►
Description
Live teleconference of the City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission of November 16, 2022
A
A
So
I
will
open
the
November
16th
meeting
of
the
environmental
Planning
Commission
of
the
city
of
Mountain
View
at
705.
Pm
interpretation
will
be
provided
this
evening
in
both
Spanish
and
Chinese
for
items.
Five
for
item
5.1
Zoom
translator
function
identified
as
the
globe
located
at
the
bottom
of
your
Zoom
screen.
Please
click
the
globe
and
select
the
language
you
prefer
English,
Spanish
or
Chinese.
If
you
do
nothing,
you'll
hear
the
English
deliberation
if
they
and
but
you
will
not
be
able
to
hear
English
translation
of
Spanish
or
English
speakers.
A
B
You
yeah
is
she
already
in
the
channel
yeah.
You
have
to
take
her
out
of
the
channel
and
then
put
her
in
the
channel
after
she
gives
her
spiel.
D
Absolutely
thank
you
so
much
buenas,
noches,
gracias,.
A
A
F
G
G
A
A
Yeah
so
item
three
in
the
agenda
is
the
meeting
minutes
we'll
be
reviewing
the
minutes
for
the
meetings
of
September,
21st,
2022
and
November
2nd
2022..
First,
any
discussion
from
commissioners.
A
No
we'll
move
to
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
comment
on
the
meeting
minutes
from
one
of
those
two
meetings?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
Zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
then
meet
themselves
with
star
six.
The
PC
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
for
everyone
wishing
to
speak
on
the
minutes.
H
And
some
of
that
we
approve
the
Epic
minutes
meeting
minutes
from
September
21st
to
November,
2nd
2022.
A
I
A
We've
been
second:
if
there's
no
discussion,
Ms
whitehill,
can
you
take
the
rule.
F
I
A
A
On
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda,
speakers
are
allowed
to
talk
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
on
non-agenda
items,
but
any
member
of
the
public
select
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
a
non-agenda
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
nine
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6..
Upc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
to
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
A
J
J
So
tonight,
I
just
want
to
clarify
you
know:
hcd
has
recommended
that
cities
submit
revised
drafts
rather
than
adopted
versions.
So
tonight's
and
December
Council
sessions
will
just
solely
focus
on
revisions
that
were
made
to
the
draft
housing
element
document
and
then
we're
seeking
additional
policy
Direction.
So
the
other
parts
of
the
housing
element
project
such
as
the
rezonings
and
that
are
related
to
the
housing
element
and
the
environmental
impact
report
will
be
presented
at
a
separate
public
meeting
and
I'll
go
over
that
later.
J
During
our
schedule
slide
in
this
presentation,
we
will
cover
the
key
changes
that
we
made
to
the
housing
element.
That
was
in
response
to
hce
comments,
particularly
you
can
see
it's.
The
site's
inventory
changes
to
the
AF,
affh
analysis
and
changes
to
the
programs
and
then
the
second
main
part
will
present
staff's
analysis
of
the
alternate
programs
that
were
mentioned
in
public
comments.
They
weren't
included
in
the
first
or
second
drafts,
but
they
can
be
included
based
off
of
feedback
from
tonight
and
Council
Direction
in
December.
J
We
have
two
main
questions
for
EPC
related
to
the
programs.
Does
EPC
have
any
recommendations
on
the
new
or
modified
programs
since
the
last
draft
housing
element,
and
does
the
EPC
recommend
adding
any
of
the
alternate
programs
and,
if
so,
where
and
when
to
add
them?
So
each
of
these
questions
will
be
shown
after
the
relevant
section
and
in
the
concluding
slide.
I
just
want
to
set
that
up
for
the
beginning
of
the
presentation,
so
I'm
gonna
go
over
the
general
hcd
comments.
J
So
after
the
first
round
of
study
after
the
last
round
of
study
sessions
with
EPC
and
Council,
which
was
in
May
and
June,
we
revised
the
draft
and
submitted
it
to
hcd
for
their
90-day
review.
So
they
sent
us
comments,
September
29th
and
since
then
we
have
met
with
the
hcd
reviewers
several
times
to
go
over
the
comments
that
we
received,
and
so
most
of
the
comments
that
hcd
provided
us
were
really
asking
us
to
provide
specific
data
points
such
as
evaluating
our
local
data
Trends
compared
to
the
region.
J
Our
goal
is
to
submit
it
to
hcd
by
the
end
of
this
week.
To
start
the
following
draft
review
and
I'll
go
over
some
of
the
project
schedule
later
on
as
well,
so
I'm
gonna
go
over
the
key
changes
specifically
to
the
site's
inventory.
So
in
our
first
draft
that
we
submitted
in
July,
we
provided
information
on
precedent
projects
and
we
also
included
information
such
as
existing
uses
and
far
for
each
of
our
inventory
sites.
Even
with
that
information,
ACD
did
request
additional
clarification
and
information.
J
So,
in
addition
to
the
information,
the
general
information,
we
also
made
specific
changes
to
the
site's
inventory
that
included
adding
opportunity
sites,
the
1250,
Grant
Road,
Nob,
Hill
Center,
and
the
Century
Theater
1500
North
Shoreline,
Boulevard
property.
We
also
updated
the
site
inventory
based
off
of
newly
submitted
applications
and
based
off
of
hcd
guidance.
J
We
also
included
some
projects
that
are
under
construction,
but
didn't
receive
their
final
certificate
of
occupancy
at
the
start
of
the
planning
period,
which
was
June
30th
of
this
year,
and
then
we
also
reduce
some
capacities
for
some
of
the
larger
shopping
centers
that
we
had
in
our
inventory.
We
did
a
significant,
almost
80
reduction
of
SMA
capacity
to
be
conservative
for
those
sites
because
of
the
existing
uses.
J
Let
me
just
highlight
some
of
the
site's
inventory
changes
based
off
of
this
chart
here
so
based
off
of
the
last
slide.
Those
changes
reflect
are
affected
in
this
chart.
Mainly
it's
the
increase
in
the
pipeline
projects
in
row,
a
as
you
can
see.
We
did
add
projects
that
were
approved
and
under
construction,
but
did
not
receive
their
final
occurrency
and
we
also
changed
the
opportunity
sites
again.
These
are
adding
the
new
opportunity
sites
and
then
reducing
capacity
in
the
large
shopping
centers.
J
That
kind
of
was
a
net
change,
so
that's
where
row
a
and
row
b
and
as
you
can
see
on
the
first
arrow
on
the
right
hand,
side
our
total
realistic
capacity
has
been
increased.
But
again
that
increase
is
generally
due
the
addition
of
the
already
approved
project.
So
this
doesn't
change
the
inputs
for
our
environmental
analysis.
J
You
can
also
note
that
there's
a
change
in
the
last
two
rows
right
here.
They
highlight
the
buffers
that
were
presented
in
July
in
the
last
row
and
then
our
current
buffer,
which
is
the
row
right
above
so
the
big
change
here,
is
that
our
moderate
buffer
is
coming
in
at
the
lower
end.
It's
only
at
16
right
now
the
recommended
range
is
15
to
30
percent.
J
However,
this
isn't
much
of
a
concern
considering
that
after
we
remove
pipeline
projects
in
adus,
the
buffer,
actually
through
on
the
remaining
arena,
is
72
for
lower
income,
about
23,
for
moderate
income
and
then
based
off
of
how
we
can
utilize
lower
income
units
towards
moderate
income.
Afterwards,
there's
not
much
of
that
major
concern
between
the
combined
30
and
the
16
for
lower
and
moderate.
J
And
then
that
concludes
the
site's
inventory
portion.
We
also
had
comments
from
htd
regarding
our
affh
analysis,
this
is
the
affirmatively
further
Fair
furthering
fair
housing
portion
of
our
site's
inventory.
So
in
our
July
draft
we
used
what
we
call
the
tcac
opportunity
Maps,
and
even
though
that
reflected
the
analysis
that's
covered
in
these
four
bullet
points
on
the
slide.
Acd
did
request
additional
analysis,
so
you
can
see
that
the
four
findings
they
apply
to
the
site
inventory
and
reflect
the
analysis,
but
this
just
provided
additional
in
our
revised
draft.
J
We've
provided
additional
analysis,
as
you
can
see
in
this
graphic,
on
the
right
hand,
side.
So
the
additional
analysis,
what
it
meant
was
comparing
the
distribution
that
we
have
of
our
existing
units
in
the
city
to
the
lower
income
units
that
are
identified
in
the
site's
inventory,
and
we
did
it
on
four
major
findings.
You
can
see
here
it's
listed
as
income
opportunity
to
resources,
education
domain
and
race
and
ethnicity,
so
the
data
analysis
showed
that
the
city's
housing
element
is
not
concentrating
new
lower
income,
housing
in
lower
resources
or
segregate
segregated
neighborhoods.
J
Instead,
each
of
these
are
shown
to
indicate
each
of
these
show
on
the
maps
that
are
in
included
in
our
revised
strapped
housing
element
is
that
the
sites
that
are
included
in
our
site's
inventory
are
located
in
areas
that
are
generally
with
higher
income
households.
They
are
located
in
highest
resource
areas,
with
higher
educational
scores
as
well.
J
So
right
here,
this
map,
specifically
on
the
slide,
is
the
percentage
of
low
to
moderate
income
by
census
track,
and
then
the
other
maps
for
the
other
findings
are
included
in
latest
draft
as
well,
and
just
want
to
highlight
that
the
analysis
here
does
exclude
the
North
Bay
Shore
census
tract
simply
because
North
Bayshore
is
kind
of
unique.
It
is
identified
as
a
low
resource,
but
based
off
of
the
potential
of
all
the
programs
we
have
out
there.
J
J
And
then
the
last
major
change
that
we
did
to
the
draft
housing
element
is
to
the
programs,
so
overall
HDD
requested
specific
metrics
and
objectives
and
timelines
attached
to
actions
for
all
of
the
programs.
So
what
we
did
was
it
completely
reformatted
the
housing
plan
in
order
to
accommodate
all
those
details
and
reorganize
that
section
of
chapter
three?
J
By
doing
so,
we
also
created
an
implementation
scale
schedule
at
the
end
of
that
chapter.
That
highlights
how
we're
going
to
implement
the
proposed
programs,
and
we
included
programs
that
were
requested
by
the
public
in
city
council
when
we
submitted
to
hcd
in
July.
We
included
some
programs
based
off
of
council
Direction
and
there
were
other
programs
that
we
needed
additional
staff
resource
time
to
figure
out
how
we
were
going
to
implement
them.
J
But
all
of
those
programs
now
that
have
been
directed
by
Council
from
our
last
study
session,
are
included
in
this
November
version
of
the
draft.
So
in
some
cases
you
know
the
programs
that
we
included
that
were
based
off
of
city,
council
or
public
input,
also
aligned
with
hcd
comments.
So
these
included,
you
know
reducing
parking
for
affordable
housing,
creative
and
creating
the
incentives
program
for
adus
and
sb9
Duo
developments.
J
Aside
from
that,
hcd
also
provided
specific
comments
on
programming
such
as
articulating
very
specific,
concrete
actions.
So
there
are
a
list
of
modifying
programs.
I
highlight
the
specific
numbers
on
the
slide,
but
they're
all
within
they're
covered
in
the
staff
report
in
a
chart
and
then
also
redlined
in
the
draft
track
changed
first
version.
J
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
these
action
items
do
add.
Specific
programming
like
adding
live,
work,
opportunities,
updating
our
impact
fees,
adding
steps
to
improving,
affordable
housing
development
within
our
notice
of
funding
availability
processes.
So
this
concludes
the
response
to
hcd
comments
portion.
So
our
first
question
to
EPC
is:
does
the
EPC
have
any
recommendations
on
the
new
or
modified
program
since
the
last
draft
housing
element,
foreign.
J
You
know
the
draft
has
been
revised
to
respond
to
and
includes
all
the
programs
that
were
previously
directed
by
city
council,
which
does
include
you
know
all
the
input
that
we've
collected
from
the
community
and
from
EPC
from
previous
study
sessions.
So
the
following
section
of
the
presentation
will
cover
a
few
alternate
programs
that
came
from
public
comments.
J
J
J
Some
of
the
reasons
is
due
to
the
timing
of
when
we
want
to
submit
our
Housing
Home
a
draft.
We
have
worked
significantly
with
the
community
and
with
EBC
and
Council
since
the
start
of
this
project
back
in
2021
and
so
right
now,
if
we're
including
some
of
these
programs,
you
know
they
have
been
previously
discussed
and
were
excluded
for
some
of
them.
J
Some
of
the
programs
are
currently
under
review
and
in
the
process
of
collecting
Community
input,
and
so
you
know
we
also
just
want
to
make
sure
if
we're
adding
new
programs,
that
there
is
enough
time
and
resources
to
get
to
dedicate
to
programs
that
EPC
and
Council
have
you
know,
put
into
the
Strat
housing
element
and
to
prioritize.
You
know
moving
the
needle
for
affordable
how
housing.
J
There
are
we
receive
a
lot
of
comments
about
rezonings
and
some
of
the
main
three
ones
that
we've
gone
was
regarding
the
downtown
precise
plan
council
members
did
express
interest
in
updating
comprehensive,
downtown,
precise
plan
to
include
residential
uses,
but
right
now
we
don't
currently
have
Outreach
or
analysis
on
how
the
density
and
how
that
will
be
incorporated
with
other
elements
of
the
downtown
precise
plan.
We've
also
gotten
feedback
on
wanting
to
propose
industrial
areas
as
under
utilize
sites
and
to
include
them
in
the
site's
inventory.
J
J
That
was
recommended
from
the
last
study
session,
and
then
you
know,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
also
considering
if
we
are
converting
industrial
sites
and
rezoning
them
to
residential
that
we're
evaluating
the
remaining
inventory
of
industrial
land
in
the
city.
J
Then
the
last
one
that
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
feedback
on
is
Charleston
Plaza.
That
site
was
brought
up
by
EPC
the
last
time,
but
when
we
brought
into
Council
in
June,
there
wasn't
much
interest,
and
so
that
wasn't
included,
but
it
has
come
up
in
public
comments,
so
we're
kind
of
bringing
it
up
again.
We
do
want
to
highlight
that
there
currently
is
an
application
for
the
property
owner
to
rehabilitate
that
site
for
the
allowed
r
d
uses
there.
So
that
might
not
be
the
best
use
of
our
rezoning
efforts.
J
Separately,
so
those
are
just
covering
kind
of
General
zonings.
We
do
want
to
call
out
the
R3
zoning
District,
because
it
is
a
standalone
project
in
itself
right
now.
The
other
three
are
just
essentially
conceptual
right
now
with
the
R3
zoning
District.
It
is
a
project
that
is
underway,
so
we
did
receive
comments
that
wanted
to
include
our
three
zoning
update,
just
to
kind
of
remind
everyone.
J
This
was
brought
to
Council
on
EPC
in
previous
study
sessions,
and
you
know
due
to
the
fact
that
the
R3
timeline
and
some
of
the
uncertainty
based
off
of
the
feedback
we're
getting
from
the
community
and
the
displacement
concerns
that
we
had
arthi
was
specifically
excluded
from
the
housing
element,
and
so
since
then
we
have
not
included
it
but
just
kind
of
bringing
it
back
up.
Some
people
have
interest
in
promoting
this,
so
we're
highlighting
it
here,
because
the
R3
zoning
update
is
going
through
community
outreach
right
now
and
it
is
underway.
J
You
know
there
is
possibility
to
do
density
increases
when
the
project
is
brought
to
council
and
EPC,
but
it
is
not
it.
It
is
still
under
review
with
the
community,
and
so
there
are
both
sides
to
the
to
the
coin.
To
this,
and
so
we
want
to
highlight
that
the
housing
element
already
includes
a
program
to
ensure
that
we
are
allowing
the
allowed
density-
that's
built
in
our
general
plan,
to
not
to
constrain
those
at
the
base
minimum.
J
And
then
another
alternate
program
that
was
raised
by
the
community
is
the
inclusion
of
requirements
to
replace
demolished,
rent
stabilized
units.
The
housing
element
currently
includes
a
number
of
elements
related
to
the
displacement
response.
We
have
updated
our
draft
document
and
it
includes
acquisition
and
the
preservation
of
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing.
There
is
a
right
of
first
refusal
requirements
for
displaced,
tenants,
there's
also
the
exploration
of
community-based
preservation
strategies
like
the
Copa
topa
and
Community
Land
Trust.
J
All
these
are
inputs
from
the
community
that
we've
gone
thus
far,
and
the
enforcement
of
tenant
protections
and
the
city's
relocation
assistant
ordinance
to
support
displaced
tenants.
So
staff
does
plan
on
bringing
a
displacement
response
strategy
to
council
for
a
2023
study
session,
and
this
will
include
the
exploration
of
requirements
for
the
replacement
of
demolished
rent
stabilized
units
in
new
developments.
J
Like
I
said
it
is
being
studied
by
staff
and
there
are
several
options
that
are
under
review
and
will
be
presented
to
council
pretty
soon,
so
it
is
moving
along.
It's
not
entirely
necessary
to
add
it
to
the
housing
element,
because
there
are
several
options
that
need
to
be
considered
and
it
will
be
presented
to
council.
Like
I,
said
in
2023
right
now,
because
SB
330
is
still
in
place.
It
does
require
the
replacement
of
rent
stabilized
units
with
affordable
units,
so
that
does
preserve
an
address.
J
Some
of
the
concerns
about
displacement,
so
replacement
requirements
aren't
currently
explicit,
explicitly
referenced
in
the
housing
element.
Just
because
you
know
the
correct
mechanism
is
still
under
reveal.
J
And
then
the
last
one,
the
last
major
alternate
program,
is
eliminating
parking
requirements.
So,
right
now,
in
our
draft
housing
element,
we
have
a
specific
program
addressing
a
reduced
parking
for
affordable
housing.
We
also
are
looking
at
updates
to
our
TDM
ordinance
to
allow
for
additional
parking
reductions
and
to
make
sure
that,
as
part
of
the
parking
reductions,
we're
also
enhancing
the
alternative
Mobility
that
a
project
can
propose.
J
We
also
want
to
highlight
that
a
lot
of
our
sites
are
in
the
North
Bay
Shore
and
East
wisman
precise
plans
and
those
precise
plans
have
reduced
parking
standards,
and
so
there's
no
parking
minimums
in
those
areas.
Already.
There's
also
recently
past
recently
passed
state
law
that
reduces
the
parking
constraints
for
areas
that
are
close
to
Transit.
We
want
to
highlight
that
you
know:
we've
gone
both
public
comments
that
have
supported
the
elimination
of
parking
requirements
for
multi-family
housing
and
also
the
preservation,
mainly
in
concerns
of
parking
impacts
to
the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
J
So
for
each
of
the
you
know,
four
programs
that
we
highlighted
for
alternate
programs.
There
are
pros
and
cons
to
including
them
in
the
housing
element.
So
we
want
to
pose
the
question
to
EPC:
does
the
EPC
recommend
adding
any
of
the
alternate
programs,
and
if
so,
does
the
EPC
wish
to
add
them
as
part
of
this
current
housing
element
or
part
of
a
future
update
to
the
housing
element?
J
So
that
essentially
concludes
most
of
my
pronunciation
I'm
just
going
to
highlight
the
questions
here.
These
are
the
two
main
ones
and
you
can
see
the
four
sub
questions
to
the
alternate
programs
and
then
I'm
going
to
go
on
to
the
next
steps
slide,
just
to
give
a
little
bit
of
a
brief
overview
of
what
to
look
forward
to
so
you
know
we
initiate
the
housing
element,
project
the
beginning
of
2021,
and
we
have
presented
at
Community
meetings
and
study
sessions.
You
know
more
than
20
plus
months
and
started.
J
We
started
from
the
development
of
the
framework
to
the
methodology
to
the
draft
to
tonight.
Well,
we're
going
to
go
over
the
revised
draft,
and
so
we've
received
feedback
from
the
community
and
EPC
and
Council,
and
this
is
where
we
landed
right
now
we
will
be
submitting
the
revised
draft
hcd
by
the
end
of
this
week
and
through
the
60-day
review.
Hdd
has
stated
that
they
will
work
for
us
to
make
minor
revisions
all
the
feedback
that
we
are
collecting
tonight.
J
If
there's
any
direction
that
we
get
from
Council
in
December,
we
will
bring
it
up
to
hcd
to
incorporate
into
our
housing
element
and
hopefully
that
keeps
up
Keeps
Us
on
schedule,
like
I,
said
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation,
the
rezonings
that
are
associated
with
the
housing
element
and
the
environmental
impact
report
will
be
brought
to
EPC
December
7th,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
slide
and
then
to
city
council
January
24th,
and
we
do
want
to
get
that
completed
because
several
of
those
three
zonings
are
for
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline
and
then,
depending
on
each
CD's,
determination
of
our
draft
and
input
that
we
get
from
the
study
sessions
from
tonight
and
in
December
from
Council.
J
You
know
we
anticipate
adoption
hearings
in
early
2023..
So
that
concludes
the
end
of
my
presentation.
I'm
just
going
to
go
back
to
the
question
slide
one
last
time,
so
you
can
take
a
look
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
we
look
forward
to
answering
them.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah,
so
next
we'll
move
to
public
comment,
but
any
member
of
the
public,
like
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button,
Zoom
or
press
star
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six.
Ppc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
so
do
we
have
a
we
have
people
wishing
to
speak
well,
allow
three
minutes.
A
And
we
will
bring
it
back
to
the
EPC,
so
there
are
before
we
get
started.
There
are
two
topics
that
could
raise
a
potential
Conflict
for
a
commissioner
and
so
I'd
want
to
make
sure
that
we
touch
base
on
those
before
we
would
do
anything
else.
Status
has
asked
the
EPC
specific
questions
on
these
items,
but
if
the
EPC
would
like
to
discuss
them
tonight,
please
raise
your
hand.
A
A
If
not
Christmas
venues.
K
Yeah,
so
how
would
that
work
in
terms
like
like
from
bringing
it
up.
A
K
A
Right
so
then
we
will
ask
commissioner
Dempsey
to
recuse
himself
briefly
and.
A
K
Did
you
go
there?
You
are
sure
yeah,
so
my
question
around
the
religious
sites
was
I
noticed
that
it
is
currently
calling
for
a
30
to
40
unit
per
acre
density
standard
and
I
was
kind
of
like
taking
a
cursory
look.
So
it's
it's
not
exact
cursory.
Look
at
some
of
our
more
prominent,
affordable
housing
projects
recently,
and
you
know
like
they
were
all
in
the
60
to
80.
K
You
know,
unit
per
acre
density
range
and
so
I
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
some
guidance
from
staff
regarding
you
know
have
we
had
maybe
whether
it's
like
in
the
recent
like
meaningfully
recent
past,
had
a
for
not
necessarily
like
a
market
rate
project
with
affordable
component
to
it.
Although
you
know,
if
that's
the
of
note
by
all
means,
but
I'm
wondering,
is
there
like
a
prominent,
affordable
housing
development
that
we've
had
in
the
meaningful
past
that
was
coming
in
at
that
30
to
40?
K
You
know
unit
per
acre,
and
you
know
in
your
experience.
Is
that
economically,
like?
What's
what's
the
economic
implications
of
a
density
standard
at
that
level
for
affordable
projects.
B
That's
a
great
question,
commissioner.
Thanks
for
asking
you
know:
I
I
can't
speak
super
eloquently
on
the
economics
of
it,
but
I'm
sure
Michaela
who's
in
the
audience
right
now
can
can
jump
in
she's
raising
her
hand.
B
I
will
say
that
we
have
had
and
I'm
just
looking
up
a
recent,
not
a
recent
project
but
just
trying
to
get
a
year
built
here.
Oh
I,
don't
have
it.
You
know
the
one
they're
the
senior
housing
project
on
neurotega,
that's
about
that
density
and
I
think
it
probably
dates
from
the
90s.
So
it's
not
super
recent,
but
there
are
a
few
other
sites
in
the
in
the
city
that
are
at
that
density.
B
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
for
here
is
you
know
there
could
be
an
opportunity
for
a
an
organization
that
is
otherwise
not
profitably
using
their
land
right.
So
it's
not
a
not
a
for-profit
Enterprise
and
they
don't
have
to
outbid
for
the
price
of
land
and
that
changes
the
whole
density
equation.
L
Thanks,
commissioner,
Nunez
and
Commissioners
Michaela
home
internship
from
the
housing
and
neighborhoods
division-
that's
right.
Most
of
our
typical,
affordable
housing
in
Mountain
View
requires
a
much
higher
density
to
account.
For
the
you
know,
economies
of
scale
in
getting
as
many
units
as
possible
on
the
site
to
cover
the
cost
of
the
land
and
then
construction,
because
there
does
need
to
be
cash
flow.
But
these
religious
sites
in
particular,
are
unique
in
that
they're
not
meant
for
cash
flow.
L
Particularly
there
have
been
situations
in
other
cities
where
religious
institutions
have
done
really
quite
small
projects
that
have
connected
to
their
Mission
and
have
been
funded
in
non-traditional
ways,
not
necessarily
through
the
the
processes
that
we
would
use
to.
You
know
do
a
hundred
unit
building
and
those
have
have
been
have
worked
so
I
think
that
it's
possible,
even
though
it
would
not
probably
be
the
same
method
that
we
would
proceed
with
on
a
typical
vacant
piece
of
land
with
a
typical,
affordable,
Market,
affordable,
developer.
L
K
And
and
quick
follow-up
on
that,
the
Saint
Joseph's
site
on
Church
Street,
in
terms
of
just
that
kind
of
property,
am
I
correct
to
say
that
when
it
was
redeveloped,
it
included
a
housing
component.
So
I
guess,
on
the
one
hand
you
know
it's,
it's
I
think
there's
a
commercial
or
office
use
or
like
a
meeting
use
in
that
kind
of
building
I'm.
Just
wondering
you
know
what,
and
maybe
you
know
it's,
it's
not
a.
K
You
know
easy
question
answer,
but
you
know
roughly
what
equivalent
like
if
that
was
housing,
as
opposed
to
like
office
like
is
there
a
ballpark
estimate
of
what
that
density
might
be?
A
building
like
that?
Typically.
B
You're
so
you're
talking
about
the
office
building
if
it
were
residential,
what
kind
of
density
would
that
be
yeah?
Oh
my
yeah
that'd,
be
it's
I'd
have
to
think
about
that
for
a
second.
Do
some
math
but
I'll
get
back
to
you.
Okay,
cool.
K
Awesome
yeah,
that's
all
the
questions
I
have
for
for
that.
One.
A
H
There's
the
the
section
that
talks
about
potential
additional
rezonings
and
the
and
a
few
items
mentioned
there,
but
that
also
you
know
Steph
also
notes
that
it
could
potentially
require
a
recirculation
of
the
of
the
eir
and
of
the
implications
of
that,
but
so
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
and
and
then
at
the
very
end
it
mentions
we
recommend
committing
to
it,
having
those,
as
you
know,
added
to
the
back
pocket
list
and
so
I'm
curious.
H
If
it's,
if
it's,
if
it's
studying
the
rezoning
that
that
triggers
the
the
the
recirculation
of
the
eir
or,
if
adding
it
to
the
back
pocket,
also
does
that
too
or
if
adding
it
back
to
the
back
pocket,
would
hear
a
recommended.
Language
doesn't
necessarily
require
recirculation
of
the
eir
and
then
for
a
Part
B
to
that
is
I
assume
the
other
things
like.
You
know,
R3
displacement,
all
those
things
those
wouldn't
require
recirculation
in
the
IR.
It
would
just
be
the
rezoning
pieces.
A
H
H
A
And
then
I
don't
know
whether
this
oh
that's
been
now
in
the
into
the
discussion,
not
really
a
question
about
the
inclusion
of
the
general
planability
centers,
but
it's
in
the
way
that
it's
being
included
on
page
300
of
the
of
the
of
version
two.
It
specifically
discusses
the
the
way
that
staff
has
incorporated
those
sites
that
would
be
rezoned
at
and
they're
discounting
those
at
an
eight
level
of
80,
so
they're,
even
though
it
they
could
potentially
provide.
A
J
Yeah
that's
correct,
chair
Cranston,
so,
as
I
presented,
you
know
when
we're
trying
to
look
at
some
of
those
sites
based
off
hcd's
comments,
some
of
those
larger
sites,
even
they
fit
within
our
methodology
of
the
year
they
were
built.
There
are
because
they
are
in
shopping
centers.
There
are
viable
tenant
spaces
so
to
be
conservative,
we
have
reduced
the
capacity
that's
identified
in
the
site's
inventory.
A
A
Sorry
cycle
six,
so
it's
I
mean
the
way
I
read
it
is
when
we
do
that
rezoning.
It
has
it'll,
have
a
capacity
of
1
515
units
in
those
spaces
in
those
locations,
but
for
the
second
we're
only
including
303
for
our
the
getting
to
our
number
to
meet
the
reader
numbers,
we're
actually
creating,
there's
more
capacity,
typically
more
capacity
than
you
think
would
actually
be
achieved
during
the
cycle.
J
Correct
yeah,
so
the
rezonings
themselves
will
increase
the
capacity
because
we
are
allowing
residential
uses
to
match
what
is
in
the
general
plan
right
now,
but
as
identified
in
the
site's
inventory,
we
have
reduced
that
capacity
by
80,
just
as
just
as
a
figure
to
include
in
our
site's
inventory.
J
Yeah,
so
different
cities
have
approached
it
somewhat
differently,
I
believe
maybe
it
was
in
Long
Beach,
where
they
did
or
in
La,
where
they
did
kind
of
a
comprehensive
discounting.
J
We're
only
targeting
this,
mainly
because
these
are
the
larger
shopping
centers,
with
some
viable
tendencies
in
in
that
place.
So
we
are
being
conservative
and
reducing
some
of
that.
B
I
would
estimate
it
to
be
about
75
units
per
acre
across
the
whole
site
if
it
was
residential
and
if
you
are
kind
of
not
counting
the
church
part
of
the
property,
it
would
be
more
than
that.
So
Paul
would
be
close
to
100
units
per
year.
G
Thank
you
and
just
to
follow
up
on
chair
cranston's
point,
so
the
discounting
in
the
conversations
you've
had
with
hcd
has
that
been
something
that
they're
amenable
to
for
a
site
right
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
right
there.
There
aren't
plans
for,
in
the
eight
year
cycle
for
redevelopment
at
the
Nob,
Hill
shopping
Center,
but
hcd
seems
to
be
okay
with
with
that
discounting
methodology.
B
B
They
did
review
our
draft
methodology
with
that
discounting
and
they
they
had
no
concerns.
Now
that
that's
not
to
say
that
they
won't,
you
know
I
definitely
have
to
knock
on
wood.
You
know
they
might
come
up
with
something
but
sure,
but
they
they
reviewed
our
draft
methodology
and
they
didn't
have
concerns.
B
B
A
A
Eric,
can
you
and
bring
back
extra
Redemption,
there's
I,
don't
know
if
he's
listening,
commissioner
Dempsey,
you
can
walk
back
into
the
room
there.
He
is
okay
Okay.
So,
let's
open
up
for
commissioner
questions
start
with
who
has
questions.
M
M
A
B
So
you
know
the
reality
is
our.
You
know.
One
of
the
one
of
the
challenges
in
the
R3
code
is
that
it
was
drafted
in
a
period
when
the
most
common
you
know
apartment
projects,
were
you
know,
don't
look
like
apartments.
Look
like
that
are
getting
built
today.
Right
I
mean
the
most
economical
way
to
build
Apartments
today
is
you
know
you
you
see
what's
going
on
a
lot
now,
it's
a
very
typical
kind
of
apartment
style,
and
it's
just
not.
B
A
B
Well,
we
would
hire
a
consultant
who
has
a
lot
of
experience
with
current
apartment
building
and
they
would
use
their
professional
judgment
to
see
where
there
are
conflicts
between
our
standards
and
the
way
that
apartments
are
being
built.
Today,
we've
already
done
this
to
a
certain
extent
with
R3,
and
we
found
that
there
are
conflicts,
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
want
to
fix
about,
R3
and
and
yeah.
We
would.
B
We
would
kind
of
do
a
more
thorough
job
of
that
across
more
zoning
districts
and
and
also
the
other
part
of
the
goal
of
the
project
is
to
ensure
that
standards
are
consistently
applied
across
sounding
districts.
So
some
of
our
precise
plans
have
very
specific
language.
Is
that
language
necessary?
Can
it
be
pulled
out
and
put
into
a
common
document
so
that
the
precise
plans
can
be
more
streamlined?
Things
like
that.
A
Question
number
two:
so,
like
hcd
I'm,
really
happy
that
there's
much
more
detail
in
timelines
and
schedules
in
this,
but
I
I,
guess
I'm
I'm
kind
of
an
Roi
kind
of
a
person.
What
do
I
get
for
the
amount
of
time
that's
being
spent
and
stats
that
is
frequently
telling
us
how
much
time
they
don't
or
don't
have,
and
at
least
by
my
math.
A
The
updates
associated
with
the
Adu
and
sb9
changes
will
not,
in
the
end
of
the
day,
provide
the
same
kind
of
return
in
the
amount
of
capacity
for
the
city
as
the
something
like
what
we
were
just
discussing.
Okay,
the
update
item
1.3
and
those
updates
isn't
due
for
completion
until
December
of
2026.
A
A
B
Yeah,
it's
really
about
flexibility
for
Council
to
bring
forward
other
priorities
like
the
downtown
precise
plan
like
R3
and
focusing
on
those
districts
and
the
Outreach
necessary
to
to
update
those
districts.
B
You
know
I
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
can
probably
do
fairly
quickly,
but
you
know
it's
again
about
giving
councils
opportunities
for
for
choice
in
them.
In
the
meantime,
if
the
EPC
wants
to
recommend
front
loading,
those,
that's
that's
something
that
you
can
recommend
to
council.
A
A
On
page
267
and
305,
you
discuss
the
units
that
have
been
that
are
in
progress
and
are
about
ready
to
be
complete.
One
comment
suggested
that
one
of
those
units
effects
that
have
been
occupied
prior
to
June
30th.
A
If
I,
if
I
read
the
document
correctly,
the
housing
element
isn't
really
from
2023.
It
started
the
accounting
started,
broad
chance
of
purposes.
January,
1,
2022,
correct,
so
anything
after
and
said,
July
July
one.
So
if
it
wasn't
finished,
it
was
wasn't
finished
by
June
30th
and
we
got
an
occupancy
permit
on
July,
1
or
later
it's
part
of
cycle.
Six.
J
Yeah
so
there's
yes,
that
is
correct.
Essentially,
there's
there's
two
different
I
guess
starting
time.
The
the
start
time
for
the
housing
element
is
January
31st,
but
there
is
a
projection
period
And.
This
is
when
they
calculate
all
the
arena
numbers,
so
that
is
included
up
until
January
June
30th,
so
July
1st
of
this
year.
B
And
I'll
also
add
that
it's
it's
a
final
certificate
of
occupancy
and
that's
a
very
technical
thing.
That's
issued
and
it's
the
reason
why
it's.
That
is
because
that
is
a
standardized
thing
across
all
jurisdictions.
They
all
issue
final
certificates
of
occupancy
now
jurisdictions
can
allow
residents
to
move
into
buildings
if
the
building
is
safe
to
be
inhabited
before
final
certificate
of
occupancy.
B
So,
yes,
there
are
cases
where
there
might
be
a
temporary
certificate
of
occupancy
or
some
other
provision
that
allows
people
to
be
moving
in
before
you
know
say
that
June
30th
2022
date,
but
you
know
the
example
of
the
950
El
Camino
project.
They
received
their
final
certificate
of
occupancy
in
August.
A
Right
I'm
kind
of
focused
on
site
and
I'm
doing
it.
Next
one
is
a
large
site
cap,
so
you're
you're
not
you're,
not
capping
in
the
way
you're,
not
capping.
The
number
of
units
in.
B
A
In
the
asset
inventory,
but
you're
capping,
the
number
of
units
that
can
be
counted
for
below
market
rate
is
that,
if
I'm
reading
that
correctly,
so
the
total
number
of
units
is
still
there
but
you're
not
going
to
allow
you
wouldn't
allow
you're,
not
counting
what
it
could
be
there
to
be
conservative
you're
trying
to
be
more
conservative
on
those.
Is
it
and
it's
on
page
280.
B
Yeah,
so
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
with
that.
One
is
we're
trying
to
reflect
hcd's
specific
direction
that
they
would
be
skeptical
of
fights
with
the
two
with
fewer
than
50
or
more
than
150
lower
income
units,
so
we're
trying
to
reflect
that
specific
direction
from
them.
We're
also
trying
to
limit
the
effect
of
one
large
site
having
a
major
no-net
loss
impact.
B
B
The
other
aspect
is
what
you
brought
up,
which
is
just
to
be
conservative.
To
show
that
we're
not
being
overly
generous
in
our
assumptions
around
lower
income
and
moderate
income.
A
Okay,
so
it's
just
things
that
haven't
done:
okay,
yeah,
all
right,
then
the
other
discount
thing
that
you're
doing
is
range
on
pages
289
to
290
you're,
basically
discounting
sites
for
anywhere
from
55
to
85
percent.
A
B
B
So
in
some
parts
of
the
city
we
have
a
fairly
high
confidence
that
if
there
is
Redevelopment
at
the
site,
it's
going
to
be
re.
Residential
El
Camino
is
a
good
example
of
that
we've
seen
very
little
Redevelopment
on
you
know
that
hasn't
been
residential.
B
B
A
And
then
one
last
question
it's
mentioned
in
the
report,
but
then
Elaine
Ellen
didn't
mention
it
in
hers
and
I.
Don't
see
it
on
the
map
yet
and
that's
685
East
Middlefield
is
that
now
part
of
the
sedimentary
yeah.
A
B
Mean
that
that's
certainly
been
what
council
has
asked
for
in
the
past.
We
are
fully
prepared
to
remove
them.
You
know
we
don't
want
anybody
on
the
list
against
their
will.
So
if
that's
something
that
the
EPC
recommends
and
the
council
directs
us
to
do,
we
will
absolutely
do.
G
I
was
just
wondering
about
that
process
of
like
understanding
that
hcd
wants
to
have
revised
drafts
like
it
seems
like
that
could
be
a
lot
of
revision.
So
is
it
handled
as
a
case-by-case
basis,
or
does
it
have
to
be
a
recommendation
from
EPC
or
the
council
when
we
hear
from
a
property
owner.
B
J
Thank
you.
In
addition
to
that,
you
know
we
are
working
with
HCG
throughout
that
process.
So
you
know
if
we
do
receive
any
additional
changes
or
we
have
additional
applications
that
come
in
during
that
time,
because
we're
working
with
HCT,
we
can
be
collaborating
during
that
time
as
well
and
keep
it
as
updated
as
possible.
K
Yeah
so
sticking
with
the
site's
inventory
here
I,
it's
my
understanding.
Some
of
the
sites
I
was
gonna,
bring
up
already
came
up,
so
thank
you,
Commissioners
and
chair
with
regards
to
gamble
way.
My
understanding
is
that
the
developer
is
not
looking
to
move
forward
with
that
project
anymore
and
it's
currently
I
think
being
listed
in
that
table
53
the
under
construction
pipeline.
K
K
Whether
you
know
you
guys
have
heard
something
to
the
affirmative
on
that,
and-
and
you
know
whether
or
not
that
should
be
included
in
the
the
pipeline
projects
list
and
then
also
that
62
West
El
Camino
site
on
where
the
U-Hauls
are
I,
do
believe
that-
and
maybe
this
question
is
more
just
you
know
what
you
guys
have
heard
around
the
current
occupant
of
that
property
looking
to
expand
some
of
the
you
know:
commercial
operations
that
are
on
truck
rentals,
so
yep
I,
guess
for
sure
I'm
curious
to
hear
what
you
guys
have
heard
about
Gamma
way
and
the
870
El
Camino.
B
Yeah
I
mean
there
there's
always
chatter,
you
know
I
think
until
somebody
puts
out
a
an
official,
Post
Release
or
anything
like
that,
we
don't
you
know,
people
always
end
up,
you
know
often
end
up
selling
entitlements
or
or
other
you
know.
Other
things
can
happen,
I
think
so.
I
I
don't
want
to
say
that
we,
you
know,
we
know
what's
gonna
happen
with
870
El,
Camino
or
with
gamma
way,
but
what
I
will
say
is
that
you
know
ours.
B
Our
sites
and
our
our
programs
now
include
a
monitoring
of
pipeline
sites
for
new
applications
to
when
new
applications
are
submitted.
We
will
update
the
site's
inventory
with
those
applications,
and
so
somebody
does
come
in
and
you
know
propose
to
do
some.
B
You
know
new
Redevelopment
of
the
gammaway
sites
or
something
like
that,
we'll
we'll
update
the
inventory
and
then
in
addition,
it's
also
just
good
to
recognize
that
oftentimes
with
these
market
rate
projects,
the
sites
are
by
definition,
underutilized
because
a
developer
has
come
in
and
said
they
want
to
add
on
or
build
a
property.
B
B
Is
is
applying
these
lower
income
units.
K
Got
it
I.
K
Is
there
a
kind
of
like
a
time
frame
within
which,
for
example,
because
I
agree
with
you,
there's
always
chatter
on
properties,
I
think
some
chatter
is
more,
you
know
kind
of
credible
than
others,
and
so
is
there
like
a
time
frame
where,
if,
for
example,
there
is
a
press
release,
as
as
you
noted
you
know
next
month
or
or
the
month
before,
we're
about
to
try
and
get
our
sites
or
our
our
housing
element
approved,
would
a
situation
like
that
where
a
press
release
does
get
announced?
K
Would
that
create
a
situation
where
we
would
have
to
submit
an
entirely
new
like
draft
like?
What's
the
impact?
How
easily
mendable
is
that
situation
with
regards.
J
On
that,
so
I
think
Eric
kind
of
alluded
to
that.
It
really
depends
on
the
timing
on
when
we
get
this
stuff
and
what
we
hear
from
hcd
as
well.
I.
Think
if
we
do
have
to
make
any
modifications,
it
won't
significantly
throw
us
back
on
our
schedule
to
make
any
significant
changes,
mainly
due
to
the
fact
that
we
do
have
an
application.
It
has
been
approved,
and
so
you
know
we
will
make
that
decision
on
whether
we
rely
on
our
existing
capacity.
J
What
was
proposed
or
we
could
pivot
back
to
what
we
would
generally
assume
for
an
underutilized
site
and
I
think
using
what
is
proposed
will
probably
be
the
most
conservative.
In
addition,
this
is
this
is
the
exact
reason
why
we
have
a
buffer
and
everything
else
netted,
because
you
know,
even
though
we
have
a
deadline
for
this
housing
element,
everything's
kind
of
continuous,
it's
kind
of
a
rolling
process.
So
you
know
we'll
ensure
that
we
do
have
the
capacity
throughout
the
city.
A
Okay
and
let's
one
of
the
questions
that
I
wonder,
you
want
to
pull
up
your
slide,
so
I
think
it
was
the
VPC
have
any
recommendations
on
new
or
modified
programs.
Since
the
last
direct
housing
element,
s
input.
A
My
hands,
I
guess
I,
would
just
bring
up
the
one
thing
that
I
mentioned
before
I
would
I
would
like
to
see
the
the
pieces
of
1.3
potentially
moved
forward.
I,
don't
know
if
other
commissioners
in
general,
quite
frankly,
this
is
the
housing
element
that
I
wish
we'd
seen
in
Phase,
One
and
round
one
it's
the
level
of
detail
the
specificity,
so
I'm
happy
with.
A
What's
there
I
just
I'm
that
particular
that
one
in
particular
1.3
I
would
I
would
like
to
see
it
happen
a
little
faster
than
than
it's
currently
scheduled
for
and.
A
I
can
leave
it.
Others
decide
I.
Just
when
I
looked
at
the
the
impact
of
the
Adu
item,
it
didn't
seem
like
it
would
have
as
much
impact,
and
so
if
we
have
to
trade
resources
that
seemed
like
one
that
might
be
might
be
a
fair
trade
but
I.
It's
a
I,
don't
know
whether
other
Commissioners
would
like
to
see
that
move
ahead
more
quickly.
If
not,
then
then
we'll
leave
it,
as
is
so.
Anyone
else
professional
hammer.
G
Can
I
just
ask
a
partly
clarifying
question
and
then
answer
yours,
so
my
understanding
is
that
my
assumption
would
have
been
that
these
longer
time,
Horizons
give
staff
and
the
city
more
flexibility
and
for
evaluation.
Is
that
right?
Is
that
kind
of
the
idea
that
we
know
some
of
these
things
might
happen
sooner,
but
the
longer
time
Horizon
doesn't
bind
the
hands
of
future
Council
or
just
general
implementation?
Is
that
a
fair
Assumption
of
why
the
time
Horizons
might
be
stretched
out
a
little
bit
more.
B
Yes,
I
think
that's
a
fair,
fair
assessment
and.
G
Then
what
is
the
penalty
like?
Let's
say
we
do
and
move
it
up
a
little
bit,
and
then
we
aren't
meeting
that
Target
is
it?
Is
it
better
to
be
and
more
Extended
in
that
time
horizon,
or
is
it
the
same?
If
we
make
the
recommendation
that
sure
Cranston
is
suggesting
of
pushing
it
up
forward,
I
I,
just
don't
know
how
detailed
this
all
seems
fairly
new
of
a
deeper
level
of
state
state
oversight.
B
Yeah,
so
theoretically,
if
we're
not
meeting
our
Target
dates,
you
know
your
housing
element
can
be
found
out
of
compliance.
B
Certainly
gives
more
flexibility,
but
again
you
know,
I
mean
we.
We
don't
intend
to
miss
our
miss
our
time.
Yeah.
G
G
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
and
SharePoint
said:
I
think
this
is
a
roundabout
way
of
answering
the
question
right.
It
seems
like
that,
by
being
more
aggressive
in
this
housing
element
draft,
we
are
actually
doing
the
more
conservative
thing
right.
It's
more
likely
that
we'll
be
compliant
by
by
maybe
making
some
of
these
things
stretch
out
a
little
bit
longer,
which
isn't
the
intent
but
I'd
be
curious
to
hear
what
others
others
think,
because
I
think
we
are
probably
going
to
do
the
work
a
little
bit
sooner.
G
K
Sorry
clarifying
question:
are
we
talking
about
1.3
the
update.
A
So
in
the
the
timeline
page
60
and
61.,
the
completion
of
1.3
doesn't
occur
until
December
of
2026.
The
items
that
are
in
specifically
the
review
ordinance
update
a
precise,
planned
residential
standards
as
out
there
in
2020
in.
A
2026,
and
that
just
seems
like
a
long
time
to
get
around
to
getting
the
residential
standards
updated
to
me.
So
that's
that's
funny,
specifically
that
I
was
this
is
saying
about
moving
forward.
I
I,
fully
understand
what
commissioner
heremeier
saying.
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
respond
to
commissioner
haymeyer's
question.
For
my
part,
as
a
general
rule,
I
think
it's
wise
to
build
more
flexibility
into
the
housing
element.
Oh
and
I'll
tell
you
why
I
mean
first
of
all,
if
there's
something
that
we
want
to
have
happen
sooner
than
whatever
deadline
we
set
to
some
extent,
we
have
some
power
to
drive
that
I
mean
we
could
just
bring
it
up.
We
can
agendize
it
and
we
can
say
Hey,
you
know
Steph.
F
Well,
let's
go
what's
what's
happening
with
that,
so
we
do
have
some
ability
to
sort
of
drive
a
little
bit
of
that
planning,
but,
more
importantly,
here's
what
I
would
worry
about
if
we
set
excessively
tight
time
frames
and
we
miss
one
and
then
we
end
up
in
a
situation
where
the
housing
element
is,
as
Eric
said
out
of
compliance.
What
I
would
worry
about
is
that
being
out
of
compliance
could
cause
a
scramble.
Somebody
could
I,
don't
know,
file
a
lawsuit
or
somebody
could
file
a
complain
or
I.
F
Don't
really
know
actually
what
what
bad
things
can
happen
when
a
housing
element
is
out
of
compliance,
but
what
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
is
have
us
be
technically
out
of
compliance,
get
challenged,
and
then
staff
has
to
spend
a
bunch
of
time
scurrying
to
try
to
solve
it
or
respond
to
it
or
address
it,
which
pulls
them
away
from
the
other
things
that
are
substantive,
that
we've
asked
them
to
do,
and
so
I'm
I'm
kind
of
a
big
believer
in
trying
to
protect
the
city
and
staff
from
sort
of
crises
in
the
future,
because
we
there's
so
many
things
for
them
to
do.
F
M
B
B
B
You
know
new
character,
New
Height,
new
everything
right,
whatever
happens
if
the
city
pulls
the
plug.
This
is
us
saying
that
we
are
committed
to
updating
those
R3
standards
so
that
at
least
you
can
are
guaranteed
to
be
able
to
build
the
density
that
you're
allowed
under
the
general
plan.
A
B
The
standards
the
way
they're
written
now
frequently
do
not
allow
the
number
of
units
that
are
allowed
in
the
gym.
They.
B
Exactly
so,
projects
would
come
forward
with
more
units
that
are
allowed
in
zoning
than
in
the
general
plan,
and
the
project
would
come
forward
and
we
just
have
to
figure
out
the
standards.
We'd
have
to
kind
of
figure
out
how
that
would
how
that
would
happen,
and,
and
so
that
that's
why
this
is
a
a
very
valuable
tool,
a
very
valuable
thing
to
do,
because
it
gives
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
transparency
in
the
community
about
what
is
actually
allowed
on
sites.
B
It
it
has
a
as
a
technical
matter,
I
think
it's
actually
not
a
huge
undertaking,
because
the
the
point
isn't
to
re-envision
the
district,
we're
going
to
try
to
keep
standards
as
as
close
as
we
can
to
what
they
are
and
we'll
probably
have
a
study
session.
Where
we
talk
about,
you
know
what
what
are
some
standards
that
the
epcn
council
is
is
is
interested
in
being
flexible
on.
B
You
know
in
in
shifting
in
order
to
accommodate
densities,
but
because
it's
a
more
technical
matter
and
because
the
the
densities
are
already
allowed
in
the
the
general
plan,
I
I,
don't
see
it
as
something
that
requires
a
significant
amount
of
either
Outreach
or
sleep.
Well,
there
may
be
some
Outreach,
but
again,
because
technically
it's
already
allowed,
it
would
be
less
sequel
as
well.
I
Thank
you.
Everyone
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
sore
throat
and
cough
too
so
bear
with
me
I'm
the
responding
to
Chairman
cranston's
perspective
I,
like
our
approach
of
just
being
cautious,
that
way
and
conservative,
because
it
gives
us
room
to
also,
if
there's
an
opportunity
to
do
it
sooner
then
it
just
takes
it's
just
done
soon.
We
don't
have
to
State
it
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
Eric,
there's
no
penalty,
if
you
say
something's
going
to
be
done
later
on,
but
then
you
do
it
sooner
I.
I
Don't
think
the
state's
going
to
be
upset
with
us
about
that
right,
okay,
so,
and
and
that's
how
I
look
at
it
and
that's
the
reason
why?
Because
it
gives
us
that
flexibility,
if
you
push
it
up
further,
it's
like
if
you
push
it
up
to
try
and
get
it
done
sooner,
we
don't
have
that
flexibility
and
I
think
that's
what
we
want
to
avoid.
A
A
Let
me
go
back
to
the
other
question
was
written
any
other
changes
to
the
programs
or
additional
programs,
this
housing
on
where's.
My
thing
is:.
K
Yeah,
so
I
guess
I
a
clarifying
question
around
the
order.
This
time.
Last
time
we
had
this
discussion,
we
went
through
you
know
like
each
like
potential
program.
Are
we
doing
something
similar
or
are
we
expected
as
part
of
this
commentary,
you
know
or
discussion?
You
know
our
commissioners
expected
to
just
kind
of
like
throw
all
their
ideas
out.
There
are
we
kind
of
going
item
by
item.
A
K
A
K
K
Yeah
I
don't
want
to
jump
back
between
1.3
and
then
one
point
this
and
that,
because
that
would
be
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I.
You
know
chimed
in
on
on
that
front.
K
Having
gotten
the
clarification,
I
am
open
to
making
a
recommendation
around
bringing
that
timeline
forward
for
whatever
that's
worth
and
then
I
did
also
want
to
bring
up
the
the
religious
sites
again,
and
you
know
sorry,
commissioner
Dempsey,
if
you
have
to
leave
again,
but
my
understanding
was
that
the
first
time
we
brought
it
up
was
for
questions
only
so
I
I,
don't
know
if
that's
yeah
something
we
can
go
back
to.
N
Yeah,
if
you,
if
the
commission
wants
to
revisit
that
issue,
then
commissioner
Dempsey
needs
to
leave
and
yeah
the
the
idea
was
to
have
taken
care
of
all
of
it
at
the
front
end.
But
if
there's
a
desire
to
revisit
it,
he
cannot
participate.
K
K
Cool
yeah,
so
I
guess
one
thing
I
would
say
about
that.
I
I
appreciate
that
there
is
a
kind
of
unique,
a
novel
approach
that
we're
taking
here
with
regards
to
almost
kind
of
like
some
form
of
underutilized
land
and
I.
I
still
feel
some
concern
around
the
low
density
and,
in
terms
of
you,
know
the
the
viability
of
finding
Partners
who
are
able
to
come
in,
and
you
know,
provide
that
kind
of
development.
K
Work
right,
I
think
it's
kind
of
telling
that
the
Saint
Joseph's
site
was
primarily
office
space
due
to
you
know
that
kind
of,
like
feasibility
of
commercial
being,
you
know
again
far
more
established
in
terms
of
returns,
and
so
one
thing
I
I
would
you
know
say
or
propose
is
that
you
know
we
do
make
a
recommendation
elevating
the
density
to
about
you
know
like
60
units
and
from
the
perspective
of
the
religious
organizations
themselves,
I
mean
if,
if
they
can
get,
you
know
double
the
the
density
and
and
find
a
way
to
partner
and
and
get
some
sort
of
value
stream.
K
Out
of
that
I'm
sure
it's
a
win
for
them
and
in
terms
of
like
our
ability,
as
as
a
city
to
actually
you
know,
have
this
in
in
eight
years
be
a
reality
versus
you
know,
something
that
you
know
was
on
a
PDF
eight
years
prior
I
think
that
would
go
a
long
way
and,
secondly,
with
regards
to
the
religious
sites
as
well.
One
of
the
benefits
there
is
that
you
know
we
are
talking
about
sites
in
the
south
of
El,
Camino
and
I.
K
It
was
hard
for
me
to
understand
kind
of
like
what
the
55
65
non-white,
slash
white,
like
what
that
kind
of
standard
really
meant,
but
in
terms
of
one
of
the
statements
that
commissioner
haymeyer
mentioned,
I
I
fully
agree
that
the
conservative
thing
to
do
as
part
of
this
process
is
to
be
aggressive
because
I
I
don't
want
any
part
of
you
know
the
things
that
we
could
get
deemed
for
to
ding
us
and
US,
invite
that
Builder's
remedy,
which
is
happening
in
Southern
California.
K
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
can
do
if
we
increase
this
density
here
or
the
proposed
density
as
a
recommendation,
is
both
a
make
it
more
feasible
and
and
in
line
with
other
projects
that
are
affordable,
that
we've
seen
in
the
city.
We
can
get
a
stronger
I,
don't
know
if
it's
like
a
score
or
Mark
or
grade
whatever.
K
Regarding
the
you
know,
fair
housing
requirement
by
expanding
into
the
south
of
El
Camino
and
as
almost
like
a
value
buffer
there
if
you
will
and
have
more
housing.
So
that's
you
know
something
that
I'd
like
to
put
on
the
table
as
far
as
I
guess
it
would
be
yeah
1.4.
G
Not
fully
understanding
how
we
settled
on
the
the
lower
housing
Goods
today,
I
would
be
fine
increasing
my
cap
because
it
seems
like
it
would
really
be
Project
Specific,
based
on
what
proposals
at
the
religious
site,
but
I'd
be
happy
to
hear
from
staff.
If
there's
something
that
I
that
we
might
be
missing
by
by
increasing
that
cap,
if
it
just
doesn't,
seem
realistic,
based
on
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
the
potential
sites
and
if
there's
something
that
would
be
a
caution
against
that
I'd
love
to
hear
it.
G
B
Yeah,
that's
a
great
great
question.
You
know
I
I.
Think
one
thing
to
consider
here
is
obviously
the
potential
for
State
density
bonus
to
come
in.
If
these
are
100,
affordable
projects,
then
you
know
under
our
you
know,
we
have
a
density
bonus
language
in
our
code.
That
says
that
you
know
any
any
density.
Bonus
is
allowed
on
sites
that
go
through
the
milfa
process
with
the
city.
B
So
if,
if
it
is
truly
a
subsidized
housing
project
like
other
affordable
housing
projects
that
we
do
here,
then
the
30
to
40
units
per
acre
wouldn't
apply
I.
Think
when
we
were
thinking
about
this
range,
we
were
thinking
about.
First
off,
you
know
what
what's
the
minimum
that
that
hcd
expects
for
lower
income
housing,
which
is
30.
B
30
units
per
acre,
but
also,
what
is
you
know,
potentially
appropriate
I
mean
we're
we're
obviously
trying
to
ensure
that
this
program
is
successful,
and
you
know
one
way
that
a
program
is
successful,
is
by
not
creating
neighborhood
enemies
and
so
I
think
by
by
doing
that,
we're
we're
creating
both
an
opportunity
for
Council
to
be
selective
with
opportunities
through
the
nofa
process.
B
At
any
density,
but
also
providing
some
guidance
to
these
religious
sites
that
may
want
to
do
as
Michaela
described
earlier,
a
kind
of
mission-based
project
at
a
you
know
that
that
fits
their
scale
of
that
they
are
able
to
provide
services.
A
M
I
just
had
a
quick
question
in
coming
up
with
that
I
didn't
know.
If
staff
was
able
to
speak
to
any
of
the
owners
of
those
properties
to
find
out
if
they
had
any
set
goals
or
ideas
about
what
they
may
do
in
the
future,
or
if
this
was
just
more
of
a
conceptual
exercise.
J
Yeah
we
did
do
kind
of
initial
Outreach
when
we
were
also
doing
the
Outreach
for
the
rezonings
for
the
village
centers
and
El
Camino
Real.
We
probably
only
got
feedback
from
one
or
two
of
those
property
owners
and
again
it's
just
an
initial
Outreach.
So
we
didn't
go
into
the
specific
details
on
their
intentions,
but
there
was
interest
in
supporting
this
kind
of
mission-based.
Housing.
J
I
also
want
to
state
that
the
way
the
program
is
written
and
the
specific
action
items
you
know
it
is
a
whole
program
in
itself,
so
we
will
still
be
doing
Outreach
with
property
owners
and
affordable
housing
developers
to
kind
of
develop
what
what
those
standards
could
be
and
what
incentives
could
be
part
of
that.
The
success
of
that
program
right
now,
the
density
that's
listed,
is
just
stated
as
a
typical
one,
not
specifically
or
to
respond
to
hd's
comments
so
that
they
can
understand
to
what
extent
this
program
could
produce
additional
housing.
A
I
guess
I'll
take
a
comment.
That's
why
the
way
I
read
it
I
kind
of
in
my
head.
You
would
we'd
kind
of
overlay.
What's
called
medium
density
and
the
general
plan,
which
is
up
to
35
dwelling
inches
per
acre,
is
a
kind
of
a
buy
right,
I
think
so
they
could
go
in
and
do
whatever
they
want
within
that
level.
But
if
they
wanted
to
go
beyond
that,
just
as
Eric
said,
then
they
could
come
in
through
the
no
foot
process
and
and
do
more
but
giving
them
some
ability
to.
A
You
know
just
to
not
having
to
come
back
and
apply
for
it
if
they
wanted
to
do
something
on
a
smaller
scale.
That
I
was
kind
of
comfortable
with
that
and
said
if
they
want
to
come
in
and
do
a
bigger
project
and
go
for
it,
but
I
for
doing
something
that
was
kind
of
by
right.
That's
that
was
in
my
head,
so
I
listed
a
range
there,
but
the
medium
density
allows
the
35
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
thinking.
You
were
kind
of.
You
know
you
wanted.
A
You
said
you
wanted
to
tie
to
something
that
exists
and
that's
something
that
exists.
So
in
my
mind
it
was
you
would
kind
of
tie
it
to
that.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
what
you're
actually
thinking,
but
that
was
kind
of
where
my
head
went
and
I'm
comfortable
with
that
I
would
be
uncomfortable,
saying
it's
going
to
be
50
units
by
rate
and
then
it
could
be
75
or
you
know,
without
some
process
going
along
with
it.
So
it's
kind
of
comfortable
with
the
direction
and
stuff
is
recommending.
G
That
framing
is
really
helpful.
I
I
would
be
comfortable
if,
if
others
share
that
and
and
say
that
by
right,
it's
at
this
medium
General
plan
density
and
then
with
the
no
fun
knowing
that
that
opportunity
to
go
more
densely,
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's
as
important
as
a
call
out
if
the
financing
mechanism
is
really
what
triggers
greater
density
almost
like.
Thank
you.
This
has
been
really
helpful.
K
Yep
so
that
that's
not
interesting
to
me,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
come
from
my
understanding
of
like
just
mention
chair.
So
if
I'm
hearing
it
correctly,
it
would
be
saying
and-
and
maybe
this
is
what
it
already
says-
that
that
30-
that
Medium
density
is
a
buy
right
project
and
the
kind
of
like
nofa
process
is
what
would
enable
anyone
who's
interested
to
submit
an
application.
K
Or
you
know
what
have
you
initiate
a
process
to
develop
that
60
to
whatever
density
level,
and
is
that
am
I
hearing
that
correctly.
A
B
Yeah
just
to
clarify
for
anybody
who
doesn't
know
you
know
it's,
it's
the
notice
of
funding
availability.
So
when
we
collect
our
housing
impact
fees-
and
are
you
know
our
other
fees
that
go
to
affordable
housing?
B
You
know
we
in
this
is
that's
how
we
distribute
these
These
funds
to
affordable
housing
developers,
and
so
we
have
provided
in
the
density,
bonus,
ordinance
and
again,
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
misnomer
to
say,
buy
right
and
then
like
Council
approval,
because
density
bonus
is
buy
right
as
well
and
I.
Think
that's
a
an
important.
B
You
know
thing
to
say
right.
You
could
still
do
on.
You
know,
for
example,
an
SB
35
project
in
a
Serial
project.
You
know
through
the
nofa
process,
but
the
yeah
it
just
it's
it.
It's
our
way
of
really
ensuring
that
Council
can
target
funds
to
really
high
quality
projects
that
serve
Community
goals,
which
could
include
building
more
housing.
A
B
That's
I
mean
I
think
you
could
say:
I
mean
I,
think
you
could
say
bye
right
at
that
level,
but
I
think
it's
it's
it's
you.
Wouldn't
you
wouldn't
want
to
say
that
necessarily
the
you
know
we're
we're
introducing
new
discretion
in
the
nofa
processing.
There
is
discretion
there,
obviously
with
the
funding,
but
in
the
actual
development
review
that's
happening.
It
can
also
be
by
right.
A
K
Okay,
and
and
for
that
density
bonus,
for
example,
if
I
was
a
developer
going
for
something
like
that,
I
would
not
be
able
to
do
that
until
the
zoning
amendments
were
completed
and
as
currently
in
the
proposed
time
frame,
it's
seeming
like
2026
would
be
the
date,
so
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
receive
applications
for
these
kinds
of
projects
before
January.
1St
2027.
B
K
Okay,
cool
just
because
it
said
I'm
seeing
it
here,
it
says
2026.,
so
I
mean
I.
I
would
be
if,
if
we
were
thinking
within
the
next
three
years,
which
is
like
what
like
20
20,
five
I
mean
I'd,
be
interested
in
bringing
that
a
little
bit
forward.
K
I
know
that
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
on
your
guys's
plate,
but
in
terms
of,
like
the
you
know,
very
targeted
number
of
sites,
and
you
know
like
limited
number
of
sites
relatively
speaking,
you
know,
I
I,
think
that
this
is
one
that
we
might
be
able
to.
K
You
know,
I
would
be
interested
in
recommending
that
you
know
to
be
like
set
by
something
like
2020,
early,
2024
or
late
2023,
again,
just
because
I
I
I'm,
very
clear
on
you
know
the.
How
can
I
say
the
lack
of
Entry
opportunity
in
this
area,
for
you
know,
low
income-
and
you
know
minority
people
typically
and
so
I
I
do
find
that
to
be
a
you
know,
a
high
value
item
and
high
priority
item
both
from
a
again
a
further.
K
You
know
affirming
fair
housing,
but
also
from
you
know
something
that
I
think
is
is
a
good
value
for
our
city
to
to
operationalize.
So
if,
if
people
are
interested
in
bringing
that
forward,
you
know
yeah
I'd
be
interested
in
putting
that
out
there
as
well.
A
And
hearing
so
I
guess
what
I'm
Marion
I
mean
not
hearing
is
folks
are
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
1.4
and
that
35-ish
drawing
Under,
Pressure
kind
of
density,
but
there's
not
necessarily
maybe
you're
getting
the
same
kind
of
reaction.
That
I
got
to
my
pulling
up
forward,
commissioner
Minis,
that
we
kind
of
like
the
timeline,
if
it's
done
sooner
cool,
but
not
give
it
give
the
step
to
work
through
it
kind
of
a
thing
and.
K
Yeah,
the
initial
ask
was,
you
know,
looking
at
and
hearing
from
staff
around
potential
benefit
from
bumping
that
up.
You
know
in
terms
of
the
density
having.
D
K
Stats
reasoning:
the
new
ask
here
is
hey:
let's
bring
I'm
looking
at
the
red,
lined
draft
where
it
says
2026
in
fact,
I
think
it
got
bumped
out
a
year
and
what
I'm
you
know
throwing
out
there
for
the
group
is
for
the
commission
is
hey.
You
know,
given
the
kind
of
importance
of
having
more
entry
opportunities
into
this
area
of
the
city
that
we
and
given
the
you,
know
relatively
small
number
of
sites
in
the
targeted
approach
to
this
item.
K
You
know
that
we
bring
that
up
forward
in
terms
of
the
time
frame
towards
you
know,
late
2023
recommend
you
know
getting
this
done
by
like
late
2023
or
early
2024.
So
that's
that's
what
I'm,
proposing
and
and
seeing
if
anyone
else
is
interested
in
kind
of
bringing
that
timeline
a
little
bit
forward
or
recommending
that
as
such.
G
Yeah
I
I
mean
I
think
that
the
the
message
to
staff
would
be
yes,
wait.
Let's
expedite
this,
but
I
I
am
now
convinced
that
it's
okay
to
be
a
little
bit
more
fluid
in
in
when
we
think
we're
actually
accomplishing
these
things
with
the
internal
expectation
that
we'll
do
what
we
can
to
advance
it
on
a
steroid
sign
mine.
K
N
A
Yeah,
so
we
can
bring
back
Mr
Dempsey
all
right.
So
do
you
want
to
pull
up
your
list
again
whether
we're.
A
A
If
so,
do
they
wish
to
add
them
as
part
of
the
housing
element
where
to
go,
and
that
was
the
Earth
rezoning.
The
replacement
strategy
for
stabilized
units
parking
relations.
D
K
Yeah
I
guess
a
question
then,
since
no
one
else
jumped
in
here
with
regards,
can
you
go
back
to
what
was
the
one
regarding
the
rental
replacement
that
slide
please?
K
So
this
font
strategy
is
planned
for
2023
study
session,
including
so
I,
just
a
quick
clarifying
ask
from
staff,
so
the
Copa
topa
piece
to
this
is
like.
How
does
that
relate
to
the
displacement
response
and
or
is
it?
K
Is
there
room
to
kind
of
like
separate
those
or
or
is
the
expectation
from
like
hcd
that
you
know?
If,
if
we're
saying
you
know
hey,
we
would
Implement
like
this
displacement
response
strategy.
Would
Coppa
be
a
part
of
that
I
I,
just
kind
of
want
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
about
that
relationship
between
kind
of
like
what
the
response
strategy
is
and
and
if
Copeland
toppa
is
already
being
like
considered
as
a
firm
part
of
that.
L
Thanks,
commissioner,
Nunez
Copa
and
toppa
are
referenced
in
I
can't
remember.
The
program
number
I
can
look
really
quickly,
but
in
one
of
our
programs,
where
we
reference
Innovative
approaches
to
promoting
affordable
housing,
and
you
know
we
reference
it
as
something
we'd
like
to
study
and
explore
that's
still
under
under
study
and
exploration.
We
do
intend
on
including
it
in
the
study
session
relating
to
displacement
response,
but
it's
sort
of
more
broadly
referenced
in
the
housing
movement.
Okay,.
H
Clerk,
just
back
to
my
question:
do
do
any
of
these
reminders.
I
think
I
read,
hopefully
wrote
the
staff
report
correctly
that
the
the
concerns
around
recirculating,
the
eir,
were
around
the
rezone
age
and
not
necessarily
the
inclusion
of
the
additional
programs
like
parking
reductions.
Those
sorts
of
things
is
that
right.
B
Parking
reductions
wouldn't
have
any
effect
on
the
yeah.
The
rezonings
certainly
would
and
I
think
you
were
asking
earlier
I,
don't
know
if
we
answered
this
question
about
whether
the
back
pocket
would
affect
the
IR
I.
Think
conservatively.
Yes,
it
would.
You
know
an
eir,
really
studies.
H
It
what
about
the
inclusion
of
R3,
just
because
it's
already
you
know
the
identified
a
program,
that's
sort
of
underway
with
I'm,
just
curious!
How
that
might
impact
the
research.
B
Yeah,
the
inclusion
of
R3
almost
certainly
would
you
know
again,
you
know,
there's
there's
still
a
lot
of
uncertainty
about
where
the
R3
project
is
going
to
end
up.
You
know,
certainly
what
we
proposed
to
council,
you
know
probably
a
year
and
a
half
ago
now
could
have
added.
D
H
Got
it
so
I
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
conversations
since
no
one
else
had
had
comments
on
this
and
we
can
probably
move
on,
but
but
but
just
for
the
record,
like
I
do
I
do
think.
You
know
if,
if
hcd
EO
comes
back
with
additional
comments
or
concerns
or
things
like
the
the
two,
the
two
items
that
I
would
be
generally
comfortable.
Looking
at
you
know
a
second
time.
I
know:
we've
looked
at
these
before
would
be,
would
be
the
inclusion
of
R3
granted.
H
We
don't
know
how
it
turns
out,
but
since
that
project
is
pretty
far
along
and
granted,
we
don't
know
the
ultimate
outcome.
You
know
it's
sort
of
low
hanging,
fruit,
I
think
from
from
my
perspective
and
then
and
then
also
re-looking
at
some
of
the
the
parking
minimums
in
other
parts
of
the
city.
I
know
is
that
pointed
out.
You
know
North
Bay,
Shore,
East
Lisbon
in
them
with
state
law.
H
You
know
it
eliminates
a
lot
of
areas
and
and
obviously
we
would
want
to
make
sure
that
we,
you
know
that
would
require
us
to
study
and
Implement
likely.
You
know
residential
parking.
Permit
programs
in
in
certain
parts
of
the
city
to
mitigate
the
mitigate
the
impacts
of
something
like
that,
but
I
understand
that
probably
most
others
and
even
staffers
are
recommending
the
inclusion
of
those
I
just
wanted
to
to
share
those
comments.
H
As
part
of
you
know
what
I'm
thinking
might
be
something
that
we
could
do
if
there
are
additional
concerns
based
by
HD
Mr.
K
Yeah
I
I
would
have
no
problem
with
taking
the
approach
mentioned
by
commercial
Clark
right
now
around.
You
know
R3,
as
looking
for,
in
fact,
I
don't
even
mind
supporting,
including
that
or
as
a
recommendation
tonight,
but
I
do
have
one
question
relating
to
our
three
piece,
because
I
did
notice
that
a
lot
of
these
in
the
site's
inventory
table
there's
a
lot
of
sites
that
all
the
way
through
just
have
like
a
zero
in
terms
of
capacity.
K
So
I
guess,
like
I,
was
wondering
how
much
like
like
what
does
that
mean?
For
you
know
a
lot
of
these
sites
to
just
have
zeros
across
the
board,
and
then
you
know
if,
if,
for
example,
many
of
these
sites
are
in
that
R3
space,
if
we
were
to
say
like
hey,
either
now
or
at
some
other
later
Point,
you
know
we're
comfortable
recommending
this
as
part
of.
K
Would
an
assessment
have
to
be
done
around
some
of
these
spaces
like
do
we
need
to
have
them
like
with
capacity
like
a
total
for
capacity
like
what
yeah
can
you
can
help
me
understand
that
that'd
be
helpful.
B
Yeah,
unfortunately,
that
those
zeros
are
were
a
typo
that
we
just
recently
discovered
and
we're
gonna
get
that
corrected
before
we
send
it
off
to
hcd
and
apologies
that
we
we
didn't
catch
that
before
it
got
to
you
all,
but
yeah
there
should
be.
The
totals
are
still
correct
in
all
the
tables
from
the
site's
inventory.
It's
really
in
in
that
table
a
itself
we,
we
did
lose
some
of
the
data
in
in
transferring
from
our
internal
files.
Okay,.
K
Cool
got
it
but
yeah
just
to
close
off
that
comment
from
commissioner
Clark
yeah
I
I
I,
don't
mind
R3
being
a
part
of
it
either
an
hour
later,
as
a
recommendation.
A
I
guess
I
would
be
in
the
view
that,
unless,
unless
hcd
comes
back
with
something
very
different
than
what
staff
was
talking
about,
I
would
prefer
not
to
be
including
any
of
these
things
at
this
point,
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
don't
need
to
do
the
RS3
or
part
three
process,
and
we
don't
need
to
look
at
housing,
Standard,
Parking
standards
and
but
I
I
would
be
uncomfortable,
including
them.
Unless
hcd
comes
back
and
says
nope
sorry,
you
actually
only
have
5
000
units
and
against
a
target
of
11
000..
A
G
Yeah
I
think
I,
like
commissioner
Clark's
approaches
waiting
for
the
next
set
of
comments
and,
if
needed,
when
we
can
resurface
it.
M
Yes,
I'm
actually
pretty
happy
with
the
current
process
in
that
we're
talking
with
hcd
constantly
and
consistently
until
we
have
a
final
draft
that
we're
pretty
sure
we're
going
to
get
approved.
So
a
barring
any
huge
surprises.
It
looks
like
we're
on
a
good
path
and,
as
a
lot
of
the
Commissioners
had
stated
earlier,
the
more
flexibility
we
have
with
this
particular
document
I
think
the
better
off
we
are
and
because
we
are
moving
forward
on
a
lot
of
these
other
projects
in
Earnest.
M
It's
not
like
we're
just
trying
to
put
it
out
there
and
not,
including
it
then
I'm
comfortable,
giving
the
most
time
and
effort
towards
having
the
community
review
it
and
allowing
for
that
process
to
naturally
take
place
so
I'm
comfortable
with
moving
forward
as
Steph
has
presented.
I
Thank
you,
Jack
yeah
I
know
I'm
in
agreement.
That's
why
I
hadn't
said
anything
beforehand,
because
I
like
that
approach,
that
the
city
is
taking
with
this,
especially
if
we're
converging
ones
the
people
who
are
going
to
review
the
document.
If
and
when
they
say
something
otherwise,
a
matter
of
fact,
then
I'd
come
back
in
it.
Discuss
these
points,
but
right
now,
I
think
we're
I
think
we're
good
thanks.
F
Yeah
I
I
think
I'm
in
the
as
is
caucus.
F
We
could
talk
about
including
it
if
we
need
to
if
hcd
seems
to
make
that
necessary
or
wise,
but
I
think
for
now
I
think
going
with
staff's
recommendations.
The
Right,
Move.
A
All
right,
that's
not
great
just
steps,
questions
any
last
comments
from
Commissioners
or
whatever
those
were
closes.
No
I
I
just
will
say
it
right.
I
was
this
version
too.
A
I'm
like
this
is
this
is
is
a
good
document
and
I
was
I
was
pleased
by
what
I
saw
and
so
I
really
appreciate
the
hard
work
that
staff
has
done
on
it.
A
It's
a
major
step
forward
from
version
one
you've
got
a
lot
of
discussions
with
people
to
do
it,
but
I
think
it's
I
came
away
feeling
like
okay.
This
is
something
that
I
could
I
could
live
with,
and
I
could
support
and
I
can
explain
to
people
why
it's
there.
So
thank
you
for
your.
Thank
you
for
your
hard
work
on
it.
Yeah
for
some
good
cheers.
I
Thank
you,
sir.
Oh
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
we
have
sometimes
as
Commissioners
or
just
being
members
of
the
board
or
governing
body
is
to
trust
the
process
right.
Some
of
us
haven't
been
through
this
others
have
maybe
touched
on
it
on
an
edge
with
projects
that
come
up,
but
on
a
project
like
this
that
at
the
scale
when
I
heard
that
Eric
and
the
team
was
speaking
to
hcd
continuously.
I
That
gave
me
a
little
bit
more
reassurance
that
we're
on
the
right
path
right-
and
this
version,
like
chairman
Madison,
mentioned
I
like
this,
because
it's
more
detailed
oriented
that
way,
but
it's
in
partnership
with
whose
the
reviewers
are
going
to
be
and
then
also
with
input
from
the
community,
so
I
think
the
more
we
get
involved
with
something
like
this.
It's
all
about
the
iterations
right.
You
learn
as
you
go,
and
when
you
make
those
edits
As,
you
move
into
the
process
of
further
edits
with
help
from
the
overseers.
I
It
goes
a
long
way
to
just
make
the
document
more.
What's
realistic,
right
and
and
passable
and
I
think
that's
what
we're
looking
for
right
now
with
the
added
in
bonus
of
just
being
flexible.
So
in
case
there
are
targets
that
we're
looking
at
that
have
been
designated
at
a
later
time
point
if
those
get
taken
care
of
beforehand.
That's
a
bonus
I
mean
that's,
that's
that's
good,
so
we're
not
limiting
ourselves
or
our
potential
and
I
think
that
that's
the
right
approach.
So
thank
you,
Eric
for
that.
A
Right
and
then
we
will
we'll
close
out
5.1
and
thank
you
everyone
item
six
is
Staff
announcements,
updates,
requests
and
committee
reports.
I
I
N
A
B
You
know
I'm
I'm,
afraid
I've
been
a
little
under
the
weather
and
I
haven't
really
prepared
anything
to
discuss
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
haven't
set
up
any
holiday
party
which
I
promised
to
do
at
the
last
meeting,
but
I
will
get
on
that
and
yeah
as
as
you
said
that
and
as
Ellen
said,
the
next
meeting
is
going
to
be
warhousing
element
fund
where
we're
gonna
be
doing
the
rezonings
and
that's
that's
what
I
have
to
report.
A
A
D
A
And
Commissioners
Gutierrez
and
Eric:
please
get
healthy.