►
Description
Tricaster stream validation test - Planning Commission 2023525
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
F
I
My
name
is
I
served
as
a
planning
commissioner
for
almost
20
years,
and
there
are
some
items
that
we
were
still
working
when
I
left,
so
I
just
want
to
bring
that
up.
Number
one
is
housing
element.
What's
the
status
of
that,
if
anything
will
has
done
on
that,
there
are
other
part
was
the
General
plan
and
we
worked
on
that
for
a
very,
very
long
time
and
I.
Don't
know
what
happened
to
that.
So
those
are
the
two
critical
items
that
when
I
left
that
were
not
done
and
I'm
wondering.
D
E
Sure
real
quickly,
normally
we
don't
discuss
items
of
raise
the
public
comment,
but
but
this
evening
I
will
certainly
can
take
care
of
that
housing
element
was
adopted
by
the
city
council
last
week
and
we
did
receive
our
certification
letter
from
the
state
verifying
that
we
are
in
compliance
with
state
law.
So
that's.
E
Yeah,
it
was
we're
pleased
to
get
there
early,
the
Second
City
in
the
county.
That's
received
that
approval
so
far,
so
we're
pleased
and
proud
of
again
thank
the
commission
for
their
time
and
effort
and
staff
for
all
the
work
they
put
into
that
and
then
the
general
Plan
update
who's
been
on
hold
and
will
be
on
hold
until
the
balance
process
is
completed.
E
I
I
F
F
E
J
All
right
good
evening,
Commission
there
are
projects
before
you
this
evening,
is
for
design
permit
and
use
permit
approval
for
a
new
mixed
use.
Development
at
25,
visitation,
Avenue,
the
requested
permits
for
a
design
permit
are
for
approximately
4
000
square
foot
mixed-use
building
that
contains
a
single-family
dwelling
with
attached
edu
and
a
ground
level
storefront
space.
Yes,.
J
J
Additionally,
a
use
permit
is
requested
to
modify
the
off-street
parking
requirements
for
this
project,
which
are
three
off-sheet
spaces,
and
the
project
proposes
two
so
an
overview
of
the
existing
conditions
on
the
site.
This
property
is
just
under
2
700
square
feet
in
size.
It's
developed
with
a
one-story
commercial
building,
last
occupied
by
the
23
Cafe,
it's
adjacent
to
the
23
Club,
a
well-known
structure
in
town.
Both
structures
have
been
vacant
for
several
years
and
are
currently
in
a
state
of
poor
repair.
J
Due
to
the
age
of
the
structure,
the
city
did
hire
a
historic
architect
to
complete
a
historic
resources
evaluation
to
ensure
that
the
project
would
not
be
impacting
a
historic
resource.
The
evaluation
is
attached
to
your
report
and
it
did
find
that
while
some
criteria
were
met,
ultimately
it
did
not
meet
all
the
required
thresholds
to
be
designated
a
historic
structure
other
than
the
23
Club.
J
Other
adjacent
development
include
a
a
single
story:
mixed-use
building
at
27
to
31
visitation
with
a
residential
unit
occupying
the
part
of
that
building
closest
to
the
subject
property
and
per
the
survey
submitted
with
the
project
plans.
The
existing
building
on
the
subject
property
actually
encroaches
a
little
bit
over
the
property
line
toward
that
structure
and
then
at
the
rear.
There's
a
vacant
parking
lot
at
36
to
50
San
Bruno
Ave.
All
those
sites
are
zoned
and
cro2.
J
J
J
So
there's
some
separation
between
the
two
already
and
here's
a
view
looking
up
visitation.
It
shows
the
mix
of
uses
and
buildings.
You
have
Heights
ranging
from
one
to
three
stories.
You
have
Standalone
residential
next
to
Standalone
commercial
next
to
mixed
use.
So
again,
as
you
well
know,
this
is
our
mixed
use.
District.
J
So
the
project
proposal
includes
at
the
ground
floor
just
over
700
square
feet
of
commercial
storefront
space.
A
two
tar,
a
two-car
tandem
garage,
is
proposed
to
serve
the
single-family
dwelling
and
again,
three
spaces
are
required
by
the
code,
because
the
single
family
dwelling
is
over
1800
square
feet
in
area.
On
a
lot.
That's
25
feet
wide.
J
J
J
Strict
enforcement
would
not
be
required
to
enforce
the
parking
conditions
on
the
site.
Considering
the
garage
would
be
used
by
occupants
of
a
single
dwelling.
It's
not
a
multi-tenant
situation,
allowing
two
off-street
parking
spaces
where
three
are
required
for
a
two-bedroom
home
on
a
site,
that's
close
to
public
transit
and
with
secured
on-site
bike,
storage
wouldn't
contribute
to
an
existing
shortage
of
on-street
parking
in
the
vicinity
of
the
project.
J
J
And,
finally,
the
narrow
lot
width
does
constrain
the
ability
for
any
project
to
provide
both
required
off-street
parking
and
the
required
storefront
space
which,
in
the
ncr2
district,
as
you
recall,
is
600
square
feet.
Minimum
of
storefront
area,
all
of
those
competing
uses,
are
challenging
to
provide
on
a
25-foot
web
lot
in
terms
of
the
design
permit.
J
Those
findings
also
can
be
met
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report.
Findings
related
to
Neighborhood
compatibility
were
largely
addressed
by
the
use.
Permit
findings
in
terms
of
building
design,
the
building's
a
contemporary
architectural
design
with
pedestrian
level
details
and
articulation
at
the
street
facade
consistent
with
the
ncr2
district
regulations.
J
There's
a
variety
of
second
level:
decks,
canopies,
light
Wells
balconies
that
help
to
break
up
the
overall
massing
and
add
visual
interest.
The
proposed
color
palette
is,
you
know,
modern
mix
of
white
gray
and
black
there's
a
mix
of
materials,
stucco
cement
board,
siding
glass,
metal
framing
all
of
these
come
together
in
a
cohesive
and
harmonious
fashion,
and
compliance
with
the
design
permit.
J
Findings
there
is
a
pretty
significant
amount
of
landscaping
proposed
for
such
a
small
lot
in
this
District
about
25
square
feet
of
landscaping
in
a
planter
box
adjacent
to
the
storefront
entry
so
again
giving
that
kind
of
softening
of
The
Pedestrian
level
facade
and
then
a
real
yard
of
just
under
500
square
feet.
That
would
be
available
for
the
residential
and
Commercial
uses.
J
J
As
the
chair
noted,
you
did
receive
a
lot
of
written
correspondence
on
this
item,
some
of
which
was
attached
to
the
report.
Others
were
provided
to
you
after
the
report
was
published
and
I'll
in
my
report.
Here,
staff
is
recommending
conditional
approval
of
the
project
per
the
conditions
and
findings
contained
in
the
resolution.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
H
Please
go
ahead.
Julia
we've
done
a
couple
of
approvals
for
mixed
use.
Projects
on
visitation,
Valley
I
mean
sorry
fish
on
visitation,
and
one
of
them
was
a
storefront
and
they
also
had
residential
and
they
was
going
to
put
a
lift
in
there.
Is
this
something
that
and
for
that
project
did
we
did?
We
decrease
their
parking
requirements
or.
J
So
there's
actually
two
recent
projects
on
visitation
that
use
lifts
mechanical
lifts.
One
is
just
across
the
street
from
this
site
at
18
visitation.
They
provided
four
parking
spaces
using
mechanical
lifts,
so
two
spaces
on
top
of
another
two
and
that
actually
did
comply
with
the
requirements
for
that
project.
In
fact,
it
was
one
extra.
A
J
The
requirement
three
and
they
provided
four
yeah
so
that
particular
project
didn't
need
a
use
per
request.
A
use
permit
from
modifying
the
parking,
the
other
project
at
213
visitation.
A
couple
blocks
up
also
provided
four
parking
spaces
using
mechanical
lifts,
but
their
requirement
was
five,
so
they
did
get.
You
all
did
approve
the
use
permit
to
reduce
their
parking
requirement
by
one
space,
and
that
was
a
four
unit
project.
J
They
also
requested
a
smaller
commercial
storefront
than
required,
so
the
requirement
is
600
square
feet.
They
provided
like
280.
and
then
18
visitation.
I
can't
recall
off
hand.
Did
they
provide
600
square
feet
like
400,
I,
think
yeah,
so
those
other
two
sites
that
provided
compliant
parking
or
that
you
approved
a
use
permit
for
parking
had
storefronts
that
were
less
than
the
requirement
which
you
also
approved
as
part
of
the
design
permit.
But
just
that
was
how
they
accommodated
the
parking.
G
F
K
J
K
No,
no!
That's
fine!
Thank
you!
Yeah,
okay.
My
other
question
was
my
understanding
is
that
the
parking
requirements
differ
between
multi-family
dwellings
and
single-family
dwellings,
which
this
would
be
characterized
as
a
single
family
dwelling.
So
with
the
parking
requirement,
be
any
different
if
this
were
denominated
as
a
three-bedroom
residential
unit,
as
opposed
to
a
two-bedroom
unit
like.
J
A
three-bedroom,
single-family
home
of
2500
square
feet
in
size
would
not
have
on
a
lot
25
feet.
Wide
would
still
have
a
three
parking
space
requirement
so
for
single
family
homes,
the
requirement
is
mostly
square
footage
based,
although
there
is
some
anyway
but
yeah,
mostly
square
footage
based
and
for
multi-unit
development.
It's
based
on
bedrooms.
K
J
I
think
that's
fair
to
say:
I,
don't
I
do
not
know
offhand.
Some
of
the
development
like
that
that
occurred
in
the
mid-2000s,
for
example,
like
I,
think
in
the
300
block
of
visitation.
We
had
some
development
that
had
potentially
smaller
storefront
than
600
square
feet
and
I.
Don't
know
offhand
if
those
are
occupied,
but
certainly
we
don't
know
for
18
visitation
which
isn't
built
yet
and
for
213.
What
those
occupants
will
turn
out
to
be.
Thank.
L
J
J
So
with
this
project
demolishing
the
structure
and
then
constructing
the
new
structure,
it
will
bring
it'll
bring
the
the
building
back
further
than
than
what
the
current
building
is
from
that
shared
lot
line,
so
it'll
correct
a
non-conforming
condition
to
that
extent
and
then
in
the
ncr2
district,
a
zero
front
setback
is
permitted
and
that's
what
they're
proposing
with
the
new
building
and
the
rear
setback
is
a
minimum
of
10
feet
at
the
rear,
because
the
lot
line
is
diagonal.
It
actually
is
like
between
10
to
15,
feet,
I
think
so.
J
Yeah
by
because
the
existing
building
on
this,
the
subject
property
encroaches
a
bit
over
the
line
by
correcting
that
encroachment
it'll,
the
Gap
will
be
a
bit
larger,
so
the
structure
27
visitation,
obviously
is
going
to
remain
where
it
is
stepped
back.
I
think
at
least
a
foot
from
the
shared
lot
line.
L
M
Thank
you.
Julia
I
have
the
same
questions
as
commissioner
Patel
and
but
I
I
kind
of
want
to
give
a
visual
to
the
folks
at
home
and
also
the
applicant,
because
I
wanted
to
follow
up
on
that.
So
can
you
put
up
18,
visitation,
yeah
I,
believe
it
just
to
show
kind
of
what
it
looks
like
I
think
it's
at
page
52
of
the
of
their
application.
J
M
J
B
J
J
I
have
to
do
it
like
this,
whatever
I
think
you
guys
consolidate.
I
think
you
guys
can
tell
so.
This
is
the
ground
floor
plan
so
entry
through
that
single
car
garage
and
then
they've
placed
their
parking
here
side
by
side.
They
provided
some
turning
diagrams
to
show
that
the
cars
could
actually
make
a
I
think
a
three-point
turn
to
exit
out
nose.
First.
M
Right
and
that
so
this
project
required
us
to
Grant
a
use
permit
because
it
needed
to
provide
five,
that's
right
and
it
provided
four
and
I
think
I.
Remember
this
project
and
I
think
we
weighed
the
fact
that,
because
it
was
providing
four
units
and
I
think
it
had
to
shrink
the
required
storefront
size
from
600
square
foot
to
283
I
believe
so
we
and
so
I
think
we
we
discussed
that
and
agreed
that
they
couldn't
really
squeeze
any
more
from
their
storefront
to
provide
the
five
parking
spaces.
J
M
J
F
N
Honorable
planning,
Commissioners,
I'm,
Joel
Diaz
I've
been
a
resident
of
Brisbane
for
25
years
and
just
want
to
respectfully
ask
that
you
approve
the
project.
I
think
we're
everybody
agrees,
we're
in
desperate
need
of
housing,
and
this
is
an
attempt
to
to
provide
much
needed
housing.
The
the
parking
situation
is
reduced,
but
also
so
is
the
bedroom
count,
and
if
the
using
the
those
stackers
or
the
lifts
are
in
some
cases,
kind
of
problematic
and
they're,
not
super
practical,
they
do.
N
You
know
physically,
allow
you
to
have
more
vehicles,
but
I'm
not
sure
about
having
not
used
them,
I'm,
not
sure
about
how
how
readily
owners
are
going
to
actually
want
to
use
them
versus
maybe
just
parking
somewhere
else
and
there's
an
extreme
cost
tied
to
that.
And
so,
if
we
were
going
to
do
stackers
we
would.
We
would
also
want
to
have
probably
more
bedrooms
kind
of
thing
too
to
sort
of
offset
the
cost
of
that.
N
N
N
You
know,
having
and
and
kind
of
because
of
the
the
dimensions
of
the
lot
the
25
feet,
you're
kind
of
locked
in
very
it's
very
limited
to
what
you
can
do
and
you
guys
probably
are
well
aware
of
that.
So
it's
really
hard
to
make
it
flow
nicely
and
be
attractive
and
usable
with
all
of
those
those
factors
that
have
to
be
factored
in
and
you
know
we
do
want
to
have
something.
N
Nice
that
has
a
lot
of
value
and
just
having
a
big
garage
doesn't
seem
to
add
a
whole
lot
of
value,
because
you
can
even
really
get
a
lot
of
storage
because
backing
out
you
know
you
have
to
have
room
to
back
out
and
it's
just.
We
don't
want
to
make
it
hazardous
either.
You
know,
so
we
just
start
trying
to
make
it
we're
just
trying
to
strike
balance,
I,
guess
and
that's
kind
of
why
we
came
up
with
that.
N
N
It's
really
small,
if
you
look
at
the
dimensions
of
it
and
I
think
if
we
were
going
to
just
declare
it
a
room
and
we'd
we'd
reconfigure
things
to
make
it
a
more
decent
size.
It's
really
small
I
mean
it's
really
more
of
a
den
and
yeah
it
could
be,
and
somebody
could,
in
theory,
live
there
in
sort
of
very
tight
space,
but
it's
it's
feasible,
but
it's
not
our
plan
and
that's
not
the
intent.
It.
K
Okay,
I'm
looking
the
floor
plan
and
it
looks
my
guesstimate:
is
it
a
bottle
of
I
love,
but
that's
if,
if
the
architect
is
has
a
different
impression,
that's
it
would
be
useful.
My
concern
and
why
I
asked
the
question
is
because,
as
a
two
bedroom,
we're
being
asked
to
reduce
the
parking
requirements
from
three
to
two
for
a
two-bedroom
unit
in
the
real
world
and
in
our
Real
World
experience,
you
know
a
three
bedroom
unit
is
going
to
generate
more
Vehicles
than
a
two-bedroom
unit.
K
K
N
N
And
although
we
there
is
possibly
a
workaround
with
the
stackers
I
think
it
like.
If
you
have
a
50
foot
wide
lot,
you've
got
a
lot
more
flexibility,
a
lot
more
ability
to
to
provide
that
parking
and
because
we
are
in
close
publicity
to
or
nearness
to
the
the
buses
and
the
Caltrain
Station.
It
seems
like
this.
N
Would
be
you
know
the
kind
of
project
that
that
should
benefit
from
A
reduced
parking
requirement
or
at
least
be
seen
in
that
without
lens,
but
you
know
if
and
if
and
then,
if
we
do
apply
the
maximum
parking
requirement
to
this
project,
then
it
seems
fair
to
just
have
more
bedrooms.
You
know
to
get
that
sort
of
return
and,
like
I
said
we
were
just
trying
to
strike
about
a
sort
of
a
happy
balance
kind
of
thing,
but
I
think
I.
N
So
that's
the
plan
I,
a
general
contractor
and
Builder
I
built
many
homes
in
Brisbane
over
the
past
25
years
and
I
would
be
building
this
I
I
do
want
to
live
there.
I
do
want
to
have
a
store
there.
It
doesn't
mean
that
that
couldn't
change
you
know
with.
Maybe
some
Financial
scenarios
didn't
work
out
for
me.
Hopefully
that's
not
the
case,
but
that
is
the
plan
for
me
to
live.
There.
N
L
N
I
I
think
we're
going
to
take
because,
because
I
have
access
from
the
back,
most
of
our
access
will
come
through
that
direction.
We'll
probably
have
up
a
fence.
You
know,
like
you,
see
a
construction
with
the
coming
soon
kind
of
sign
that
type
of
events
in
the
front,
and
it's
probably
going
to
take
about
eight
months.
N
N
F
I
I
strongly
favor
this
project.
A
couple
of
reasons:
one
is
the
need
for
the
housing
instead
of
California.
This
particular
project
will
provide
some
plus
the
investment.
You
know
historically,
look
at
it.
We
always
have
the
shortage
of
the
housing.
If
you
look
at
the
housing
element,
you
can
probably
tell
looking
at
that.
Secondly,
the
visual
impact-
if
you
look
at
that
particular
Street,
everything
is
built
haphazard.
You
know
and
I
regret
myself
being
approving
one
of
the
project
right
across
from
there
at
the
corner.
I
I
I,
don't
know
what
happened
to
me
at
that
time.
That
I
went
along
with
that
project.
So
first
thing
I
look
at
this,
but
this
one
here
is
visually
is
going
to
fit
in
and
also
it's
going
to
improve
the
street
scene
and
looking
at
that
particular
design,
I
will
say
that
it
definitely
will
and
as
far
as
the
housing
needs,
it
will
provide
additional
housing
and
I.
Think
Brisbane
always
had
the
problem
meeting
the
state,
housing
requirements
and
more
of
these
kind
of
projects
we
approve
better
off.
I
We
will
be,
and
I
strongly
suggest,
that
any
further
project
in
this
particular
Street
we
should
see
that
the
design
is
informative
with
the
rest
of
the
projects,
but
don't
look
at
the
Historical
design.
That's
been
there,
some
of
the
projects
that
are
there
for
a
number
of
years.
Some
of
them
are
like
back
in
1970s
or
earlier
and
at
one
time
at
the
Planning
Commission.
The
idea
was
that
we
want
to
keep
the
uniformity.
I
You
know
these
kind
of
elements
should
be
there
don't
follow
the
historical
design
which
we
did
and
up
to
this
point,
I
regret
why
I
approved
that
project.
So
I
really
really
suggest
that
this
this
project
we
approved
and
some
of
the
technical
stuff
like
parking,
is
always
the
issue
in
Brisbane.
Ever
since
I
was
a
I
started
back
in
1990,
so
I've
still
been
struggling
about
parking
parking
parking,
there's
nothing
you
can
do
in
this
city.
I
I
G
F
F
F
K
K
K
However,
every
time
you
add
a
residential
unit,
you
have
an
impact
on
the
existing
neighborhood
and
the
existing
people
and
the
existing
businesses.
That
already
are
there.
This
construction
is
going
to
entail
the
removal
of
two
parking
places
for
the
garage
cut,
and
the
project
proposes
instead
of
the
three
parting
spaces,
that
the
zoning
ordinance
nominally
requires
only
two
spaces.
K
F
H
You
know
I
would
just
Echo
those
concerns.
I
think
that
I
think
we're
taking
two
public
spots
away
from
two
public
parking
spots
away,
so
those
are
never
going
to
be
used
by
the
public,
so
I,
don't
think
we're
I,
don't
think
it
really
is
a
wash
I
think
we're
losing
to
and
I
think
that
if
it
is
a
three
bedroom
we're
going
to
lose
more
than
two
because
people
that
are
living
there
are
going
to
be
on
the
they're
going
to
be
parking
on
the
street.
H
F
H
Is
that
so
we
talked
about
there's
there's
there
were
two
other.
There
were
two
other
projects
on
visitation
Valley,
they
were,
they
had
lifts
and
they
had
lifts
placed
into
their
into
their
to
their
project.
That
would
double
the
amount
of
parking.
So
here
we
have
two
spots.
They
could
probably
make
four
based
on
the
numbers
that
we'd
seen
previously,
or
at
least
three
if
they
had
one
lift
at
the
end.
So
then
we
wouldn't
really
need
to
be
talking
about
granting
any
sort
of
waivers
because
they
would
be
meeting
the
conditions.
L
Hi
Echo,
commissioner
gooding's
concerns
with
the
current
layout
in
the
and
the
concern
of
you
know
the
study,
the
den
and
conversion
at
a
later
time,
and
how
that
actually
will
impact
parking,
I,
think
they'll
and
you
balanced
all
that
and
the
loss
of
parking
with
replacing
a
dilapidated.
You
know
unit
and
property
for
the
Improvement
of
the
of
our
community,
but
because
I
use
that
garage
space
might
not
be
utilized
and
that's
even
less
working,
and
that
goes
for
the
same
for
the
other
projects.
L
You
know
having
lifts
there
in
a
narrow
spot.
That's
you
know
difficult
to
navigate
and
people
are
gonna
kind
of
go
for
the
easier
path
and
just
park
on
the
street,
so
it'll
be
less
parking
for
everybody,
especially
if
you
have
multiple
units
available
I
mean
you
know
coming
up
for
multiple
projects.
So
those
are
my
concerns.
M
Yeah
so
I
I
have
the
same
concerns
parking
problem.
We
have
a
parking
problem
not
on
not
only
on
visitation
Avenue
but
just
Central
Brisbane
as
a
whole.
You
know,
if
you
recall,
when
we
built
a
new
library
residents
complained.
There
was
enough
parking
provided
for
the
new
library,
and
recently
the
city
council
held
a
hearing
on
whether
certain
neighborhoods
should
have
permitted
parking,
because
we
have
a
parking
problem
generally
in
the
city,
so
my
concern
is
to
Grant
a
use
permit.
M
That
would
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
required
when
the
applicant
can
provide
the
space
and
my
other
concern
with
granting
this
use
permit
is
you
know
the
applicant
has
a
standard
size
lot.
He
has
the
same
size
slot
that
his
other
name,
two
neighbors,
that
were
able
to
provide
for
parking
with
the
parking
lift
system.
M
So
it's
it's
shown
that
that
can
be
done
now.
You
know
he's
required
to
provide
three
he's
asking
for
two
I.
Don't
know
if
you
know
that
would
be
beyond
our.
You
know:
discretion
or
abuse
of
it
to
Grant
it,
because
normally
you
know
I
mean
the
law
is
the
law.
The
law
says
three
parking
spaces
and
normally,
when
we
Grant
variances
or
use
permits
it's
because
the
applicant's
properties
in
such
a
way
may
be
configured
in
such
a
way
that
you
know
maybe
it's.
M
He
has
a
weird
lead-shaped
lot
or
whatnot
that
to
comply
with
a
lot
would
be
almost
impossible
or
just
just
financially
and
feasible
for
him
to
do
so.
In
that
situation,
I
can
see,
he
didn't
absolutely
need
it,
but
you
gave
it
to
him.
So
why
don't
you
give
it
to
me?
You
know
we
run
the
risk
of
then
this
commission
looking
like
it,
makes
arbitrary
decisions-
and
you
know
probably
rightly
slow,
rightly
so-
that
we're
not
applying
the
law
equally.
M
F
E
Yeah
I
think
that's
always
going
to
be
a
practical
concern
right.
You
know
an
applicant
comes
up
and
they
say
this
was
done
in
a
previous
case,
but
by
law
you're,
making
findings
on
each
individual
project
and
Circumstance.
That
is,
your
legal
requirement,
is
to
make
findings
based
on
the
facts
of
the
case
in
front
of
you.
E
M
J
I
cannot
think
of
a
condition
being
placed.
That
would
say
you
know,
annually
the
property
owner
shall
let
an
inspector
on
the
premises
to
inspect
the
floor
plan
right
I
do
not
think
we
would
have
the
ability
to
impose
such
a
condition.
That
would
be
impractical,
but
as
it
relates
just
generally,
to
enforcement
of
the
code,
I
think
if
it
were
to
come
up
and
say
future
resale
of
the
property
where
you
know
it
was
observable
to
any
member
of
the
public
that
it
was
perhaps
a
three-bedroom
property,
not
a
two-bedroom
property.
F
N
Thank
you
yeah,
so
I
I
don't
want
to
do
anything.
That's
going
to
ruffle
any
feathers
that
wasn't
the
intention
here.
So
I
think
that
you
know
we
we
could
just
do
the
the
stacker
and
do
the
three
you
know
and
we
don't
I,
don't
want
to
have
any
restrictions
on
the
property
either.
So
you
know,
if
that's
the
trade-off.
That's
that's!
Okay
with
us,
so
my
wife
and
I.
So
we
can
do
that.
Just
do
a
stacker.
Do
the
three
and
you
know
I,
didn't
mean
anything
I
apologize.
N
I
was
just
trying
to
kind
of
act
in
the
spirit
of
everything,
that's
changing
and
in
the
new
legislation
and
that's
all
I
was
trying
to
do
but
I
definitely
recognized
the
the
impacts
and
the
problems
and
and
I
also
don't
want
the
restrictions.
So
that
wasn't
my
intention.
So
you
know
if
we
have
to
add
the
stacker.
That's
okay,.
M
F
K
E
I
would
suggest
that
if
the
applicant
is
withdrawing
the
use
permit
request
he's
not
asking
for
reduction
in
parking,
whether
he
achieves
it
through
a
stacker
or
some
other
means
of
his
choosing
that
doesn't
alter
the
design
materially.
We
could
do
that
administratively
if
he
were
to
do
something
that
changed
the
design
materially
we'd
have
to
come
back,
but
the
idea
of
how
he
provides
the
parking
in
terms
of
three
legal
spaces
I,
don't
really
know
that
that
needs
to
be
the
commission's
concern
unless
it
changes
the
design.
So.
K
F
J
So
the
resolution
that's
drafted
is
for
approval
of
both
both
of
the
components
of
the
project
that
require
a
use
permit
for
practicality's
sake.
We
only
assigned
one
use
permit
number
to
it,
so
I
think
what
probably
needs
to
change
is
that
the
resolution
itself
you
would
you
would
introduce
the
resolution
with
modifications
to
make
it
clear
that
the
use
permit
for
approval
is
for
the
use
itself
and
that
you
are
not
approving
the
use
permit
for
the
parking
condition,
but
director
swickey.
E
Yeah,
the
applicant
could
withdraw
the
use
permit
for
the
parking
exp
modification
tonight.
If
that's
his
choice,
you
want
to
reopen
the
hearing.
Allow
them
to
do
that,
and
then
we
would
reflect,
modify
the
resolution
to
reflect
the
scope
of
the
the
actual
approval
and
the
request
or
if
we
went
down
the
path
of
denying
the
parking
component
of
the
use
permit,
we
just
have
to
modify
the
findings
accordingly,
probably
have
to
bring
it
back
for
another.
That's.
E
J
Need
to
bring
the
findings
back
to
for
you
guys
to
approve
on
consent
at
your
next
regular
meeting,
because
as
written
yeah,
they
need
to
be
modified
if
anyway,
I
think.
The
easier
thing
to
do
would
be
for
the
applicant
to
withdraw
that
portion
of
the
use.
Perm
application-
that's
just
my
opinion,
and
then
we
would
still
modify
the
resolution.
But
it's
a
little
cleaner,
I
think
and.
K
J
H
J
N
E
J
And
as
director
swicky
said,
that
method
would
have
to
not
materially
impact
the
design
of
the
project
and
I.
Do
just
want
to
point
out
that
there
is
some
constraint
to
the
floor
plan
on
the
ground
floor.
Due
to
the
configuration
of
the
commercial
space
that
it's
kind
of
dictating
the
layout
of
the.
J
Currently
designed
and
if
there's
a
change,
the
commercial
space
such
that
you
are
no
longer
complying
with
the
600
square
foot
minimum
storefront-
that
would
be
a
material
change,
for
example,
to
the
design
permit.
That
would
have
to
come
back
to
the
commission.
So
I
just
want
to
I
agreed
with
commissioner
Gooding
that
the
method
is
not
being
prescribed,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
there
are
physical
constraints
to
the
solutions.
If
we're
going
to
avoid
materially
impacting
the
design.
N
Okay,
so
I'm
sorry,
so
that's
that's
something
totally
different
so
that
that
than
what
I
understood,
I'm,
sorry
so
I
don't
want
to
delay
the
project
anymore
and
I.
Don't
I
want
to
get
started
before
the
rainy
season
comes
in
October,
October,
15th
and
I.
Don't
want
to
reconfigure.
I
want
to
intend
to
have
like
a
cultural
Market
in
this
in
that
retail
space
and
that's
why
I
need
that
space.
N
K
I
I,
don't
think
it
was
anybody's
intent
to
say
you
can't
put
a
stacker
I
think
our
intent
was
kind
of
I
want
to
flip.
That
I
think
we
don't
want
to
create
precedent
on
this
commission
that
we
want
everybody
to
use
stackers.
There
may
be
other
creative
ways
to
accomplish
compliance
with
the
parking
requirements,
we're
just
leaving
that
decision
to
to
you
guys
working
with
staff
with
what
complies
with
the
parking
requirement.
That's
all.
N
So
so
so
adding
the
stacker
in
the
current
garages
proposed
is
what
I
would
like
to
do.
If
I
have
to
reconfigure
the
store,
then
that's
something
I
wouldn't
want
to
do
so.
If
I
know
going
into
this,
that
I
have
to
reconfigure
the
store
I.
Don't
want
to
do
that,
so
I
would
rather
have
two
spaces
and
maybe
a
smaller
unit
upstairs
or
something
you
know
so
that
yeah,
because
that
would
be
that's
kind
of
a
deal
changer
for
me.
N
I
really
need
to
have
that
store
space,
because
it's
not
it
won't
be
a
if
I
was
to
reconfigure
the
garage.
My
store
space
is
going
to
get
really
small
like
some
of
these
other
stores
and
they're.
It's
not
really
usable.
You
know-
and
we
were
just
talking
about
that.
There's
these
sore
spaces
that
are
not
being
used
and
or
at
least
maybe
not
as
much
benefit
to
the
community.
N
So
that
was
kind
of
the
mitigating
trade-off
here
is
that
we're
going
to
have
a
smaller
living
space
and
less
parking,
but
now,
if
we
have
to
do
the
maximum
amount
of
parking
and
it's
unusable
retail
space,
then
the
only
way
financially
that
makes
any
sense
to
do
is
have
to
have
a
much
bigger
living
space
and
that's
the
prohibitive
part.
That's
why
that's
the
deterrent?
That's
why
people
haven't
been
developing
visitation,
it's
and
not
revitalizing
it,
because
it
doesn't
make
sense,
it
doesn't
make
sense
financially.
Necessarily
it
doesn't
make
sense,
design
wise.
It's
this.
F
Was
that
was
not
actually
my
understanding
of
what
commissioner
Gooding
was
saying:
I
think
that
there's
there's
no
in
principle
objection
to
using
a
stacker
I
actually
thought
when
you
first
responded
to
that.
You
had
kind
of
thought
it
through,
and
you
were
happy
with
that
as
a
solution
and
I.
Don't
think
anyone
on
the
commission
would
be
opposed
to
that.
E
K
F
N
N
F
N
M
N
F
I'm
curious
to
know
how
how
much
stackers
would
be
used.
You
know
in
in
general,
but
I
think
the
commission
that
discussed
that
already
just
but
I
think
we
have
to
try
okay,
yeah,
okay.
Well!
Thank
you
very
much
so,
procedurally,
once
again
to
return
to
commissioner
gooding's
original
question,
I
think
this
application
is
withdrawn
is
any
other
action
from
the
commission
needed
tonight.
E
Yes,
you're
you're
still
approving
a
use
permit
to
allow
the
single-family
residents
in
this
zone,
so
you're,
proving
that
and
you'll
have
to
take
no
action
because
there's
no
more
parking
use,
permit,
request
in
front
of
you
and
we
will
modify
the
resolution
bring
that
back
on
consent.
But
you
can
make
a
motion
tonight
to
approve
the
project,
which
is
the
use
permit,
whatever
the
InDesign
permit
absent
the
parking
modification
use
permit.
E
K
J
No
sorry
because
we
assigned
one
application
number
to
both
use,
permit
requests.
Okay,
I
would
suggest
that
you
approve
design
the
design
permit
and
approve
the
land
use
component
of
the
use
permit
and
take
no
action
on
the
parking
component
of
the
use.
Permit
that's
kind
of
clunky,
but
it
it
says,
I
think
what
you
need
to
say.
E
D
F
F
There
any
items-
oh
there's,
anyone
May
appeal,
the
action
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
the
city
council,
except
for
specified,
otherwise
appeals
shall
be
filed
with
the
city
clerk
no
later
than
15
calendar
days
following
the
planning
commission's
decision.
Exceptions
to
the
15-day
filing
period
include
the
following
appeal
shall
be
filed
with
the
city
clerk
within
six
calendar
days
of
the
planning,
commission's
actions
for
use
permits
and
variances
and
10
calendar
days
for
tentative
maps
and
advertising
sign
applications.
F
E
Well,
we
kind
of
jumped
the
gun
on
the
housing
element.
We
were
going
to
announce
that
that
got
approved
again.
I
want
to
thank
the
commission
for
your
time
and
effort
on
that
particular
Endeavor
and
we'll
be
coming
back
with
you,
because
there
are
a
number
of
actions
that
are
required
in
terms
of
code,
modifications
or
other
activities
to
implement
the
housing
element.
E
So
I'm
sure
some
of
those
you'll
see
in
the
next
12
months,
eight
months
year,
whatever
three
years
so
you'll
be
you're,
not
quite
rid
of
the
housing
element
yet
always
feels
like
a
long
time
and
I,
don't
believe.
There's
anything
else
of
this
FYI.
The
comment
period
for
the
bay
lands
or
the
NOP
period
is
for
the
balance.
Eir
is
closing
tomorrow,
so
we'll
expect
to
be
receiving
additional
comments
from
other
agencies.
The
public
regarding
the
scope
of
the
forthcoming
bayline
cir
and
that's
all
I,
have
anything
else.