►
Description
Live teleconference meeting of the Mountain View City Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 3, 2021.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
B
B
D
E
B
B
B
B
D
E
C
B
Thank
you.
Next
item
is
a
open,
an
opportunity
for
open
communications
from
the
public,
especially
meeting
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
epc,
not
on
any
manner
on
the
agenda.
This
evening,
speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
session.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
or
on
non-agendized
items.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
speak
on
the
line?
B
Please
pray
or
provide
comment
on
a
non-agendized
item?
If
so,
please
raise
your
hand
in
zoom
or
press
star
nine
in
your
phone
sony
users
can
mute
or
unmute
themselves
using
star
six
click
over
talby,
we'll
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
Are
there
any
attendees
who
would
like
to
speak.
B
H
A
A
A
B
B
C
I
Hello
there
can
you
hear
me
okay,
I
just
wanted
to
say.
First
of
all,
thank
you
to
mr
anderson
for
answering
a
number
of
my
questions
in
email,
but
I
did
have
one
last
question
is
if
there
was
a
proposed
project
for
this
site,
what
is
the
impact
of
public
comment
and
so
yeah?
It
was
just
one
of
the
questions
I
had
asked.
I
He
said
that
sometimes
there's
public
comment
allowed
when
projects
are
proposed,
but
is
there
any
impact,
or
is
that
something
that
the
commission
decides
and
just
residents
or
people
who
are
interested,
get
to
speak
about,
but
the
final
power
rests
with
the
commission.
So
that's
what
I
was
wondering.
A
A
There
are
some
cases
where
development
consistent
with
the
zoning
would
require
a
public
hearing.
So,
for
example,
if
a
subdivision
is
proposed,
which
would
be
allowed
under
r2,
a
a
duplex
or
two
single-family
homes
without
a
subdivision
could
be
approved
without
a
public
hearing,
so
that
that
would
be
a
just
a
staff
level
approval,
but
that's
up
to
two
units.
A
But
if
something
was
coming
through
like
with
the
subdivision
or
something
larger
than
just
two
units,
it
would
likely
need
a
public
hearing,
and
so
the
result
of
the
public
hearing
would
be.
The
public
hearing
could
be
before
the
zoning
administrator
or
it
could
be
before
the
city
council,
depending
on
what
the
final
decision-making
process
characteristics
of
the
project
would
be,
and
the
effect
of
public
comment
on
that.
It
may
not
preclude
the
project,
because
the
the
project
may
have
certain
rights
to
proceed
under.
A
J
J
Okay,
let
me
just
the
right
pdf,
so
I
make
a
motion
to
adopt
the
the
resolution
that
the
environmental
planning
commission
at
the
city
of
mountain
view,
approve
the
zoning
map
amendment
at
300
to
320
more
parkway
to
r2
one
and
two
family
residential
to
be
consistent
with
a
general
plan.
Land
use
map
to
be
read
in
title.
Only
further
reading
waived
exhibit
one
to
the
epc
staff
report.
E
D
D
B
D
D
Okay,
good
evening,
chair
cranston
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
erin
haran
and
I
will
be
presenting
the
annual
progress
report
for
the
2015-2023
housing
element
and
I'm
joined
today,
along
with
anna
salvador
and
eric
anderson,
to
provide
some
background.
California
requires
that
all
local
governments
adequately
plan
and
zone
to
meet
the
housing
needs
of
everyone
in
the
community.
D
D
This
table
shows
the
current
progress
towards
meeting
the
arena
goal
with
building
permits
issued
from
2015
to
2020..
The
city
is
meeting
the
requirement
for
above
moderate
units,
but
is
not
meeting
the
goals
for
very
low
to
moderate
income.
This
being
our
sixth
year
in
the
cycle
would
mean
we
would
need
to
achieve
75
of
the
goal
income
units
and
we
are
currently
around
53
percent.
D
As
a
note,
an
adjustment
was
made
after
the
staff
report
was
issued.
The
very
low
income
units
were
reduced
by
99
units
after
receiving
a
clarification
that
the
units
provided
for
project
home
key
could
not
be
included,
since
they
do
not
have
a
kitchen
facilities.
These
are
mobile
units
that
are
providing
shelter
for
people
experiencing
homelessness.
D
Here's
some
background
on
legislation
around
the
housing
element
and
annual
progress
report.
Sb
35
became
effective
in
2019
and
is
a
bill
that
includes
a
streamlined
ministerial
approval
process
for
developments
and
jurisdictions
that
have
not
made
progress
on
their
arena
goals.
For
mountain
view.
This
means
that
since
the
very
low
and
low
income
levels
are
not
on
track
in
this
cycle,
a
development
could
receive
a
ministerial
approval
process
if
they
propose
a
development
with
at
least
50
percent
units
at
low
income
or
below
affordability
level.
D
Sb
166
is
the
no
net
loss
bill
effective
in
2019.
It
includes
that
jurisdictions
must
maintain
their
housing
element
site
inventory.
If
a
shortfall
were
to
occur,
the
jurisdiction
must
amend
the
site
inventory.
You
include
new
sites
to
accommodate
the
shortfall
and
have
no
net
loss.
This
was
identified
in
the
2019
annual
progress
report
where
shortfall
was
discovered
and
new
sites
were
added
from
the
north
bay
shore,
precise
plan
to
achieve
no
net
loss,
and
the
next
steps
will
include
forwarding
the
annual
progress
report
with
epc
comments
to
the
city
council
on
march
23rd.
D
B
You,
since
this
is
a
review
rather
than
a
vote,
we'll
go
first
to
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6..
The
clerk
will
then
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
clerk
aboutably.
Are
there
any
people
on
the
line
that
would
like
to
speak.
J
Thank
you
for
that
great
presentation.
I
guess
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
comment
and
just
maybe
if,
if
there's
any
comparative
information,
I
know
a
lot
of
other
cities
are
really
anxious
about
their
arena
numbers
and-
and
it
seems
like
in
part
mountain
view-
is
less
anxious
because
of
the
work
and
planning
really
in
north
bay
shore
and
east
wisdom.
J
But
in
2020
alone
the
data
that
russ
presented
said
only
4
700
units
residential
units
were
permitted
total
in
total,
and
so
I
think
it's
a
reflection
that
the
city
has
really
prioritized
housing,
and
I
know
we
still
have
a
lot
of
progress
to
do.
But
I
am
I'm
pleased
to
see
how
how
hard
the
city
is
working
and
the
staff
in
particular,
to
identify
potential
sites.
So
I
appreciate
the
update.
K
Thank
you,
chair
somewhat,
along
the
same
line
as
commissioner.
Hey
meyer,
I
I
think
housing
is
such
a
regional
issue
that
it
requires
a
regional
solution.
So
I
was
also
wondering
how
our
neighboring
cities
are
doing
in
terms
of
their
housing
element,
progress
in
the
last
couple
of
years
and
also
interested
in
comparing
mountain
view
with
our
neighbors
in
terms
of
our
challenges,
whether
they're,
similar
to
or
quite
different
from
other
cities,.
G
D
Sorry
so
thank
you.
I
received
your
question
earlier
on
this
and
I
looked
up
our
comparison
with
other
neighboring
cities
like
cupertino,
los
altos,
palo,
alto
and
you'll
see
the
rest
here,
so
you
can
see.
Actually
we
are
doing
quite
well
compared
to
these
other
cities,
our
numbers.
This
is
our
percentage
of
our
arena
numbers
and
those
affordability
levels
and
for
very
low
and
low
income.
We
are
higher
than
all
of
those
neighboring
cities.
D
D
D
Also
we
found
that
other
cities
count
moderate
units
differently,
so
some
may
include
accessory
dwelling
units.
In
that
count,
we
don't
we
put
them
in
the
above
moderate
category,
because
they're
not
deed
restricted,
and
we
don't
have
any
way
to
know
that
you
know
they're
being
offered
at
lower
income
levels.
D
So
I
will.
I
will
mention
that
you
know
our
bmr
ordinance
was
updated
in
2019
and
that
will
that
has
been
helping
and
increasing
our
moderate
income
unit
levels,
because
that
update
did
include
to
provide
a
range,
a
wider
range
of
affordability,
rather
than
just
that
very
low
and
low
income.
So
coming
up
in
the
pipeline,
we
do
already
have
around
253
units
coming
up
that
are
under
review
or
have
been
approved
and
just
the
building
permits
not
issued.
So
those
will
show
up
in
the
moderate
income
in
the
future.
B
B
D
K
G
To
follow
up
on
vice
chair
lowe's
question
and
it
sounds
like
you
touched
a
little
bit
on
it:
planner
hurry
in
about
maybe
different
cities,
counting
moderate
income
units
differently,
but
it
looked
like
san
jose
and
cupertino's
moderate
income
unit
numbers
were
quite
a
bit
higher
and
do
you
have
any
idea
of
programs
they're
running,
because
I
know
in
the
response
to
a
commissioner
question
about
moderate
income
housing.
It
seems
like
it
is
very
based
on
local
programs
to
support
that.
So
have
you
heard
of
any
programs
or
initiatives
in
those
cities.
D
L
Yeah
well
specifically
in
san
jose.
It
comes
down
to
the
market
and
is
different
in
san
jose
and
units
that
aren't
deed.
Restricted
are
renting
at
moderate
income
levels,
and
so
they
are
actually
counting
those
as
part
of
their
moderate
income
meeting
their
moderate
income
goals
in
terms
of
cupertino.
I'm
not
familiar
with
any
specific
program
that
may
be
contributing
to
their
moderate
income,
but.
G
Thank
you
just
a
couple
more
questions.
I
was
wondering
I
know
a
few
weeks
ago
we
reviewed
the
middle
field
park
proposal
from
google
and
their
idea
of
of
dedicating
the
land
to
the
city
for
affordable
housing.
How
do
you
see
proposals
such
as
that
influencing
arena
numbers,
the
city's
ability
to
re
meet
arena
numbers
across
different
income
levels.
A
E
So
what
I'm
hearing,
if
everybody
is
counting
their
dwelling
units
in
a
different
category,
you
could
really
manipulate
a
lot
of
the
numbers
to
look
pretty
dog
on
good
from
a
bag
perspective.
I'm
wondering
how
they
look
at
it.
You
know
from
from
that
perspective,
because
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
standard
way
to
like
put
put
each
of
the
dwelling
units
in
the
right
category.
D
I
think
we
just
try
to
err
on
the
cautious
level
of
you
know
actually
reporting
units
that
if
they
are
indeed
restricted
and
their
true
level
of
affordability.
But
yes,
I
don't
think
abag
audits,
you
know
our
annual
progress
report
or
how
the
others
are
reporting.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
other
cities
are
doing
it,
and
you
know
if
they're
reporting
correctly,
but
we
are
only
reporting
what
is
actually
dude
restricted.
D
E
J
E
No,
no,
I
think
I
think
that
was
what
was
targeted,
but
then
you
know
several
years
ago.
We
realized
that
we
were
very,
very
much
behind
the
moderate
and
we
were
hearing
some.
You
know
feedback
from
the
public
that
there
was
a
really
vital
need
for
that
middle
and
income
area
to
be
more
focused,
and
I
think
that's
what
we've
tried
to
address,
but
whether
that
benefits
us
or
not.
E
I
don't
know
because
I
I
don't
recall
ever
seeing
a
consistent
standard
of
how
does
the
city
benefit?
Does
it
get
more
or
less
funding?
Are
they
just
focusing
on
that
lower
income?
So
I
you
know
that's.
That
would
be
a
question
for
me.
If
there's
no
consistency
in
that,
I
don't
know
how
we're
gonna,
from
a
regional
point
of
view,
achieve
that.
If
we
are,
you
know
just
focusing
on
that
one
area
when
there
is
still
a
need
in
the
moderate
income
area.
H
Thank
you
for
the
staff
report.
I
was
really
pleased
to
see
that
we're
doing
so
well,
not
just
relative
to
the
other
cities,
but
just
in
general,
isolated.
Looking
at
our
city
alone,
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
I
read
this
correctly
that
we
have
zoned
enough
housing
at
all
levels
to
meet
the
current
arena
number
cycle
and
for
the
new
one
potentially.
A
Well,
yes,
we
are
required
by
law
to
have
zoned
enough
for
the
current
cycle,
and
so
we
have
demonstrated
that
now,
when
you
go
from
cycle
to
cycle,
there
is
no
kind
of
correction
from
not
having
met
the
previous
cycle,
so
you
can't
really
add
them.
We
can
identify
like
that.
We
only
have
to
accommodate
land
for
the
new
cycle
when
it
when
when
we
adopt
our
housing
element,
we
don't
have
to
go
back
and
also
identify
land
for
any
sites
we
didn't
achieve
in
the
last
cycle.
A
A
You
don't
really
need
to
add
them,
but
I
will
say
the
total
capacity
that
we
have
in
north
bay
shore
in
east
wisman
is
certainly
greater
than
what
is
the
draft
arena
allocation
for
the
next
cycle
and
there's
also
certainly
tons
of
other
opportunity
sites
in
our
other
change
areas,
san
antonio,
el,
camino
and
other
areas.
So
the
real
the
question
really
comes
down
in
the
next
housing
element.
Is
you
know,
hcd?
A
A
Are
there
existing
uses
where
the
existing
property
owner
isn't
going
to
want
to
build
housing
right?
So
they
look
at
all
of
that
for
all
of
our
sites
and
that
could
re
reduce
the
scope
of
sites
that
we
can
identify
in
our
next
housing
element.
We're
just
going
to
have
to
see
where
that
conversation
goes.
H
H
A
A
We
say
this
site
is
actually
feasible
for
a
low
income
or
a
very
low
income,
100
percent
project,
and
so
that
does
make
a
make
it
easier
to
achieve
the
the
arena
numbers.
Okay,
because
you're
not
you,
know
nickel
and
diming
these
15
on
every
site.
However,
it
also
means
that
when
a
developer
comes
in
or
if
a
developer
comes
in
on
that
site
and
does
market
rate
units,
we
have
to
go
through
the
no
net
loss
process
to
identify
additional
sites.
H
Okay,
got
it
okay,
there's!
So
when
a
developer
does
come,
it's
not
like
they
have
a
map
and
see
that
this
particular
property
that
they're
looking
to
develop
has
been
identified
as
whatever
level
of
affordability
and
then
that
they
present
a
proposal
for
that
level.
It's
not
that
they
just
run
their
numbers
on.
What's
going
to
work
and
propose
that
project
to
you
guys
and
then
then
we
start
shuffling
things
in
order
to
maintain
the
no
net
loss.
A
H
H
Is
there
anything
else
that
the
city
can
do
barring
a
free-for-all
that
can
help
get
projects
built?
I
just
I
guess
I
personally
feel
like
a
lot
of
projects
that
have
come
before
the
epc.
I've
sat
on
the
fence
and
I
know
staff
has
done
a
lot
of
research
and
work
with
developers
and
done
the
best
they
can
to
to
have
a
viable
project
that
works
well
with
the
city.
H
But
personally,
I've
sat
on
the
fence
on
a
couple,
just
not
knowing
how
it
would
affect
the
larger
community,
whether
it
be
traffic
or
how
it
fits
into
a
precise
plan.
That's
not
there
so
and
so
forth,
and
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
at
this
point
where
the
city
is
in
terms
of
planning
for
even
more
additional
incentives
that
allow
developers
to
move
forward.
H
A
H
No,
not
at
all,
I'm
just
asking
a
general
question.
I
guess
what
it
comes
down
to
is.
I
I
feel
like
at
this
point.
The
city
has
done
a
lot
already
to
hit
these
numbers
and
that
the
city
and
the
community,
a
lot
of
neighbors,
have
been
that
they've
sacrificed,
which
is
great
we're
a
community.
We
want
to
sacrifice
to
get
more
housing
for
people
who
need
it.
H
A
H
A
L
H
K
Thank
you
chair.
Actually,
I
had
a
question
about
nofa,
so
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
Anna.
I
was
curious,
whether
that
is
this
county
or
state
level
funding,
and
how
does
the
process
work?
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
it.
Could
you
say
a
few
words
about
it?
Please
yeah
and
then
I
have
another
question.
L
B
K
L
L
Yeah,
so
the
way
that
house,
affordable,
housing
is
generally
funded
is
through
a
variety
of
different
sources.
It's
very
rare
that
a
project
of
an
affordable
project
has
less
than
eight
funding
sources
and
so
having
local
funding
helps,
make
a
project
more
competitive
for
other
sources
of
funding,
because
generally
city
funding
is
offered
at
a
significantly
lower
interest
rate,
and
so
it
makes
the
whole
funding
stack
work
a
little
better.
K
L
K
K
Okay,
thank
you
because
I
I've
been
also
thinking.
How
does
the
city
better
facilitate
more
housing
production?
I
guess
you
know
now
that
we
have
zoned
enough.
The
next
step
is:
how
do
we
make
sure
we
facilitate
the
production?
I
guess
no,
that's
what
commissioner
yin
was
trying
to
get
at
so
towards
that
one
thought
is:
does
it
make
sense
for
the
city
to
work
on
more
precise
plans
so
that
we're
not
reviewing
you
know
one-off
gatekeeper
project?
A
A
However,
we
do
occasionally
see
proposals
for
new
development
that
may
need
a
zoning
amendment
and
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
potential
for
change
in
the
immediate
vicinity.
You
know
a
good
example
of
that
is
the
prometheus
project
that
was
recently
approved
on
villa
kind
of
near
where
the
old
near
villa
and
mariposa,
so
there's
no
opportunity
for
change
around
there.
E
Actually,
vice
chair
low
alluded
to
what
I
was
going
to
follow
on
of
doing.
You
know
additional
precise
plans
and
I
think
there
might
be
opportunities
and
other
areas
of
the
city
because
it
seems
like
we've
gotten
down
to
you
know
one
or
two
lots,
and
you
know
people
are
trying
to
develop
on
these
small
lots
that
may
be,
for
example,
on
el
camino,
they're,
small,
small,
but
deep,
and
so
not
so
easy
to
develop
on.
E
So
I'm
wondering
if,
if
we
identify
other
places
in
the
city
that
have
a
precise
plan,
maybe
commissioner
yen
won't
be
on
the
fence
for
a
lot
of
these
gatekeepers,
and
that
would
be
helpful
because
then
it's
really
clear
what
the
city
is
expecting
in
a
particular
area.
So
that
was
why
I
was
thinking.
E
Maybe
if
we
did
some
additional
precise
plans
in
certain
areas-
and
I
think
we've
seen
that
in
a
in
a
couple
of
areas
in
the
city
that
it
would
be
helpful-
and
I
guess
you
know
my
concern
with
the
project
of
including
you
know.
The
google
units
in
into
the
the
arena
is
it's
an
awful
long
time
that
we
are
looking
at,
maybe
letting
google
really
developed
that
particular
area
and
so
by
giving
the
city
some
of
the
some
of
the
property
and
expecting
us
to
put
the
affordable
housing
there.
E
E
I
mean
I
thought
it
was
just
a
great
wonderful
idea,
but
you're
talking
about
10
years
down
the
line.
So
I
I
think
that
kind
of
hand
ties
the
city
because
you
know
is
there
any
penalty
if
they
don't
honor?
That,
and
you
know,
I'm
I'm
wondering,
because
we
did
a
precise
plan
for
that.
But
you
know
we
didn't
limit
the
amount
of
time
that
the
development
could
take
place
over
time.
So
I'm
wondering
if
we're
missing
something
there.
A
B
I'll
take
a
minute
with
some
questions
and
comments
along
the
lines
of
you
know
kind
of
commissioner
corporosis
comment,
and
I
think
eric
mentioned
earlier,
that
we
don't
get
any
credit
for
we
don't
get
a
penalty
for
being
below
when
we
go
into
the
next
cycle.
It's
my
impression
that
we
also
get
no
credit
for
being
over
during
the
next
cycle.
Is
that
correct?
B
So,
even
though
the
plan
says
this
is
what
we're
going
to
do,
I
don't
believe
we
can
realistically
count
everything,
even
if
they
do,
even
if
we
approve
those
master
plans,
because
it
goes
beyond
the
time
period
of
the
cycle.
So
why
would
we
get
staff
looked
at?
I
was
in
in
a
conversation
with
a
member
of
council.
I
was
given
the
impression
that
we
have
some
discretion
on
what
we
count.
B
Whether
we
include
something
at
entitlement,
whether
it's
included
at
essentially
breaking
ground
or
including
it
when
it's
actually
occupancy
permits,
has
staff
looked
at.
Should
we
be
only
including
those
things
that
have
the
occupancy
permits
and
or
that
are
actually
viewing
construction
and
not
including
things
that
are
that
have
been
permitted
that
haven't
started
moving,
because
I
mean
just
thinking:
777
was
middle
field,
the
the
summer
hill
project
and
west
west
with
me,
swissman
have
been
entitled,
but
there's
no
round
so
feedback
eric
aaron.
D
We
just
we
just
plainly
report
what
was
what
the
data
is
for
what
building
permits
were
issued,
but
that
the
hcd
has
now
included
all
of
these
other
phases
of
development
that
we
have
to
include-
and
I
guess
they're
just
using-
that
for
their
own
tracking
purposes,
to
I've
heard
to
see
just
how
long
it's
taking
the
developments
to
get
to
through
the
phases
to
get
their
building
permits
to
get
their
certificate
of
occupancy.
So
the
other
phases
are
just
kind
of
for
their
data
purposes.
They're
tracking,
but
the
actual.
A
Yeah,
let
me
clarify
real
quick,
I'm
sorry
for
interrupting.
I
apologize.
So
when
we
do
our
housing
element,
our
new
housing
element
there's
a
kind
of
a.
I
think
it's
called
like
a
projection
period
or
something
like
that
where
we
can
actually
count
units
that
have
not
gotten
their
occupancy
yet
before
june
2022,
so
the
official
accounting
starts
in
2023,
but
if,
if
somebody
hasn't
gotten
their
occupancy
yet
by
june
2022,
so
that's
a
lot
of
projects
that
have
probably
already
gotten
their
building
permits.
A
B
And
are
we
at
some
point
whether
is
there
a
future
meeting
where
we'll
talk
more
about
this
you're?
In
the
last
page
of
the
staff
report,
you
indicated
this
apprentice
11
000
units,
which
would
mean
essentially
adding
one-third
additional
homes
in
the
city
of
mountain
view
in
an
eight-year
period.
Are
there?
Is
that
still
under
discussion?
B
A
Locked
in
our
our
appeal,
opportunity
would
be
based
on
some
faulty
assumption,
not
really
the
methodology,
so
we
have
to
kind
of
comb
through
their
numbers
and
see
what
whether
they
have
any
kind
of
faulty
faulty
assumptions
in
their
in
their
projections
and
just
to
kind
of
clarify
what
you're
talking
about
palo
alto's
numbers
going
down,
there's
really
an
overlap
of
two
somewhat
separate
processes.
Here,
one
is
the
arena
numbers
where
we
have,
or
the
abag
has
a
kind
of
policy-based
approach
for
allocating
housing
to
different
jurisdictions.
A
So
that's
the
arena
numbers.
The
other
process
here
is
called
plan
bay
area
and
that's
a
kind
of
mutual
process
between
mtc
and
abag
and
the
goal.
There
is
the
fundamental
goal
there
is
to
set
up
a
range
of
regional
policies
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
so
what
plan
bay
area
does
is
it
identifies
all
of
these?
Regional
policies
tries
to
get
consensus
around
them
and
then
does
a
kind
of
land
use
projection
to
figure
out
what
are
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
other
equity
goals?
A
It's
not
just
greenhouse
gas,
but
there
are
other
equity
goals
and
other
sustainability
goals
and
economic
goals
that
are
to
come
out
of
plan
bay
area.
But
but
they
do
this
projection
to
see
how
we
measure
up
on
those
goals,
and
so,
after
the
first
draft
of
plan
bay
area,
the
regional
agencies
modified
some
policies
which
had
the
effect
on
this
projection
of
increasing
the
office
in
palo
alto
and
decreasing
the
housing
in
palo
alto.
That
was
just
a
kind
of
unforeseen.
A
B
B
A
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
I
think
it's
possible
that
whatever
you
did
or
whatever
your
outcome
at
the
end
of
the
last
reena
cycle
kind
of,
carries
over
on
your
sb
35
responsibility
for
the
first
couple
years
and
then
at
year
two
they
do
a
new
new
accounting
of.
Are
you
at
25
and
if
you're
not
at
25,
then
you
have
the
the
or
maybe
it's
year,
four
or
something
like
that.
I
don't
know
if
sandy
knows
but
but
yeah
I
don't
know
exactly.
F
Thank
you
chairman,
so
I
guess
I
have
a
request
for
staff.
Let
me
kind
of
explain
it
first
and
I
guess
I've
been
thinking
about
what
commissioners
ian
and
lo
we're
talking
about.
You
know
quite
a
few
minutes
back
on
this
question
of
what
do
we
do
about
it
right
and
you
know
I
think
I
can
stipulate
that
the
you
know
the
report
itself
looks
good
and
there's
really
that's
a
lot
of
good
news
in
there.
That
mountain
view
has
done
so
well.
F
I
mean
when
I'm
perfect,
but
like
we've
done
so
well
for
our
region,
that
that's
really
something
to
be
celebrated
like
that,
that's
fantastic,
but
we
can.
We
can
do
better
and,
as
you
know,
we
saw
on
some
of
the
the
answers
to
the
question.
There's
a
lot
of
demand
still-
and
I
have
a
separate
comment
about
that.
I
can
do
at
the
end,
but
I
guess
for
me
there's
kind
of
an
interesting
question
of
best
practices
right.
F
I
don't
know
at
what
point
they
become
public,
but
whenever
all
of
those
all
of
that
data
comes
in,
I
would
be
really
interested
if
planning
identifies
a
couple
of
cities
that
are
sort
of
roughly
situated
like
mountain
view,
is
they
did
even
better
because
I
would
be.
I
would
be
so
curious
to
hear
eric
your
staffs
thinking
about
what
those
cities
did.
F
That's
innovative,
that
we
never
even
thought
to
do,
or
maybe
they
something
we
thought
to
do,
but
they
just
did
it
better
or
what
happened
that
allowed
them
to
get
kind
of
even
closer
to
the
goal
than
we
did,
and
you
know
if
only
it's
like
a
city
or
two.
That
would
be
fine,
but
I'm
just
really
interested
in
sort
of
a
professional
planner's
assessment
of
what
some
of
those
high-performing
cities.
What
they
did
and
what
we
can
learn
from
it,
because
I
think
that
would
be
hugely
educational.
For
me,.
B
I
mean
a
comment.
I
mean
right
now,
we're
in
an
environment
where
money
chasing
the
ground
is
what
drives
the
developers
and
the
less.
If
you
want
to
you,
want
to
make
them
build
faster,
reduce
the
you
know,
your
your
fees,
okay,
it
makes
it
they'll
go
out
and
spend
the
money
on
the
land
and
they'll
do
it
that
doesn't
always
work
vancouver.
B
So
if
that
comes
back,
I
wouldn't
be
surprised.
If
they
come
back
and
say,
can
we
do
something
about?
You
know
on
the
costs?
Sobrato
did
exactly
that
in
north
bay
shore
and
they
got
approval
and
came
back
two
or
three
times
for
concessions
from
the
city
to
make
it
economically
viable.
So
I
think
we're
gonna.
B
Those
are
gonna
be
the
kind
of
things
that,
unfortunately,
we
may
see
to
keep
these
things
moving
and
certainly
the
you
know
the
30
drop
in
rents
in
this
last
year
and
mountain
view
has
got
to
be
giving
a
lot
of
builders
thoughts
about
what
do
I
put
my
you
know.
What
do
I
put
money
into
and
will
people
still
be,
you
know
be
commuting
into
mountain
view,
they'd
be
commuting
from
hollister
or
you
know,
lodi
or
you
know
what
so
it's
going
to
be.
B
How
do
we
keep
it
going?
I
think
we're
all
going
to
have
to
keep
a
very
close
eye
on
it
and
and
looking
at
other
cities.
I
think,
as
commissioner
dempsey
said,
is
a
good
option,
but
I
think
even
some
outside
of
the
bay
area,
where
they're
looking
at
other
very
in
a
ways,
innovative
ways
would
be
very
interesting
to
see
if
we
could
get
some
insight
into
that
as
we
get
ready
for
the
doing
the
housing
element
the
next
time.
H
H
There's
so
many
things
that
we're
going
to
lose
out
on
by
just
pushing
housing
solely
housing
without
contemplating
the
rest
of
life
and
what
goes
into
making
a
good
city
function
for
all,
and
I
had
heard
that
there
is
a
bit
of
a
carrot,
and
maybe
you
guys
know
about
it
and
can
describe
it
a
little
bit
more.
Something
about
transportation
fees
can
be
split
between
various
cities
if
we're.
If
we,
if
we
meet
the
numbers
and
that
we're
sort
of
in
like
a
sixth
place
position,.
A
I
don't
know
exactly:
I
know
that
there
are
transportation
grants
that
are
made
on
the
basis
of
housing
production.
I
don't
know
any
details
about
it.
Anna
or
aaron
do
either
of
you
no
yeah.
I
yeah,
I'm
afraid
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
any
specifics
about
it.
I
I
only
know
what
I
briefly
heard
before,
responding
to
the
questions.
B
I
guess
just
one
last
thought
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
we're
going
to
be
seeing
coming
up
here
is
the
r3
zoning
and
we've
we've
seen
at
least
a
couple
of
projects
where
there
was
one
in
chia
vista
where
they
they.
The
developer,
did
went
to
within
a
millimeter
of
every
one
of
the
specifications
the
city
had,
and
we
ended
up
with
six
really
really
really
big
townhomes.
B
Okay,
the
r3
zoning
is
going
to
give
us
the
chance
to
look
at
those
kind
of
things
and
say:
okay,
our
do
those
things
kind
of
things
make
sense.
We
the
current
r3
zoning,
says
you
can
do
a
town
home,
you
can
do
a
row
home
and
it's
a
no-brainer
there's.
No,
almost
the
review
process
is
very
straightforward.
So
if
we
want
more
units,
we
want
stack
flats.
We
want
a
little
more
density
in
the
same
amount
of
space,
maybe
maybe
they're
smaller
units,
but
there's
more
of
them.
B
We
think
we
will
have
some
opportunity
as
we
go
through
the
r3
zoning
here,
coming
up
to
look
at
those
kind
of
things
and
it
may
be
making
it
more
attractive
for
people
to
even
to
develop
in
place
to
get
more.
You
know
to
get
more
out
of
the
land
that
they
have,
but
it's
something
I
think
we'll
have
to
think
about
when
we
get
into
that
process
as
well.
So
looking
forward
to
that
eric
when
it
comes
up,
when
is
that
a
margin
about
a
month
here?
J
I
just
wanted
to
share
this
one
data
point
from
state
of
the
valley,
which
was
last
last
week
where
so
in
calendar
year,
2020
there
were
between
san
mateo
and
santa
clara
counties.
There
were
4
700,
new
housing
starts,
so
actual
building
permits
approved
for
new
units,
and
our
staff
report
says
in
mountain
view.
1588
of
those
were
in
our
city,
which
means
38
of
those
new
housing
starts,
came
from
mountain
view
alone,
so
I
mean
that's.
J
That's
fairly
impressive
and,
and
the
other
big
takeaway
about
just
housing
production
in
general
in
the
region
is
that
the
last
few
years
have
been
the
lowest.
I
think
last
year
was
the
third
lowest
year
of
new
housing
starts
in
since
they've
been
tracking
this
kind
of
data.
So
there's
a
lot
of
work
ahead.
H
Sorry
I'll
be
really
quick
back
to
what
a
lot
of
you
guys
were
saying
about
the
precise
plans
and
also
that
e
swiss
min
and
north
bay
shore
was
going
to
really
take
care
of
a
lot
of
the
numbers,
but
that
there
were
other
places
that
we
could
look
at.
Is
there
a
map
that
shows
what
these
sort
of
change
areas
are
overlaid
with
the
precise
plans
with
where
we're
allocating
a
lot
of
the
affordability
units
that
we're
zoning
for
eric?
H
H
B
Areas
airplane
identified
san
antonio
el
camino,
east
westman,
north
bay
shore
and
moffitt,
as
five
change
areas
and
precise
plans
were
kind
of
driven
based
on
those
in
the
council
meeting
where
they
discussed
555
west
middle
field,
they
did.
There
seemed
to
be
some
interest
among
council
of
bringing
the
moffett.
B
A
K
B
A
That's
right
I'll
I'll
kick
us
off
here.
First
announcement
is
just
that.
Our
next
meeting
is
on
march
17th
and
lots
of
discussion.
Today
we
are
going
to
be
bringing
forward
some
questions
about
our
r3
update
on
that
meeting
and,
as
chair
cranston
said,
I
did
circulate
an
email
regarding
the
league
of
california
cities
planning
commissioners
academy,
that's
on
march,
25th,
26,
31
and
april
1st.
A
Let
me
know
if
you
wish
to
go
and
we'll
see
who's
interested,
and
you
know
if
we
can
only
take
a
few
of
you
then
or
send
a
few
of
you.
Then
it
is
virtual,
so
we're
not
sending
you
anywhere.
It's
still
gonna,
be
in
your
living
room.
Sorry,
no
hotel,
the
we'll
we'll
determine
based
on
who's
gone
in
the
past.
B
K
K
B
B
E
And
I
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
stepping
into
the
parks
and
recreation
responsibilities
is
that
they,
you
know,
does
that
suggestion
kind
of
go
to
parks
and
rec,
so
they
make
sure
that
those
fees
are
put
back
into
the
area
there
was.
It
was
designated,
for
I
mean
understanding
that
process
and
just
making
sure
that
the
responsible
commission
takes.
You
know
takes
responsibility
for
that.