►
Description
Live teleconference of the City of Mountain View's Environmental Planning Commission of December 7, 2022
A
A
A
Good
evening,
I
will
call
to
order
the
December
7th
2022
meeting
of
the
environmental
environmental
Planning
Commission
of
the
city
of
Mountain
View
at
702
PM
during
the
State
of
Emergency.
The
meeting
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
California
government
code,
54953e
AS
authorized
by
resolution
of
the
city
council.
A
Please
contact
the
city
clerk
at
city.clerk
mountainview.gov
to
obtain
a
copy
of
the
epical
resolution.
All
members
of
EPC
are
participating
in
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members
of
the
public.
We
should
observe
the
meeting.
May
do
so
live
at
mountainview.legistar.com
on
YouTube,
at
mountainview.gov
YouTube
and
on
Comcast
channel
26..
A
A
A
A
Being
none
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
a
comment
on
this
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
him
button
in
Zoom
or
press
star.
Not
in
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six.
The
ABC
clerk
will
start
the
timer
to
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
to
have
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
a
minute.
D
E
A
A
Okay,
a
provided
and
state
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
any
non-agenda
items.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
a
comment
on
the
non-agenda
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
start
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six
PPC
clerk
will
start
the
timer
to
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
having
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
openly.
B
A
Agenda
is
a
public
hearing
regarding
General
plan
zoning
and
precise
plan
amendments
related
to
the
housing
element
update
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
make
clear
the
order
of
the
presentation
and
the
liberations
on
this
item,
because
there
are
several
parts.
First,
we'll
review
the
staff
presentation
followed
by
public
comments.
After
that,
the
EPC
will
have
a
chance
to
ask
questions
and
deliberate
and
take
actions
on
the
eir.
A
Only
then
we
will
consider
the
then
we
will
consider
zoning
and
platinum
updates,
beginning
with
the
general
plan
villages
the
mixed-use
center
amendments
that
commissioner
Dempsey
will
recuse
from
after
that.
The
EPC
will
take
action
on
those
amendments
and
we'll
invite
commissioner
Dempsey
to
back
and
take
up
the
balance
of
the
proposed
amendments.
F
Good
evening,
are
you
guys
able
to
see
my
screen?
Okay?
Well,
thank
you.
Chair,
Cranston
and
Convention
Commissioners
tonight,
I
will
be
presenting
on
the
general
plan.
Zoning
and
precise
plan
amendments
for
the
housing
element
update
again.
My
name
is
Ellen
Yao
I'm,
the
project
planner
and
I'm
joined
by
Eric,
Anderson,
Advanced
planning
manager,
and
we
also
have
our
consultant
Jill
fake
money
from
Esa
I'm
available
for
questions
after
the
presentation.
F
The
second
one
is
to
prepare
an
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan
amendment
to
specifically
eliminate
the
tier
2
overlay
zoning
requirement
for
residential
projects
that
have
far
floor
area
ratio
above
1.85.
The
third
item
is
to
prepare
zoning
and
precise
plan
amendments
to
allow
residential
uses.
Specifically,
we
call
them
the
general
plan.
Mixed-Use
Village
centers
as
part
of
these
amendments
it's
to
require
neighborhood
commercial
uses
and
publicly
accessible
Open
Spaces
I
want
to
highlight
that
the
last
two
points
two
and
three
directly
respond
to
state
law
regarding
General
plan
and
Zoning
inconsistencies.
F
So
I'm
gonna
go
into
each
of
the
three
sections
here.
The
first
one
is
the
R1
R4
ordinance
and
100
affordable
housing
sites,
so
Council
directed
staff
to
prepare
rezonings
for
these
two
pending,
affordable
housing
development.
The
reason
behind
making
these
amendments
is
to
streamline
the
approval
process.
This
will
allow
them
to
utilize
the
SB
35
approval
process
and
they
also
benefit
because
we
have
Incorporated
these
sites
as
part
of
the
housing
element
eir,
so
that
will
also
streamline
some
of
their
approval
process.
F
The
specific
changes
that
we're
doing
are
highlighted
in
the
three
major
bullet
points
here.
The
first
is
amending
the
zoning
code
to
eliminate
lot
area
and
lot
width
minimums
for
a
hundred
percent,
affordable
housing
developments
that
receive
funding
through
the
city's
notice
of
funding
availability,
also
known
as
the
nofa
process.
This
will
make
the
change
to
our
R4
ordinance.
F
It
will
allow
for
more
flexibility
for
100,
affordable
housing
developments
at
higher
densities,
but
won't
make
any
specific
changes
to
R4
in
general.
The
second
one
is
the
specific
General
plan
land
use
changes
so
specifically
for
East
Evelyn.
It
will
change
the
land
use
from
high
intensity
office
to
high
density
residential
for
the
Terra
Bella
site.
This
will
change
from
General
industrial
to
high
density
residential
and
then
for
both
properties.
The
change
for
zoning
will
be
from
industrial
to
high
density
residential.
F
The
next
slide
I'll
go
over
the
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan
amendments.
This
graphic
shows
the
village
centers
that
we're
talking
about
in
making
these
specific
changes.
These
are
Village
centers
that
are
located
in
very
prominent
intersections.
That
also
require
ground
ground
floor
commercial
areas
on
this
next
slide,
I
kind
of
highlight
the
specific
change
that
I
talked
about,
which
was
changing
the
tier
two
for
residential.
F
So
this
table
shows
the
red
line
changes
previously
in
El,
Camino
Real,
precise
plan
residential
uses
could
be
built
up
to
2.3
far,
but
they
would
be
categorized
under
tier
2,
which
requires
a
rezoning
process,
because
our
general
plan
does
allow
these
areas
to
be
built
up
to
that
far
and
specifically,
states
that
it
should
be
required
should
be
allowed
without
a
rezoning
process.
The
specific
change
here
is
essentially
moving
it
down
to
tier
one,
which
does
not
require
that
rezoning
process.
F
F
Then
the
big
item
that
we're
here
tonight
to
talk
about
is
the
general
plan
Village
centers,
so
Council
directed
staff
to
integrate
these
General
plan
Village
centers
into
the
site's
inventory.
They
asked
us
to
propose
the
zoning
amendments
that
would
address
the
general
plan
policy
Direction
and
that
would
and
that
we
would
also
ensure
that
we
would
provide
for
neighborhood
commercial
uses
on
these
sites,
that
they
would
be
publicly
accessible
open
spaces,
and
then
we
also
ensure
that
there's
transitions
to
the
residential
neighborhoods
that
were
sensitive
to
adjacency
to
those
zones.
F
So,
as
part
of
the
general
plan,
Village
Center
amendments
here,
I
want
to
clarify
that
now,
currently,
residential
development
is
already
allowed
on
these
sites.
Under
our
general
plan,
however,
the
Zoning
for
each
of
these
General
plan
Village
centers
these
areas
do
not
have
the
zoning
that
would
allow
them
to
build
residential
development.
F
So
the
approach
we're
taking
to
this
is
making
changes
to
the
zoning
ordinance
and
to
the
general
plan
to
allow
for
residential
on
these
sites
and
then
to
establish
and
ensure
that
the
development
standards
that
we
have
for
these
sites
would
not
constrain
residential
development.
That
is
pre
that
is
currently
allowed
under
the
general
plan
and
that's
specifically
to
respond
to
state
law
under
SB
330..
F
F
There
are
some
sites
that
have
zoning
that
does
allow
for
residential
uses
such
as
Middlefield
and
wisman
in
the
East
wisman
precise
plan
and
a
lot
of
Moffett
Boulevard,
so
those
sites
are
not
shown
on
the
table
or
on
the
image
here,
but
the
ones
that
do
have
the
ones
that
do
require
rezoning
the
ones
that
we're
talking
about
here
tonight.
These
areas
are
shown
on
the
map
and
in
the
table.
F
So
specifically,
if
you
look
at
the
table,
you
can
see
that
each
of
these
General
plan,
Village
Center
sites,
have
three
of
the
general
plan.
Land
use
designations,
so
there's
the
general
mixed
use,
there's
a
neighborhood
mixed
use
and
then
the
mixed-use
corridor,
and
then
for
each
of
these
General
plan,
land
uses,
there's
also
three
zoning.
They
have
overlap
of
the
zoning
designation,
so
it's
the
Cs,
which
is
the
Commercial
Services
CN,
which
is
neighborhood
commercial
and
then
the
precise
plan,
Grant
Phyllis
p27.
F
So
just
to
reiterate
each
of
the
general
plan
land
use
designations
they
allow
for
residential,
but
none
of
these
zoning
designations
deal
they're
all
commercial.
So
therefore,
the
specific
amendments
related
to
The
mixed-use,
Village,
Center
developments,
we're
gonna,
be
making
those
changes
just
to
the
zoning
ordinance,
specifically
CN
and
CS
zoning
districts
and
the
grant
Phyllis
precise
plan
and
then
to
do
that
rather
than
rezone
each
of
these
sites
to
say
you
know
a
residential
zoning
District,
which
would
make
the
sites
non-conforming
and
would
not
further
General
plan
goals
to
maintain
neighborhood
commercial.
F
F
Okay,
so
in
this
table,
you'll
see
that
we
have
a
maximum
far
and
stories
that's
listed
in
the
general
plan.
Okay
and
then
highlighted
in
green,
is
what
we've
used
as
the
basis
to
kind
of
establish
what
would
and
would
not
constrain
the
density
or
intensity
allowed
in
the
general
plan,
so
the
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan.
You
know
we
have
many
recent
examples
of
you
know
a
four-story
1.85,
far
development
across
all
different
parcel
sizes.
F
So
these
examples
point
to
a
set
of
development
standards,
including
open
area
and
setbacks
that
can
demonstrate
that
it
would
accommodate
the
floor
area
allowed
in
the
general
plan.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
this
table,
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
it,
the
area
for
that
we're
talking
about
is
listed
on
the
left.
If
you
look
in
the
middle
column,
it
lists
the
maximum
General
fa,
the
general
plan,
far
and
stories,
and
then
the
last
column
is
the
maximum
height
proposed
and
you
can
see
for
each
height
that
is
listened
General
plan.
F
The
maximum
height
proposed
is
one
more
than
what
is
allowed
right
now,
so
heights
were
increased
by
one
story,
and
this
will
allow
and
ensure
that
the
floor
area
that's
built
and
that's
and
that
we
require
commercial,
any
Associated
parking
you
know
they
are,
it
gives
them
the
benefit
of
that
being
exempt.
So
there's
an
increase
in
height
in
Florida
area,
along
with
a
set
of
development
standards
that
we
can.
F
That
can
be
shown
through
several
examples
that
has
already
been
built
throughout
El
Camino
to
accommodate
the
allowed
intensity,
and
it
shows
that
the
city
is
not
reducing
intensity,
related
development
standards,
okay,
so
again,
just
kind
of
highlighting,
what's
shown
on
this
chart
here.
This
is
specifically
just
the
height
standard
and
it
kind
of-
and
it
clarifies
that
based
off
of
what
is
allowed
in
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan.
F
We've
had
projects
that
built
there
at
that
far
and
at
that
height
limit,
and
because
we
have
development
standards
like
neighborhood
commercial,
we
are
in
allowing
that
to
be
Exempted
from
Far
plus
they
get
an
additional
floor,
so
that
should
all
be
accommodated
and
would
not
be
constrained
to
development
in
this.
In
these
General
plan,
mixed
use,
Development
Centers.
F
So
among
those
standards
aside
from
height,
these
are
a
couple
of
the
other
standards
that
we
have
that
are
included
in
the
zoning
ordinance
in
the
Cs
and
CN
sections
of
the
ordinance
Plus
in
the
grant
Phyllis
precise
plan
so
for
neighborhood
commercial
floor
area.
We
require
a
0.25
far
maximum.
This
is
additional
height
and
far
exemption,
which
won't
constrain
Housing
Development.
We
also
have
a
grocery
store,
tenants
based
accommodation.
F
We
were
requiring
a
fifteen
thousand
square
foot
minimum
for
that,
because
the
square
footage
is
included
in
the
neighborhood
commercial
floor
area,
which
can
be
Exempted
from
far
and
there's
an
additional
height
exception.
This
again
won't
constrain
development,
so
I'm
gonna
go
through
each
of
these
and
I'll
kind
of
compare
it
to
some
of
the
other
standards
that
we
have.
F
So,
for
example,
the
Frontage
that
we
have
for
a
ground
floor,
commercial
we'd,
want
that
to
occupy
at
least
75
percent
of
the
building
Frontage,
specifically
on
a
busy
street,
and
this
kind
of
takes
what
we
are
requiring
in
the
neighborhood
commercial
in
the
grocery
store
requirement
and
orienting
it
towards
busy
streets.
So
this
is
normal
orientation
and
design
standard.
F
Next
we're
going
to
talk
about
setbacks,
so
Street
set
back
rear
and
side
setbacks
that
are
listed
as
15
feet,
minimum
depending
on
whether
it's
next
to
a
non-residential
zoning
or
adjacent
to
residential
zoning.
So
in
comparison
the
general
setback
for
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan
is
16
feet.
As
you
can
see,
listed,
it's
15.,
so
we're
reducing
setback
requirements.
The
side
and
rear
setback
is
exactly
the
same
as
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan
for
the
open
space.
Our
requirement
is
30
of
the
site
area.
F
The
El
Camino
Real,
precise
plan
requires
40
so
again
a
reduction
and
then
for
the
publicly
accessible
open
space.
It's
listed
as
five
percent
of
site
area,
but
we
are
including
it
for
anywhere
along
setbacks
or
in
between
buildings.
So
it
can
be
easily
accommodated
for
it's
a
small
percentage
of
the
site
area
and
then
for
the
approval
process
for
these
projects,
we're
keeping
it
consistent
to
the
underlying
zoning
districts.
F
So
for
the
cnnc
Cs
districts,
the
projects
will
be
approved
by
the
zoning
administrator
and
then
consistent
with
the
developments
in
the
grantville's
precise
plan.
They
will
be
approved
by
city
council
and
for
the
eir.
We
brought
this
to
EPC
back
in
August
I'm,
just
going
to
do
a
brief
catch-up
of
what
has
happened
thus
far,
so
an
ear
is
prepared
to
analyze
potential
physical
environmental
impacts.
This
eir
for
the
housing
element
is
a
programming
error.
F
F
When
projects
do
come
in
so
each
project
that
comes
in
for
review,
they
will
be
assessed
to
determine
the
consistency
with
this
program.
Eir
they'll
be
subject
to
the
mitigation
measures
that
are
identified
in
this
eir,
and
you
know
if
there's
any
additional
environmental
analysis
that
is
necessary
depending
on
the
scope
of
work.
They
would
be
required
to
conduct
that
as
well
in
this
eir.
Several
impacts
were
identified.
This
included
air
quality,
biological
resources,
cultural
and
tribal
cultural
resources,
greenhouse
gas
hazards
and
hazardous
materials,
transportation
and
circulation
and
utilities
and
service
systems.
F
But
each
of
these
impacts
were
determined
that,
after
midi
after
mitigation
measures
were
applied,
it
would
reduce
that
impact
to
less
than
significant.
I.
Do
want
to
highlight,
however,
that
there
was
one
significant
and
unavoidable
impact
related
to
air
quality,
and
this
is
particularly
just
for
larger
development
projects.
F
But
again
this
captures
the
potential
for
a
variety
of
projects.
So
that's
why
it
is
listed
as
a
significant
and
unavoidable
impact,
depending
on
the
size
of
a
project
or
the
length
of
construction
time
and
the
location.
You
know
it's
not
likely
that
most
projects
would
exceed
any
significant
thresholds,
but
again
since
this
is
a
program
eir
and
it
can
cover
a
variety
of
different
projects
that
could
come
from
this.
F
Since
the
publication
of
the
draft
eir
changes
have
been
made
to
the
housing
element,
but
these
were
mainly
program,
details
and
background
analysis
and
some
site
inventory
changes.
So
this
doesn't
really
affect
the
analysis,
the
conclusions
that
were
reflected
in
the
draft
eir,
so
the
draft
erer
you
know,
will
need
to
be
certified
prior
to
approving
the
housing
element
and
any
of
the
rezonings
any
of
the
zoning
amendments
or
general
plan
amendments
that
we're
considering
tonight.
F
And
then
this
is
our
project
schedule,
so
the
rezonings
presented
to
you
tonight.
We
need
to
ensure
that
you
know
they
happen
before
the
start
of
the
six
cycle
planning
period,
which
is
January
31st
2023
next
year
to
ensure
that
there's
adequate
existing
sites
with
the
necessary
residential
zoning
to
accommodate
Arena
that
additional
residential
capacity
can
then
be
captured
in
the
site's
inventory.
F
Now
the
rezonings
will
also
allow
for
residential
uses
and
densities
consistent
with
the
general
plan,
and
it
will
also
streamline
pipeline,
affordable
housing
developments.
So
these
rezonings
are
brought
to
you
here
tonight.
They
will
be
presented
to
council
for
adoption
scheduled
for
January
24th
of
next
year
later
down
in
the
slide,
you
can
see
it's
just
a
couple
of
other
dates
related
to
the
actual
Drac
housing
element
and
adoption
hearing.
F
So
here
are
the
recommendations
for
tonight.
You
know,
since
we
will
have
a
recusal
during
the
deliberation.
I
have
amended
these
recommendations
to
follow
the
order
of
the
item's
action,
but
we
have
a
total
of
six
here,
and
that
concludes
my
presentation.
If
you
have
any
questions,
so
stop
will
be
ready.
Thank
you.
A
We'll
now
move
to
public
comment
would
any
member
on
the
public
on
the
line
like
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
six
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
then
mute
themselves
with
star
six.
You
can
see
a
clerk,
we'll
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
and
a
lot
of
do.
We
have
anyone
wishing
good.
G
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
so
I
don't
have
any
comments
on
the
ER
itself,
because
we've
already
voted
on
that
and
passed
that
out.
I
simply
wanted
to
make
a
short
comment,
based
on
the
summary
that
I
saw
in
the
in
the
staff
report
and
merely
I
think
this
is
I
just
want
to
reiterate
something
that
I
think
is
important
to
me
when
it
comes
to
this
ER
and
it
gets
back
to
the
air
quality
issue
in
the
staff
summary
that
at
least
that
I
read
when
the
mitigation
the
available
mitigations
are
sort
of
described.
G
There
was
four
of
them:
I'm
not
going
to
read
them
out,
but
three
of
them
pertain
to
the
operation
of
the
facility
after
it's
constructed,
and
only
one
of
them
pertains
to
the
construction
of
the
facility.
Now
I
know
there's
more
mitigations
available
within
the
body
of
the
err
itself
than
what
was
described
in
the
staff
report,
so
I'm
not
questioning
that
I.
What
I
wanted
to
do
is
simply
reiterate
the
importance
for
the
city
to
remember
that
air
quality
mitigations
for
the
folks
that
live
around
that
construction
site.
G
That's
important
stuff,
environmental
health
is
important
stuff.
It's
especially
true
when
you've
got
family
members
that
may
have
asthma,
folks
that
are
immunocompromised
lots
of
different
things
that
could
be
going
wrong
and
for
folks
that
live
nearby,
that
you
know
those
significant
air
impacts
for
construction
projects
that
could
go
on
for
two
years.
G
Those
aren't
small
and
so
I'm
simply
I
wanted
to
just
wanted
to
reiterate
the
city
city
that
that's
important
stuff,
and
so,
when
we're
thinking
about
mitigations
for
these
air
quality
impacts,
please
give
you
know
an
equal
amount
of
thought
to
the
folks
that
have
to
live
with
the
construction,
as
we
do,
the
folks
that
are
going
to
have
to
live
with
all
the
impacts.
Once
it's
built
and
occupied.
That's
it.
A
A
My
concern
is
on
the
areas
that
are
accumulative
impact
I
in
the
in
the
housing
element.
We
identify
specifically
the
Strategic
plan
for
for
parks
and
regulation
and
open
space,
but
nowhere
in
that
does
it
say
that
we're
actually
going
to
get
the
level
of
open
space
that
we
have
today
when
we
add
the
number
of
or
given
the
number
of
people
and
the
the
addition-
and
it
says
it's
a
process
that
we'll
go
through
and
do
the
best
we
can.
A
But
it
doesn't
actually
say
to
me
that
well
actually
that
there'll
be
no
impact
on
on
Parks.
There
is
a
in
the
document.
It
talks
about
the
the
project
that
will
be
in
place
to
look
at
Capital
Improvements,
what's
needed
in
the
way
of
of
facilities
available,
but
a
big
chunk
of
the
numbers
and
I've
I've
stopped
a
couple
of
police
officers
at
Starbucks
and
talked
to
firemen,
and
the
biggest
issue.
Quite
frankly,
is
not
the
buildings.
A
Quite
frankly,
doesn't
feel
completely
honest
to
the
community
as
a
whole
and
I
am
I'm
troubled
by
that
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
we
don't
move
ahead
on
something
what
I'm
the
the
the
decision
to
move
ahead
with
these
items.
The
state
has
said
this
is
what
the
Bay
Area
has
to
produce:
inlay
housing
and
the
league
of
the
the
barrier
during
the
name,
a
bag
area.
A
The
the
group
that
assigned
the
quote
said
this
is
what
we
have
to
do,
and
I
don't
I,
don't
believe.
We
have
a
choice
in
that,
but
to
say
that
addressing
those
things
as
best
we
can
isn't
going
to
have
an
impact
in
the
city,
I'm
I'm,
really
struggling
with,
and
so
I'm
I
would,
quite
frankly
feel
much
better
if
we
stated
those
things
in
the
mitigation
matters
that
were
there
and
say
that
they
may
have
an
impact,
but
that
we
are
willing
to.
A
H
A
C
Thanks
chair
Carson,
can
you
reiterate
again
I
know
you
said
you
were
you
know,
given
that
these
are
things
we
sort
of
have
to
do
and
that
you're
not
trying
to
stop
the
process.
You
said
you
were
comfortable,
adding
what
into
the
sorry
just
yeah.
What
were
you
adding
to
to
feel
comfortable
to
move
forward.
A
All
right,
if
we
look
at
some
of
the
others
in
here
on
the
the
VMT
measures,
it
says,
there's
a
mitigation
measure
and
and
then
in
the
in
the
it
says
it's
a
significant
and
unavoidable
impact.
Okay
I
would
argue
that
what
we
should
be
putting
in
here
for
Parkinson
and
Recreation
is
adding
in
the
Strategic
plan
it's
going
to
be
put
in
place
and
it
will
still
result
in
a
significant
unavoidable
impact.
A
But
in
the
end
it
will
provide
a
significant
and
affordable
impact
and
then,
when
we
and
then
when
this
is
approved,
that
we
say
that
these
we
understand
these,
and
we
are
excited
that
we
in
the
and
Sandy
can
give
me
the
right
language.
But
it's
a
the
statement
of
overriding
considerations.
I
think
is
the
right
word
that
says
that,
in
spite
of
these
things,
we
have
to
do
these
things,
and
so
we
are
still
approving
the
eir.
C
H
H
Element
and
these
rezonings
against
those
particular
criteria,
and
they
do
this
against
these
criteria
for
all
kinds
of
documents,
all
all
kinds
of
actions-
government
actions
all
across
the
state.
They
found
that
in
those
cases
it's
not
a
significant
unavoidable
impact.
What
I
would
say
is
that
you
can
communicate
your
concerns
about
these
in
through
just
your.
You
know.
H
Your
comments
on
the
project
and
to
the
council
I
would
say
also
say
that
if
they're,
if
we
do
identify
new
significant
unavoidable
impacts,
it
would
have
considerable
consequences
on
the
timing
of
the
project.
You
wouldn't
just
be
able
to
do
that
today,
right,
we
would
have
to
recirculate
the
eir
publicly
and
we
would
have
to
bring
it
back
for
certification
after
recirculation.
H
I
Yeah
so,
first
of
all,
the
eir
is
evaluating
environmental
impacts,
so
not
just
impacts
generally
on
the
city,
and
so
it's
very
focused
on
environmental
impacts
in
certain
resource
categories
as
specified
by
SQL,
and
there
are
specific
significant
thresholds
within
each
of
those
categories.
So
for
biological
resources,
for
instance,
there
are
in
a
three
to
five
questions
and
they
say:
does
the
does
the
project
result
in
an
impact
along
these
lines?
I
Right,
they're,
very
specific
questions,
and
so
it's
it's
also
an
evidentiary
exercise,
so
making
a
finding
that
there
is
a
significant
impact
has
to
be
based
on
evidence.
So
the
eir
does
their
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
That's
the
purpose
of
the
eir.
So
if,
if
the
commission
were
to
find
another
impact,
there
needs
to
be
evidence
in
support
of
that
finding.
I
So
those
were
the
two
points
that
I
wanted
to
make,
and
also
just
just
the
one
other
example
with
respect
to
Parks
or
even
public
services
that
it's,
whether
or
not
the
growth
would
result
in
the
need
to
construct
new
facilities
that
would
have
an
environmental
impact.
So
those
are
the
questions
along
which
the
eir
analyzes,
whether
or
not
the
significance
threshold
has
been
exceeded.
J
Sure
sure,
hello,
everyone
yeah
just
to
Echo
kind
of
the
laser
focus
of
sequa
is
physical
environments
and
in
in
the
case
of
Public,
Services
or
Recreation.
It's
about
you
know
would
you
need
to
build
something
yes
or
no,
and
would
that
something
that
you
have
to
build
or
have
to
build,
have
a
significant
impact
or
not.
C
C
C
It
doesn't
sound
like
it
makes
sense
if
you
understand
what
I'm
saying
so,
understanding
where
you
guys
are
coming
from
is
helpful.
I,
don't
know
where
we
can
go
to
to
to
help
with
what
I
think
chair
Cranston
is
aiming
for.
So
if
anyone
else
has
an
idea,
love
to
hear
it,
but
I
I
concur
I
understand
where
he's
coming
from
we've
brought
it
up
in
many
projects
in
the
past
and
I,
don't
know
where
we
can
make
our
statement
other
than
in
comments
just
to
counsel
when
they
listen
to
it.
C
D
Yes,
sir
yeah,
no,
it
sounds
kind
of
intuitive,
it
doesn't
sound
right,
we've
been
looking
at
it
from
then
and
now
as
well,
but
so
here's
my
question
to
the
team.
So
it
sounds
like
that,
even
though
these
concerns
have
been
brought
up
again
tonight,
it
doesn't
meet
the
threshold
or
the
standards
of
what
you
would
determine
to
be
a
significant
impact.
A
H
Yeah,
so
it
there
are
a
lot
of
possible
outcomes
that
could
happen
right
typically,
when
a
project
comes
in
consistent
with
zoning
and
general
plan,
as
you
know
that
the
housing
element
is
setting
the
stage,
for
you
know,
projects
that
are
coming
in
consistent
with
zoning
and
general
plan,
and
you
know
tonight
we're
asking
for
an
action
on
rezoning
so
that
project's
coming
in
consistent
with
zoning
a
general
plan.
Typically
those
are
categorically
exempt.
H
Now
there
are
a
lot
of
cases
where
you
can't
use
categorical
exemption
on
projects.
So
let's
say:
there's
a
site
contamination
issue
with
the
project
or
something
like
that.
Then
you
can't
use
categorical
exemption
and
that
would
go
into
what's
called
an
initial
study
process
and
in
that
process,
if
there
is
new
information
that
is
identified,
then
that
where
the
project
is
kind
of.
H
That
doesn't
happen
very
often,
because
you
know
the
types
of
things
that
we're
talking
about.
You
know
like
Jill
and
Sandy
were
saying
you
know
things
like
open
space
requirements
and
you
know
and
the
the
need
for
additional
police
and
fire
staff.
Those
are
not
environmental
impacts
per
se,
so
the
the
types
of
issues
that
are
being
brought
up
aren't
necessarily
going
to
be
addressed
later
on
through
future
environmental
review.
H
Nonetheless,
if
there
is
a
new
major
environmental
impact
that
wasn't
previously
studied
and
there's
a
possibility
that
that
environmental
impact
could
occur
with
the
project,
even
if
it's
zoning
and
general
plan
compliant,
then
there
there
could,
there
could
be
an
you
know:
Project
Specific,
eir,
that
we
would
have
to
study.
In
that
case,
Okay.
D
D
If
in
the
future,
a
plan
were
to
be
proposed
and
then
be
presented
to
the
to
to
the
city,
Mountain
View,
if
at
that
time
there
is
a
significant
impact
because
there
is
no
water
there's
a
lack
of
water
for
this
area
for
this
city,
then
that
project
at
that
time
would
be
re-analyzed
with
a
new
eir
and
that's
a
request.
Is
that
the
is
that
the
backup
plan
well.
H
I,
don't
recall
exactly,
but
it's
probably
like
500
units
or
something
like
that,
and
so
in
all
likelihood,
most
projects
that
come
in
over
the
course
of
these
rezonings
or
over
the
course
of
the
housing
element
are
going
to
be
less
than
that
size.
Threshold
and
I
I,
don't
know
Jill.
Is
there
a
requirement
to
do
a
new
wsa
on
all
projects
over
the
size
threshold.
H
K
Thank
you
chair,
so
I'm
going
to
start
by
saying
that,
with
regards
to
the
concerns
that
you
shared
to
start
this
discussion
round,
I
have
very
little
if
any
appetite
around
kind
of
you
know,
making
any
declarative
or
indicative
statements
around
like
impacts
less
than
significant.
More
than
any
of
that
kind
of
you
know,
area
I,
I,
I
I
definitely
feel
very
inclined
to
just
kind
of
take
a
a
strong
pass
on
that.
K
The
reasons
why
two
reasons
one
is
I
unless
I'm
completely
having
this
go
over.
My
head
I'm
hearing
clearly
from
this
discussion
that
those
are
technical
findings
that,
aside
from
all
the
money
we've
spent
on
our
wonderful
consultant
that
are,
you
know,
prescribed
by
law,
and
that
if
we
were
to
make
any
kind
of
again
declarative
or
indicative,
you
know
recommendations
around
making
changes
to
that.
K
K
Support
making
any
kind
of
like
again
indicative
or
declarative
statements
to
that
effect.
The
second
reason
really
kind
of
relates
to
I
think
especially
yeah
yours
and
also
Vice,
chair,
yin's
kind
of
statements
which
I
I.
You
know
in
terms
of
you
know
putting
myself
open
shoes
and
kind
of
like
perspectivizing
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
word,
but
you
know
how
this
kind
of
change
and
trying
to
understand
and
process
like
how.
K
You
know
fire
or
police
response
right
all
of
these
kinds
of
things
that
ostensibly
contribute
to
a
good
environment.
How
is
it
possible
that,
with
all
this
development
that
there
will
be
no
impact,
I
guess
on
a
couple?
Fronts
number
one,
because
I'm
sure
many
of
us
would
would
agree
with
just
because
we
can't
imagine
something
to
be
true
doesn't
mean
that
it's
not
kind
of
starting
there.
K
K
You
know
when
you
drill
into
the
ground-
and
you
know
you
lay
foundation
for
a
new
10-story
building
you're
going
to
get
pollutants
you're
going
to
get
noise
geology
all
this
stuff
right
like
these
are
the
ills.
These
are
the
impacts
of
development,
but
I
think
this
really
isn't
giving
us
the
clear
picture
really.
What
is
I
find
extremely
missing
is
what
are
the
benefits
of
doing
this
right?
So
what
or
what
happens?
If
we
don't
do
this?
What
are
the
Alternatives
there?
K
You
know
a
May
afternoon
when
it's
still
supposed
to
be
spring.
That's
also
a
bad
environment,
even
if,
when
you
step
outside,
it's
like
looking
perfectly
clean
in
your
city
and
so
in
terms
of
what
the
costs
are
of
not
doing,
this
I
think
that
we
ought
to
be
framing
the
discussion
just
as
much
from
that
lens
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
something
that
this
environmental
impact
report
necessarily
captures.
E
Yeah
I
largely
agree
with
commissioner
Nunez
and
I
just
want
to
try
and
refocus
us
here
that,
because
this
this
comes
up
with
has
come
up
with
eirs
for
for
decades,
and
it's
just
the
way
that
eirs
are
structured
right.
Eirs
are
state
level
thresholds,
there's
either
significant
unavoidable
impact,
so
there
aren't,
and
that
doesn't
mean
that
our
city
council
can't
decide
that
you
know
yes,
it
might
not
mean
a
certain
State
threshold,
but
we're
we're
uncomfortable
with
you
know.
E
You
know
having
more
and
more
people
and
not
growing
the
number
of
parks
and
what
what
is
the
right
ratio?
And
what's
for
that,
be
that's
all.
That's
all
a
separate
policy.
It
really
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
eirs.
So
our
job
as
an
environmental,
Planning
Commission
is
to
say
thank
you
Consultants.
You
did
the
analysis.
You
compared
this
to
the
straights
to
the
state
thresholds.
E
E
Typically,
there
isn't,
and
in
this
case
I,
don't
feel
that
there
is,
and
if
we
all
want
to
make
our
personal
statements
to
the
city
council
about
what
they
think
the
right
thresholds
are
for
service
levels
for
in
response
times
for
fire
departments
like
that,
that's
not
the
epc's
role,
that's
that's
the
council's
role
and
and
it
and
it's
not
Beyond
us
to
provide
that
input
but
and
I
understand.
You
know
which
a
lot
of
times
with
each
project
or
a
large
thing
that
comes
forward
with
an
eir
people.
E
E
It's
always
been
uncomfortable
for
me
when
they
come
forward
and
I
understand.
We
want
the
public
to
understand
that
we
have
some
of
the
same
concerns
that
they
share,
but
that
we're
we're
not
treating
this.
As
you
know,
all
of
these
new
housing
units
aren't
going
to
have
any
impacts.
We
understand
that,
but
our
job
here
tonight
is
to
look
at
the
document.
A
Okay
can
I
ask
a
clarifying
question
with
Jill.
I
am
familiar
with
the
standards
on
a
project
by
project
level.
My
concern
is
not
at
the
pressure
or
pressure
level.
My
concern
is
the
committed
impact
guns.
Are
there
in
fact,
standard
state
level,
standards
for
cumulative
impacts
on
something
like
this.
A
J
C
Oh
thanks,
yeah
I,
I,
don't
and
I'm
not
going
to
speak
for
a
chair
Cranston,
but
my
impression
was
that
no
one
wanted
to
delay
the
eir
certification
here
for
the
housing
element.
I
think
it
was
oh
at
least
I
was
just
trying
to
point
out
that
I
think
there
is
a
not
a
lot
of
understanding
myself
included,
sometimes
about
what
specifically
the
eir
is
looking
for.
C
So
that's
just
the
comment
there
from
my
end
and
that
could
be
done
later.
I
agree.
It
is
a
policy
decision
and
I
think
maybe
there's
some
frustration
that
I've
heard
from
some
people
just
not
understanding.
Maybe
it
comes
from
the
not
understanding
of
what
the
eir
does,
because
it's
not
intuitive
to
them
what
it
is.
C
So
perhaps
that
is
the
comment
that
we
just
put
forward
now,
just
in
the
discussion
which
is
I,
think
the
public
would
like
to
know
when
we
talk
about
a
certain
topic:
open
space,
Parks
water,
fire
emergency,
that
there
is
a
place
in
the
city
documents
that
they
can
go
to
a
document
that
addresses
these
things
or
a
plan.
And
we
can
say:
here's
where
we
address
those
actual
impacts.
D
E
C
A
A
G
D
I'm
sorry
I
I
thought
it
was
gonna,
be
questions,
so,
oh
okay,
great
so
I
have
a
quick
question
for
the
for
the
team.
So
when
we
look
at
the
Village,
this
is
the
village
centers
that
we're
talking
about
right.
You
had
mentioned
the.
Can
we
go
back
to
your
presentation.
I
think
it
was
slide,
two
where
you
have
the
examples
of
where
we're
at
with
height
now
and
what
we
could
be
if
these
are
approved,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
to
display
that.
D
D
D
Perfect,
so
so
you
had
to
mentioned
that
there
were
some
examples
in
Mountain
View,
where
we
have
seen
some
of
these
types
of
stories
built.
Here's.
My
question,
though,
if,
if
is
this
a
trend
locally,
where
we
would
want
to
do
this
at
this
level
that
we've
seen
outside
of
Mountain
View,
that's
the
first
one.
Is
there
a
trend
on
that?
And
secondly,
if
we
do
this
and
bear
with
me,
if
we
do
this,
would
they
also
be
allowed
to
go
beyond
that
with
some
sort
of
medium
of
another
type
of
exemption?
H
D
The
city
yeah,
because
when
we
looked
at
what
we're
looking
at
now
is
a
proposed
maximum
height,
that's
different
from
what
we
have
right.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
factor
in
is
how
did
you
make
that
decision?
What
propelled
you
to
get
to
that
level
to
say
hey
this
extra
amount
of
height
is
acceptable.
Did
you
all
look
at
other
places,
besides
Mountain
View,
to
figure
out
that?
Maybe
this
is
the
approach
that
Sunnyvale
is
going
through
or
San
Jose
or
Saratoga
or
Campbell,
or
how
do
we
get
to
this
point?.
H
So
it
was
really
a
technical
analysis.
Our
Baseline
here
is
the
floor
area
and
Heights
allowed
in
the
general
plan.
Those
were
adopted
back
in
2012
and
they
specify
how
much
residential
intensity
is
allowed
on
these
sites
and
that
actually
rules
today.
That
is
actually
a
standard
that
applies
today
for
those
sites.
Now
we
also
have
policies
in
the
general
plan
that
say
things
like
well.
These
areas
need
to
have
some
neighborhood
serving
commercial
right.
H
So
it
really
is
a
technical
exercise.
You
know
the
Outreach
that
we
did
during
the
general
plan
did
identify.
You
know
four
stories
as
as
an
appropriate
level
for
Grant,
Park,
Plaza
and
Two
stories.
It
was
an
appropriate
level
for
Blossom,
Valley
and
so
on,
but
under
SB
330
we
really
can't
stay
with
those
Heights.
We
just
can't
so
we
we
have
to
allow
the
additional
height,
and
then
you
asked
is
this:
it
is
there
more
height
that
can
be
granted.
Well,
yes,
under
State
density
bonus,
you
know
the
I.
H
E
Just
along
those
the
same
lines
and
actually
on
that
same
slide,
when
you
were
giving
the
presentation
you
were
talking
about
I,
think
the
El
Camino
Real
line
and
the
four
stories
today
and
all
of
them
being
able
to
do
like
an
extra
story,
but
the
the
I
think
I,
remember
the
third
column
still
showing
four
stories.
I
know
you
know
and
I
was
just
curious
if
there
was
a
misprint
or
if
or
if
I
just
made
something
in
the
far
right
column,
because
everything
else
is
an
additional
story.
E
Got
it?
Okay,
that's
the
part
that
I
missed
okay
and
then
you
sort
of
touched
on
this.
But
you
know
we
received
the
some
comment:
letters
around
the
The
Village
Center,
specifically
at
San,
Antonio
and
sp330
and
I
just
didn't
know
if
I
think
you
touched
on
this
a
little,
but
I
was
just
wondering
if
you,
if,
if
staff
feels
comfortable
that
you
know
the
the
the
changes
that
are
proposed,
there
are
are
consistent
with
sp330
or
or
how
you
evaluated.
That.
H
H
Now,
what
I
will
say
is
that
there
is
a
potential
belt
and
suspenders
approach
that
the
commission
could
recommend,
and
that
would
be
to
add
language.
That
could
say
something
like
if
any
of
these
standards
are
found
to
be
constraining
of
the
far
allowed
in
the
general
plan,
then
those
standards
can
be
waived,
so
we
could
put
that
in
the
zoning
as
well
like
I,
said
as
a
kind
of
belt
and
suspenders
approach.
C
C
Why
we're
reducing
the
amount
of
open
area
required
from
the
El
Camino
real
precise
plan
when
for
these
areas,
especially
like,
for
instance,
Blossom
Valley,
it's
written
in
there
that
we're
supposed
to
emphasize
social
Gathering
and
place
making,
and
in
order
to
do
so,
usually
you
need
actual
physical
space,
not
saying
it
has
to
be
an
ornament
inordinate
amount,
but
there
still
needs
to
be
a
place
for
people
to
gather.
You
know
it's
the
reason
why
there's
so
many
people
who
want
The
Pedestrian,
Mall
and
Castro
so
I
just
am
curious.
C
Why
we're
reducing
the
amount
of
Site
Area
when
we
may
need
more,
even
and
so
like
a
lot
of
the
letters
that
came
in
I
am
curious
and
thank
you
for
answering
it.
You
did
say
you
did
like
a
little
test
to
make
sure
things
do
fit,
but
you
know
for
especially
for
these
Village
centers.
If
we're
moving
towards
a
walkable
City,
where
we
have
actual
Village
centers.
That
people
can
use
in
B,
in
my
mind,
we're
we're
trying
we're
trying
to
accomplish
Place
making.
C
You
know
it's
not
just
the
location,
it's
not
just
like
a
place
where
you
have
retail.
You
want
people
to
be
able
to
go
there
easily
walk
there
bike
there
easily
and
be
there,
and
so
I
just
want
to
ensure
that
we're
not
doing
something.
Now,
that's
going
to
take
away
our
ability
to
do
so
because
if
someone
comes
in
by
right-
and
they
just
you
know,
do
what's
in
the
plan,
chances
are
we're
getting
a
lot
of
luxury
apartments
and
I.
Think
we
we
can
all
agree.
C
I,
don't
know
I'm
not
going
to
speak
for
everyone
else,
but
what
we're
aiming
for
is
like
affordable
units
honestly
and
anybody
that's
going
to
come
and
apply
for
extra
density,
then
we'll
then
have
to
do
more,
affordable
housing.
We
hope
you
know
it's
not
cumulative.
We've
noticed
that
the
they
can
developers
can
choose
to
either
go
with
the
city
ordinance
or
the
the
state
law.
Whichever
is
you
know,
fits
their
project
and
they
hit
the
minimum
requirements.
C
C
My
personal
feeling
is
that
the
sidewalks
are
kind
of
skimpy,
I
mean
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
people
spending
a
lot
of
time
being
able
to
flow
outwards
from
you
know,
onto
El
Camino's
sidewalk
I
feel
like
if
we're
really
going
to
be
Place
making
in
these
Village
centers.
We
need
much
more
space
for
people
to
walk
and
be
together
at
the
same
time
and
place
to
be
to
congregate.
H
H
The
last
point
is
really
the
goals
that
you're
enumerating,
which
are
absolutely
super
important
goals
and
key
part
of
our
general
plan.
I
think
are
intended
to
be
addressed
through
that
publicly
accessible
open
area
standard
which
and
five
percent
doesn't
sound
like
a
whole
lot,
but
on
large
sites
like
the
Blossom,
Valley,
Shopping,
Center
side
and
the
Grant
Park
Plaza
sites,
it
is
a
public
gathering,
space
and
and
a
real
place
making
opportunity.
So
I
think
that's
that's
my
response.
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
any
other
questions.
C
No
thank
you
for
answering
that
I
guess
I'm
still
a
little
bit
confused
about
the
open
area
and
reducing
the
open
space
in
order
to
accommodate
parking
I
would
just
assume
that
parking
would
be
underground
or
in
a
garage.
That's
wrapped,
so
I
I
guess
I
still
don't
understand
why
the
open
area
would
decrease
to
accommodate
that.
If.
H
H
It
acknowledges
that
if
it
is
wrapped
or
something
that
there
may
need
to
be,
you
know
that
parking
lot
may
need
to
have
some
other
kind
of
top
level
or
something
like
that
right
for
a
portion
of
it,
but
I
think
the
other
issue
here
is
that
a
lot
of
times
successful
retail
does
depend
on
visible
parking.
So
just
having
structured
parking
may
not
result
in
as
successful
a
shopping
center
as
as
possible,
but
see.
H
F
Yeah
I
can
add
something
slightly
to
it.
I
think
if
we're
just
comparing
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan,
which
is
what
we're
using
as
the
basis
it
does
seem
like,
there's
a
reduction,
but
we
also
did
a
study
of
some
past
projects
that
we
we've
gone
through
the
pipeline
and
the
ratio
for
those
Open
Spaces
was
significant
less,
so
we
did
start
off
with
a
smaller
ratio
when
we're
evaluating
and
I'm
developing
these,
but
we
decided
to
rely
on
the
El
Camino,
so
I
want
to
focus
on
some
of
these
other
projects.
F
The
ratios
come
out
to
be.
You
know
we
looked
at
other
projects
in
the
San
Antonio,
precise
plan
and
R4
and
again
these
didn't
require
commercial
and
it
doesn't
touch
on
the
subject
like
Eric
said
about
parking
and
the
emphasis
on
commercial.
But
these
ratios
for
open
space
average
was
from
11
to
maybe
18
20,
of
open
space
of
the
side
area
that
was
dedicated
to
open
space.
C
F
So
I
think
it
was
just
a
comparison.
Point
of
these
are
some
of
the
other
projects
that
have
lower
ratios,
and
so,
when
you
compare
it
to
El
Camino
it's
in
between
these
ratios,
it
is
slightly
less
than
El
Camino,
because
there's
some
portions
of
El
Camino
Real
precise
plan
that
don't
have
the
same
requirement
for
commercial.
So
some
of
that
place
making
may
not
be
just
providing
that
open
space,
but
also
Place
making
in
terms
of
the
uses
and
the
commercial
frontages.
C
I
guess
I'm
still
a
little
confused
about
that.
I!
Guess
I,
just
don't
want
to
you
know,
say:
okay,
let's
just
go
forward
with
this,
when
we
might
effectively
be
reducing
the
ability
to
make
it
a
Village,
Center
and
I
know
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
places
in
our
city
that
feel
like
Village
centers
that
are
successful
with
commercial,
for
instance,
San
Antonio
I'm,
not
sure
if
people
feel
like
that
is
a
successful
place
for
a
Village
Center.
You
know
it
depends.
K
One
is
to
slide
that
commissioner
Gutierrez
and
Clark
was
speaking
too
early
or
but
I'm
gonna
try
to
get
there
through
this
open
area
discussion
as
well,
because
one
of
my
initial
thoughts
as
well
as
that
slide
was
you
know,
as
as
we
were
getting
that
presentation
earlier,
was
thinking
of
that
30
or
5.
You
know
percent
35,
open
area,
slash,
Popa
mix.
K
K
You
know
line
of
questioning
around
this
open
area
discussion
and
the
reason
why
I
think
a
lot
of
it
has
to
come
down
to
like
what
we're
valuing
here,
I'm
sure
that
there
are
plenty
of
examples,
whether
in
our
state
county,
Nation
World,
where
successful
retail
centers
that
either
have
minimal
parking
or
no
parking
or
a
different
solution
with
regards
to
getting
people.
There
are
in
fact
successful
if
what
that
place
is
seeking
to
prioritize
and
develop.
Is
that
place
making?
K
You
know
vibrant
kind
of
energetic
place
that
people
want
to
go
to
because
it
was
built
that
way,
I'm
far
more
inclined
around
valuing
that
kind
of
vision,
as
opposed
to
one
that,
like
persistently
and
I,
would
say,
to
be
honest,
stubbornly
keeps
valuing
motor
vehicle
Transit
I.
You
know
it
was
interesting
to
me
when
Vice
chair,
Yan
Yin
mentioned
underground
parking,
or
you
know
like
even
like
garage
parking,
I
I.
K
Think
if
I
had
my
developer
developer
hat
on
I
would
be
you
know
having
like
alarm
bells
ringing,
but
to
be
quite
honest,
I
I
think
as
as
farfetched
as
it
may
sound
I'm
super
inclined
to
be
supportive
of
something
along
those
lines,
because
I
do
feel
that
I
would
want
to
maintain
as
much
open
area
that
yells
out
come
here.
This
is
publicly
accessible
and
it's
not
just
on
podiums.
It's
like
anyone
can
come.
You
know
between
the
hours
of
7,
A.M
and
11
p.m.
Have
a
drink
at
our
outdoor
patio.
K
K
That's
what
I'm
really
thinking
through
and
so
along
those
lines.
Obviously,
there's
trade-offs,
and
so,
first
of
all,
I'm
gonna
say,
commissioner
Vice
chair
again
I'm
very
much
supportive
of
where
you're
going
and
where
you're
thinking
I
you
know,
don't
think
it's
necessarily
confusing
I'm.
Very
much
wanting
to
validate
that
aspect
of
you
know,
kind
of
that
value
set
from
my
end
and
then
from
this
you
know
towards
staff.
K
H
I
I
K
Okay,
so
so
that
could
include
any
set
of
standards
that
were
existing
prior
to
that
SB
330,
like
cut
off
date,
and
so
in
the
general
plan
I'm,
seeing
some
like
dwelling
units
per
acre
designations
and
in
that
table
two
Slide,
the
one
that
I
think
commissioner
Gutierrez
and
Clark
and
in
the
staff
report
are
on,
like
the
far
to
maximum
height.
That
slide
that
we
were
talking
about.
K
I
noticed
that
there
wasn't
a
mention
around
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
so
I'm.
Just
wanting
to
be
sure
that,
like
a
at
the
very
minimum,
was
there
some
like
and
maybe
just
wasn't
included
in
the
table
or
the
staff
report.
But
was
there
some
kind
of
like
formulation
or
conversion
made
to
ensure
that
the
increase
in
Far
translates
to
no
reduction
in
intensity
of
the
dwelling
units
per
acre
as
well?.
H
I
think
for
the
purpose
of
this
exercise,
you
can
treat
far
as
density.
You
can
treat
the
the
building
envelope,
no
matter
how
it's
it's
defined
as
as
or
the
building
envelope
defined
by
far
as
having
any
number
of
units
in
it,
and
so,
if
you
increase
that
building
envelope,
you
can
get
more
units.
If
you
decrease
that
building
envelope,
you
can
reduce
the
number
of
units,
so
our
general
plan
actually
doesn't
have
a
maximum
Dowling
units
per
acre
for
these
districts.
H
Yeah
that
approximately
is
not
a
controlling
standard.
It's
there
to
give
the
community
and
the
city
an
idea
of
how
much
Demand
on
Services
is
going
to
result.
So
we've
never
enforced.
That
number,
for
example,
on
El
Camino.
You
know
most
of
it
says
approximately
60
units
per
acre,
but
we
have
projects
that
have
been
70
80
90
units
per
acre,
even
without
a
density
bonus,
because
they've
stayed
within
the
controlling
building
on
the
local,
very.
K
K
In
terms
of
this,
you
know
kind
of
re-standardizing
of
these
sites.
Here
from
what
the
previous
far
was
to
you
know,
the
new
one
that
we're
proposing
here
is
that
re-standardization
intended
to
provide,
within
the
bounds
of
you,
know
how
it
is
today
right,
like
guidance,
even
non-enforceable
dwelling
units
or
residents
per
acre.
What
have
you,
but
in
terms
of
that
Guidance
with
this
newbie
standardization?
Are
we
anticipating
that
that
guidance
on
approximately
how
much
dollar
units
and
residents
per
acre
is
going
to
increase
post
this
with
these
guidelines?
K
K
It
might
be
a
taller
building,
but
we
have
a
housing
element
to
meet
and
we
need
to
make
this
economically
feasible
that
that's
a
very
different
type
of
vision
around
what
we
want
to
achieve
long
term.
For
the
city-
and
you
know
40
years
from
now,
as
opposed
to
trying
to
do
the
same
thing
that
we're
doing
right
now
in
a
way
that's
a
little
more
prettier.
L
Thank
you
and
thanks
for
this
discussion,
I
I
really
appreciate
in
the
staff
report.
Table
Three
I
found
that
helpful
and
I
think
I.
Think
Eric
mentioned
this
earlier
and
I
would
reiterate
if
the
goal
is
to
have
the
same
number
of
units
before
and
after
these
changes,
I
would
be
inclined
to
support
his
suggestion
or
the
option
to
include
that
Belton
suspenders
approach
of
just
saying
that
if
any
of
these
standards
could
be
constraining
right,
there's
the
option
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
reducing
what
is
possible
to
be
built.
D
Thank
you,
chair
well,
Vice,
chair
Yan
and
Alex
I
I'm
I'm
in
agreement
with
the
perspective
you
all
are
bringing
up
because
I
I
know
that
we
don't
want
to
lose
any
but
I'm
wondering
if
this
is
an
opportunity
to
just
why.
Why
aren't
we
looking
at
this
as
an
opportunity
to
increase
the
number
of
housing
options
available
on
the
site,
especially
if
there's
going
to
be
a
possible
additions
right
and
in
terms
of
a
Village
Center,
complex,
I,
I
I'm?
Looking
at
more
from
the
perspective
of.
D
How
is
this
helpful
because
it
looks
like
it's
a
contradiction
to
what
we're
actually
trying
to
promote
in
the
city
of
Mountain
View,
which
is
lockability
right
and
sustainability
and
the
reduction
of
uses
of
our
vehicles
so
that
we
can
make
a
less
negative
impact
on
the
environment?
Why
will
we
be
pushing
that
in
general?
Well
intended
for
our
community
is
what
we
live,
but
yet
for
where
there's
a
possibility
of
shopping,
we
want
more
Vehicles
there
I
thought
the
goal
was
to
try
and
be
neutral
or
go
below
that
right.
D
So
for
me,
I'm
not
sure
that
I
I
understand
this
approach,
I
see
what
you
mean,
I
get
it,
but
in
terms
of
the
overall
perspective
of
where
we're
trying
to
go,
it
looks
like
it's
contradictory.
So
in
that
case,
I
I
mean
I'm
in
the
perspective
of
Vice
chairman
and
woman,
Vice,
chair,
Yin
and
and
Alex
on
on
the
questioning
behind
that,
because
I
I
look
at
this
as
an
opportunity.
D
Since
we're
going
to
have
these
standards
set
in
place,
that's
going
to
dictate
the
the
way
you
look
at
Construction
in
Mountain
View.
One
night
take
advantage
of
this
opportunity
to
be
able
to
also
push
more
housing
in
general,
especially
since
we
need
to
meet
affordable
housing
criteria,
goals
that
have
been
imposed
by
the
state
and
and
I
also
lowered
my
volume,
because
I
understood
my
volume
was
really
high.
So
I
didn't
want
to
come
off
as
being
angry
or
upset
at
anybody.
So
I'm
apologies
for
that.
A
H
A
A
The
point
of
this
was
to
make
it
clear
that
residential
and
we
were
looking
for
an
encouraging
residential
on
these
sites,
in
addition
to
the
existing
existing
commercial
uses,
and
that
was
why
these
sites
were
listed
in
the
in
the
site
inventory
at
a
discounted
rate,
a
significantly
discounted
rate,
because
we
don't
know
how
quickly
that
will
occur,
because
the
assumption
is
that
making
it
explicit.
The
assumption
is
that
we
will
bring
in
residentialism.
H
So
some
of
them
are
discounted,
some
of
them
aren't
the
ones
that
are
discounted
are
the
ones
that
are
are
maybe
older
buildings,
but
have
a
lot
of
different
tenants
in
them.
There
are
some
sites
in
the
site
inventory
that
are
in
these
Village
centers
that
maybe
only
have
one
tenant
and
they
are
an
old
building
so
that
that
is
kind
of
our
standard
case
for
the
sites
inventory
and
those
aren't
discounted.
H
That
addresses
a
particular
concern
that
hcd
has
about
lots
of
tenants
in
a
shopping
center
being
a
constraint
on
Redevelopment,
so
that
isn't
just
these
General
plan
Village
centers.
It
also
includes
the
the
shopping
center
on
El
Camino
next
between
at
the
corner
of
Grant
right,
which
is
an
older
building,
but
has
a
lot
of
different
tenants
in
it.
So
that's
an
example
of
a
site
that
is
discounted.
H
Yes,
we
want
to
highlight
that
residential
is
allowed
and
implement
the
general
plan
Direction,
but
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
enforceable
language
in
the
zoning
or
in
some,
whether
the
zoning
or
the
general
plan,
with
some
document
for
the
the
policies
in
the
general
plan
like
wanting
publicly
accessible
open
area
wanting
to
make
sure
that
that
neighborhood
commercial
is
is
provided.
So
you
know
worst
case
scenario.
A
The
way
it
was
worded
to
me,
it
would
look
to
me
like
the
open
space
associated
with
commercial
would
not
be,
would
not
come
out
of
this
30
percent.
If
there's
open
space
in
the
commercial
area,
that's
part
of
the
commercial
area
that
is
separate,
that
that
far
assistant
is
separate
from
the
residential
open
space
that
I
misinterpreted.
H
I
think
I
think
what
you
might
be
referring
to
is
a
situation
where
there
might
be.
You
know.
Some
of
these
sites
are
very
large,
and
a
property
owner
might
be
like
well,
I
want
to
keep
one
building
as
commercial
and
a
bunch
of
its
parking
but
I'm
willing
to
tear
down
another
building,
and
you
know,
subdivide
and
sell
that
to
a
residential
developer.
H
The
the
open
area
is
the
the
calculation
on
the
the
any
of
any
portion
of
the
site.
That
is
this
mixed
use,
Village,
Center
right
this
mixed-use
Village,
Center
definition
or
or
does
it?
You
know,
as
defined
in
the
zoning
ordinance
the
portion
of
the
site-
that's
not
covered
by
buildings,
or
you
know,
vehicle
circulation
or
parking,
but
that
you
know
we
can
count
any
kind
of
Podium
open
area
to
that
as
well.
So
you
know
any
any
kind
of
you
know.
Rooftop
deck
or
or
Podium
open
area
can
also
be
counted.
H
So
that's
how
we
implement
the
open
area
standard,
it's
generally
private,
open
area
unless
otherwise
defined
by
the
development
standards.
So
it
would
be.
You
know
you
know
a
a
space
within
a
residential
development
that
would
be
their
their
common
open
area
or
it
would
be.
You
know,
a
setback
area.
A
H
A
A
Parking
lots
are
not
part
of
the
open
space,
whether
they're
surface
parking
or
under
other
place.
That's
that's!
That's
that
doesn't
count
in
those
numbers
so,
and
space
in
front
of
the
of
a
retail
space
doesn't
count
as
open
space
for
the
for
the
resident
residents
to
be
able
to
use
I
guess
I
was
less
concerned,
which
is
that's.
Why
I
was
asking
these
questions
to
make
sure
I
was
understanding
it
correctly.
So
I
was
less
worried
about
the
change
in
open
space,
been
some
of
my
peers,
so
by
Syrian.
C
Thanks
just
a
couple
of
things,
first
I
appreciate
what
staff
has
done
here.
It's
a
tough
task,
and
my
understanding
of
our
our
task
here
today
was
that
we
are
just
changing
what
is
inconsistent
in
our
zoning
ordinance
to
make
it
match
what
is
allowed
in
the
general
plan
so
in
in
that
regard,
I
am
not
advocating
for
allowing
way
more
housing
in
this
opportunity.
C
I
would
put
that
towards
another
time
where
the
public
can
take.
You
know
part
in
that
right
now,
I
am
concerned
that
we
we
do
one
the
task,
which
is
to
ensure
that
what
can
be
built
in
the
general
plan
is
matching
in
our
zoning
code,
but
because
we're
setting
some
standards
and
I
I
definitely
appreciate
why
we're
setting
standards
and
need
to
do
so.
I
am
just
questioning
that
one
portion-
and
it's
maybe
not
just
the
open
area
it
is
because
we're
reducing
it.
C
I
am
I
have
a
hard
time
without
seeing
sort
of
the
examples
that
you're
trying
out
just
sort
of
block
Wise
massing
Wise
and
what
fits
in
the
site
to
say,
I'm,
not
comfortable,
saying
that,
yes,
a
reduction
is
going
to
get
us
what
we
want
in
terms
of
place
making,
given
you
know
certain
setbacks,
popas
and
such
if
it
as
chair
Cranston,
was
saying
that
the
open
areas
only
subject
to
the
residential
area
I
can
more
understand.
Why
we're
reducing
it.
C
However,
I'm
I
still
have
a
concern
because
of
setbacks
from
residences
between
the
residents
and
the
commercial
or
the
residents,
and
you
know
just
getting
the
buffer
between
the
neighborhoods
and
whatever's
going
there.
I
just
I
am
a
little
concerned
that
we're
reducing
things
when
we're
using
the
basis
of
El
Camino,
because
El
Camino
is
already
tight
to
me.
C
C
C
I
guess:
here's
a
question
then
I'm,
sorry
we're
dragging
this
out,
but
it's
important
for
me
to
understand
this
is
one
giant
parcel?
Is
it
possible
then,
later
on,
to
do
precise
plans?
If
someone
says
we're
gonna
sell
this
whole
big
lot,
and
can
we
take
a
look
at
how
that
happens
because
then
see
this
is
the
thing
some
of
these
setbacks
and
percentages
are
already
set,
and
so,
when
a
precise
plan
comes,
it
has
to
match
this
right.
C
I,
don't
know
how
much
leeway
staff
has
in
directing
how
somebody
can
you
know,
move
around
the
open
space
and
ensure
a
great
design?
That's
I
guess
my
biggest
concern
I
just
don't
want
to
constrain
good
design
so
that
we
can
get
massive
housing
that
goes
practically
to
the
property
line
and
then
there's
no
place
to
con.
You
know
for
even
people
to
walk
by
on
the
sidewalk
when
you're
trying
to
get
somewhere.
C
C
A
A
C
In
I'm,
all
in
favor
of
the
the
goal-
I
I
am
not
necessarily
in
favor
of
reducing
some
of
these
numbers.
If
we're
using
El
Camino
as
a
basis,
I,
don't
know
what
the
number
should
be
so
I'm
just
making
I
guess:
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
making
a
motion
to
be
okay
with
all
of
it,
except
for
maybe
the
Street
setbacks.
C
Maybe
we
should
go
to
the
16
foot,
minimum
yeah,
that's
you
know
where
I'm
a
little
stuck
I,
don't
want
I,
don't
know
what
numbers
to
put
in
so
perhaps
that's
something
to
be
looked
at
further
with
more
study
and
what
can
go
on
that
site.
But
I
don't
know
if
we
have
the
time
to
do
that
either
and
I
don't
want
to
add
to
stuff
workload.
Obviously
I
can't
do
that
anyways,
but
you
know.
I
D
D
What
this
in
the
example
of
15
to
16
is,
is
exactly
part
of
what
the
issue
is
here
that
I'm
looking
at
too
I'd
like
to
have
something
more
clear
than
what
we
have
now
I'm,
just
not
sure
numbers
wise
how
to
approach
that
and
I
would
think
that
if
we
don't
have
consensus
on
this
one,
then
perhaps
this
one
just
fails
and
it
can.
It
can
be
brought
up
again
sometime
next
year,
unless
it's
imperative
that
we
do
this
tonight.
For
this
one
in
particular,.
D
H
Yeah,
so
so
one
of
the
constraints
that
we're
under
here
is
that
there
are
a
lot
of
really
complicated
laws
in
terms
of,
if
you
have
a
shortfall
in
your
site's
inventory,
you
can't
just
Zone
it
residential.
However,
you
want
right,
you
can't
just
you
can't
just
own
a
residential.
Have
you
so
in
in
a
lot
of
cases,
there
are
restrictions
on
how
you
can
Zone
a
site
if
you
have
a
shortfall
in
your
inventory,
and
one
of
those
restrictions
is
actually,
you
can't
require
commercial.
H
D
K
Yeah,
so
with
regards
to
any
kind
of
like
proposed
motion
or
action
to
be
honest,
I
I
may
or
may
not
be
like
inclined
to
support
any
of
it.
I
know
that's
a
very
big
and
generic
statement,
but
I
think
the
reason
why
it's
vague
and
generic
is
because
I
just
want
to
name
what
I
think
are
a
set
of
kind
of
contradictory
forces
at
play
here.
K
K
So
it
makes
total
sense
to
me
that
we're
talking
in
circles
right
now,
Eric
Mr,
Anderson
I've
heard
you
use
the
word
sensitivities
two
or
three
times
now.
I'm
gonna
be
completely
honest.
We
can
have
all
these
things.
We
can
have
less
parking.
We
can
have
more
open
space,
more
vibrant
areas
and
yeah
we're
gonna
need
more
height.
We're
gonna
need
more
housing
units.
It
will
require
market
rate,
we
could
get
more
affordable
housing
if
we
increase
market
rate.
K
There's
a
housing
shortage
sensitivities,
I'm,
sensitive
to
more
homelessness,
I'm
sensitive
to
people
being
upset
that
there's
RVs
on
their
street,
and
they
can't
make
sense
of
why
it's
because
of
what's
happening
right
here
right
now,
where
we
have
an
opportunity
to
add
more
of
the
most
critical
good
commodity.
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
that
we
need
in
our
state
and
we're
talking
in
circles
around
it.
So
we
could
have
all
the
nice
things
it's
going
to
require
more
housing
allowances
for
the
developers.
That
would
give
us
those
nice
things.
K
A
If
we
had
to
close
this
item
out
here,
so
I
guess
I,
I
well,
I
agree
with
you.
Commission
news
and
I
agree
with
vegetarian
to
me.
The
the
our
experience
in
the
last
two
years
has
been.
Every
project
comes
with
a
density
bonus
and
the
density
bonus
means
they
got
to
put
affordable
housing
in
with
the
Mercury
units.
We
put
a
number
in
it's
going
to
be
more
than
that
when
something
comes
in
with
the
density
bonus.
A
So
we
can
say
three
stories,
horror
stories,
five
stories,
it's
going
to
be
more
than
that
when
it
comes
in
so
I'm
not
worried
about
going
more
than
what's
out
there
I
think
it's
going
to
happen
like
it
or
not.
People
still
drive
cars
as
Eric
said
I'm
the
kind
if
I
can't
see
parking
in
front
of
it.
I
don't
go
there.
Okay,
so
I
as
as
a
small
business
person.
I
want
some
parking
in
front
of
my
space.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
what
it
was
I'm,
not
talking
about
making
it.
A
You
know
what
it
was
where
big
Suburban
Lots
like
out
in
Stockton
or
something,
but
it's
you
know,
tightening
it
up
absolutely
and
so
I'm,
quite
frankly,
I'm
very
comfortable
with
what
staff
has
proposed.
The
change
from
16
versus
15
doesn't
feel
like
a
big
deal
to
me.
The
spacing
between
the
units
feels
fine
to
me.
A
My
only
worry
was
you
know,
counting
space
between
buildings,
but
if
there's
sufficient
guidelines
and
when
that
is
counted
as
Popa,
the
fact
that
commercial
space
is
not
included
in
the
open
space,
open
area
and
fully
residential
spaces
have
had
numbers
that
are
below
30
percent
in
the
in
their
res
in
their
in
their
open
space
I'm.
This
doesn't
feel
like
a
bad
position
to
me.
It's
it
is
it's
a
compromise,
I'd
love
to
tweak
here
and
there,
but
I.
A
Quite
frankly,
you
know
I
I'm
comfortable
with
this
moving
forward
and
puts
the
with
the
the
with
the
possible
edition
of
commissioner
hameyer's
endorsement
of
Eric's
bootstrap
thing
and
I
would
be
supportive
of
that.
If
we
wanted
to
do
that,
I
would
be
I'd,
be
I'm
ready
to
support
this
as
is
or
with
the
bootstrap
addition
to
it.
So
that's
where
I
am
honest:
Mr
Clark.
E
E
E
You
know
on
on
that
specific
timeline,
so
we
can
continue
your
comments,
but
I
think
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
that
the
EPC
recommended
to
council
the
adoption
of
the
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance,
Del
Camino,
Real,
precise
plan
to
Grant
Phyllis,
precise
plan,
the
general
plan
map
and
Zoning
amendments
to
the.
If
I
come
in.
Okay.
E
So
yeah
so
we'll
recommend
a
move
that
we
recommended
the
city
council
the
option
that
they
adopt
a
resolution
amending
the
general
plan
to
clarify
it
for
area
ratio
exemptions
and
make
other
minor
modifications.
Exhibit
C
of
the
of
exhibit
two
of
the
EPC
staff
report
and
recommend
to
the
city
council
that
they
adopt
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Mountain,
View
and
many
inspections
of
chapter
36
of
the
city
code
will
allow
residential
mixed
usability.
E
Center
development,
where
the
general
plan
youth
designations,
allows
residential
uses
on
sites
within
the
commercial
neighborhoods,
the
end
and
Commercial
Services
CS,
Zone
Industries
and
established
definitions,
procedures
and
standards,
research,
General
plan,
mixed
use,
Village
Center
development,
section
three
through
six
of
exhibit
three
the
UPC
staff
report
and
include
and
include
the
item
that
Mr
Anderson
recommended
I
forget
your
term.
It
had
something
to
do
with
belting
suspenders.
K
K
I
just
want
to
completely
point
out
that
the
reason
why
all
these
projects
come
through
this
way
is
because
our
Municipal
standards
are
so
constraining
that
they're
seeking
relief
from
the
state
if
we
had
better
standards,
I
promise
you
you
wouldn't
see
these
density
bonus
projects
come
through
they'd,
be
under
our
standards,
which
is
within
our
ability
as
a
city
to
do
I.
Second,
commissioner,
Clark's
motion.
E
D
H
Yeah
so
there's
there's
a
state
law
that
says
that
if
you
need
additional,
if
you
have
not
met
your
site's
inventory
right
and
if
you
take
the
conservative
view
that
all
of
these
rezonings
that
we're
doing
today
are
not
in
our
site's
inventory,
we
would
be
below
our
Arena
right.
So
if
on
January
31st,
you
have
not
zoned
these
sites
for
your,
you
haven't
zoned
these
sites
consistent
with
your
housing
element.
L
A
F
D
H
D
That
what
you're
looking
at
yes,
sir,
that's
it
so
I'm
fine
with
this,
but
I'd
like
to
not
have
number
two,
the
language
in
two
I'm
thinking
here
that
that
could
be
stricken
from
this.
The
city
still
retains
local
control
over
whether
or
not
something
could
be
built,
regardless
of
this.
So
I
I
don't
see
how
this
would
help
us
gain
any
forward
momentum
unless
I'm
looking
at
it
differently
from
the
team.
I,
don't
see
what
the
value
is
for
that
particular
number
two
bullet
point.
A
D
The
entirety
of
section
two,
the
minimum
site
size
I,
mean:
why
should
we
have
a
minimum
site,
we
don't
have
a
maximum
and
then
it
we've
there's
there's
not
that
many
of
these
R4
properties
that
would
fit
this
description
as
a
whole,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
find
out
what's
the
value
of
having
this
type
of
language
in
our
zoning
when,
in
the
end
city
council
can
still
decide
whether
to
approve
or
deny
a
project.
Without
this
language.
H
Well,
I
can
respond
to
that
if
it's
a
question
for
staff
I
think
the
original
intent
of
having
a
minimum
site
size
as
a
criteria
for
zoning.
So
again
that
the
zoning
ordinance
says
here
is
where
R4
can
go
if
you're
rezoning,
an
area
from
R3
to
R4
or
CS
to
R4
or
something
here
is
a
criteria
for
where
R4
can
go
the
reason
for
having
a
minimum
site
size.
H
There
are
several
reasons,
probably
including
ensuring
that
a
project
of
that
density
can
kind
of
internalize
its
issue,
it's
its
open
area
and
and
can
kind
of
create
it's
the
character
for
itself
right
rather
than
fitting
in
this
tiny
tall,
very
dense
building
in
an
otherwise
Last
Dance
area.
It
also
helps
to
ensure
that
all
the
standards
can
be
met.
So
a
lot
of
these
standards
kind
of
depend
on
creating
buildings
of
a
certain
Dimension
and
shape
in
order
to
to
meet
that,
and
so
that's
why
the
criteria?
H
Those
are
a
couple
of
reasons
why
the
criteria
exist,
and
so
we
are
proposing
that
that
criteria
not
apply
for
those
100,
affordable
developments.
So
those
issues
are
less
important
for
100,
affordable
development
and
and
yes,
Council
still
has
the
the
right
to
rezone
and
and
the
discretion
to
rezone
in
any
of
these
locations.
But
this
guidance
helps
support
that
decision
making
for
those
cases
where
rezoning
might
have
character
issues
or
where
the
project
might
not
be
able
to
comply
with
the
the
standards.
D
D
D
Exactly
so
I
I
think
you
understand
me
and
I
get
where
you're
coming
from
so
I
thought
put
that
out
there
to
see
if
the
team,
the
rest
of
the
Commissioners
are
in
agreement
to
that
or
not
if
their
support
for
it
great
it'd
be
awesome.
You
know,
I
can't
speak
for
everyone
I'm,
just
one
of
many
here,
so
thank
you.
K
H
F
So
in
the
short
term,
we
do
have
enough
funding
for
multiple
pipeline
projects,
so
they
will
definitely
benefit
from
this
free
zone
that
we're
doing
here.
The
pipeline
does
include
up
to
about
five
projects,
even
though
it's
only
for
a
certain
number
of
pipeline
projects.
In
the
long
term,
we
are
continually
actively
seeking
funding
to
support
that.
F
It's
possible,
but
very
likely
that
you
know
a
full
100,
100,
affordable
project
wouldn't
go
through
the
process
that
we
would
have
so
I.
Think
timing
wise
there
shouldn't
be
major
issues
to
that.
But
you
know
if
we
do
strike
it
out,
I
suppose
it
does
give
a
little
bit
more
benefit
to
potential
projects.
H
A
A
A
Okay,
with
respect
to
touching
R4,
we
have
had
no
discussion
whatsoever
about
looking
at
our
foreign
is
a
big
I
mean
there's
a
lot
associated
with
it.
We've
talked
about.
How
do
we
do
it
with
affordable
housing
and
Council
support
event
if
we
want
to
come
back
and
look
at
changing
R4
for
everything
else?
A
Okay,
so
let's
propose
that
as
part
of
the
quote
plan
for
next
year,
but
I
would
not
be
in
favor
of
doing
going
outside
of
doing
Point.
Changes
are
for
without
looking
comprehensively
at
the
impact
of
a
changed
R4
across
the
breadth
of
the
across
the
breadth
of
the
of
the
zoning
requirements
it
just
it's
well
beyond
anything,
we've
looked
at
or
Council
looked
at,
or
staff
has
looked
at
so
kind
of
not
saying
we
can't
look
at
it,
but
this
is
in
my
view.
A
D
C
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
agree
with
chair
Cranston
in
this
point
is
that
R4,
just
as
you
know,
R3
has
gone
through
a
huge
public
input
session.
We
would
probably
need
to
do
the
same
for
R4
and
I,
wouldn't
want
to
change
anything
now
or
propose
a
change
without
going
through
that
process.
So
I
would
I
would
also
be
in
favor
of
moving
foreign
sorry
going
with
what
staff
has
proposed.
A
A
C
Yeah
I
I
will
move
to
recommend
the
city
council
adopt
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Mountain
View
amending
sections
of
chapter
36,
zoning
of
the
city
code
to
eliminate
lot
area
and
lot
with
minimums
in
the
residential
high
density
R4.
Zoning
district
for
100,
affordable
housing
developments
that
receive
authorization
through
the
city
of
notice
of
funding
availability
process,
section
2
of
exhibit
3
to
the
EPC
staff
report.
A
K
C
I
H
E
A
H
H
A
G
A
A
H
Yeah,
so
this
is
just
the
annual
adoption
of
the
2023
calendar.
We
have
our
typical
first
and
third
Wednesdays.
With
the
summer
break.
We
have
excluded
a
meeting
on
April
5th
because
that
is
on
the
Passover
holiday
and
we've
also
excluded
the
late
December
due
to
the
end
of
year
holidays
from
the
formal
schedule,
and
that
is
the
recommended
calendar.
H
E
H
H
H
D
I
think
that
this
would
be
a
good
time
to
be
able
to
have
a
added
meeting,
which
would
be
a
retreat
and
possibly
invite
former
commissioners
of
this
body
to
be
able
to
share
their
perspective
on
what
the
role
is
of.
Commissioner,
from
their
vantage
point
and
their
experiences,
I
think
that
would
be
a
value
for
us
to
be
able
to
figure
that
out,
as
we
move
forward
together
as
a
team
to
see
if
we
can
have
something
like
that
on
our
calendar.
E
So
Eric
would
it
be?
Is
it
easiest
to
have
that
as
a
separate
meeting,
or
is
it
maybe
easier
now
to
adopt
the
calendar
before
us
and
consider
maybe
carving
out
a
portion
of
one
of
the
meetings
on
the
calendar
for
that
purpose,
or
maybe
we
we
can
always
schedule
another
special
meeting,
I
guess
after
I
don't
know
what
the
easiest
way
to
do.
It
is
yeah.
H
Those
are
all
options
you
know,
depending
on
the
the
format
or
location
or
time
needs.
We
can
schedule
special
meetings
for
that
purpose
and
then,
as
as
commissioner
Clark
said,
we
could
also
carve
out
a
portion
of
a
regularly
scheduled
meeting
for
that.
I.
Think
your
your.
If
the
commission
likes
that
idea,
you
know
we
can.
We
can
note
it
and
and
try
to
plan
for
that
over
the
over
the
coming
year.
E
Yeah
I'm
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that
addition.
So
maybe
it
looks
like
there's
more
to
comment,
but
I
guess
my
suggestion
would
be
that
we
adopt
a
meeting
calendar
with
is
presented
with
the
note
that
we'd
like
to
to
look
at
some
sort
of
you
know.
Group
I
forget
what
it
was
called
the
council,
but
but
some
sort
of
group
session,
whether
it's
part
of
a
pre-scheduled
meeting
or
a
or
a
special
meeting
I
I'm.
Fine
with
that
idea,
I
think
it'd
be
great.
G
C
G
C
C
K
C
K
A
K
One
more
thing:
yeah
I'll,
probably
just
if
that's
part
of
it
I'll
vote.
No,
because
it
might
be
a
yes
but
I'll,
know
because,
like
I,
don't
even
know
what
the
agenda
would
be
like
I,
don't
know
what
the
goals
would
be
of,
like
the
you
know,
Retreat
like
is
it
to
like,
you
know,
build
like
I
I,
don't
know
what
that
looks
like
I,
don't
know
if
it's
something
that's
been
done
before,
there's
a
template
for
that.
K
D
Yes,
hey
thank
you
for
being
candid,
there
Alex
so
depending
I'm
thinking
that
once
Vice
chair,
Yi
elevates
herself
to
the
position
of
chair
when
we
figure
out
who
my
chair
is
I'm,
sure
that
between
the
group
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
strict
standard
in
terms
of
agenda
setting.
But
if
we
were
to
agree
to
move
on
with
this
idea,
then
we
can
collaboratively
be
able
to
figure
that
out
and
then
that
way.
By
the
time
it's
announced
that
we're
going
to
have
such
an
event.
D
K
A
H
H
Sorry,
let
me
get
my
list
up
here.
They
want
more
analysis
of
sidewalk
widths,
the
they
are
looking
for,
better
lighting
for
security,
as
well
as
dark
sky
requirements,
so
more
guidance
on
that
some
interest
in
eminent
domain
related
to
blighted
sites
downtown
and
looking
into
that,
especially
as
it
pertains
to
the
some
of
these
aren't
related
to
the
precise
plan.
H
Some
of
them
are
just
related
to
code
enforcement
or
the
economic
Vitality
strategy
or
or
public
improvements,
but
they
were
interested
in,
especially
in
the
precise
plan
to
limit
the
width
of
ground
floor
lobbies
to
ensure
that
you
know
developers
don't
have
the
incentive
to
just
build
their
whole.
Frontage
as
Lobby
and
disallowing
non-public
food
uses
on
ground
floor,
similar
to
what's
at
605,
Castro
and
then
evaluate
requirements
for
building
entrances
to
ground
floor
uses
at
at
sidewalk
grade.
So
that
was
the
direction
from
Council.
H
You
know,
prioritization,
if
Council
prioritizes
downtown
phase
two
next
year,
we're
just
going
to
have
to
work
on
those
at
that
time.
Some
of
them,
like
I,
said,
are
going
to
have
to
come
through
Public
Work
factions
and
economic
development
actions
and
code
enforcement
actions.
But
that
was
the
council
direction
from
they.
They
approved
the
Amendments,
but
they
wanted
to
provide
that
additional
Direction
Let's
see.
We
also
have
oh
yeah.
A
H
D
I'll,
be
beef
just
for
transparency.
Sake
too
I'm,
not
sure
how
this
works.
Eric,
but
I,
know
in
the
past
and
my
other
prior
experiences
as
a
board.
Member
we'd
have
to
announce
this
too,
and
but
we
had
a
get-together
I.
Think
last
week
with
the
EPC,
we
had
a
an
informal
dinner
where
we
did
not
talk
shop
just
enjoyed
each
other's
company
celebrating
the
end
of
the
year
and
the
holiday
season
and
all
Commissioners,
but
Chris
Clark
and
Alex
knee
is
attended.
Thank
you.