
Preserve
at
least
50
housing
units
that
would
remain
affordable,
EG
around
30
percent
of
household
income,
I'd
like
a
little
bit
more
specificity
and
and
if
possible,
an
increased
number.
So
I
was
thinking
about
looking
at
this
from
a
different
perspective,
because
as
it's
currently
reading,
this
would
basically
mean
six
per
year
and
and
I
think
the
city
of
Mountain
View.
So
far,
it's
demonstrated
that
throughout
this
process,
that's
iterative.
U
We
can
improve
on
what
we
have
as
a
proposed
plan.
So
I
was
looking
more
as
a
at
the
number
from
50
to
100
and
be
specific
with
having
50
for
two
bedrooms
specifically
and
50.
For
three
bedrooms,
so
that
we're
clear
with
our
language
of
intent
of
what
the
goals
are
in
order
for
us
to
meet
this
type
of
objective
and
I'm,
wondering
if
I
have
consensus
or
buy-in
on
that
type
of
wording
and
language
to
include
in
this
updated
version
of
what
we're
reviewing
now
and
that
appreciate
your
help
on
that.
U
U
Z
I'm
happy
to
provide
some
additional
clarification
on
this.
This
would
be
a
goal
for
any
entity,
whether
that
would
be,
for
example,
Community
Land
Trust,
that
gets
set
up
to
undertake
acquisition,
preservation,
work
or
perhaps
with
non-profit
developers
who
might
acquire
or
Preserve
at
least
15
housing
units
where
the
city
would
come
in
is
to
attempt
to
develop
funding
Partnerships
of
at
least
10
million
dollars
to
facilitate
an
external
entity
to
do
the
actual
acquisition
or
preservation.
J
I
think
it
would
be
hard
to
you'd
have
to
assemble
a
number
of
them,
I
think
to
get
into
the
into
the
hundreds,
not
to
say
it
couldn't
be
done,
but
but
I'm
guessing.
That
sort
of
where
the
50
Mark
came
in
is
that
they're
really
looking
at
the
housing
stock
that
that
exists?
That's
probably
at
the
age
where
it's
naturally
affordable
and
at
risk
of
being
redeveloped
and
then
kind
of
going
from
there.
So.
X
X
That
sounds
like
a
a
very
easy
thing
to
slot
into
the
anti-displacement
program,
and
so
with
regards
to
this
acquisition
and
preservation
Target,
you
know
personally,
I
think
that
it's
it's
it's
definitely
a
a
very
worthwhile
addition
to
this
I
think
there's
ways
to
potentially
shift
this.
That
could
be
a
little
bit
more
empowering
of
the
community
and
and
also
have
the
end
result
of.
X
Actually,
you
know
having
the
people
who
need
it,
whether
you
know
living
in
units
that
are
affordable
to
them,
not
necessarily
because
the
city
acquired
them,
but
because
the
city
facilitated
the
ability
for
those
to
be
preserved,
and
so,
when
I'm
looking
at
you
know,
I
think
you
know
the
third
highlighted
bullet
point.
You
know
where
it
says:
create
a
community
ownership
plan
for
a
community
ownership
model
structure.
X
G
G
X
And
then,
with
regards
to
that
acquisition
and
preservation
piece,
you
know
one
of
the
things
I
actually
really
also
agree
with.
Commissioner
Gutierrez.
That
50
units
is
is
pretty
low.
I
think
there's
a
sense
of
urgency
around
bedroom
size
because,
as
we've
seen,
several
projects
like
that
project
over
on
San
Antonio,
where
you
know
developers
really
want
to
sub-optimize
for
the
kinds
of
bedroom
mixes
that
are
actually
in
demand
by
our
families.
That
would
really
that
really
need
them.
X
Essentially
Studios
and
one
bedrooms
are
not
going
to
cut
it,
for
you
know
our
families
and
we're
seeing
now.
You
know
this,
like
Prometheus
project
out
there,
trying
to
cram
all
of
these
BMR
units
into
one
building,
the
Google
East
Middlefield
project
that
we
saw
a
few
months
ago
also,
you
know,
provided
some
alternative
mitigation
around
like
giving
us
the
land
so
that
we
could,
as
the
city,
develop
all
the
affordable
units
on
one
site.
X
You
know
personally,
I
would
like
to
see
a
you
know,
language
that
says
something
to
the
effect
of
you
know.
Through
this
community
ownership
program,
the
city
will
enable
sufficient
resources
or
facilitate
sufficient
Partnerships
to
respective
tenant
unions
or
Community
developers
such
that
a
minimum
of
103
and
or
two
bedroom
units
are
preserved
through
the
duration
of
the
housing
element
and
that
way.
Council
member
John
McAllister
can
know
that
the
city
themselves
have
not
acquired
these
units
as
well,
and
so
he
can
keep
banging
his
shoe
on
the
table
for
us.
V
V
G
Z
Z
The
the
50
housing
units
was
also,
you
know,
developed
in
response
to
some
Community
feedback
that
we
received
and
having
at
least
that
floor
and,
of
course
the
city
would
be
looking
to
do
hopefully
more
more
than
that.
But
we
have
a
displacement
response
strategy
that
we
are
setting
up
and
we
are
taking
the
item
to
council
to
talk
about
this
plus
other
displacement
response
efforts
and
just
to
Echo.
Z
Commissioner
Clark's
comment:
the
acquisition
preservation
program
that
we've
been
discussing
with
the
community
through
our
recent
outreach
program
having
stakeholder
meetings
is
that
the
focus
would
be
more
on
the
not
more.
It
would
be
a
focus
on
naturally
affordable
housing
units
primarily
covered
under
the
city's
rent
stabilization
program,
and
under
that
program
you
know.
Z
Recent
codes
or
other
sort
of
amenities
or
other
improvements
that
would
would
be
done
and
so
in
some
of
the
sampling
and
modeling
that
we've
done
been
able
to
do.
These
are
not.
These
are
not
cheap.
An
average
acquisition
cost
of
some
some
sample
projects
would
be
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
door
with
rehabil
Rehabilitation
costs
between
50
to
100,
000,
of
course,
depending
on
the
age
of
the
building
and
the
condition
of
the
building.
So
there
there
is
a
relatively
high
cost
and
typically
acquisition.
Z
Proclivation
project
products
do
not
have
access
to
traditional
funding
sources,
at
least
immediately,
such
as
the
tax
credit
program,
and
so
that
creates
more
added
pressure
to
find
alternative
funding
sources,
which
that
is
not
a
funding
source
that
the
city
currently
has.
That's
why
we
have
such
a
priority
on
establishing
external
funding
Partnerships
to
be
able
to
fund
the
the
preservation
program.
Z
Z
So
currently
in
this
was
information
we
had
also
had
opportunity
frame
for
Council
last
August
during
our
affordable
housing
five-year
strategic
plan
study
session.
We
we,
the
city,
has
housing
fees
primarily
to
fund
our
new
unit
new
project
pipeline.
It
is
also
available
for
acquisition
preservation
work,
but
in
in
that
study
session,
the
priority
was
to
fund
our
new
project
pipeline,
primarily
the
sites
that
the
city
does
own
or
will
own
through
land
education
through
that
prioritization
we're
projecting
that
we
would
already
have
a
65
or
70
million
dollar
funding
Gap.
Z
Just
for
that
so
based
on
that,
we
we
would
not
have
any
projected
funding
sources
to
do
acquisition
preservation.
What
we
are
doing
are
a
couple
of
strategies.
Number
one
is
to
follow
the
Regional
Housing
measure
that
is
going
to
be
lifted
up
through
the
Bay
Area
Housing
Finance
Agency
as
part
of
MTC,
and
we
are
tracking
that
there
is
a
move
towards
a
regional
Bond
measure
and
and
should
that
pass
we
would
be
looking
to
to
tap
into
that
fund
and
it
could
be
significant.
The
other
part
is
a
focus
on
external
Partnerships.
Z
So,
for
example,
we
partnered
with
a
County
on
a
funding
partnership
with
the
measure,
a
funds
we
want
to
build
on
that
partnership
approach
with
other
folks,
whether
it's
public
agencies,
the
private
sector
or
philanthropy
to
create
additional
funding
both
for
new
project
development
and
acquisition
preservation.
So,
depending
on
what
our
goals
are
for
preservation,
we
would
kind
of
add
on
to
that
that
70
million
dollar
Gap
for
the
new
project
pipeline,
then
we
would
add
an
X
dollar
amount
for
for
acquisition,
preservation
programs.
Z
So
what
we
would
do
is
sort
of
pair
a
dollar
amount
that
we
would
sort
of
need
to
create
through
the
Partnerships
and
and
then
add
it
on
to
our
project
pipeline.
Gap
funding
amount
right
now.
What
we
have
in
the
in
the
housing
element.
Work
plan
is
at
least
10
million
dollars,
so
we
would
try
to
develop
fundraising
or
Partnerships
for
70
70
million,
plus
the
10
million
for
at
least
80
million
dollars.
G
I
G
On
one
item
that
I
heard
from
commissioner
Nunez
earlier
about
having
a
a
goal
or
Target
for
how
many
units
go
to
a
community
owned
project,
I
think
there's
a
a
little
bit
of
a
concern
about
that
at
this
point,
not
having
any
entities
that
exist
yet
to
to
set
that
goal
and
I
don't
know
if
the
assistant
community
development
director
can
weigh
in
on
that
I
know.
You
had
some
thoughts
on
it.
Z
G
No
I
I
believe
that
commissioner
Nunez
brought
up
this
idea
of
having
a
target
number
of
units
that
would
actually
go
to
a
CLT
in
the
housing
element
and
I
know.
You
had
some
concerns
about
that,
given
that
we
don't
actually
have
any
entities
at
this
time,
so
there's
there's
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
you,
if
you
still
had
those
concerns.
Sorry.
Z
Provide
some
additional
context
for
that.
Typically,
the
way
we
think
about
Copa
topa,
in
other
words,
opportunity
to
Purchase
Act
programs-
is
that
that's
primarily
a
notification
process
that
would
be
required
for
a
property
owner
who
wants
to
sell
their
property
with
a
requirement
to
notice
either
qualified
non-profit
developers.
Z
That's
usually
sort
of
the
Copa
program,
Community
opportunity
to
purchase
at
or
and
or
requirements
to
notice,
tenant-based
organizations,
typically
topa
tenant
opportunity,
purchase
acts
and
then
there
would
be
some
kind
of
requirement
in
terms
of
either
a
community-based
group,
a
non-profit
group
or
tenant
group
to
then
provide
an
offer
and
then
some
requirements
for
the
property
owner
to
respond
to
the
offer.
And
so
it's
largely
focused
on
a
notification
bidding
on
the
property
and
then
whether
the
the
a
bid
would
be
accepted
by
a
property
owner.
Z
That's
paired,
potentially
with
an
acquisition
program
that
provides
funding
and
then
separately.
A
CLT
is
really
an
entity
right.
So
you
could
have
an
entity
that
could
participate
and
receive
noticing
through
an
Opa
program.
So
these
These
are
different
components
of
an
acquisition
preservation
program
with
the
funding
with
the
noticing
and
then
also
with
entities,
and
so
the
the
CLT
would
be
sort
of
the
entity.
Part
of
an
acquisition
preservation
program.
So
I
wanted
to
just
provide
additional
information
clarification
about
how
Opa
programs
fit
into
the
overall
picture.
V
I
guess
what
I'm
feeling
as
a
result
of
this
conversation
is
a
note
of
caution
and
it's
it's
about
the
importance
of
not
over
promising
and
under
delivering,
but
under
promising
and
over
delivering
and
the
reason
I
think
that's
important
is
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
if
we
put
a
metric
in
this
housing
element
that
later
we
fail
to
meet
that
is
in
and
of
itself
grounds
to
trigger
an
hcd
compliance
review.
Is
that
true
or
am
I
wrong.
G
Yeah
I
mean
the
the
best
programs
are
ones
where
we
know
what
we
can
do
and
what
we
have
to
do.
You
know,
and
and
so
we're
we're
structuring.
You
know
a
legislative
outcome,
for
example,
to
meet
a
certain
goal
and
those
are
really
the
best
programs
to
you
know
having
a
certain
outcome,
that's
dependent
on
a
lot
of
private
parties
to
do
something
that
you
want
them
to
do
is
very
risky
and
you'll
see.
You
know,
I
I
think
it
was.
M
K
But
as
I
thought
about
it,
the
the
comment
that
we
actually
don't
have,
these
things
in
place
yet
is
came
to
me
and
so
I
was
actually
the
addition
of
the
other
two
yellow
items
in
this
that
says,
okay,
we're
gonna
find
a
way
to
get
some
money
and
we're
actually
going
to
want
to
plan
a
place
to
figure
out
how
to
do.
This
was
that's
what
I
thought
was
the
right
thing
to
do
right.
K
If
we
had
experience
with
this
and
a
track
record,
you
know
then
I
would
feel
better
about
it,
but
committing
to
actually
learning
how
to
do
it.
I
was
like
okay,
I'm
cool
with
that
it
I
would
love
to
see
it
bigger,
but
it
committing
to
something
was
a
good
thing,
but
these
other
elements,
the
finding
the
10
million
dollars
and
and
putting
actual
programs
in
place
to
learn
how
to
do.
It
was
to
me
a
major
step.
K
X
All
right
so
I
Heard,
the
word
risk
I
heard
trying
new
things
and
I
heard
caution,
I
work
in
Risk,
Management,
and
so
people
tell
me
that
my
world
orientation
is
related
to
risk.
So
let
me
attempt
to
de-risk
this
a
little
bit
and
then
I'll
tell
my
colleagues
my
reasons
for
why
one
possible
way
of
looking
at
this
is
taking.
X
Personally,
you
know.
I
I,
like
I,
will
not
apologize
for
saying
that
to
me,
that
is
not
affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing,
and
so,
instead
of
saying
you
know,
I'm
going
to
pound
my
shoe
on
the
table
about
that.
You
know.
One
other
possibility
is
to
say
okay.
Well,
if
we're
not,
in
my
view,
going
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing,
then
that
means
that
we
really
ought
to
go
as
hard
as
we
can
in
the
opposite
direction
of
displacement,
prevention
and
mitigation.
X
And
so
when
we
think
about
the
people
who
have
been
advocating
for
this
Copa
topa
program,
you
know
they're,
not
nobody
right.
The
solidarity
fund
created
a
whole
new
operating
model
and
were
empowered
by
our
city,
with
a
million
dollars
to
extend
into
the
community,
identify
ways
to
deploy
those
funds
and
to
keep
people
in
our
home.
X
They
did
that
completely
on
a
volunteer
basis
when
the
city
needed
a
partner
to
be
able
to
get
that
done,
and
we
have
motivated
people
who
have
experience
working
with
our
Municipal
system
have
experience
working
with
funding
that
comes
from
our
city
coffers
and
is
saying,
give
us
an
opportunity
if
we're
not
going
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing,
then
give
us
an
opportunity
to
stay
here
to
the
best
extent
that
we
can.
You
know
we're
talking
about
50
units.
That's
you
know.
X
If
we
look
at
the
arena,
you
know
again,
you
know
if
those
265
285
units,
you
know
don't
get
developed
or
some
small
number,
like
those
50
units,
we're
talking
about
less
than
a
half
of
a
percent
less
than
a
half
of
a
percent
of
our
Arena
Target
I.
Don't
want
to
wait
to
the
seventh
cycle,
all
due
respect,
I!
Don't
think
that
you
know
if
you
asked
any
of
our
families,
can
you
wait
another
eight
years
no
they've
already
learned
how
to
do
this.
A
I'm
just
going
to
ask
a
quick
question:
it
was
my
understanding
that
these
two
bullet
points
are
separate
in
that
we'd
have
two
opportunities
to
do
different
things
to
achieve
the
same
outcome
that
you're
speaking
of
by
combining
them.
It's
almost
taking
away
the
options,
I
kind
of
feel
like
it's
better,
to
have
more
options
in
my
not
understanding
sure.
X
So
yeah
I
can
clarify
so
the
problem
with
that
fifth
bullet
point
is
there's
no
excuse
me
metric
Associated
to
that,
and
the
problem
with
the
first
bullet
point
is
that
it
does
not
state
that
Community
ownership
groups
I'm
not
talking
about
clts
personally
I
am
not
a
believer
in
them.
I'm
talking
about
Copa
topa.
X
If
we
want
to
include
clts,
that's
fine
with
me,
but
the
problem
is
the
Copa
topa
intent,
one
as
you
know,
Mr
Anderson
mentioned,
does
not
have
a
metric
Associated
to
it,
and
the
first
bullet
point
that
does
have
the
metric
Associated
to
it
does
not
mention
the
Copa
topa
groups.
So
what
I'm
asking
for
is
that
we
just
include
Copa
topa,
as
one
vehicle
available
for
acquiring
I
would
still
say
100,
but
if
we're
going
to
do
50
that
we
add
copatopa
for
a
vehicle
for
acquiring
those
50
housing
units.
U
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
Alex.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
participating
in
this
conversation
very
useful,
it's
very
helpful,
and
what
I
wanted
to
do,
since
we're
in
a
discussion
mode,
is
to
also
bring
to
life
that
with
when
we
look
at
the
community
feedback,
we
have
various
groups
who
have
been
participating.
U
I
I
applaud
farrella
for
the
for
the
advice
out
to
housing
and
the
legal
Women
Voters,
and,
having
said
that,
when
I
look
at
the
solidarity
fund,
I
mentioned
this
to
one
of
the
ladies,
because
who
are
members
of
the
of
the
group
because
they
were
saying
look.
This
is
what
we're
looking
at.
This
is
what
our
intent
is,
and
they
gave
me
their
feedback
on
that
front
and
I'm
thinking
to
myself.
U
U
U
So
having
said
that,
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
another
issue
and
if
you
all
would
like
to
support
what
Alex
and
I
were
thinking
about
in
terms
of
increasing
the
numbers
or
moving
the
bullet
points.
That
would
be
greatly
appreciated.
If
not,
then
you
know
it
is
what
it
is.
But
you
know
people
will
pay
attention.
U
U
A
X
G
K
G
A
A
V
Okay,
I
I,
actually
kind
of
wanted
to
to
follow
on
to
what
commissioner
Gutierrez
was
saying
and
I
have
a
few
thoughts.
Let
me
start
with
timelines,
I,
actually
kind
of
agree
with
with
commissioner
Gutierrez
that
I
am
concerned
that
some
of
those
timelines
are
a
bit
long
and
I.
I
guess
I
can
tell
you
why,
in
in
talking
to
some
of
the
groups
who
raise
timelines
as
an
issue,
I
think
what
I
walked
away
aware
of
was
for
some
of
us
here.
It
may
be
a
question.
V
V
However,
for
some
folks
this
is
very
urgent,
very
real
and
very
present
and
TR,
and
it
it's
right
in
their
face
and
and
that's
important
that
that
actually
that
matters
to
me,
some
of
these
things
are
are
I,
wouldn't
quite
go
so
far
as
to
say
maybe
life
and
death.
But
it's
about
the
stability
of
their
household
and
I
that
had
an
impact
on
me
when
I
talked
to
some
of
those
folks
and
so
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
the
right
way
to
deal
with
some
of
those
timelines
are
I
mean.
R
V
Many
things
and
when
are
they
going
to
be
done
and
why
do
they
take
so
long
and
I
really
do
hope.
We
have
a
good,
detailed
conversation
about
work
plan
because
I
want
to
make
sure
anything.
We
promise
we're
going
to
be
able
to
deliver
and
I
think
attached
to
that
are
adjacent
to
that.
At
some
point
we
should
maybe
have
a
conversation
or
at
least
flag
is
your
Department's
staff
to
handle
all
the
promises
that
we're
making
and
if
they're,
not
we.
Maybe
we
should
talk
about
that.
Right.
V
V
V
Having
was
talking
to
the
ladies
of
the
fungal
and
from
that
what
I
took
is
it
is
really
important
to
be
able
to
hold
your
fate
in
your
own
hands
and
to
not
have
your
faith
be
in
someone
else's
hands
and
that
really
that
really
impacted
me
when
I
heard
it
from
them
and
so
I
hope
we
have
that
conversation
I
would
say:
I,
don't
you
know
this,
isn't
the
only
time
we're
ever
going
to
get
to
do
it?
We
don't.
V
F
Thank
you
just
briefly:
I
want
to
Echo
a
lot
of
what
Vice
Church
McRae
is
I.
Think
throughout
this,
particularly
in
the
conversation
about
adding
metrics
and
timelines.
I
have
real
concerns
about
all
the
things
we're
saying
we're
going
to
do,
and
the
staff
and
capacity
so
I
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of
that.
But
I
think
what
I
heard
from
from
Wayne
is
really
thinking
about.
F
3.2
we're
building
the
plane
as
we're
flying
it
to
some
extent
and
I
would
be
perfectly
comfortable
thinking
about
how
we
can
work
with
groups
like
The
solidarity
fund
to
figure
out
what
those
metrics
are.
I
have
spent
at
least
20
weeks
of
my
life
in
thinking
deeply
about
NOAA
acquisition,
and
it's
really
hard
and
really
complicated
and
I'm,
not
necessarily
convinced
it's.
The
best
economic
outcome.
F
I
think
holding
your
your
fate
in
your
own
hands
is,
is
really
critical.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we've
done
the
infrastructure,
because
it
is
about
funding
it's
about
being
opportunistic,
and
it's
it's
about
a
lot
of
other
things
and
so
I'm.
Shying
away
from
the
idea
of
like,
let's
put
a
number
down,
because
we
don't
know
what
property
is
going
to
come
online,
we
don't
know
what
the
property
owner
would
be
like.
So
that
piece
makes
me
uneasy,
but
I
think
the
general
tenor
of
thinking
about.
X
Yep,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
clarified
that
prioritization
of
the
item
as
silly
this
is
going
to
sound
me
saying,
move
that
to
the
first
bullet
point
was
like
a
rhetorical,
visual
aid.
That
said,
really
what
I'm
saying
it's
one
simple
thing
is
that
in
that
first
bullet
point
after
you
know,
like
deed
restriction
and
housing
preservation,
work
that
we
just
redlined
the
and
between
restriction
and
housing,
turned
into
a
comma
or
I
guess
just
get
rid
of
the
and
and
then
add,
comma
and
or
Copa
topa.
X
X
A
U
A
K
K
G
Z
Yes,
thank
you
correct.
The
first
bullet
is
not
meant
to
preclude
bullet
point
number
five.
It
was
intended
to
provide
some
flexibility
and
which
would
also
provide
the
opportunity
for
Community
ownership
model
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
50
units.
I
also
just
wanted
to
make
a
note.
I
know,
I,
don't
know
if
this
might
just
be
sort
of
Shifting
where
an
existing
bullet
resides
but
I
believe
Mr
Anderson
under
item
2.1.
Z
There
is
already
language
about
an
Opa
program
and
that
could
potentially
be
shifted
to
be
added
to
the
displacement
response.
3.2
item.
That
really
is
where
oppa
is
meant
to
address,
so
it
may
just
be
sort
of
Shifting
existing
bullet
point
language
to
three
point:
0.2
from
2.1,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
if
Mr
Anderson
can
can
confirm
the
open
language
in
2.1.
M
G
104
of
the
resolution-
and
it
does
say,
mitigate
displacement
from
a
range
of
unit
types,
including
apartments
and
mobile
homes
through
Community
centered
programs,
possibly
including
Copa,
topa
or
Community
Land
trusts.
And
then
we
have
an
update
to
the
Council
on
the
suitability
of
Community,
Land
trusts
or
copatopa
to
address
unmet
needs
if
directed
by
Council,
develop
a
program
within
five
years.
So
that
is
is
already
in
2.1.
G
M
K
A
I'm
going
to
make
a
quick
suggestion,
if
you
guys
don't
mind
how
I
understood
it
was
that
you
were
going
to
come
buying
the
first
bullet
point
with
the
other
one,
the
fifth
into
one
but
I
almost
feel
like.
It
is
better
to
have
it
separate
so
that
they're,
each
getting
its
own
weight
or
you
could
come
combine
it
as
you've.
Put
you're
writing
it
out
now
and
leave
the
50.
X
X
Sorry
to
say
that
to
the
people
I
work
with
I'm,
not
sorry
to
say
to
the
people,
I
work
with
Clarity
does
matter.
It
matters
to
be
extra
affirmative,
and
so,
if
we
have
the
2.1
workaround,
where
we
can
kind
of
replicate
that
into
3.2,
that
would
work
as
well.
Otherwise,
chair
Yin
I
have
no
interest
in
changing
anything
around
bullet
point
number:
five,
and
only
adding
after
housing
preservation
work.
The
and
or
copotopa
Community
ownership
model
structures.
Interesting.
A
Do
I
need
to
repeat
that
to
everybody
so
that
we're
clear
I
will
anyways
okay,
so
we,
the
the
motion
on
the
floor,
would
be
to
keep
3.2
bullet
point
one
prevent
displacement
through
rent
stabilization
deed
restriction
and
housing.
Sorry
housing,
president
about
a
preservation,
work
and
Copa
topa,
slash,
Community
ownership
models
to
acquire
and
Preserve
at
least
50
housing
units
that
would
remain.
We
would
keep
0.5
as
is
and
maybe
fold
in
language
from.
A
G
They're
also
saying
slightly
different
things:
one
of
them
is
saying
that
we're
checking
in
with
Council
on
creating
a
structure,
and
then
this
one's
saying
that
we're
just
going
to
create
the
structure
so
I
think
we're
gonna
have
to
do
a
little
bit
of
tracking
and
correction
as
we
move
them
in
I.
Think
that
the
direction
to
do
so
from
the
EPC
is
adequate
from
a
policy
level
and
I.
Think
we'll.
You
know
we'll
we'll
make
it
work
together.
X
Yet
there's
a
lot
of
value
in
clarifying
I
would
say
that
it
would
be.
You
know,
I
would
still
leave
on
the
floor.
That
desire
to
move
at
least
that
first
bullet
point
a
slight
modification
to
include
at
the
end
of
the
first
sentence:
comma
and
Copa:
topa,
slash
Community
ownership
models
period
and
then
keep
the
rest.
A
U
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
everyone
for
for
this
ability
to
problem
solve
on
the
Fly
and
the
reason
why
I
bring
this
up
right
now,
it's
pretty
simple
when
you
translate
these
documents
into
Spanish,
it's
literal.
So
when
you
don't
see
the
exact
language
of
Copa
topa,
what
have
you
from
my
perspective
and
the
perspective
I've
heard
of
Spanish
speakers
in
general?
There
is
no
assumption,
that's
already
that
it's
not
part
of
this
analysis
or
option
too,
because
they
don't
see
it.
U
We
don't
read
it
the
language
isn't
there,
and-
and
so
that's
just
a
subtle
difference
there
in
terms
of
how
you
interpret
language
from
English
to
Spanish
or
Spanish
to
English
and
I,
appreciate
that
this
was
cotton
in
terms
of
2.1,
that
we
can
rearrange
that
and
bring
that
into
the
folder
3.2
and
the
suggestions
made
by
Alex
and
everyone
here
in
general
moves
us
forward
together
to
a
place
where
we
feel
more
comfortable
in.
We
appreciate
that
very
much
so.
Thank
you
all.
A
Z
X
Z
Thanks
for
that
questions,
I'm
just
going
to
scroll
down
on
my
screen
to
that
I
believe.
Currently,
it
says
2027
I,
believe
and
maybe
I
can
also
just
confirm,
with
Mr
Anderson,
that
the
timing
for
the
ordinance
review
initially
was
based
on
the
ordinance
was
recently
put
into
place
and
that
oftentimes
a
a
first
check-in
would
be
say
after
five
years
and
and
and
then
look
at
how
programs
have
been
functioning.
Z
We
have
now
heard
that,
based
on
the
community,
that
there
is
a
very
urgent
need
now
to
review,
so
I
think
that
what
we
could
do
if
this
is
okay
with
the
commission
to
take
this
back
after
the
the
meeting
and
see
if
we
can
identify
an
earlier
date-
and
we
can
include
that
comment
in
the
staff
report
to
council
and
make
a
recommendation
if
we
can
or
for
for
an
earlier
date.
I
wouldn't
need
to
check
with
staff
to
to
make
sure
that
we
can
do
this.
Z
A
A
Okay,
that's
unanimous
I
could
note
that.
The
second
point
was
the
combination
of
commissioner
Gutierrez
and
commissioner
Nunez
to
add
under
3.2
displacement
prevention
and
mitigation.
The
first
bullet
point
in
there,
in
addition
to
the
rent,
stabilization,
deed
restriction
and
housing
preservation,
we're
going
to
add
Copa
topa,
slash,
Community
ownership
models
and
then
continue
the
sentence
that
way.
A
A
W
X
A
Yes,
so
thank
you
very
much.
Everyone
here
I
knew
it
was
a
Herculean
Endeavor
on
all
parts.
Now
you
close
with
that,
we
will
now
go
to
agenda
item
six
commission
staff,
announcements,
updates,
requests
and
committee
reports.
No
action
will
be
taken
on
any
questions
raised
by
the
commission
at
this
time.
G
I
U
Z
V
V
So
just
I
wanted
to
express
my
profound
gratitude
for
staff
and
how
much
y'all
put
into
this,
and
not
only
that
how
much
you
went
out
into
the
community
to
bring
that
into
it
as
well,
and
that
that
I've
kind
of
encouraged-
and
you
know,
I-
feel
better.
Having
watched
that
I
think
you
all
did
a
good
job
on
something
that
was
really
hard
really
really
hard,
and
my
hope
would
be
that
you
know.
I
V
Special
thanks
to
all
the
groups
that
have
already
sent
in
support
letters
I,
think
having
support
letters
for
the
for
the
housing
element
is
actually
really
important,
because
hcd
is
paying
attention
and
they
want
to
know.
So,
if
you
you
know,
we
should
never
let
the
the
perfect
be
the
enemy
of
the
good.
You
know
my
plea
would
be
that
those
all
those
Community
groups,
if
you
care
about
this
stuff,
please
consider
sending
in
a
support
letter
to
support
the
housing
element,
support
the
city.
V
We
should
put
a
united
front
forward
when
we
go
to
hcd
because
we're
all
going
to
sink
or
swim
together.
So
that
would
be
my
my
plea
to
anybody's
listening.
If
you
haven't
sent
a
support
letter,
please
do
so
because
I
think
it
matters
and
it
reflects
I
think
a
lot
of
good
work
that
was
done
by
everybody
sitting
here
and
a
whole
bunch
of
folks
who
aren't.