►
From YouTube: August 3, 2022 City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission Special Meeting
Description
Live teleconference of the City of Mountain View's Environmental Planning Commission Meeting (Special)
A
Resolution
of
the
environmental
planning
commission,
please
contact
the
city
clerk
at
city.clerk,
mountainview.gov
obtain
a
copy
of
the
applicable
resolution.
All
members
of
the
epc
are
participating
this
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
observe
the
meeting
may
do
so
at
mountainview.legistar.com
on
youtube
at
mountainview.gov
youtube
and
on
comcastchannel26.
A
C
E
A
A
A
Being
any,
we
will
open
it
up
to
public
comment.
Would
any
member
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
minutes?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
head
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
unmeet
themselves
with
star
6..
You
can
see
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
B
C
G
H
A
Thank
you
right
item
foreign
agenda
is
oral
communications.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
epc
on
an
item
that
is
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items.
Would
any
remember
the
public
on
the
line
to
provide
public
comment
on
a
non-agenda
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hem
button
in
zoom
or
press
star.
A
B
A
I
I
So
the
comments
collected
tonight
and
other
written
comments
received
during
the
public
comment
period,
they
will
go
guide
the
provisions
that
will
need
to
be
made
to
the
strap
report
before
it
is
finalized
and
then
used
by
the
community
and
decision
makers.
So,
as
you
can
see
on
this
slide,
it
shows
the
eir
schedule.
I
The
response
to
comments
this
draft
eir
that's
presented
tonight
and
the
text
provisions
to
the
draft
eir
taken
together
will
constitute
the
final
eir
for
this
project
on
the
city
council.
Following
a
recommendation
from
epc
which
is
potentially
scheduled
for
november,
they
will
consider
the
certification
of
the
final
eir
and
adoption
of
the
housing
element
in
december,
so
the
purpose
of
the
eir
and
the
sql
department
is
highlighted
here.
I
I
want
to
go
over
that
in
the
last
cycle
for
the
housing
element,
an
addendum
to
the
2030
general
plan,
eir
was
prepared
and
it
was
determined
that
the
analysis
of
the
impacts
and
the
mitigation
measures
that
was
identified
in
that
the
general
plan
eir.
It
remains
substantially
unchanged
in
the
fifth
cycle,
so
but
with
the
significantly
higher
arena
numbers
that
we
have
in
the
sixth
cycle
and
many
cities,
including
mountain
view,
us
have
elected
to
prepare
an
eir
to
cover
that
as
a
program.
I
Eir
the
report
analyzes
potential
physical
environmental
impacts
of
the
proposed
2023-2031
aka,
the
six
cycle
housing
element
update,
so
the
housing
element
update
project
that
we've
done
multiple
study
sessions
on.
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
it
plans
for
a
total
arena
of
11
135
units,
including
a
buffer
that
totals
approximately
about
15
15,
000
multi-family
housing
units
and
about
96
adus
from
that
about
a
thousand
or
1400
units
would
result
from
the
proposed
rezonings,
but
the
majority
of
those
units
or
13
600
of
those
units
are
already
permitted
under
current
zoning.
I
I
So
as
a
program
eir,
it
does
not
provide
detailed
analysis
that
a
project
level
eir
would
instead
this
eir.
You
should
really
look
at
it
as
a
disclosure.
It
discloses
potential
environment
impacts
that
might
be
anticipated
if
the
maximum
scenario
of
the
housing
element
update
is
built
out
at
you
know
the
broad
scale
that
is
proposed
in
actuality
when
each
project
comes
in
for
review
they'll
still
be
assessed
to
determine
their
consistency
with
the
eir.
I
They
will
be
subject
to
the
mitigation
measures
that
are
identified,
but
they
will
be
required
to
conduct
project
specific
environmental
analyses
as
necessary.
So
as
part
of
this
eir,
there
are
about
15
topics
that
analyzed
they're
listed
here.
The
ones
that
are
bolded
are
the
ones
I'm
going
to
go
over
in
the
following
slides
the
ones
that
are
unbolded
had
less
than
significant
impacts,
so
I'll
go
over
the
next.
I
So
first
we
have
air
quality,
I'm
going
to
go
over
the
issue
and
then
the
mitigation.
All
of
the
specific
details
are
highlighted
in
the
draft
housing,
the
draft
environment
intel
report,
and
it
also
is
kind
of
briefly
summarizing.
The
staff
report,
but
I'll
just
briefly
go
over
in
the
presentation
here
for
air
quality
construction
activity
could
result
in
exposing
sensitive
populations
to
pollutants.
I
So
the
mitigation
is
that
large
projects
will
be
required
to
prepare
a
construction,
health
risk
assessment
and
hra,
which
then
could
require
them
to
do
something
like
special
construction
equipment
to
reduce
some
of
the
potential
pollutants
under
biological
resources.
Removal
of
trees
or
structures
could
result
in
adverse
impacts
to
special
status
bath
species,
so
the
mitigation
is
that
they
would
be
required
to
conduct
pre-construction
surveys
to
preserve,
to
ensure
that
the
bats
are
protected.
I
The
mitigation
is
that
for
sites
that
weren't
previously
evaluated
would
require
them
to
do
a
historic
resource
evaluation
and
then
based
off
of
that,
the
project
could
be
redesigned
to
protect
the
resource
or
mitigate
mitigated
with
other
design
strategies.
We
do
want
to
highlight
that
as
part
of
picking
out
sites
for
the
site's
inventory,
they
do
not.
The
inventory
doesn't
include
any
known
or
likely
historic
resources
that
was
part
of
the
evaluation
when
we
selected
sites.
I
Projects
may
demolish
and
impact
archaeological
resources,
so
mitigation
is
that
if
any
resources
are
encountered
during
construction,
construction
will
stop
and
will
require
preservation
measures
and
then
any
projects
that
will
have
ground
disturbance
will
have
to
conduct
site-specific
cultural
resource
study
as
part
of
their
their
process
and
then
for
this
last
bullet
point.
Greenhouse
gas
projects
would
generate
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
their
mitigation
would
be
that
they
would
have
to
provide
additional
electric
vehicle
charging
infrastructure
and
then
also
implement
vehicle
miles,
traveled
vmt
reduction
measures.
I
The
only
an
identified
impact
that
is
identified
as
significant
and
unenjoyable
is
under
air
quality.
I
want
to
highlight
that
the
housing
element
project
is
a
citywide
planning
document,
so
it
does
anticipate
for
potential
development
over
quite
a
long
period
of
time.
So
there
will
be
a
variety
of
projects
that
will
have
different
levels
of
impact
based
on
their
size,
construction
time
and
how
it
overlaps
with
other
construction
projects
at
the
same
time
and
their
location.
I
So
it's
very
likely
that
most
projects
would
not
exceed
any
significant
thresholds
as
the
one
that's
identified
here,
but
based
on
the
scale
of
the
housing
element.
So
the
number
of
potential
units
and
the
eight
year
timeline,
it
is
also
likely
that
there
may
be
some
projects
that
could
exceed
screening
thresholds.
I
I
So
when
considering
alternatives,
the
evaluation
is
really
to
compare
project
alternatives
that
would
reduce
the
proposed
project's
significant
impact,
which
is
the
one
that
was
on
the
previous
slide,
while
reasonably
achieving
the
objectives
of
the
project.
So
in
this
case
the
project
is
the
housing
element
update
which
is
required
by
the
state,
and
so
the
goals
are
to
protect
existing
housing,
encourage
new
housing,
remove
undue
constraints
to
new
housing
development,
affirmatively,
further
fair
housing
and
to
identify
specific
sites
to
meet
the
arena
allocation.
I
Based
on
this
analysis,
you
can
see
that
the
reduced
sites
alternative
is
the
ultra
environmentally
superior
alternative,
because
it
could
reduce
air
quality
impacts
and
it
would
meet
all
the
basic
project
objectives
of
the
proposed
housing
element.
Update
though
not
as
well
as
the
proposed
causing
elements
you
can
see
that.
I
So
the
goal
tonight
it's
pretty
narrow.
We
are
here
to
gather
comments
on
a
very
technical
document
that
will
contribute
to
the
final
development
of
the
eir
as
part
of
the
sql
process.
Responses
to
the
comments
and
the
draft
eir
again
together
will
reflect
in
the
final
eir
and
the
final
eir
can
then
be
used
to
you
know
to
go
over
and
discuss
policy
recommendations
and
solutions.
So
staff
poses
this
question
to
the
epc.
Do
you
have
any
comments
on
the
draft?
I
Any
questions
that
come
up
should
focus
on
the
content
and
scope
of
the
eir
or
the
eir
process,
and
then
briefly
just
to
wrap
up.
This
is
a
sequel
process
and
project
timeline.
The
draft
ear
again
is
circulated
for
public
review
about
a
week
and
a
half
ago
and
will
be
open
until
september
5th.
So
it's
open
for
the
public
to
review.
I
You
can
go
to
www.mvhousingelement
our
project
website
and
it
has
the
draft
eir
and
appendices
located
there,
so
any
person
can
submit
written
comments
on
the
eir
to
the
city
during
the
circulation
circulation
period.
This
epc
hearing
is
just
one
of
the
opportunities
where
the
public
can
private
comments
and
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation
I
have
with
me
eric
advanced
planning
manager
and
jill
from
esa
are
consultants.
A
So
as
a
study
session,
the
next
step
is
public
comment.
So
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6.
epc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
no
longer
do
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
the.
C
A
Running
once
going
twice,
okay
and
we
will
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
so
we
do
both
questions
and
discussion.
One
of
things
that
I,
when
I
talked
yesterday
with
with
alan
and
eric,
is
since
this
is
really
commenting
on
the
eir
in
other
studies
sessions.
Sometimes
we'll
do
take
a
straw
poll
at
the
end
to
kind
of
see
who,
if
people
agree
with
it,
the
what
the
staff
is
we're
looking
for
is
any
comment,
so
we
won't
be
taking
straw
polls
after
we
after
we
collect
the
feedback.
A
J
Thank
you,
sir.
So
I've
got
two
quick
questions.
One
deals
with
the
mitigation
under
utilities,
so,
on
page
five,
the
third
bullet
point
mitigation
projects
will
contribute
a
fair
share
amount
to
fund
capital
utility
improvements.
So
my
question
is:
how
do
you
define
fair
share
and
is
this
like
a
standard
practice
that
other
cities
have
also
gone
through
and
if
so,
which
cities
have
you
noticed?
K
L
Thank
you
eric
thank
you,
commissioners,
so
I
am
as
their
excited
senior
civil
engineer
and
land
development.
I
hope
support
planning
on
these
redevelopment
projects.
This
one
happens
to
be
exactly
up
my
alley.
Some
of
the
other
questions
tonight,
I
will
have
to
say
I'm,
I'm
speaking
for
public
works
and
a
lot
of
different
divisions,
but
the
utilities
is
is
right
up
my
alley.
J
L
J
J
But
my
main
question
is:
can
any
project
be
stopped
or
not
approved
because
of
a
water
shortage?
I
noticed
that
we
have
all
these
other
different
types
of
elements
regarding
water
usage,
but
I
didn't
see
anything
under
water
shortage
quote
unquote,
so
I
figured
to
ask
just
for
clarification
say
because
I'm
sure
there's
all
folks
thinking
about
the
worst
case
scenario
takes
away
for
your
for
your
patience.
There.
L
So
the
water
supply
assessment-
that's
included
in
this
eir.
It
looks
at
both
what
happens
in
a
normal
year
a
single
dry
year
and
multiple
dry
years,
and
what
the
ir
is
saying
in
the
water
supplies
has
been
saying.
Is
we
have
sufficient
supply
in
those
years
to
provide
water
for
these
housing
units?
L
Now
it's
important
to
note,
because
we're
all
familiar
with
the
the
drought
that
we're
in
right
now
that
in
most
drought
scenarios,
including
the
one
we're
in
the
demand,
reductions
that
are
being
put
in
place
right
now
are
required
for
all
agencies.
Irrespectible
you're,
irrespective
of
whether
or
not
the
individual
agency,
has
sufficient
supply.
J
G
So
we
this
environmental
impact,
the
program
eir,
is
talking
about
the
environmental
impact
for
us
to
increase
our
total
number
of
units.
I
don't
know
what
that
percentage
is,
but
it's
like
what
did
I
like?
30
40,
I
don't
know
I
was
a
political
science
guy,
not
a
math
guy,
but
like
that's
huge,
that
is
absolutely
huge
of
an
impact.
G
You
know
this
is
four
times
what
it
was
in
cycle
five,
so
I
just,
I
think,
that's
important
to
reinforce
because
we're
talking
about
a
level
of
growth
and
trying
to
guess
at
the
impacts
of
a
level
of
growth
that
I
don't
know
that
mountain
view's
ever
seen,
and
I
think
that
that's
just
important
to
start
right
there,
so
that
I
wanted
to
ask
about
utilities.
I
want
to
ask
about
water
so
for
utilities
I
understand
and
and
renee
that
was
really
helpful.
What
you
were
saying
about
how
we
go
about
paying
for
it.
G
D
L
So,
first,
to
clarify
that
fair
share
rate
is
not
by
far
the
only
way
that
we're
using
to
build
the
utility
systems.
So,
as
ellen
mentioned,
the
vast
majority
of
there's,
these
units
are
already
underneath
the
north
bay
shore,
precise
plan
or
the
east
whispering
precise
plan.
So
when
we
do
a
general
plan,
a
precise
plan,
any
of
those
planning
documents,
there's
utility
studies
that
are
done
with
those
and
those
show
the
city.
L
So
for
those
sites
that
are
already
zoned,
we
know
what
those
pipes
are
and
we're
already
incorporating
those
into
the
cip
to
do
those
improvements
and-
and
some
of
those
improvements
that
came
out
of
north
bay
shore
are
under
construction
right
now
now
for
north
bay
shore
and
for
east
whistman.
We
also
have
precise
plan
fees
that
pay
for
those,
and
I
also
have
a
sewer
and
water
capacity
fee
that
goes
on
to
every
new
unit
square
footage.
L
Well,
not
every
new
unit,
not
below
market
rate
units,
every
unit
square
footage
that
gets
built
out
there,
and
so
we
as
a
city
are
planning.
As
you
know,
community
development
is
doing
these
large
planning
documents.
Public
works
is
doing
utility
studies
behind
the
scenes
and
making
sure
that
the
city's
infrastructure
is
there
to
support
this
growth.
G
It
sounds
like
you're
pretty
confident
that,
with
all
of
these
units,
to
the
extent
that
there
may
be
additional
infrastructure
required,
the
fair
share
process
and
other
processes
that
we
have
in
place
are
sufficient
or
more
than
sufficient
to
ensure
that
the
city
doesn't
get
left
holding
the
bag
for
a
bunch
of
infrastructure
improvements
as
a
result.
Is
that
a
fair
way
to
describe
it.
G
G
That's
fantastic,
I
feel
better
already
so
more
questions
about
another
question
about
water
and
I
guess
I
want
to
understand
just
a
little
bit
more
about
how
do
we
plan
for
drought?
So
it's
absolutely.
You
know
it's
fantastic,
that
the
normal
process
plans
for
both
a
regular
year,
a
one-year
drought
and
it
sounds
like
a
multi-year
drought.
My
understanding
is
that
we're
in
a
drought
that
historically
had
only
occurred
in
on
the
order
of
hundreds
of
years.
I
I
don't
want
to
quote
it.
G
I
thought
it
was
500,
but
I
could
be
totally
wrong,
but
it's
a
it
is
an
unusual.
It
is
an
a
historic
drought
is
my
understanding,
and
I
am,
I
think,
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
whether
the
process
is
taking
into
account
something
that's
that
unusual
and-
and
I
guess
I
would
be
curious
to
know
like
is
it?
G
Is
it
true
if
we
actually
increased
our
number
of
units
by
again
my
math
is
probably
wrong
with
34,
we'll
say
like
if
we
called
up-
and
I
don't
even
know
who
produces
or
what
or
provides
our
water?
Is
it
hatchety,
I'm
not
sure,
but
if
we
called
up
the
provider
of
our
water
and
said
hey,
we've
got
15
000
units
coming
online
in
the
next
eight
years.
L
So
it's
a
political
answer
more
than
a
technical
answer,
so
I'm
going
to
talk
off
of
some
of
what
our
public
services
division.
Provided
me
with
information
on.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
questions.
Yes,
of
course,
about
drought,
we
use
a
standard
practice
for
looking
at
water
supply
assessments
because,
of
course,
we
have
to
look
at
them
equally
across
all
projects.
L
L
We
are
looking
at
that
and
looking
at
alternative
sources
that
we
may
have
for
water.
If
we
really
do
get
to
that
point
that
what
we're
getting
from
sfp
you
see
is
not
enough,
but
I
want
to
emphasize
the
drought
restrictions
that
are
in
place
right
now
are
not
because
we
don't
have
the
supply
they're,
because
we
have
been
told
there
is
a
statewide
supply
issue
and
everybody
needs
to
conserve.
G
Before
I
give
you
my
last
comment,
I
will
say:
I'm
empathetic
how
hard
of
a
job
it
is
that
you
have
in
trying
to
guess.
You
know
whether
it's
going
to
rain
or
not,
and
will
other
political
organizations
give
us
water
or
not,
that
it's
tough
to
to
forecast
that
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
I'm
curious
to
know.
G
G
G
How
would
that
impact
this
like
if
they
just
said
the
water's
not
coming?
What
would
that
mean
practically
speaking
for
the
eir,
for
this
process
and
for
the
sort
of
the
rights
that
people
have
been
given
to
build,
not
knowing
that
the
water
wasn't
going
to
be
there
so
either?
Can
we
to
try
to
make
this
clear?
L
I
think
that's
some
very
good
questions
that
I'm
going
to
need
to
get
back
to
you
on.
I
would
point
you
towards
the
city-wide
urban
water
management
plan
that
looks
at
some
of
those
issues
for
the
whole
city
and
then
we'll
get
you
some
more
details
on
what
we,
what
we
can
and
cannot
include
in
the
eir
and
then
some
more
information
on
how
the
city
is
planning
for
this.
K
If,
if
that's
a
comment
that
you
want
to
provide
or
whatever
we
can
respond
through
the
feir
and
get
you
more
and
more
thorough
information
that
way
I'll
just
add
one
more
thing:
the
water
supply
assessment,
we
did
was
a
very,
very
conservative
analysis
and
just
to
give
you
the
an
idea
of
how
conservative
it
is,
we
actually
didn't
subtract
the
existing
water
use
from
sites
that
are
redeveloped.
We
just
took
the
existing
site
and
you
know
whatever
100
units
of
water
use.
K
On
top
of
it
we're
effectively
double
counting
landscaping
that
way,
we're
double
counting
all
kinds
of
things
and,
in
fact,
what
we're
seeing
in
a
lot
of
redevelopment
is
that,
even
if
it
is
a
very
intensive
redevelopment,
water
use
can
go
down
because
we're
losing
so
much
landscaping
right
and
that's
where
a
lot
of
water
goes,
and
so,
as
the
city
becomes
more
efficiently
built.
There
are
a
lot
of
opportunities
for
increased
water
efficiency.
That
way,
it's
not
a
you
know,
quantitative
answer.
K
G
M
M
I
will
admit
I
didn't
get
through
every
detail
of
the
draft
dir
so
bear
with
me
if
this
was
buried
somewhere
and
I
didn't
get
it,
but
taking
a
step
back
and
thinking
about
this
draft
eir,
I
know
that
we
have
our
11
000
units
and
a
buffer.
But
let's
say
htd
comes
back
to
the
city
and
says
our
draft
site
inventory,
for
whatever
reason
is
inadequate
and
we
have
to
add
new
housing
sites,
new
residential
sites.
M
K
K
There
are
comments,
for
example,
we
could
make
more
sites
that
already
allow
housing
allow
it
by
right
with
20,
affordable
right,
so
that
would
allow
hcd
to
let
us
count
more
sites
right,
you'd,
be
to
the
site's
inventory,
and
so
that
wouldn't
change
the
overall
capacity
of
the
city
or
the
plan,
or
anything
like
that
right.
We
could
just
and.
K
Yeah
you're
not
you're,
not
changing
the
actual,
build
out
the
physical
build
out
of
the
city.
Another
potential
scenario
is:
we
need
to
identify
more
sites
to
rezone.
Well,
council
said
you
know,
here's!
You
know
a
bunch
of
areas
that
we
could
have
in
our
quote:
unquote
back
pocket
that
we
have
in
our
no
net
loss
program
and
we
actually
analyzed
those
in
this
eir.
K
So
we
can
just
move
forward
with
those
as
sites
to
re-zone
as
part
of
the
housing
element
and
do
them
within
three
years
and
and
that
would
be
that
would
cut.
We've
already
done
the
environmental
analysis
on
those.
So
that's
just
two
potential
scenarios
for
how
we
could
move
forward
without
having
to
do
a
whole
bunch
more
analysis.
K
If
both
of
those
fall
apart
and
and
we
need
to
identify-
you
know,
5000
new
sites-
and
you
know
they
don't
accept
the
you
know
rezoning
by
right
or
whatever.
Then
we
may
have
to
go
back
and
do
another
public
circulation
of
the
eir.
I
don't
know
miss
fake
mini.
If,
if
you
can
think
of
any
other
kind
of
potential
scenarios
through
the
sequel
process,.
K
M
And
I
guess
maybe
this
brings
me
to
a
question
about
timeliness.
So
the
letter
we
received
from
yambi
mount
umb
suggested
that
their
analysis
from
the
past
cycle
maybe
thinks
that
we,
the
city,
is
being
too
optimistic
in
terms
of
the
number
of
units
that
would
actually
be
built
in
the
next
eight
years.
Can
can
staff
come
in
a
little
bit
about
that
66
percentage?
I
mean.
M
K
K
I
think
that's
the
comments
you're
talking
about
where,
where
they
said
you
know,
only
the
60-some
percent
of
approved
projects
actually
got
built
or
approved
units
actually
got
built.
You
know
I
that
is
that
that
is
not
what
our
analysis
finds.
It's
certainly
the
case
that
some
projects
go
through
multiple
iterations
of
developers,
and
it's
certainly
the
case
that
sometimes
projects
do
get
hung
up
for
a
while.
K
You
know
one
project
that
was
inactive
back
in
2014
was
870
el
camino
and
that's
a
project
that
you're
going
to
be
seeing
in
a
couple
of
weeks
here
and
so
yeah,
that's
seven
years
of
inactivity
right.
We
probably
wouldn't
have
included
it
in
our
eir
back
in
2014,
because
it
was
inactive.
It
wasn't
moving
forward.
They
only
submitted
one
application
and
then
they
went
away.
You
know
they
they
just
they
just
weren't
moving
forward
on
the
application.
K
They
withdrew
their
approved
project,
but
we're
looking
at
a
project.
Now,
that's
you
know,
10
or
15
percent,
larger
and
so
in
an
environment
like
mountain
view,
where
land
values
are
so
high
and
there's
so
much
development
interest
a
site
that
is
a
viable
development
site
does
not
stay.
You
know
it.
It's
gonna
move
forward,
so
we
have
we're
working
on
the
kind
of
comparable
numbers
of
you
know,
kind
of
pessimistically
approved
projects
that
might
not
proceed,
but
it's
nowhere
near
66.
M
Thank
you,
that's
helpful
and
I'm
not
I'm
not
trying
to
be
negative.
I
just
really
want
to
be
realistic,
and
I
think
I
mean
every
analysis
I
have
seen
is
that
it's,
the
housing
growth
is
tied
to
employment
and
if
assuming
employment
I
mean
but
they're
huge
upheavals
with
employment,
and
so
I
think
I
just
want
to
be
really
cautious
as
we're
going
into
the
cycle
to
say.
M
Yes,
we
have
major
employers,
but
the
future
of
work
is
so
uncertain
that
you
know
we
have
a
very
long
time
horizon
with
google
and
some
of
these
other
projects
that
I
I
want
to
be
as
confident
as
possible
that
the
next
eight
years
we're
we're
gonna
see
some
of
these
things
come
to
fruition.
I
I
agree
with
all
of
what
you
said
eric,
so
thank
you
for
helping,
and
then
I
will
ask
one
final
question
and
before
letting
others
chime
in
so
one
of
the
housing
element.
M
M
If
I
miss
this
in
the
the
drafty
ir-
please
let
me
know,
but
but
how
do
we
think
about
studying
that
additional
capacity
and
calling
out
those
specific
programs
in
the
draft
dir,
and
if
I
missed
that
I
would.
I
would
just
be
glad
to
figure
out
where
that
analysis
is
and
understand
when
we're,
adding
housing
or
residential
to
a
site
that
currently
doesn't
have
it
and
how
we're
studying
that
capacity.
K
K
There's
also
some
assumptions
for
you
know
in
the
cumulative
scenario
you
know
a
significant
number
of
units
coming
from
you
know:
single-family
lots
under
sb9,
so
we're
we're
really
looking
at
you
know
very
general
broad
city-wide
growth.
We,
this
is
not
a
site-specific
analysis.
By
any
means,
can
you
tell
I'm
really
struggling.
K
Exactly
exactly,
but
certainly
in
you
know,
if
a
project
were
to
come
through,
we
would
do
any
kind
of
necessary
site
specific
analysis.
You
know
if
it's
creek
adjacent
or
something
like
that,
we
might
have
to
do
something.
If
it's
you
know,
if
there
are
potential,
as
we
said,
construction
impacts
or
something
like
that,
we
we
might
have
to
do
some
initial
analysis
on
those
on
those
specific
sites,
miss
fake
money.
Did
you
have
something
else
to
add.
M
So
conceptually
that
makes
sense,
I
think,
as
we
work
toward
the
final
eir,
I
think
in
the
areas
where
there
has
not
historically
been
zoned
zoning
for
residential.
That
piece
makes
me
uncomfortable.
I
understand
it's
programmatic,
but
I
think,
if
there's
some
level
of
analysis
that
would
be
possible
or
to
call
it
out.
The
programs
that
we're
talking
about
in
the
housing
element
update
should
be
reflected
in
the
eir
analysis
in
some
way,
and
and
again
it's
a
big
document.
M
So
if,
if
I
missed
it
or
if
it's
it's
framed
in
a
different
way,
but
I
would
like
to
see
that
kind
of
direct
tied
to
say
here's
some
of
the
programs
and
then
what
those
impacts
are,
even
if
it's
at
a
very
general
level
to
me
that
piece,
at
least
with
their
religious
organizations
didn't
come
through,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
that's
a
useful
comment,
but
I
I
want
to
be
explicit.
This
is
our
intention
that
we're
trying
to
say
here's
where
we
think
we
could.
A
I
just
I
I
did.
I
did
read
the
whole
thing.
I
didn't
memorize
everything,
but
my
recollection
was
the
religious
sites
was
in
the
section
saying
these
are
things
that
we
did
not
add.
It
wasn't
part
of
what
we
did
at
the
areas
around
the
el
camino
hospital
were
included
in
that
there
were.
There
were
like
four
or
five
different
things
that
we
had
kind
of
talked
about
and
were
brought
in
front
of
council
that
I
thought
were
in
the
section
that
said.
K
So
we
we
didn't
include
it
in
the
site's
inventory,
because
we
didn't
have
any
confidence
that
we
could
make
the
argument
to
hcd
that
these
are
viable
sites
for
housing.
Even
though
we
intend
to
move
forward
on
a
rezoning
action
to
allow
affordable
housing
on
these
sites.
Now,
it's
kind
of
one
of
our
backup
upon
backup
strategies
to
hcd
to
kind
of
show
them
hey.
K
You
know
we're
we're
over
preparing
for
this
housing
element
and-
and
so
the
those
units
were
actually
planned
for
in
the
eir,
because
they
are
part
of
a
program
for
in
the
housing
element.
We
do
have
to
include
them
in
our
analysis:
they're
just
not
part
of
the
site's
inventory,
and
so
it's
not
quite
the
same
category
as
the
el
camino
hospital
sites,
which
I
believe
council
said
to
not
include
in
either
the
site's
inventory
or
the
backup.
M
M
M
But
I
think
hcd
is
going
to
have
clear
scrutiny,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
our
backups
upon
backups
are
are
really
well
rooted
in
something
that
could
materialize
in
the
next
eight
years,
and
it
makes
me
nervous
because
I
think
the
people
who
get
a
lot
of
attention
or
the
cities
that
just
haven't
built
and
mountain
view
has
been
building
a
lot
but
they're
huge
economic
forces
and
other
things
that
we
can't
predict.
That
could
could
change
all
the
good
intentions
that
we
have
to
get
this
developed.
So,
okay,
thank
you.
A
H
H
Okay,
so
if
seven
of
us
give
like
the
same
either
comment
or
question
versus
like,
if
only
one
person
gave
it,
then
you
guys
would
like
all
you
would
be
doing
in
that
case
is
just
responding
to
the
question
and
it
would
just
go
into
the
like
final,
like
draft
and
then
like
that
would
go
to
hcd.
Or
what
would
you
know?
Sorry
if
I
missed
it.
The
first
time.
E
H
H
All
right
cool,
so
it
sounds
like
just
a
public
comment.
Then
I'll
give
a
public
comment.
I
am
tripping
out
about
the
drought
in
water
too,
and
so
you
know
I
would
really
like
the
eir
to
think
about
like
instead
of
looking
at
like.
Oh,
we
don't
have
enough
water
to
like
build.
What
are
the
things
that
we
can
do
to
save
water
to
build
our
you
know,
allocation
or
even
more
than
that,
it's
like
legitly
like.
Why
do
we
need
pools
like?
H
Let's
not,
let's
cut
that
out,
we
can
have
a
public
pool.
People
can
go
to
it,
that'll
be
fantastic
and
non-functional
landscaping,
like
grass,
so
unnecessary.
Don't
need
to
have
like
this
vast
amount
of
landscaping
row
home
developments
like
all
this
kind
of
stuff.
I
know
they
want
to
look
pretty.
I
know
they
want
to
evoke
the
kind
of
single
family
aesthetic
just
too
much.
I
would
really
like
to
make
a
strong
comment
around
just
get
ridding.
H
If,
like,
we
could
find
a
way
to
move
towards
a
like,
no
more
grass
type
of
scenario,
or
just
very,
very,
very
consciously
eliminating
non-functional
landscaping,
las
vegas
is
doing
it.
That
would
be
really
fantastic
in
addition
to
giving
some
sort
of
incentive
for
people
and
or
developers
to
do
it.
That
would
be
fantastic
in
addition
to
that,
some
sort
of
on-site
water
capture,
storage,
recycling
type
of
requirement
when
appropriate.
H
You
know
that
would
really
help
us
capture
a
lot
more
of
the
water
that
just
falls
naturally
out
of
the
sky.
I
think
that
would
be
one
way
to
ensure
we
are,
you
know,
doing
our
localized
part
to
increase
water
supply
and
also
density
right,
so
like
in
terms
of
you
know,
thinking
about
our
long-term
water
situation.
H
Unless
we
just
try
to
prevent
people
from
being
born
or
like
wanting
people
to
you
know,
have
some
sort
of
you
know
like
agency,
or
choice
around
where
they're
living,
then
we
do
need
to
densify
and
dense
urban
infill
development
is
far
less
water
intensive
than
you
know.
Nice
plots
of
you
know
single-family
homes
in
which
I
grew
up
with
a
big
tree
in
the
front
and
nice
beautiful
grass.
It's
just
what
it
is.
So
I
think
in
terms
of
water,
that
would
be
a
fantastic
comment.
H
I
would
like
to
log
in
terms
of
the
electric
vehicle
stuff
yeah.
I
don't
know
like.
I
think
the
governor
said
that
we're
gonna
no
longer
sell
gas
cars
like
by
the
middle
of
next
decade
or
something
like
that.
There
was
a
requirement
in
there.
That
said
about.
10
percent
was
the
requirement
for
new
ev.
I'm
not
going
to
do
the
math
around.
H
You
know
if
that's
really
sufficient
or
not,
but
it
just
seems
like
you
know,
if
we
are,
you
know,
I
hear
the
term
like
end
of
a
building's
useful
life
or
what
have
you
you
know
if
we're
thinking
about
that
and
thinking
about
you
know
in
30,
40
years,
theoretically,
we're
not
going
to
have
gas-powered
cars
out
there
anymore.
Then
ten
percent,
you
know,
accessibility
for
like
ev
charging
and
such
that's.
That's
not
really
seeming
pretty
doable
for
my
perspective
and
then
also
just
in
general.
H
Like
yeah,
okay,
so
all
my
questions
were
around
like
what
is
the
nature
of
this,
so
that,
like
I
could
understand.
If
this
is
a
comment,
then
I
would
give
a
comment
so
I'll.
I
could
hold
off
my
comments.
I'm
sure,
like
what
I've
already
said
is
being
logged,
since
it's
a
public
comment
but
like
up
to
you
chair,
if
you
want
me
to
like
reserve
the
rest
of
what
I'm
gonna
say
or
if
you
want
me
to
like.
A
Yeah,
I
was
what
I
was
gonna
do
once
we
had
all
the
questions
and
then
go
through
it
make
sure
we
touch
any
which
sections
people
had
comments
on
and
then
so
that
we
were.
You
know
because
there's
15
different
sections
make
sure
we
capture
everybody.
If
there's
comments
on
a
particular
section,
we
capture
those
so.
F
Yes,
thank
you
first,
I
just
wanted
to
say
this
is
a
very
comprehensive
document
and
I
was
quite
impressed
with
the
heft
of
it.
Thank
you,
esa,
for
all
the
work
I
just
and
this
has
been
sort
of
an
ongoing
struggle
for
me
when
eir's
come
out,
because
it's
so
technical
and
I
don't
need
to
get
into
the
technical
aspects
necessarily
or
understand
every
facet,
but
I
have
a
hard
time
understanding
how
adding
and
I'm
not
against
it.
This
is
not
a
judgment.
It's
just
a
clarification
question.
F
You
know
it
doesn't
cross
the
threshold
for
posing
no
significant.
You
know
what
I'm
talking
about
impact,
for
example,
let's
say
on
transportation:
everyone
knows
in
real
life.
All
you
have
to
do
is
add
one
big
apartment
building
and
it
changes
things,
that's
not
to
say
it's
not
worth
it
or
that
there
aren't
positives
to
having
some
added
density.
I'm
just
curious
how
how
we
come
up
with
that,
and
I
don't
even
have
enough
of
the
technical
information
to
even
pose
the
question
properly.
F
So
I'm
not
sure
how
that's
going
to
get
answered
so
just
bear
with
that.
However,
you
guys
want
to
log
that
one.
The
second
is
in
terms
of
figuring
out
if
something
is
significant
or
not,
for
example,
transportation
again
I'll
just
keep
on
that.
One,
since
my
mind
like
doing
tdms
and
calculating
vmt.
That
is
one
of
the
mitigations.
F
Do
you
guys
have
records
of
what
the
tdm
programs
have
been
doing
and
does
that
circle
back
into
a
new
eir
or
do
eirs
sort
of
use
the
same
threshold
and
only
get
updated
every
five
to
ten
years?
And
it's
not
you
know
it
doesn't
happen
like
every
quarter
or
something
and
then
it's
a
new
way
of
looking
at
the
eir
thresholds.
F
So
that
was
another
question
that
might
be
too
technical
to
answer
as
well,
but
I
was
just
curious
if
things
just
circulated
back
in
information
that
you
gather
goes
back
in
to
determining
these
thresholds
and
then
one
last
question
was
completely
different
here:
the
the
two
back
of
the
pocket
sites,
one
is
in
the
cn
neighborhood
and
the
other
is
in
the
grant
phyllis
precise
plan
and
of
those
two.
I
know
there
are
some
groups
that
are
particularly
interested
in
those.
K
K
So
that
means
that
pretty
much
any
housing
unit
that
we
study
in
this
housing
element
is
probably
not
going
to
have
a
transportation
impact
because
of
the
the
structure
of
that
state
law,
as
well
as
the
the
nature
of
of
mountain
view's
jobs,
housing
and
balance.
Now
we
do
have
our
kind
of
catch-all
just-in-case
mitigation
measure,
because
this
is
a
long-term
document
and
because
we
don't
know
how
these
vmt
kind
of
rates
could
change
in
the
in
the
near
term.
K
But
we
do
expect
that
mountain
view
will
continue
to
have
a
relatively
low
vmt
and
that,
even
if
it's
not
below
the
threshold,
we
will
be
able
to
use
tdm
measures
to
get
these
projects
below
the
vmt
threshold.
That's
that
it's
an
unlike
it's
a
I'm
not
going
to
say
it's
an
unlikely
scenario,
but
it's
a
it's
a.
It
would
be
a
fairly
uncommon
scenario
for
us
to
even
have
to
resort
to
that
in
this
in
this
housing
element.
K
Now
you
also
ask
the
question
about
whether
these
things
get
re-analyzed
yeah.
So
an
eir
is
really
just
an
informational
document
for
one
action
and
in
this
one
action
it's
the
housing
element.
We
don't
we
don't
bring
up
the
eir
again
or
re-evaluate
this
action
again
we're
going
to
have
to
do
a
new
housing
element
in
eight
years,
so
we
might
have
to
do
a
new
eir
at
that
time
and
we'll
use
the
latest
greatest
information
that
we
have
at
that
time.
K
F
Yeah
back
of
the
pocket,
so
it's
yeah
may
or
may
not
be
likely
that
they're
included
at
the
very
end.
But
I
was
just
curious
given
that
from
public
comment
they
had
mentioned
the
the
wording
of
the
retail,
and
I
was
curious
why
the
two
are
worded
differently
between
wasm
valley
and
the
grant
park
shopping
area.
One
is
in
the
student
zoning
and
one
isn't
the
precise
plan.
K
Okay,
so
those
are
actually
not
back
pocket
sites.
Those
are
sites
that
we're
actually
going
to
be
bringing
forward
new
zoning
language,
new
precise
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
language
to
the
epc
to
allow
housing
on
those
sites
in
november
and
we'll
be
bringing
that
forward
to
the
epc
and
council
as
directed
by
council
just
a
few
weeks
ago,
and
so
we're
doing
that
to
bring
the
zoning
into
consistency
with
the
general
plan,
which
already
says
that
housing
is
allowed
on
those
sites.
K
They
were
identified
as
village
centers
in
the
2030
general
plan,
which
was
adopted
back
in
2012,
and
the
only
reason
that
we're
doing
different
actions
for
the
two
is
because
the
existing
zoning
is
different
for
the
two.
So
one
of
them
is
within
the
cn
zone
today,
and
so
we're
going
to
be
applying
those
residential
standards
in
the
cn
zone
as
it
would
apply
to
the
blossom
valley
site
and
then
the
other
one
is
in
the
grant.
F
A
F
F
I
F
L
So
more
important,
I
think
the
the
information
there
is
that
the
growth
that
we're
planning
for
as
part
of
this
housing
element
was
incorporated
into
the
water
and
sewer
master
plan
updates.
So
we
update
those
documents
about
every
10
years,
looking
at
what
we're
going
to
need
for
the
next
10
years,
and
we
incorporated
the
growth
that
we're
expecting
as
part
of
all
of
these
projects.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
So
much
welcome.
Oh,
oh
sorry,
one
more!
If
you
guys
are
patient,
have
the
patience
with
me.
Okay,
last
one.
I
know
a
lot
of
us
were
we're
counting
on
a
big
chunk
of
the
development
to
occur
at
north
bay
shore-
and
I
didn't
know
if
it's
usually
the
property
owner
who
does
the
research
on
flooding
and
bay
level
sea
rise
and
how
that
will
impact
their
development.
Or
does
the
city
do
any
of
that
as
well?
Just
because
it
is
such
a
big
project.
F
You
know
there
are
varying
statistics
out
there
about
how
much
will
rise
and
how
fast.
I
think
everyone
generally
concedes
that
it
will
happen,
and
I
didn't
know,
given
you
know
the
location,
how
close
and
how
low
a
lot
of
that
area
is,
if
that
will
impact
what
gets
built
when
it
gets
built,
how
it
gets
built,
and
if
the
city
looks
at
that,
as
well
as
property
owner
themselves,.
L
Absolutely
so
public
works
as
part
of
the
review
when
projects
come
through.
We
are
required
by
fema
to
enforce
the
federal
insurance
rate
act,
which
allows
says
you
have
to
build
up
to
a
certain
elevation
so
based
off
of
what
fema
is
saying
as
the
flooding
in
north
bay
shore
in
particular,
there
we
have
a
minimum
elevation
that
buildings
have
to
build
too
for
residential
buildings
for
commercial
buildings
that
can
go
below
grade
if
they
waterproof.
L
On
top
of
that,
the
city
has
adopted
a
sea
level
rise
study
and
we've
updated
that
sea
level
rise
study
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
and
that
sets
a
minimum
elevation
that
buildings
can
build
too.
Also,
right
now,
the
sea
level
lies.
Elevation
is
higher
than
the
federal
government's
requirements.
So,
of
course
we
build
to
the
sea
level
of
rice
requirements.
L
Off
the
top
of
my
head,
I
think
it
is
13
at
this
point
in
time,
13
feet
above
sea
level.
Most
of
north
bay
shore
sits
somewhere
between
10
and
18
feet
above
sea
level.
Fema
says
we
have
to
build
to
11.
we're
telling
you
you
have
to
build
another
two
feet
above
that
and
I
will
have
to
get
the
newest
sea
level
rise.
L
A
K
Bryant
jones
in
the
fire
department
about
their
their
long-term
kind
of
capacity
needs,
and
they
said
that,
yes,
the
growth
that
we're
envisioning
could
require
capacity
for
more.
You
know
dorms
and
more
truck
space
in
one
or
two
of
those
fire
stations,
but
we
wouldn't
need
more
land
to
accommodate
that
and
we
certainly
wouldn't
need
to
put
a
new
fire
station
in
anywhere
because
our
response
times
are,
you
know,
within
the
city
standards.
K
No,
there
isn't
at
this
point,
but
again,
as
you
know,
we
we
would
have
plenty
of
heads
up,
because
this
would
happen
kind
of
incrementally
over
time
and
they
are
studying.
You
know,
long-term
facilities
needs
the
the
city
is
studying
doing
a
new
police
fire
headquarters
right
now,
and
so,
as
part
of
that
we
are
looking
at
long-term
facilities
needs.
A
K
A
It
is
my
understanding
that
the
city
was
reaching
out
to
the
school
districts
to
make
sure
that
formal
agreements
were
in
place
regarding
the
use
of
the
school
recreational
areas
as
publix
clerks.
Has
that
been
completed
and
do
we
have
agreements
in
place
for
all
of
the
parks
that
are
listed
in
the
eir
as
part
of
the
public
space
and
park
space
for
the
city.
K
A
K
N
N
The
second
threshold
is
about
existing
park
facilities
and
whether
there
will
be
substantial
physical
deterioration
of
those
facilities
because
of
you
know
a
volume
of
new
users.
So
we
looked
at
both
of
those
issues
in
specific,
specifically
through
the
sql
lens
in
the
draft
dir,
and
you
know
we
described
the
expected
impacts
of
each
of
those.
You
know
from
a
high
level.
We
did
find
those
as
less
than
significant.
As
you
know,
construction
of
the
new
park
project
could
occur.
N
K
Yeah
yeah
exactly
I
mean
I
think
it's
it's
it's
not
that
there
is
a
specific
acreage
per
person
threshold.
The
way
that
we
have
a
goal
of
three
acres
per
thousand
in
our
park
planning
documents
that
that
doesn't
exactly
exist
in
sequa
we
do
use.
You
know
we
have
funding
sources
to
be
able
to
upgrade
and
our
existing
parks
to
add
additional
park
land
as
necessary,
and
those
resources
would
generally
point
to
not
degrading
our
existing
park
facilities
and
and
infrastructure
as
more
population
is
added.
K
H
K
A
L
A
A
What
that
one
of
the
things
I
thought
was
really
different
about
this
eir
is
that
it
looks
at
these
cumulative
impacts,
and
so
what
you
described
is
on
this
fair
value.
Thing
is
a
small
incremental
thing.
How
is
how
does
we
need
a
new
police
department
or
we
need
you
know
a
new
source
of
water
factored
in
to
something
like
this,
when
it's
not
I
mean
we're
talking
about
death
by
a
thousand
cuts.
A
L
What
we
are
finding
overall
in
the
city,
especially
concerning
water
and
sewer
use,
is
that
even
without
the
drought
restrictions
that
are
in
place
right
now,
we
when
we
rebuild
we
rebuild
to
much
higher
standards
than
what's
out
there.
We
have
very
strict
building
codes.
We
have
very
strict
water
conservation
and
landscaping
ordinances.
A
L
E
I'm
sorry
I
just
wanted
to
add,
because
I
do
actually
know
a
little
bit
about
that
that
it's
not
a
loan.
It
was
a
sale
of
the
supply
guarantee
that
mountain
view
had.
There
was
a
sale
of,
I
think,
maybe
one
mgd
or
I
think
that's
how
much
it
was
so
east
palo
alto
paid
a
substantial
amount
for
for
that,
and
it
is
a
permanent
transfer
because
mountain
view
does
have
a
lot
of
capacity.
A
L
So
we
just
updated
the
recycled
water
master
plan
within
the
last.
I
think
it
went
to
council
in
december
january
february
of
this
year,
so
it
laid
out
increase
in
use
in
north
bay
shore
and
then
expansion
out
to
east
whistman
and
the
projects
that
are
laid
out
in
that
document
that
are
required
for
us
to
do
that.
Expansion
do
get
rolled
into
the
cip.
A
Thank
you
all
right.
That's
a
lot
lasting
my
questions,
so
there
are
15
different
sections
of
the
of
these
ruby
items
that
are
reviewed.
Not
everybody
may
have
comments
or
questions
of
the
different
ones.
Are
there
ones
that
folks
would
like
to
make
sure
we
specifically
look
at
and
make
sure
we
capture
comments
of
those?
If
there's
no
comments,
then
we'll
just
just
basically
tell
staff,
there's
no
comments
on
that
item.
A
K
J
Okay,
great
thanks,
yeah.
I
have
a
concern,
it's
a
comment,
but
it's
a
concern
about
what's
written
with
the
park
space
usage,
let's
see
it's
pdf
page
number
380
under
section
4.13-4
and
I
quote:
joint
use
agreements
between
the
city
and
nvwsd
allow
for
shared
public
access
to
school
grounds
and
facilities.
J
H
A
C
C
C
C
C
But
it
looks
like
a
lot
of
these
will
be
able
air
quality
in
particular,
the
mitigations
that
are
identified
that
could
be
implemented
at
a
project
level
will
mitigate
those
concerns,
and
there
also
maybe
doesn't
necessarily
take
into
account
some
of
the
the
building
code
and
other
standards
that
will
probably
be
coming
down
the
pike
over
the
over
the
next
eight
years.
So,
overall,
I
am
comfortable
with
the
air
and
the
analysis.
C
I
don't
think
we've
missed
anything
significant
and
I
think
the
mitigation
measures
that
have
been
identified
are
appropriate
and
I
think
a
lot
of
these
items
will
be
addressed
through
either
project
level,
eir
or
ultimately,
what
a
lot
of
commissioners
have
talked
about
earlier
are
our
policies
are
policies
that
are
implemented
outside
of
our
development
process.
To
address
things
like
water
conservation
and
other
things,
and
just
on
water-
I
just
because
I've
heard
this
so
many
times
over
the
years.
C
Everyone-
and
I
think
rightly
assumes
that
you
know
when
you
say
you're
going
to
increase
housing
by
a
significant
or
the
the
population
by
the
percentage.
Everyone
just
assumes
that
that
means
that
water
usage
is
inevitably
going
to
increase
at
that
you
know
a
a
commensurate
percentage
or
somehow
high
we're
just
going
to
increase
generally,
and
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
I
learned
over
time
is
just
that.
You
know.
For
example,
you
know
mountain
view.
Population
has
grown
significantly
between
the
year
2000
and
2020,
and
our
water
usage
has
declined.
C
Something
like
I
believe,
30
over
that
period
of
time,
and
that's
because
we're
talking
about
housing
tonight,
you
know
housing
is
generally
compared
to
other
uses
of
land,
not
a
significant
driver
of
water
usage
compared
to
other
uses
like
commercial
or
things
that
require
landscaping
and
other
things,
and
so
it
was
pointed
out
by
staff.
Earlier
as
you
as
you
redevelop
to
much
much
higher
standard,
you
actually
end
up
using
less
water
at
a
much
greater
density
in
population
than
you
would
have
had.
C
You
just
remained
a
status
quo,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
to
point
that
out.
I
thought
those
differences
were
interesting,
like
the
the
primary
drivers
that
you
really
need
to
look
at
are
for
water
usage
in
particular,
are
are
commercial
anything
that
requires
landscaping,
those
sorts
of
things
and
when
you,
even
when
you
redevelop
commercial
urea,
is
developing
to
a
higher
standard.
C
A
It
seemed
like
an
inconsistency
to
me
in
9.4
in
the
discussion
around
preserving
the
water
table
and
the
underground
wells.
It
highlights
the
fact
that
the
wells
are
not
used,
but
then
in
section
115
the
analysis
that
was
done
by
the
consultant
so
that
if
we
need
more
water,
we
would
tap
into
the
wells,
and
so
I
was
it
seemed
like
a
inconsistency
to
me
in
the
ear
saying:
hey,
we
don't
use
the
wells,
but
in
later
sections
it
said
if
we
need
to
we'll
use
the
wells,
so
it
was
just
a.
A
A
We
don't
have
a
what
I
heard
is
we
don't
have
a
specific
plan
for
the
building
that
all
these
people
are
going
to
go
in.
The
cars
are
incremental,
the
people
are
incremental,
but
there's
some
things
that
are,
that
are
big
chunks,
and
it
doesn't
feel
like
to
me
that
those
are
added
that
that's
adequately
addressed.
I
asked
about
specifically
about
rankstar
shoreline
and
questa
it
from
the
document.
A
The
the
police
station,
the
fire
station
and
north
bay
shore
and
the
fire
station
in
lisbon
have
additional
capacity,
the
stations
and
the
other
locations
don't
appear
to
have
additional
capacity.
At
this
point
you
can
add
more
fire,
you
can
add
more
trucks,
but
do
you
have
a
space
to
put
the
truck
those
kind
of
large
chunks
of
improvement
because
those
they're
not
going
to
happen?
You
can't
incrementally
add
a
brick
to
the
to
the
fire
station
and
on
the
ring
story,
you
got
to
add
a
big
trunk
to
it.
A
This
is
being
sent
to
mountain
view,
whispering
we've
gotten
to
mountain
villas,
outdoors
high
school
district,
to
figure
out
what
they're
going
to
do.
If
there's
something
needs
to
be
there,
but
it's
this.
The
grade
school
districts
looks
like
I'm
sure
that
they
may
have
some
comment
back
on
this,
but
your
analysis
says
that
those
two
school
districts
are
probably
okay,
but
it
said
that
mountain
villa
southwest,
high
school
district
is
short
of
school
space
and
it
was
then
nothing
was
said
about
it.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
it
just
doesn't
fit
right
with
me
and
in
general
I
was
also
very
troubled
by
the
blanket
inclusion
of
shoreline
as
part
of
north
bayshore.
I
believe
north
bayshore
should
be
treated
as
an
area
of
the
city
just
like
montaloma
and
downtown
and
cuesta
park,
and
you
don't
just
lump
shoreline
park
into
north
bay
shore
and
say:
oh
yeah,
it
it
shoreline's
there
it's
a
great
resource.
A
I
mean
I
if
we're,
if
we're
not
using
this
water
great,
but
I,
when
I
looked
at
the
the
crime,
what's
my
understanding
that
the
reclaimed
water
system
out
of
palo
alto
water
treatment
plant,
even
if
we
put
in
what
renee
has
talked
about,
we
wouldn't
use
all
that
we
could
get
and
what
better
way
to
use
less
water
than
to
use
the
water.
We
already
have
better
okay,
so
maybe
we
should
maybe
it
shouldn't
just
be
looking
at
bringing
pipes
in
the
north
face
for
any
swiss
men.
A
But
let's
bring
them
to
ringstorm
park,
let's
bring
them
to
other
places
around
the
city.
Take
advantage
of
it
I
mean
we
can't
we
haven't
discovered
any
new
rivers
or
mountains
with
glaciers
on
them
recently.
So
you
know
here's
a
place
where
there's
water
that
we
can
use
it
seems
like
that
should
be
something
in
our
water
plan.
That's
it's!
It's
not
adequately
addressed
in
this.
I'm
not
ready
to
give
up
grass.
Sorry,
commissioner,
you
dunyas,
I
like
grass.
A
So
I
thought
that
was
a
it's
probably
beyond
the
scope
of
the
ar,
but
I
thought
it
was
a.
I
could
see
people
actually
getting
off
the
button
doing
it
if
they
thought
they
could
get
a
little
bit
money
back
to
work
there.
So
those
were
my
again.
My
comments
were
mainly
on
the
where
there
was
a
large
incremental
step
and
when
the
sfpec
says
that
they
could
cut
our
water
by
59.5
percent.
That
means
that
we
only
have
40
left
boy.
A
C
F
Thank
you.
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what
you
said,
chair
cranston
and
my
question
earlier,
using
the
transportation
as
an
example
pretty
much
you
summed
up
the
the
what
I
have
as
an
issue
with
the
airs
eirs,
because
they're
so
technical,
I'm
not
sure
how
to
draw
the
line
or
even
ask
the
question
as
to
does
this
make
sense.
F
It
is
the
cumulative-
and
I
know
we're
looking
at
it
at
a
high
level,
but
it
doesn't
in
sort
of
real
life,
seem
to
make
sense
to
me
when
you
tally
up
all
the
numbers.
I
don't
know
how
it
ends
up
being
a
less
than
significant
impact
for
several
things,
and
I
will,
along
with
commissioner
gutierrez
and
chair
crenston,
reiterate
the
parks
issue.
F
F
So
not
knowing
what's
happening
with
the
school
joint
agreement,
that's
10.
We
don't
know
about,
and
I
would
say
that
with
you
know:
caltrain
electrifying
we're
really
kind
of
creating
a
barrier.
It's
already
shoreline
is
already
at
the
very
northernmost
portion
of
mountain
view,
and
I
would
say
it's
hard
to
access
for
a
lot
of
people.
F
It's
not
an
easy
place
to
go
to
for
sort
of
like
I
don't
know,
park
and
recreation,
so
it
once
we
electrify
caltrain,
that's
another
barrier
that
we're
placing
towards
getting
towards
shoreline
for
a
lot
of
the
community,
and
so
I
I
personally
have
a
hard
time.
You
know,
I
know
we're
looking
at
high
level
again
to
say
that
75
or
yeah
75
of
our
city-owned
parks
are
equally
distributed,
and
that's
not
the
case.
So
when
we
look
at
it,
the
numbers
don't
convey
the
reality
of
it.
J
J
J
M
Yeah,
I
think
my
comments,
I
I
agree
with
what
commissioner
clark
said
and
I
clearly
I
struggled
a
little
bit
to
understand
how
we
really
utilize
a
programming
ir.
I
do
think
that
on
the
general
horizon,
we
need
to
be
prepared
if
htd
is
a
lot
stricter
with
what
we
have
and
it
sounds
like
their
contingency
plans.
H
Awesome
yeah,
so
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
like
seeing
or
just
in
terms
of
from
a
public
person
like
a
member
of
the
public
perspective,
not
even
like
a
commissioner
or
you
know,
advocate
what
have
you
just
a
regular
person
who
cares
about
what's
going
on?
I
don't
really
see
much
around
the
discussion
about
what
would
happen
if
we
didn't
do
the
project
like
hey,
you
know
the
project
is
going
to
release
some
greenhouse
gases.
If
it
gets
built.
What
would
happen
if
it
didn't
get
built?
H
What
would
happen
if
you
know
instead
of
like
trying
to
figure
out,
you
know
how
we
can
use
water
more
effectively?
If
we
just
said
well,
you
know
we
are
getting
less
allocation
this
year
from
wherever
we
get
it.
So
we're
not
going
to
build
like
what
would
be
the
opposite
end
of
not
doing
any
of
these
actions.
I
would
really
love
to
to
know.
I
don't
know
what
the
formula
would
be.
A
J
Yes,
thank
you,
sir.
I
just
wanted
to
let
everyone
know
that
I
attended
the
r3
zoning
discussion
last
night
within
the
rainstorm
community
and
we
had
a
nice
turnout
about
35
people,
but
a
little
disappointed,
because
there
weren't
too
many
renters
that
showed
up-
and
you
know,
it'd-
be
nice
to
be
able
to
get
feedback
from
the
community
that
actually
lives
in
the
area
right
as
renters
outside
of
the
few
that
did
attend
as
homeowners
or
business
owners.
That's
about
it
thanks.
A
Well,
I've
attended
all
three
of
the
first
three
and
and
yeah.
This
was
the
I'm
in
the
mix
in
this
particular
san
antonio
de
medio
area.
I
was
a
little.
I
was
surprised.
We
didn't
have
a
higher
percentage
of
renters
in
the
attendee
list,
but
the
others
it
was
about
65,
70
percent
homeowners
and
they're,
quite
at
25
to
30
were
renters,
which
is
certainly
consistent
with
mountain
with
montaloma.
I
don't
know
what
the
mix
is
over
in
the
east
westman
mosfet
area
they've
been
very
interesting.
A
I've
been
on
groups
that
are
fully
opposed
to
any
new
density
and
other
groups
that
are
like
build
everything
we
can,
and
so
it's
it's
actually
been
very
enlightening
to
hear
the
the
range
of
feedback
and
people
are
really
contributing.
They're
talking,
they're,
not
they're,
not
being
bashful,
which
is
which
is
like
so
eric.
I
appreciate
the
fact
you're
doing
this
outreach
and
hopefully
we'll
continue
to
get
that
good
feedback
on
the
next
three
or
I
guess.
K
That's
right,
thank
you,
so
much
yeah,
there's,
there's
three
more
and
then,
as
commissioner
gutierrez
said,
we're
you
know
we're
doing
polls
at
each
meeting
to
find
out
kind
of
who
we're
getting
and
who
we're
missing,
and
we
will
have
continued
outreach
efforts
through
the
remainder
of
the
year
to
try
to
get
more
input
from
some
of
those
underrepresented
groups.
So
this
is
really
just
the
first
step
in
the
process.