Bill Cranston

speaker

4,196 appearances 25 recordings 1 series first heard Oct 2023 last heard 19 Aug

Bill Cranston’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

Recordings per month over the last 12 months — 10 in all, peaking in Feb 2026 with 2.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission · Environmental Planning Commission on 2026-03-04 7:00 PM - Mar 04, 2026 · 4 Mar 2026 meeting

So I'll probably still support it, but I'm assuming this is here because council said this is cool and we should include it, but that's my concern.

The other thing that I'm worried about is, and the chair didn't address this, but in my mind,

I don't have a method of evaluating the equivalence of a CSFRA unit and a BMR unit, and I'm troubled by the fact that if something was inclusionary, we would have the CSFRA unit and a new unit.

And by allowing the inclusion of CSFRA units in the third option, we go to a situation where there's no additional units, which a third for murder capability bill is that's what we're trying to do.

If that was, I don't know whether that was something that was discussed with council initially.

But I thought part of the goal of the BMRNs was to get more units.

And the option to include CSFRA in option, the third option, means that it's likely that we will not.

So maybe staff can tell me whether council understood that, but I just, that's not what my expectation was.

So that's the comment.

The third point is something that's not on the list here, but I was on the commission when this came up.

The 25% BMR requirement for OHAMs came about before SB 330, and we were seeing BMR units getting turned into townhomes left and right, okay?

A lot changed, and guess what?

All those townhomes stopped being built.

The economic evaluation that was done at the time that said that the financial equivalent was 25% versus 15% was probably valid at the time when they could just do whatever the heck they wanted, okay?

That's not true anymore.

So I think, and I mean, it's not in line with what we've discussed here, but I think it should be brought back to council and said,

um should this be changed to be the same thing because i don't believe i would i find it hard to believe and the developer in the room probably would agree with me that saying that that that financial equivalence for 20 of 25 for for a townhome or row home is still true today with the state the change in state law so it i think we should be looking at

making that the same for everything.

Again, I think it's outside of, it's something new, I guess, in the scope of this, so correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but I don't think I can propose that as an amendment at this point, but I think it should be raised back to council, because I think that's, it was like, oh yeah, that's why we did that, and that's changed.

So those are my three comments, in addition to the .

Showing 621–640 of 4,196 · page 32 of 210