►
From YouTube: 3-4-2020: Environmental Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Council Chambers, 500 Castro St., Mountain View, CA 94041
7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 4, 2020
B
A
A
On
any
item
of
interest,
that
is
not
on
the
agenda
tonight.
Our
agenda
items
are
consideration
of
text
amendments
to
chapter
38,
the
zoning
ordinance
annual
housing
element,
progress
report
in
and
review
of
the
2030
general
plan
action
plan.
If
you
would
like
to
address
us
on
something
other
than
that
today,
please
raise
your
hand.
A
Okay,
seeing
no
one
I
will
close
that
oral
communications
from
the
public
item
and
move
on
to
item
number
5,
which
is
a
public
hearing
on
consideration
of
text,
amendments
to
chapter
36,
zoning,
ordinance
of
a
city
code
to
update
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
home-based
childcare
regulations
to
align
with
new
state
regulations
and
modifications
to
planned
community
permit
regulations.
Is
there
a
staff
presentation.
C
Good
evening,
chair
and
members
of
the
Commission,
my
is
Brittany
whitehill
and
I
am
joined
tonight
by
Planning
Manager
and
Zoning
Administrator
Stephanie
Williams.
The
item
in
front
of
you
consists
of
zoning
ordinance.
Amendments
pertaining
to
accessory
dwelling
units
also
referred
to
as
ad
use,
family
daycare
homes
and
planned
community
permits
in
fall
of
2019.
The
governor
signed
into
law,
several
bills
amending
multiple
Government,
Code
sections
related
to
ad
use
and
junior
ad
use,
as
well
as
SB,
234
related
to
family
day
care
homes.
C
C
Whereas
the
zoning
ordinance
currently
limits
80
use
to
a
maximum
of
700
square
feet,
state
law
now
mandates
that
jurisdictions
allow
studio
and
one-bedroom
ad
use
of
up
to
850
square
feet
and
ad
use
with
two
or
more
bedrooms
of
up
to
a
thousand
square
feet.
Cities
must
allow
both
attached
and
detached
ad
used
to
be
constructed
for
feet
from
the
side
and
rear
lines.
The
zoning
ordinance
currently
allows
legal,
conforming
garages
and
car
ports
to
be
converted
to
a
tea
use
now
under
state
law.
C
Currently,
the
r-1
district
requires
two
parking
spaces
for
the
main
house,
one
of
which
must
be
covered.
An
Adu
requires
one
additional
parking
space
which
does
not
need
to
be
covered.
Currently,
the
zoning
ordinance
allows
for
certain
exceptions
from
the
Adu
parking
requirement
under
state
law.
If
a
garage
or
carport
is
converted
to
an
Adu,
no
replacement
parking
needs
to
be
provided.
Staff
proposes
to
update
the
zoning
ordinance
accordingly
under
state
law,
cities
must
allow
ad
use
in
all
multifamily
zones.
C
Ad
use
shall
be
permitted
within
portions
of
an
existing
multi-family
dwelling
structure
that
are
not
used
as
liveable
space
up
to
25%
of
the
number
of
existing
multifamily
units
in
the
building,
but
at
least
one
unit
shall
be
allowed.
Cities
must
additionally
allow
to
eight
hundred
square
foot
detached
ad
use.
C
Previously,
cities
had
the
option
to
allow
jr.
ad
use.
However,
now
the
state
law
requires
cities
to
allow
j8e
use
in
all
single-family
homes.
A
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
defined
as
a
unit
that
is
no
more
than
500
square
feet
in
size
includes
an
efficiency.
Kitchen
is
contained
entirely
within
the
walls
of
a
single-family
home
and
may
include
separate
sanitation
facilities
or
merit
or
may
share
sanitation
facilities
with
the
single-family
dwelling.
C
Jad
use
do
not
require
additional
parking
in
fall
of
2019
SB
234
related
to
family
day
care
homes
was
signed
into
law.
The
objective
of
the
legislation
is
to
streamline
the
administration
of
child
daycare
licensing
to
facilitate
an
increase
in
the
supply
of
family
daycare
homes.
This
legislation
became
effective,
January,
1st
2020
Hurley
large
family
day
care
homes
which
allow
7
to
14.
C
Children
require
a
non-discretionary
conditional
use
permit
in
all
residential
zoning
districts
large
family
day
care
homes
must
provide
one
additional
parking
space
per
employee
and
are
subject
to
additional
standards,
such
as
a
pick-up
and
drop-off
plan.
An
outdoor
play
area,
sb
234
relaxes
many
requirements
associated
with
large
family
daycare
homes
by
requiring
cities
to
permit
them
by
right
in
all
residential
districts.
Additionally,
SB
234
prevents
cities
from
requiring
additional
on-site
parking
for
employees
or
additional
standards
such
as
pick-up
and
drop-off
plans
or
outdoor
play
areas.
Staff
is
proposing
to
update
affected
code
sections.
C
Finally,
staff
proposes
minor
amendments
to
the
planned
community,
permit
section
to
clarify
that
the
purpose
of
a
planned
community
permit
is
to
allow
for
creative,
innovative
developments
within
the
context
of
defined
community
goals.
The
proposed
amendments
clarify
that,
in
some
cases,
variations
from
the
applicable
precise,
planned
standards
may
be
granted,
but
in
order
for
these
variations
to
be
granted,
Parden
proposals
must
clearly
demonstrate
superior
site
and
building
design
and
comply
substantially
with
the
intent
of
the
requirements
of
the
applicable
precise
plan.
C
A
Ok,
thank
you
miss
white
Hill.
So
since
this
is
a
public
hearing,
we'll
do
things
in
the
normal
public
hearing
order.
First,
we
will
get
questions
from
the
Commission
and
then
we
will
follow
that
by
comments
from
the
public
and
then
finally,
we'll
come
back
to
the
Commission
for
deliberation
and
hopefully
a
resolution
for
a
motion.
So
let's
start
questions
from
the
Commission
to
staff.
C
Currently,
80
used
are
only
allowed
in
the
r1
zoning
district.
So
that's
currently
one
of
the
differences.
Additionally,
an
attached
data,
you
would
need
to
be
less
than
50%
of
the
floor
area
of
the
existing
home.
So
if
it's
an
1,800
square-foot
home
the
ad,
you
would
need
to
be
600
square
feet
if
the
whole
structure
is
1,800
square
feet.
An
ad
use
also
only
require
one
parking
space,
whereas
the
duplex
would
require
two
one
of
which
would
need
to
be
covered.
So
those
are
a
few
of
the
differences.
E
D
D
If
you
add
an
ad
you
and
a
J
to
you
at
the
maximum
square
footage,
so
to
speak,
that
might
give
you
a
rough
number
of
what's
able
to
be
built
in
how
many
units
you
could
gain
without
having
to
ask
people
what
you
know
if
they
want
to
or
not
just
to
find
out,
but
because
our
we
have
certain
lot
sizes,
it
should
be
a
fairly
easy
way
to
figure
out,
given
setbacks.
I
just
didn't
know,
if
you
guys
did
a
quick
study
yet
or
not.
F
F
H
C
So
it's
it's
not
a
requirement
that
non
livable
space
be
converted
to
ad
use,
but
basically,
what
that
is
saying
is
up
to
25%.
So
I
guess
we'll
give
an
example.
If
there's
a
hundred
unit
apartment
complex
up
to
25
ad
use
could
be
created
within
non
livable
space
and
additionally
city,
we
would
need
to
allow
minimum
of
one.
So
if
it's
a
three
unit
complex,
we
would
need
to
allow
one,
even
though
that
exceeds
the
25%.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
few
questions,
I'm
trying
to
get
my
head
around
exactly
what
livable
space
means.
I
mean
like.
Let's
talk
about
like
a
large
are
for
multifamily
apartment
building.
Right
I
mean
if
they
have
an
area
that
you
know
is
kind
of
like
an
on-site
green
space
that
would
be
used
by
the
people
who
live
there.
Is
that
convertible
to
put
a
to
use
on
it?.
F
A
F
A
F
A
Okay
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
there's
a
height
limit
on
the
building
or
that's
great
okay,
what
if
someone
I
mean
the
recommendations
that
are
happening
here
in
order
to
get
us
up?
You
know,
in
conformance
with
the
state
code,
with
those
that
are
I,
believe
if
some
of
these
are,
you
know
required
for
conformance,
but
some
things
that
we
have
as
our
we
have
as
guidelines
that
are
discretionary.
What?
If
what
would,
if
a
person
had
a
proposal
for
something-
and
he
didn't
know
whether
or
not
it
was
conforming?
A
A
I
A
A
F
A
F
A
F
A
Okay,
and
is
there
something
specific
the
city
is
looking
at
doing
I
mean
you
know
in
in
terms
of
like
an
amnesty
program
or
like
ramping
up
enforcement.
You
know
as
an
incentive
toward
people
wanting
to
seek
the
amnesty,
or
is
it
just
we're
gonna
just
say:
hey,
there's
this
amnesty
program
here
and
if
you
want
to
participate
in
and
you
can,
but
where
there's
not
going
to
be
any
change
in
enforcement,
so.
C
J
C
Five
years,
so
that's
issues
that
are
non-life
safety
related
issues,
so
any
zoning
violations
or
building
violations
owners
of
ad
use
can
request
five
years
to
rectify
any
of
those
non-conforming
situations.
After
that
five
year
period,
they
would
be
then
required
to
legalize
the
structure
if
they
had.
You
know
opted
into
this
typically.
C
A
A
One
question
about
the
the
family
daycares,
so
let's
say
a
family
daycare
was
run
by,
you
know,
say
a
couple
living
in
a
house:
okay
and
they
don't
have
any
additional
employees
other
than
themselves.
Does
that
mean
they
could
start
a
family
daycare
like
that
without
providing
any
additional
parking
spaces
that.
A
H
Was
wondering
so
if
someone
approaches
the
city
with
the
plan
to
build
an
Adu?
Does
the
city
know
of
any
examples
of
other
cities
or
have
any
ideas
about
right,
because
ad
use
can
be
used
as
a
short-term
rental
or
long-term
rental,
I
guess
correct
or
they
could
be
used
as
office
space,
but
there'd
have
to
be
different,
different
requirements
for
what's
included
in
the
ad
you
if
it's
gonna
be
a
rental
versus
an
office.
So.
C
H
So
if
someone
approaches
the
city
with
the
intention
to
create
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
is
staff
aware
of
any
cities
that
have
come
up
with
incentive
programs
to
encourage
using
that
ad,
you
as
a
long-term
rental,
potentially
naturally
affordable
source
of
housing
versus
a
short-term
rental
I
know,
cities
have
outright
banned
use
of
ATS
as
short-term
rentals
I'm,
not
asking
about
that,
but
incentivizing
people
choosing
that
long-term
rental
option.
So.
C
I
C
The
way
that
the
state
defines
large
and
small
family
daycare
homes
also
takes
into
account
the
ages
of
the
children,
so
the
state's
definition
could
actually
allow
a
small
family
daycare
home
of
up
to
8
children,
but
depending
on
the
ages
of
the
children,
it
could
be.
You
know
a
large
family
daycare
home.
There
is
a
little
bit
of
overlap
and
that's
something
that
the
state
licensing
boards
would
determine
their
license.
Type.
E
E
So
I
guess
a
follow-up
question
to
that
I
mean
we
have
been
as
we've
seen,
projects
we
have
and
and
I
have
a
fundamentally
agreed
with
the
idea
that
ultimately,
the
parking
needs
to
be
something
that
it
needs
to
be
more
dense.
I'm
I
read
the
statement
that
this
that
the
jurisdictions
are
the
major
cause
of
the
housing
shortage
to
me
feels,
quite
frankly,
like
SB
50,
which
is
a
we're
going
to
apply
a
one-size-fits-all
set
of
rules
for
everybody
in
them.
E
What
I'm
worried
about
is
that
I
feel
that
we
have
been
tightening
our
parking
requirements
on
developments,
but
we
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
have
not
changed
our
standards
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
so
if
we
were
to
essentially
enforce
the
higher
end
of
the
range
of
standards
rather
than
going
beyond
that,
we
would
not
be
changing
our
behavior
going
forward.
Is
that
correct,
so
I
think
we've
been
approving
projects
that
are
below
the
minimums
that
were
required?
E
J
F
Higher
density,
residential
projects
that
set
of
standards
actually
codified
and
multiple
of
our
precise
plans,
so
there's
parking
standards
for
our
three
developments
in
the
zoning
code
and
then
there's
also
typically
lower
standards
and
our
precise
plans.
So
those
are
actually
codified
numbers
and
there's
not
a
range
allowed.
F
We
people
have
asked
for
parking
reductions
and
they
do
need
to
provide
their
a
parking
study
or
some
sort
of
parking
justification
explaining
why
the
operation
of
that
specific
property
would,
with
less
than
the
code
requirements
of
parking,
would
not
create
a
parking
problem
and
effectively
result
in
spill
over
parking
on,
say.
The
public
streets
could.
F
E
A
F
L
A
F
G
Want
to
clarify
with
staff
the
purpose
of
tonight's
agenda
item
is
really
just
to
bring
our
code
into
conformity
with
the
state
all
right,
because
we
are
a
charter
city.
So
a
lot
of
the
discussion
that
we've
been
talking
about
about
80
use
in
general,
but
what
we're
talking
about
now
is
not
going
beyond
what
the
state
code
is.
It's
just
aligning
it
is
that
right,
that's
correct!
Okay,
so
thank
you.
M
G
Just
I
want
I've
heard
a
lot
of
great
questions
about
how
this
relates
to
planning
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
but
my
understanding
is
what
we're
looking
at
tonight
is
only
making
sure
that
what
we
have
adopted
in
our
code
is
conforming
with
the
state
law.
So
these
other
questions
bring
up
really
good
points
about
how
we
want
to
look
at
other
pieces
of
projects
that
might
come
before
us,
but
this
seems
pretty
cut
and
dry.
If
that's,
what
we're
doing
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
wasn't.
C
D
C
A
Okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
questions.
Yeah
I'll
just
make
the
comment
that
you
know
my
questions
and
I'm
sure
questions
from
some
of
the
other
commissioners
we're
just
trying
to
learn
about
this,
so
that
we
can
understand
how
it's
going
to
affect
other
decisions
that
we
make
and
also
be
able
to
answer
questions
to
people
who
ask
us
you
know.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that.
Okay,
having
closed
the
initial
questions
from
commissioners,
I
will
now
open
it
up
to
public
comment.
Are
there
members
of
the
public
that
would
like
to
comment?
A
K
So
is
being
recorded,
okay,
so
the
city
of
San
Jose
has
a
six
feet:
distance
between
the
main
main
dwelling
unit
and
the
primary
dwelling
unit
and
Mountain
View
is
proposed
in
ten
feet
and
the
state
law
requires
it's
four
five
five
feet:
safety
five
feet
so
like
it
limits
the
property
owners
to
add
the
ADA
use,
because
it
takes
a
lot
of
rare
lot
and
the
ten
feet.
The
separation
which
city
is
requiring
it's.
It
goes
as
a
useless
space
so
like.
K
If
it's
like
complying
with
the
other
cities
like
the
city
of
San
Jose
the
six
feet,
then
it
is
good
like
people
can,
it
motivates
people
to
add
an
Adu
because
the
lot
size,
because
because
the
mountain
we
has
a
very
smaller
lot
sizes,
even
the
San
Jose
has
a
bigger
lot
size,
but
still
they
are
giving
six
feet,
but
monteri
is
only
giving
a
stand
fit.
So
this
is
one
of
the
recommendation
and
the
regarding
the
attached
attached
a
do
and
radius.
K
So
there
is
a
clarification
needed
because
state
law
by
minimum
says
800
square
foot
area
again,
but
when
it's
attached
so
let's
say
the
main
dwelling
is
only
1,200
square
feet.
So
then
it
when
you
attach
it
they
do
becomes
only
600
square
feet
which
is
not
compliant
with
the
state
law.
State
law
says:
808
edu
has
to
be
done.
K
It's
good
like
when,
when
they're
single-family
dwelling
is
in
the
80
100,
you
get
a
900,
but
when
it's
1200,
so
it's
600,
so
that
needs
to
be
and
city
of
San
Jose
has
a
clear
definitions.
How
it
is
done,
so
you
can
take
a
look.
I
gave
you
all
the
notes
and
the
amnesty
program
city
is
proposing
that
this
is
a
third
one.
K
Amnesty
program
city
is
proposing
that,
like
we
follow
this
San
Jose
one,
which
is
two
years
but
state
law
recommends
it's
four
years
because
someone
who's
going
through
pregnancy
or
the
medical
experience
or
the
children,
education
and
it
said
the
two
years
ends.
Then
they
cannot
convert
it.
So
if
it
is
five
years,
then
it's
better
for
the
people
so
that
the
incentive
program
has
to
be
for
five
years
so
that
people
can
adopt
it
and
people
can
use
it.
So
the
yeah,
that's
the
third
recommendation
and
the
fourth
recommendation
is
the
JDO
location
recommendation.
K
The
state
law
says
that
Jeju
has
to
be
attached
to
the
main
dwelling
unit
and
the
city
is
complying
with
that.
There's
no
doubt
about
it,
but
my
recommendation
is
like
the
the
Jeju
can
be
detached,
so
people
can
add
more
housing
into
in
the
city
of
Mountain
View.
So
the
thing
is
that
many
people
are
converting
the
garages
to
radius.
So
once
they
convert
the
garages
to
radius,
they
cannot
have.
They
can
click
some
people,
they
cannot
add
the
jadeos.
K
K
L
N
N
The
second
question
is
that
let's
say
there's
a
detached
garage
at
the
backyard
and
Easter
ad.
You
could
build
on
the
second
floor
of
the
detached
garage
and
the
third
question
is,
according
to
the
state
law,
the
maximum
ad
you,
including
JDI
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
is
in
JT,
you
included,
should
be
1200.
Something
right
and
let's
say
my
backyard
is
big
enough
and
there's
a
1,000
detach
ad
you
and
is
it
allowed
a
500
square
foot
jad
you
be
built
at
the
same
time.
So
those
are
my
current
questions.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
J
J
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
other
members
of
the
public
that
would
like
to
address
the
Commission
all
right,
seeing
none
I
will
close
public
comment
and
then
bring
it
back
for
additional
questions
to
staff
and
some
deliberation
over
recommendation,
but
I
guess
first
I'd
like
to
see
if
staff
can
comment
on
the
issues
that
were
brought
up
in
the
public
comment
here.
I
guess.
The
first
thing
is
for
the
first
gentleman
who
spoke.
A
A
F
A
C
C
C
That's
correct:
yes,
you
could
have
potentially
a
detached
Adu
on
the
second
floor
of
a
detached
garage,
okay
and
then
Faye
had
a
question
about.
If
prefab
ad
use
could
be
allowed
and
they
could
be
allowed,
provided
that
they
comply
with
the
ATU
zoning
and
building
code
standards.
And
now,
if
there
is
a
legal
non-conforming
garage
that
can
be
converted
to
an
Adu
mm-hmm.
A
Okay,
let's
then
thank
you
very
much.
Let's
bring
it
back
to
the
Commission
for
either
additional
questions
or
comments
about
you
know
this
legislation
or
how
it
would
affect
other
things
that
we're
looking
with
and
then
finally,
you
know
we
were
hoping
for
someone
to
come
and
put
up
a
recommendation
to
the
council.
So
are
there,
commissioners
that
want
to
follow
up
with
additional
questions,
and/or
comments.
K
H
Sneezing
building
off
my
question
before
and
Commissioner
Ian's
comment
about
financial
assistance
for
residents
who
want
to
contribute
to
the
BMR
housing
supply.
This
isn't
necessarily
a
question,
but
I
do
think
it.
It
would
be
nice
to
look
into
what
incentives
or
what
Aid
might
be
available
to
support
further
creation
of
BMR
units
within
our
community.
E
Guess
is
a
I
understand
that
we're
working
on
coming
in
compliance
here?
What
I'm,
what
I'm
troubled
with
is
I
feel
to
some
extent
like
this
is
image
before
KSP
50,
where
Mountain
View
has
been
doing
things.
We've
been
been
allowing
things
to
be
more
dense,
we've
looked
at
tightening
down
the
parking
requirements,
and
this
seems
to
you
know:
I
I've
lived
in
a
townhome
development.
There
wasn't
a
lot
of
parking
in
it
to
start
with,
and
one
of
the
things
we
regularly
hear
in
in
review
of
projects
is.
E
Is
this
gonna
spill
over
into
neighborhoods,
and
my
sense
is
that
today,
where
many
of
the
of
the
developments
are
were
already
kind
of
already
squeezing
the
parking
to
bring
it
down
on
these
things
and
I'm?
My
concern
is
that
I
have
no
issue
with
the
concept
of
ad
use.
Don't
misunderstand
that
my
concern
is
that
were
that
we're
not
necessarily
looking
at?
Are
there
things
that
we
should
be
in
along
with?
This
are
the
things
that
we
should
be
looking
at.
E
Let's
say,
as
we
evaluate
projects
going
forward,
that
those
are
presented
as
a
package
to
council
to
say
here's
what
we're
doing
to
bring
things
in
compliance,
but
there's
an
implication
of
these
items
and
should
we
be
recommend
you
know
looking
at?
Are
there
things
that
we
be
considering
differently
as
we
look
at
projects
in
the
future?
That
would
be
impacted
by
these
items
and
so
I'm
I
feel
like
we're.
We've
got
only
half
of
half
of
it
here
and
I.
Guess:
I,
don't
you've!
You
know
the
the
law.
E
Kind
of
sounds
like
you
know:
local
jurisdictions
be.
Damned
is
kind
of
the
way
it
it's
kind
of
coming
across,
but
I
don't
feel
like
we're.
I,
don't
feel
like
we're
one
of
those
that
are
intentionally
raising
parking
standards
to
make
it
more
difficult
for
these
to
be
putting
in,
but
I
don't
feel
like
we're
having
an
opportunity
to
look
at.
F
So
that
would
need
to.
We
would
need
to
be
able
to
make
assumptions
that
basically
every
project,
and
we
would
need
to
assume
the
maximum
number
of
ad
use
that
could
potentially
be
part
of
it
in
order
to
do
that,
and
that
is
not
something
that
we
have
currently
considered,
because
it
would
have
the
potential
to
further
over
park
a
project
making
those
assumptions
about
further
conversions
of
80
use,
especially
with
related
to
multifamily.
So
that
is
not
something
that
we
have
considered
to
date.
F
E
D
I'm,
just
gonna
go
on
record,
saying
that
I
know
we
have
to
bring
ourselves
into
compliance,
but
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
over
these
regulations,
not
that
I'm
against
them
at
all,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
clearer
idea
of
what
the
implications
are
before
we
just
okay
them.
I
know
we
have
to
but
the
difference.
The
smallest
thing
is
the
jad
you
without
the
toilet,
that
to
me
just
screams
like
the
potential
for
abuse
and
I.
D
Don't
understand
how
that's
even
okay,
I,
don't
see
anyone
who
is
going
to
build
a
separate
unit
for
a
stranger
and
allow
them
to
come
wandering
in
at
all
hours
of
the
day
into
their
house
to
use
the
facilities.
So
if
enforcement
is
not
possible
which
it
isn't
then
I
just
see
all
kinds
of
potential
for
problems,
just
one
of
potentially
many.
G
C
So,
essentially,
leading
up
to
about
2017
2017,
we
permitted
one
two
three
ad
use
annually
in
2018
there
were
eight
permits
issued
for
ad
use
and
then
in
2019
there
were
15
permits
and
in
2020
there
have
been
three
permits.
So
far,
so
we
have
been
seeing
a
continuous
increase
in
the
number
of
them
it's
issued.
We
haven't,
you
know,
determined
the
percentage
of
lots
that
have
an
ad
you,
okay,.
A
C
A
Mean
you
know
like
in
in
terms
of
my
own
assault.
There
was
some
comments
in
here.
I
mean
you
know
in
terms
of
my
own
thinking
about
all
this.
You
know,
I'm
gonna
echo
some
of
the
concerns
that
Vice
Chair
Cranston
has
that
I
mean
you
know.
You
know
the
state
is
increasingly
getting
involved.
Okay
and
in
passing
legislation,
I
mean
I.
Think
with
regards
to
modifying
local
jurisdictions,
I
mean
it's
a
mixed
bag.
In
my
opinion,
some
of
the
things
that
I've
seen
come
forth
you
know
are
are
good.
A
Okay,
other
things
you
know,
I
wish
that
we
had
a
way
of
doing
less
one-size-fits-all
way
of
doing
this,
I
mean
in
particular.
You
know,
like
the
thing
about
the
parking
I
mean
you
know,
I
can
just
see
what
would
happen
in
the
place
where
I
used
to
live,
where
you
know
town
home
complex,
where
you
know
basically,
anytime
anybody
put
his
place
up
for
sale
and
the
honor
system.
You
know
what
the
parking
went
up.
A
I
mean
it
just
kind
of
blew
up,
because
nobody
wanted
to
say
to
anybody
coming
in
to
sell
their
place,
that
they
shouldn't
be
parking
in
these
spaces
that
you
know
most
other
people
think
are
theirs,
and
so
you
know,
I
mean
I.
I,
think
that
it
took
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
guess
the
HOA
could
at
least
say
that,
for
you
know,
parking
spaces
that
are
considered
to
be
guest
parking
spaces.
Somebody
would
I
mean
that
part
of
the
HOA
could
still
be
enforced.
A
So
if
somebody
wanted
to
take
the
car
that
he
had
in
his
garage
and
convert
the
garage
into
a
to
you
and
park
it
you
know
permanently
in
a
guest
space,
then
the
HOA
could
say
something
about
that:
wouldn't
that
be
Triton,
okay
and
so
he
might
have
to
park
off
on
the
street
or
somewhere
if
there's
a
place,
but
you
know
so
that
that
kind
of
thing
you
know
I
have
just
some
concern
about
that.
But
I
understand
we're
gonna
housing
crisis,
and
so
you
know
we're
gonna
deal
with
it
as
best
we
can.
A
In
terms
of
the
home-based
childcare
I
mean,
you
know,
I
think
you
know
the
idea
to
make
it
easier
to
form
a
home-based
childcare
is,
is
generally
a
positive
thing.
I
mean
my
wife.
My
wife
is
in
the
home
is
not
home-based,
but
in
the
childcare
she
works
in
a
childcare
center.
Okay-
and
you
know,
I
mean
like
whenever
people
have
talked
about
like
going
out
on
their
own
and
being
able
to
do
this.
I
mean
the
main
obstacle
to
it
is.
Is
that
you
know?
A
Well,
if
we're
gonna
have
kids
in
somebody's
home
and
want
to
provide
some
daycare
for
them,
then
we
have
no
way
to
create
additional
parking.
Okay,
and
so,
therefore
it
can't
be
done
at
all.
So
I
think
that
you
know
the
fact
that
those
are
regulations
are
loosening
up.
A
little
bit
will
help
provide
a
much-needed
additional
child
care,
so
that
I
think
is
relatively
positive
and
you.
D
A
Would
just
say
is
I'm
gonna
echo
what
I've
heard
from
the
other
commissioners
like
Commissioner,
hay,
Mayer,
Yin
and
vice-chair
Cranston,
and
that
really
what
I
think
since
we
have
to
become
conforming
to
the
state
regulations?
That's
not
a
matter
of
choice
but
I'd
like
to
know
what
the
effect
is
on
going.
You
know
so
that
I
mean
if
we
had
some
idea
of
you
know.
If
we
start
to
see
this
kind
of
thing
become,
let's
say
significantly
popular.
A
You
know,
then
it
might
be
useful
to
have
a
study
session
at
some
point
to
discuss
it
and
ask
ourselves
how
things
are
going
in
whether
we
want
to
do
anything
else.
But
in
order
to
do
that,
you
know
you
have
to
have
some
in.
You
have
to
have
some
information
to
act
on
I
mean
one
of
the
things
I
understand,
staff
type
is
really
limited
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
I've
heard
from
time
to
time
over
the
you
know
years
I've
been
here,
is
that
I.
A
Well,
we
recommend
legislation
to
the
council,
but
we
don't
really
get
a
lot
of
fowl
on
how
well
it's
going,
and
so,
particularly
with
respect
to
state
legislation
that
we
have
no
choice
over
I
mean
knowing
a
little
bit
about
what
the
effects
are.
It
would
be
useful
and
I
guess.
Another
thing
is:
is
that
since
action
is
taken
based
on
complaints,
if
I
start
to
hear
complaints
and
when
I
do
hear
complaints
from
my
neighbors
about
whatever
then
I'll.
A
G
I'll
move
to
recommendation,
as
is
what
I'm
before
we
see.
If
there's
interest,
it
sounds
like
there
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
synthesize
what
I've
heard
in
terms
of
discussion,
because
it
seems
like
there's
general
consensus
on
the
staff
recommendation,
as
is
but
to
the
chairs
point.
I.
Think
what
I'm
hearing
is,
there's
some
additional
language
that
we
would
like
to
pour
it
on
the
council
to
better
understand
the
impact
of
accessory
dwelling
units
overall.
A
I'll
speak
for
myself
and
we
other
commissioners
can
speak
as
well.
I
mean
the
comments
that
I'm
making
are
things
that
you
know,
I
mean
our
if
staff
so
chooses.
They
can
indicate
that
in
the
staff
report
you
know
the
things
main
points
that
we
made
I.
Don't
think
that
those
are
things
that
I
was
looking
to
add
on
to
the
route
formal
recommendation.
Thank
you
any.
E
I
guess
what
I
would
and
I
looked
to
the
attorney
as
to
how
to
word
it,
but
essentially
I
would
request
that
something
really
easy.
That's
a
distant
additional
sentence
or
an
addition
that
says
and
require
that
staff
put
in
place
a
process
for
monitoring
the
impact
of
the
implementation
of
this
procedure
and
report
back
on
a
periodic
basis
on
the
on
the
impact
of
the
of
the
change
something
along
those
lines,
so
that
we
have
some
some
method
of
of
understanding
what
it's
done.
E
E
What
how
many,
if
there's
a
concern
about
safety
issues?
How
many
of
the
Jade
use
are
there
just
for
us
to
begin
to
track
so
that
we
have
some
data
that
we
can
look
at
later?
I'm,
not
it's
I'm,
not
looking
for
issue
action
on
the
data,
but
there's
a
method
of
Furth
based
on
the
applications,
collect
that
information
and
then
report
it
back
on
a
periodic
basis.
M
So
that,
in
addition
to
the
recommendation,
that's
here,
then
it
would
also
be
something
along
the
lines
of
directing
staff
to
monitor
and
report
back
I
guess
both
the
epc
as
well
as
Council
on
things
related
to
aid
to
use
and
JD
is
such
as
additional
units
things.
You
just
listed
additional
units,
parking
spaces
or
impact
on
parking,
I'm,
not
sure
from
framing
that
right
unit
count.
Code
enforcement,
related
issues
right,
I,
think
also.
A
G
E
G
I
just
think
that
were
made
I
absolutely
agree
that
this
has
broader
implications.
I
just
think
that
maybe
tying
something
that
directs
staff
time
to
a
resolution
that
really
is
bringing
us
into
compliance
with
state
law.
It
gets
a
little
muddled
for
me.
So
it's
it's
not
an
unfriendly
rejection.
I
just
I
think
that
we're
muddling
things
a
little
bit
I
think
we
could
have
a
language
that
says
we
strongly.
G
A
F
H
A
H
Just
I
I,
absolutely
agree:
I
think
that
data
is
really
important
to
inform
the
future
of
policy
and
to
inform
later
projects
and
things
that
come
before
EPC
and
the
council.
I
do
see
the
point
about
marrying
the
two
as
one
thing
and
so
potentially,
including
as
a
strong
recommendation
or
if
there's
a
way
to
separate
separate
the
two
that
makes
sense
to
me.
F
D
Well,
I'm
comfortable
keeping
it
separate
as
long
as
word
does
get
to
Council
in
the
report.
I
think
vice-chair
cranston
had
once
made
comments
that
we
haven't
seen
minutes
in
a
while,
and
so
perhaps
that's
part
of
his
concerns
that
he
wants
to
ensure
that
it
does
get
there
strongly
worded.
You
know
the
concerns,
so
if
it
is
in
the
staff
report-
and
it
goes
to
council,
perhaps
then
you
would
feel
more
comfortable
separating
them.
E
I
A
Let's
we're
gonna
do
a
show
hands.
Is
that
the
right,
because
I
don't
know
we're
gonna,
be
able
to
vote
because
I
heard
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
that
the
equipment
may
not
accommodate
are
doing
the
electronic
voting?
Is
that
right,
that's
correct?
Okay,
so,
let's
see
a
show
hands.
How
many
commissioners
support
the
resolution
for
the
recommendation
as
read
by
Commissioner
a
Myer.
A
A
L
L
This
is
the
fifth
report
for
the
housing
element
period.
It
is
mandated
by
the
state
that
we
report
on
our
progress
of
our
housing
element
every
year.
The
purpose
is
to
report
on
our
progress
of
our
programs
and
policies,
as
well
as
our
building
permit
activity
of
housing
units
meeting.
Our
regional
housing
needs
allocation,
otherwise
known
as
Rena,
so
the
regional
housing
needs
allocation,
it's
determined
by
the
Association
of
Bay
Area
governments.
This
is
our
allocation
number
here
in
front
of
you.
These
are
the
number
of
units
we
are.
L
L
Currently,
these
are
some
affordable
housing
projects
we
have
in
our
city,
these
for
our
100%,
affordable
housing
project,
7,
792,
Evelyn
and
1701
West
Evelyn
or
West
El
Camino,
completed
last
year
for
sixty
North
Shore
Lane
Boulevard
had
a
building
permit
issued
last
year
for
those
15
at
new
units
and
950
West
El
Camino
was
approved
in
the
building.
Permit
is
under
review.
L
L
L
A
I
L
L
O
K
O
E
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
for
the
the
table
that
it's
very
helpful.
If
I
we
have
what
three
years
left
in
the
cycle,
then
using
your
answer
to
my
question
over
three
looks:
like
entitlement
completion
is,
so
you
know
they
don't
have
to
be
completed.
They
just
have
to
be
permitted
right
to
meet
the
numbers.
Is
that
what
we're
they.
E
The
stuff
that's
under
approval
and
under
review.
If
I
look
at
your
timeline,
a
assuming
that
they
progress,
of
course,
they
could
add
a
pretty
substantial
number
and
put
us
potentially
well
over
the
permit
number
if
they,
if
assuming
they
progress.
So
we
have.
It
appears
to
me
that
the
pipeline
is
strong
at
least
hit.
The
top
line
is
that
Steph's
assessment,
as
well
I,
believe.
L
The
pipeline
is
strong,
it's
hard
to
say
for
the
next
three
years,
if
there
will
be
enough
to
still
meet
100%
of
our
goal
here,
but
we're
definitely
moving
in
the
right
direction.
I
mean
if
we
are
as
of
now
supposed
to
be
at
around
63%
I.
Have
this
table
in
front
of
us
here
that
shows
these
pipeline
projects
that
have
been
approved
and
that
are
under
review
and
you
can
see
the
low
and
the
moderate
are
at
near
at
that
63
or
near
the
63%.
So
in
our
pipeline
it
is
close.
L
E
That
is
routinely
done
on
the
the
type
of
incomes
when,
when
one
of
those
kind
of
convert
like
in
our
3
transition
occurs,
do
you
guys
look
at
how
many
of
them
are
BMR?
You
know
or
look
very
low,
low
or
more
moderate
in
with
it
all
to
measure
that,
because
I
am
I'm
worried
that
okay,
we're
already
low
on
the
low
in
the
very
low
and
we
potentially
destroyed
207
that
aren't
counted
here.
So
even
if
we
got
to
270
we're
actually
are
we
really
only
at
65?
L
O
Not
not
necessarily,
certainly
there
could
be
a
lot
of
tech
workers
that
are
living
in.
You
know
older
apartments,
so
that's
that's
why
we
go
through
the
process
to
determine
qualifications
for
tenant
relocation
assistance,
but
it
by
and
large
if
somebody
is
coming
in
to
demolish
an
apartment.
Building
that
that
apartment
building
is
probably
you
know,
somewhere
along
in
its
useful
life,
a
fairly
older
apartment.
Building,
people
don't
come
in
and
demolish
brand-new
structures
that
are
being
rented
out
for
high
above
moderate
rents.
H
H
L
G
My
understanding
is
at
this
time:
Santa
Clara
County
does
not
have
the
same
kind
of
sub
regional
Rena
that
allows
for
trading
among
cities.
Different
income
levels.
I
know
that
there
were
early
talks
a
couple
years
ago.
I
think
I
know
that
San
Mateo
County
has
some
us,
and
maybe
maybe
Napa,
but
we're
not
far
enough
along
that
and
this
cycle
of
the
arena
that
we
could
see
some
kind
of
trading
with
other
cities
to
meet
these
targets.
Is
that
that's
what
I've
read
in
the
music?
The.
D
O
A
A
A
Did
anything
come
up
that
that
you
know
of
or
I
I
know,
I
mean
I
can
say
this
in
public
and
when
I
get
to
my
comment,
I
know
that
there
are
some
people
who
did
comment
on
it,
but
I
don't
know
whether
or
not
there
has
been
there
was
any
changes
they
were
made
to
the
methodology
or
whether
those
are
still
in
progress
and
still
under
discussion.
Yeah.
O
A
L
O
Those
spikes
are
caused
by
large
developments
being
approved
at
a
particular
time
and
because
they
happen
kind
of
sporadically
in
randomly,
they
can
be
clumped
in
a
particular
year
or
not.
For
example,
it
looks
like
this
year
we're
gonna
have
building
permits
issued
for
both
the
gray
start
project
on
California
Street
and
the
Sobrato
project
in
North
Bay
Shore,
which
right
there
is
going
to
be
over
1200
units.
So
these
these
things
are
are
spikey
in
nature.
O
A
O
A
A
Okay
but
I
mean
if
I
guess.
My
main
question
is:
is
that
if
someone
were
to
demolish
rental
housing
and
then
the
proposal
would
come
in
to
build,
you
know
ownership
housing
on
that
I
mean
it.
Would
that
be
just
not
allowed?
Would
you
have
to
replace
it
with
rental
housing,
at
least
the
number
of
units
that
were
demolished
or.
A
A
That
we
saw
you
know
it.
Would
they
basically
mostly
I
think
what
happened
with
them?
Is
we
started
with
a
rental
development?
There
was
sold
to
somebody
else
and
then
someone
came
in
and
said
I'm
just
going
to
demolish
it.
I'm
gonna
build
ownership
housing
there.
So
how
does
SB
330
affect
that
Hyannis.
P
Alberta
with
the
housing
division,
so
with
the
replacement
units,
if
the
products
that
they're
building
is
ownership,
the
replacement
units
would
need
to
be
ownership
units.
It
set
out
affordability
levels,
so
so
it
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
be
replaced
with
rental.
They
could
be
ownership
units
that
are
replaced
Oh
in
the
new
project.
What.
A
P
A
A
E
A
P
P
It's
kind
of
a
little
more
complicated
than
that.
If
you
don't
know,
if
the
units
are
vacant
or
you
don't
know
the
prior
incomes
or
the
tenth
incomes
as
a
prior
tenants,
then
you
use
this
formula
based
on
the
incomes
of
the
city
to
determine
the
number
of
voi
and
Li
units
that
need
to
be
replaced.
But
as
far
as
the
remaining
units
that
need
to
be
replaced
that
are
above
that
ratio
for
voi
and
Li,
the
city
does
have
some
discretion
about
what
income
those
remaining
units
are
returned
at.
P
M
It
just
maybe
add
to
help
clarify.
Potentially
it
is
very
complicated
and
so
there's
a
number
of
categories
that
fall
within
the
protected
units.
So
it
could
be
a
protected
unit
based
on
income
level
being
low
and
very
low
and
looking
at
because
she
knows
that
better
than
I
do
or
it
could
be
a
unit
that
subject
you
for
rental
purposes,
subject
to
CSF
array.
So
you
could
have
someone
with
a
moderate
or
higher
level
of
income
in
a
rent,
protected
unit.
That
way
as
well.
E
M
If
those
units
are
actually
occupied
and
we
can
verify
that
they're
occupied
by
someone
with
a
moderate
income,
let's
say
those
units
would
need
to
be
replaced
and
I
believe
that's
where
the
city
or
local
agencies
are
given
the
discretion
of
determining
whether
it's
a
deed,
restricted
unit
or
went
stabilized
units
are
making
it
subject
to
for
Mountainview,
CSF,
RA
and
I.
Think
these
are
that
that
hasn't
been
determined.
Yet
in
terms
of
how
that's
going
to
play
out
for
Mountain
View.
L
The
thought
that
comes
to
my
mind
is
that
a
new
residential
development
will
still
have
to
follow
the
BMR
requirements
as
well.
So
if
it's
a
new
ownership
product
or
rowhouse
product,
they
have
to
provide
25%
of
those
units,
it's
below
market
rate
and
so
forth.
So
we
will
still
receive
affordable
housing
with
those
new
projects.
A
O
P
G
E
Subject,
change
is
there
anything
we
can
do
to
I
was
really
disappointed.
There
were
no
mountain
view,
properties
that
measure
a
bond
funding
thing,
and
it
was
this
like
this
get
some
money,
damn
it
there
are
things
that
we
could
do
duh.
You
know
there
are
things
that
you
mentioned
a
couple
that
are
in
progress,
but
it's
like
there's
money
out
there
we
could
go
to
photo
a
housing.
Could
we
do
something?
Why
is
San
Jose
and
Santa
Clara
getting
all
the
money?
Do
we
have
some
I
just
other
things
we
could
do
it's.
P
I
think
the
city
is
currently
doing
a
lot
of
things
to
make
possible
affordable
housing
projects
that
could
take
advantage
of
measure,
a
funding
and
the
three
projects
and
the
pipeline
that
are
considering.
It
are
like
kind
of
demonstrative
of
that,
in
the
sense
that
to
get
the
type
of
income
X
and
things
to
make
these
projects
work,
where
we
have
the
densities
to
make
that
happen.
So
I
think
that
the
city
currently
is
already
doing
a
lot.
P
Permanent
supportive
housing
is
targeted
for
extremely
low
income,
sometimes
historically
homeless
or
chronically
homeless.
Individuals
who
the
housing
is
and
includes
wraparound
services,
so
that
that
are
tied
to
the
housing
itself.
So
all
of
the
services
are
within
the
property
is
in
addition
to
the
housing
unit.
A
A
E
I'm
pleased
that
we
were
getting
the
numbers
I'm
really
disappointed
by
the
mix
that,
when
I,
do
the
your
little
table
that
you
created
for
me
made
me
feel
a
little
bit
better,
that
there's
more
in
the
pipeline,
but
I'm
I'm,
I
I,
don't
know
whether
I
don't
think
it's
a
camera
or
whether
it's
a
goal.
What
can
we
do
more
on
the
moderate,
the
moderate
income
level,
but
it
feels
like
it's
a
it's.
E
Are
we
making
progress,
because
what
we
do
need
is
the
very
low
and
I
mean
we
need
those
bottom,
three
categories
and
I,
just
I
don't
feel
like
we're
making
of
progress
and
I'm
welcome
to
welcome
other
ideas
to
get
there,
but
I
I'm
a
worried
that
we're
not
even
counting
it
right.
I,
don't
we're
not
including
what's
going
away.
A
A
Well,
you
know
we,
the
council,
should
address
the
idea
of
moving
that
number
up
from
zero,
so
I'm
glad
to
see
the
numbers
that
you
showed
us
coming
in
the
next
three
years
and
that
this
is
being
addressed
and
that
we
are
making
at
least
some
progress
to
it.
Because
to
me,
that's
the
worst
thing
that
I
see
happening
is
hollowing
out
of
the
middle
of
our
community,
I
mean
if
I.
If
we
go
back
to
you
know
we
look
at
that
income
spread
and
we
go
back
20
years,
I
mean
you
know.
A
A
And
so
you
know
it
goes
out
of
the
affordability
so
I'm.
You
know
that
decrease
of
moderate
is
is
just
our
biggest
problem,
but
I'm
glad
that
we're
addressing
it
I'm
very
happy
with
staff
and
their
innovative
and
ways
of
trying
to
use
new
programs
to
help
address
these
issues,
in
particular
the
fact
that
we
added
jobs,
housing
balance
as
part
of
these
was
a
precise
plan
and
that
it
was
attempted
as
part
of
Terra
Bella.
A
You
know
one
of
the
gentlemen
who
was
running
for
state
Senate,
District,
13
I
think
it
keeps
moving
around,
but
he
at
least
brought
that
point
up
as
one
possibility
to
work
into
state
legislation.
So
I'm
glad
that
idea
is
getting
traction
and
I.
Think
Eric
did
mention
at
one
point
that
he's
even
discussed
this
in
seminars
in
other
cities
right
so
so,
hopefully
you
can
spread
the
good
news
and
then
that
can
work
its
way
out.
A
I
also
think
that
it's
a
great
thing
that
we
moved
up
to
a
15
percent,
real
inclusionary,
affordable
I,
mean
you
know,
that's
that's
another
big
step
ahead
and
and
that's
good
too
beyond
that
I
think
you
know.
In
order
to
address
this,
I'll
bring
up
a
point.
I
was
on
a
call
this
weekend
with
with
people
from
Liverpool,
California
and
they're
talking
about
brainstorming
about
addressing
the
affordable
housing
crisis.
Basically,
how
do
you
meet
these
lower
numbers
and
there
was
a
guest
speaker
there
from
Santa
Monica,
and
he
spoke
about
that.
A
Santa
Monica
has
a
30%
inclusionary,
it's
the
highest
in
the
state
of
California.
It
was
put
in
place
by
a
ballot
initiative
and
they've
been
able
to
work
that
out.
So
I
would
just
say
you
know
that
was
encouraging
and
that,
if
you
know
Steph
gets
the
time
or
someone
else
on
council
gets
the
time
to
research
that
a
little
bit
more
find
out.
A
Like
that
would
be
good
ones,
and
another
thing
is,
you
know:
just
I
continue
to
be
somewhat
concerned
that
you
know
it's
possible
for
developers
to
play
the
cities
off
in
terms
of
who
gives
them.
You
know
the
lowest
inclusionary
I
mean
you
know.
I
mean
I
know
that
it
was
a
great
thing
that
we
plugged
the
hole,
because
what
we
saw
happening
was
our
15
percent
inclusionary
had
had
a
backdoor,
they
could
let
you
do
seven
percent
some
other
way,
and
so
you
know
now
that
hole
is
plugged,
but
I
think
it's.
A
Meanwhile,
I
think
we
need
to
watch
out
for
SB,
50
and
other
solutions
that
that
don't
give
us
the
most
effective
way
to
provide
affordable
housing.
You
know
in
in
conjunction
with
new
housing
and
don't
respect
the
preservation
of
our
most
key
historic
resources
and
I
want
to
mention
one
last
thing,
and
that's
that
there's
a
member
of
person
who
is
a
member
of
our
community
who
has
a
long
history
of
employment
in
the.
A
Now,
that's
great,
if
you
can
have
the
right,
supportive
environment,
you
know
to
help
them
improve,
but
her
concern
was
that,
if
that
isn't
an
integral
part
of
that
that
that
it
may
not
be
best
for
the
people
themselves,
it's
better
to
have
you
know
them
distributed
more.
You
know
throughout
projects
inclusionary
projects
rather
than
having
everybody
concentrate
in
one
place.
A
So
I
want
to
respect
that
comment
because
I
know
she's
a
person
with
a
lot
of
experience,
but
what
I
really
like
us
today
is
to
have
a
dialogue
if
a
measure
a
project
comes
up
so
that
we
evaluate
you
know,
I
mean
you
know
the
pros
and
cons
of
doing
this
so
that
we
enter
into
it.
You
know
eyes
wide
open
and
because
the
bottom
line
is
what
we
want
is
to
have
housing,
that's
most
effective
for
the
people
that
we're
trying
to
serve.
So
those
are
my
comments
on
the
housing
element.
G
Would
move
to
accept
the
report?
I
think
it
just
underscores
the
fact
that
this
is
a
regional
issue
and
we're
not
gonna
get
there
alone.
Mountain
views
set
a
a
good
example,
but
I'm
really
curious
to
see.
Have
a
sub
regional
collaboration
could
work
out
because
I
think
that
there's
probably
more
opportunity
to
work
with
communities
that
that
aren't
making
progress
and
see
how
that
we
can.
O
A
He
proposed
to
the
a
bag
MTC
methodology
committee
that
incentives
be
offered
to
to
allow
housing
to
help
produce
more
housing
in
areas
that
are
not
housing,
rich
right
now,
so
that
so
that
I
mean
this
is
just
within
the
bay
area,
so
that
so
that
you
know
there
would
be
an
ability
to
build
housing
at
in
cheaper
rates
and
places
where
that
was
possible.
So
that's
just
an
idea
of
his
that
he
and
a
number
of
people
had
taken
to
the
a
bag
methodology
committee.
I.
A
Don't
know
that
I
want
to
endorse
that
specifically,
but
I
guess
you
know
what
I
really
was
like
make
a
call
for
is.
If
our
representative,
you
know,
is
wouldn't
look
at
these
kind
of
creative
ideas,
I
mean
so
that
when
they
beg
methodology
comes
out
this
time
it's
not
a
rubber
stamp
of
what
we
had
before
I
know.
A
A
lot
of
people
feel
very
discouraged
that
you
know
I
mean
they
can
even
make
the
above
moderate
numbers,
but
they
feel
a
sense
of
despair
and
not
being
able
to
get
anywhere
with
with
you
know,
the
lower
numbers,
so
you
know
incentives
of
some
sort.
Maybe
a
way
of
doing
that
and
I
don't
want
to
prescribe
what
those
are.
But
I
would
like
to
describe
the
idea
that
maybe
incentives
somehow
they
can
brainstorm
and
come
up
with
something
that's
different,
so
that
we're
encouraged
to
actually
fulfill
things.
A
H
In
addition
to
working
with
other
cities
in
the
region
and
I,
think
you
know,
staff
brought
up
several
opportunities
coming
up
in
the
future,
like
programs,
in
addition
to
the
BMR
ordinance
that
we
can
look
at
to
create
more
naturally
affordable
housing,
or
to
look
at
ways
that
our
land
use
supports.
People
of
all
incomes.
D
O
In
fact,
recently,
there
was
a
state
law
that
required
cities
to
keep
track
of
that
through
the
through
the
whole
arena
process,
no
nail
loss
law.
So
we
have
been
tracking
that
and
we
included
it
in
the
staff
report
showing
the
sites
where
we
have
seen
redevelopment
of
market
rate
units
on
sites
that
we
had
identified
for
our
housing
element.
And
we
have
identified
other
areas
where
we
can
still
accommodate
those
income
levels
elsewhere
in
the
city
and.
D
Just
quickly
to
follow
that
up,
given
that
we
know
how
much
office
in
general,
we
know
that
office
is
what
gets
developed
a
little
bit
more
readily
than
housing,
sometimes,
and
if
we
are
zoned
for
a
certain
number
or
certain
amount
of
office,
even
with
the
housing
balanced,
would
we
still
be
able
to
meet
the
total
number
given
how
much
is
able
to
be
allocated
and
given
our
current
zoning,
does
that
make
sense?
That's
question.
O
O
During
the
housing
element
process,
when
you're
actually
crafting
your
housing
element,
HCD
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
has
a
significant
amount
of
oversight
in
the
sites
that
you
select
to
ensure
not
only
that
it's
a
viable
site
for
residential
development,
but
also
that
residential
development
is
the
likely
development
there.
We
don't
have
that
same
oversight
in
the
no
net
loss
process,
but
we
do
have
a
very
wide
net
that
we
can
cast
on
sites
that
we
have
zoned
for
a
significant
amount
of
higher
density
housing.
O
O
Kind
of
justify
ability
to
select
to
looking
at
those
areas
and
looking
at
those
sites
as
adequate
to
satisfy
our
arena
and
I'm.
Frankly,
looking
forward
to
the
conversation
with
HCD
when
we
do
the
housing
element
and
pointing
at
our
programs
like
the
jobs,
housing
linkage,
program
and
saying
hey,
even
though
this
area
allows
a
mix
of
uses,
we
have
other
programs
where
we
are
actually
mandating
that
those
uses
include
housing.
O
D
E
Don't
know
whether
this
is
a
maybe
this
is
a
feedback
to
her
to
our
representative
on
the
methodology
committee,
but
I
would
hope
that
those
cities
that
actually
doing
a
job
of
addressing
the
members
during
the
existing
housing
element
don't
get
penalized
by
a
disproportionate
allocation
of
the
numbers
during
the
next
cycle.
Because
if
you
know
we
shouldn't
be
penalized
because
we
actually
did,
we
actually
make
sure
paid
attention.
So
hopefully
the
methodology,
isn't
you
did
this
or
you
know
you
get
twice
that
the
next
time
kind
of
a
thing
so.
A
So
I
have
a
question
about
that.
I
remember
there
was
some
discussion
about
the
idea
that
you
know
it
used
to
be
just
going
from
housing
element
to
housing
element.
You
know
a
city
that
wasn't
coming
and
meeting
the
numbers
would
just
kind
of
get
a
blanket
forgiveness
and
wipe
the
slate
clean
he
you'd
start
over,
and
then
there
was
a
proposal
that
cities
that
didn't
meet
their
allocation
had
to
carry
it
over
into
the
next
cycle.
A
A
C
Good
evening
again,
commissioners,
my
name
is
Brittany
white
Hill
and
tonight
I
will
be
providing
an
update
on
the
general
plan
action
plan
implementation
tonight.
I
would
first
like
to
briefly
highlight
a
few
general
plan.
Action
items
that
have
been
recently
completed
and
the
next
couple
of
slides
I
will
also
highlight
priorities
listed
in
the
general
plan
action
plan,
as
well
as
the
EPC
work
plan.
Finally,
I
will
discuss
a
proposed
change
to
the
process
for
reviewing
and
updating
the
general
plan
action
plan.
C
As
noted
in
the
memo
and
the
attached
spreadsheets
several
general
plan
action
items
were
completed
in
2019.
A
number
of
action
items
were
completed
with
the
adoption
of
the
East
Wisman
precise
plan.
Additionally,
the
Permanente
Creek
Trail
was
completed.
I
would
also
like
to
highlight
that
the
multimodal
plan
and
transportation
impact
fee
were
adopted
in
2018.
C
However,
these
items
were
not
included
in
last
year's
update,
so
we
would
like
to
make
note
of
them
now
and
I
apologize
if
this
is
a
little
small,
but
this
was
attached
in
your
in
a
staff
report
as
an
attachment.
So
if
you
refer
to
the
2019
through
2021
EPC
work
plan,
you
will
see
that
the
adoption
of
the
East
Wisman
precise
plan
was
prioritized
both
in
the
general
plan
action
plan
and
the
EPC
work
plan.
C
Epc
has
previously
prioritized
development
of
a
citywide,
TDM,
ordinance,
North,
Bay,
Shore
sustainability
measures
and
general
plan,
precise
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
amendments
as
high
priority
general
plan
action
items.
These
items
are
also
identified
in
the
EPC
work
plan,
North
Bay,
Shore
district
sustainability
measures
are
currently
underway
and
work
on
a
TDM
ordinance
will
be
starting
in
the
near
future.
Staff
in
the
EPC
continue
to
work
on
general
plan,
precise
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
updates
as
the
need
or
opportunity
arises.
C
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
general
plan
action
plan
review
be
better
integrated
into
the
council
goal,
setting
and
EPC
work
plan
process.
Since
council
goals,
an
EPC
work
plan
will
not
be
updated.
This
year,
staff
is
not
requesting
formal
EPC
action
on
the
action
plan,
such
as
prioritization
modifications
or
removal
of
actions.
However,
the
EPC
is
encouraged
to
review
and
comment
on
the
action
plan
and
light
of
current
council
goals,
the
EPC
work
plan
and
other
community
values
or
concerns
on
a
biannual
basis.
A
C
So
currently
we
sort
of
have
you
know
a
few
different
parallel
processes,
but
they're
not
really
integrated
into
each
other.
What
staff
is
proposing
now
is
essentially
when
council
sets
their
broader
goals
and
the
EPC
reviews,
those
goals
and
sort
of
provides
more
specific
recommendations.
That
would
be
the
time
when
EPC
also
looks
at
the
general
plan
action
plan
and
updates
that
reprioritize
as
things
okay.
O
I,
it's
something
that
we
talk
about
periodically.
You
know
whether
you
know
what
would
trigger
that
and
what
wouldn't
you
know
when?
When
would
we
really
need
to
start
kicking
that
off
or
start
advising
council
to
kick
that
off?
This
general
plan
is
only
what
eight
years
old
at
this
point,
so
usually
cities
go
a
little
longer
than
that
between
general
plans,
and
it
is
a
very
costly
process
and
a
lot
of
staff
time
and
work.
O
A
A
O
We
are
considering
ways
to
plan
for
that
change
area.
One
of
the
challenges
with
that
change
area
is
that
there
are
really
few
prime
developable
sites
and
they
tend
to
be
very
small
and,
and
so
there's
not
a
lot
of
you
know
community
or
developer
pressure
to
to
go
in
and
update
the
zoning,
but
we
do
see
it
as
an
opportunity
for
kind
of
reinventing
the
streetscape.
O
O
I
E
O
A
A
C
A
O
O
We
are
requesting
that
if
Commission
has
questions
about
staff
report
items
that
we
get
them
by
Tuesday
morning,
so
that
we
can
have
time
to
do
research
and
review
as
necessary,
please
feel
free
to
send
questions
after
that,
it's
great
to
get
an
understanding
of
where
Commission's
heads
are
at,
even
if
we
can't
get
the
answers
in
writing
by
the
mid
day,
our
mid
day
deadline
for
getting
them
back
to
you.
Also
I
did
get
responses
from
most
commissioners
about
whether
you
would
like
hard
copies.
O
I
did
not
hear
from
Commissioner
Haines
No,
okay
great,
so
we
will
have
those
ready.
O
O
O
That
concludes
my
announcements,
other
than
to
say
that,
like
I
said
next
week,
we
are
expecting
an
item
on
1001
Northshore
line
and
code
amendments
to
our
tenant,
relocation,
ordinance
and
then
other
upcoming
meetings
include
projects
on
Fayette
and
a
project
on
hotel
project
on
El
Camino.
That
I
think
is
going
back
through
the
process.
Again
they
they
lost
their
entitlement
from
not
building
doing
their
building
permit
in
time.