►
From YouTube: 10-2-2019: Environmental Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Council Chambers, 500 Castro St., Mountain View, CA 94041
7 p.m. Wednesday, October 2, 2019
A
This
is
a
terrible
and
shoreline
where,
because
shoreline
is
often
backed
up
like
this,
these
guys
can't
go
until
maybe
the
very
last
minute
and
there's
a
flood
of
you
Turner's
here
because
they're
avoiding
that
20-minute
line
to
get
off
101,
so
they
they
make
a
left
on
shoreline
where
there's
no
line
come
down
here.
This
typically
may
be
a
one
cycle
line
which
is
maybe
two
and
a
half
minutes
or
so,
and
they
just
pull
u-turn
here
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
doing
this.
A
The
bus
lane
part
of
that
is
that
Dutch
intersection
so-called
where
they're
gonna
take
out.
Essentially
the
bike.
They're
gonna
not
allow
people
to
use
the
bike
lane
and
make
right
turn
lanes
and
I
actually
did
that
by
accident,
because
when
I
first
model
this
that's,
where
I
put
in
I
just
had
two
lanes
with
no
dedicated
right
turn
lane
and
the
backup
from
shore
line
went
well
past,
San
Barone
almost
to
Moffat
and
then
I
put
in
the
dedicated
right
turn
lane
like
you,
saw
there,
and
there
was
no
backup
at
all.
A
So
I
think
you
know
this
could
be
a
very
useful
tool.
It's
free,
so
you
know
I
hope
the
city
you
know
maybe
the
barrier
before
is
the
cost,
because
probably
the
commercial
packages
cost
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
lease
every
year.
This
is
free
and
as
far
as
I
could
tell
it's
very
well
done.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank.
B
B
C
C
C
Here's
tonight's
agenda:
it's
changed
slightly
from
the
staff
report.
We're
recommending
that
the
council,
the
Commission,
consider
a
question
on
jobs,
housing,
linkage,
guidelines
and
then
the
Commission
is
free
to
comment
on
any
of
the
other
topics
in
the
staff
report,
including
development
review
process,
master
plan
rides
character,
area
targets
and
so
on,
but
there
are
staff
recommendations
for
each
of
those,
and
so
if
the
Commission
is
okay
with
the
staff
recommendation,
then
then
maybe
no
comment
is
necessary.
There
are
other
minor
changes
and
we
can
talk
a
little
bit
about.
C
So
the
first
topic
for
the
Commission
tonight
is
on
the
jobs,
housing
linkage,
guidelines
based
on
council
direction.
Some
of
the
procedural
detail
in
the
jobs
housing
linkage
program
was
removed
from
the
precise
plan
and
staff
drafted
some
some
key
points
to
be
fleshed
out
in
greater
detail
in
the
future,
but
some
key
points
for
the
adoption
of
jobs,
housing
linkage,
guidelines
which
were
included
in
the
Commission
report.
C
It
includes
the
procedural
detail,
the
draft
precise
plan
required
if,
if
residential
projects
were
going
first
required
office
projects
to
be
approved
prior
to
the
residential
projects
being
constructed,
this
gives
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
a
little
bit
more
time
between
the
completion
of
a
residential
project
and
a
the
start
of
an
office
project.
So
five
years
for
office
submittal.
In
addition,
the
if
the
office
project
goes
first,
the
draft
prod
precise
plan
required
that
the
residential
project
be
identified,
but
that
a
community
benefits
option
be.
C
In
the
last
two
days,
the
residential
applications
for
the
Los
Altos
School
District
TDR
projects,
Miramar
and
Summer
Hill
provided
letters
to
the
EPC.
They
stated
that
if,
as
previously
directed
by
counsel,
they
are
not
allowed
to
take
advantage
of
the
benefits
of
the
jobs
housing
linkage
program,
then
that
would
give
them
the
incentive
to
leave
the
transfer
of
development
rights
program.
C
Of
course,
the
balance
here
is
that
the
office
projects
also
submitted
before
the
jobs
housing
linkage
program
was
was
developed.
These
five
projects,
three
office
projects
and
two
residential
projects
are
roughly
in
balance
today
and
the
overall
goal
is
to
have
them
come
through
together
and
and
maintain
the
overall
balance
of
the
of
the
east-west
and
precise
plan.
C
However,
if
we
require
that
the
office
projects
somehow
support
the
residential
projects,
it
could
add
uncertainty
to
these
office
projects
that
had
already
submitted
applications.
Summer
Hills
request
is
associated
with
fee
waivers
and/or
duck.
Shion's
miramar's
request
is
to
access
some
form
of
jobs,
housing
linkage,
rights
staff
is
seeking
input
and
comments
from
the
environmental
Planning
Commission.
We
don't
currently
have
a
recommendation,
because
this
is
a
quickly
evolving
issue,
but
we
will
take
your
input
and
comments
and
forward
them
to
the
City
Council
in
November.
C
The
City
Council
requested
that
they
have
the
opportunity
to
review
large
base
fer
projects.
In
addition,
the
EPC
would
also
have
this
opportunity
to
review
these
large
base
f
AR
projects,
but
ask
staff
to
study
a
potential
threshold,
for
what
constitutes
large
staff
has
is
recommending
a
70
thousand
square
foot
threshold.
This
is
based
on
several
factors.
First
off
there
were
been
no
recent
developments
between
twenty
thousand
and
seventy
thousand
feet
outside
of
downtown,
and
that
that
gap
is,
you
know,
is,
is
a
20,000
square
feet.
Staff
feels
those
projects
would
certainly
be
too
small.
C
F
C
Acre
office
project
at
0.4
FA
are
it's
about
a
1.6
acre
residential
project.
At
one
point,
oh
those
are
the
base.
Fa
RS,
the
about
30%
of
parcels
covering
about
65%
of
the
land
area
in
east
Wisman,
are
bigger
than
four
acres.
So
you
can
imagine
that
this
threshold
would
cover
a
little
more
than
half
of
the
project
area
in
in
east
Wisman
about
a
third
of
the
the
parcels.
C
C
The
draft
precise
plan
did
not
allow
master
plans
to
confer
any
rights
to
the
development
reserve.
Staff
is
recommending
that
that
be
revised
slightly
to
allow
a
two-year
period
where,
in
an
approved
master
plan,
can
be
wearing
a
planned
community.
Permit
application
can
be
submitted
based
on
an
approved
master
plan
in
order
to
maintain
that
rights
to
the
development
reserve
approved
through
the
master
plan.
If
an
applicant
needs
longer
than
this,
we
do
have
a
development
agreement
process
that
can
extend
that
timeline
longer.
C
C
The
public
comment
has
expressed
concern
that
the
targets
were
too
low
in
the
mixed-use
character
area
for
office
and
that
there
are
too
many
2-bedroom
and
larger
units
identified
in
the
housing
mix.
Staff
has
updated
these
character
area
targets
the
office
based
on
analysis
that
there
is
adequate
developable
parcels
to
accommodate
up
to
1.2
million
square
feet
of
office
in
the
mixed-use
character
area.
It's
also
consistent
with
the
TDR
bonus
alternative
and
providing
larger
ranges
to
provide
more
flexibility
for
development.
C
Council
also
directed
staff
to
study
potential
height
exceptions
near
the
middle
field.
Station
staff
is
recommending
a
750
foot
buffer
from
the
station
shown
in
this
map
within
the
high-intensity
mixed-use
area.
In
addition,
I
would
not
be
allowed
to
go
within
200
feet
of
the
precise
planned
boundary
this
it's
associated
with
an
incentive
for
additional
open
space
height
variation
at
neighborhood
commercial.
You
could
only
get
these
height
exemptions
if
you
provided
all
three
and
it's
also
associated
with
limits
on
massing
and
requirements
for
separations
between
buildings.
Of
that
height.
C
Council
directed
staff
to
add
a
critical
mass
of
commercial
near
the
near
the
station,
the
middle
field
station,
so
staff
increased
the
minimum
to
5,000
square
feet.
In
addition,
in
order
to
help
support
a
grocery
store
and
other
broad
range
of
uses,
staff
is
recommending
an
increase
to
the
minimum
depth
for
all
neighborhood
commercial
and
also
the
height
exception,
adds
an
additional
incentive
for
additional
neighborhood
commercial
near
the
station.
Our
economic
analysis
analyzed
the
potential
for
a
grocery
store.
There
will
be
enough
demand
for
a
new
grocery
store
in
the
area.
C
Staff
is
recommending
an
update
to
the
office
TDM
requirements
instead
of
the
draft
precise
plan,
which
has
the
TDM
requirements
on
a
development
by
development
basis.
The
previous
was
a
near-term
requirement
of
about
0.9,
extending
to
a
long
term
requirement
of
about
0.7
trips
per
thousand
square
feet.
Staff
is
recommending
using
an
area
wide
standard,
and
this
allows
the
precise
plan
to
maintain
better
consistency
with
the
environmental
impact
report.
It
creates
an
incentive
for
legacy
buildings
existing
buildings
that
aren't
currently
covered
by
TDM
programs
to
join
through
partnerships
with
new
buildings.
C
It
also
allows
staff
and
the
city
to
respond
to
increases
in
trips
generated
by
existing
buildings,
so
we
could
actually
reduce
or
increase
the
TDM
requirement
on
new
buildings
based
on
what's
happening
in
the
background,
and
potentially
there
could
be
fewer
overall
trips
with
the
revised
standard
if
there
are
fewer
larger
developments
built.
Alternatively,
the
provides
standard
would
be
more
complex
to
implement.
We
are
going
to
develop
some
implementation
guidelines
and
there
could
be
more
trips
if
more,
smaller
developments
are
built.
C
Staff
is
recommending
some
changes
to
the
open
area
standards.
The
open
area
standards
in
the
highest
intensity
zone
are
actually
a
disincentive
for
density.
They
could
end
up
with
being
a
requirement
of
roughly
50%
of
lot
area
being
a
common
usable,
open
area.
The
new
open
area
standards
are
more
consistent
with
the
North
Bay
Shore
precise
plan
they're
also
fairly
consistent
with
this
approved
project.
C
Other
recommended
changes
to
the
precise
plan
are
summarized
in
exhibit
10.
These
changes
had
clear
council
direction,
and
so
they
were
not
included
in
the
staff
report.
In
addition,
there
are
minor
changes
to
word
choice
and
such
that
are
shown
in
track
changes
in
exhibit
four.
So
the
question
for
EPC
on
this
slide,
as
does
the
EBC,
have
any
additional
comments
or
recommended
changes
on
the
draft
precise
plan.
C
C
As
the
EPC
reviewed
at
the
beginning
of
the
summer,
there
was
a
draft
environmental
impact
report
that
was
released
in
June.
There
were
impacts
to
vehicle
miles,
traveled
and
transit
delay.
In
addition,
there
were
intersection
deficiencies
identified
at
seven
local,
intersections
and
multiple
regional
freeway
segments.
We
did
receive
letters
from
eight
individuals,
agencies
and
organizations.
The
responses
were
provided
in
the
finally
I
are
in
the
packet
and
no
additional
impacts
were
identified
from
comments,
or
these
precise
plan
revisions.
C
So
the
next
few
slides
summarize
the
lengthy
recommendation
language
for
these
six
actions
that
staff
is
recommending.
If
the
EPC
is
interested
in
modifying
the
precise
plan,
we
can
we
ask
that
you,
you
know
clearly
read
off
the
section
and
the
revised
language
for
what
what
should
be
modified,
and
we
can
note
that
into
the
action
for
the
recommendation.
C
B
You
know
thank
you
Eric,
so
now,
since
this
is
a
public
hearing,
we'll
move
on
to
doing
this
in
the
standard
order
for
a
public
hearing,
we'll
start
with
general
questions
from
the
Commission
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
to
hearing
comments
from
the
public
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
any
follow-up
questions
and
deliberation
from
the
Commission.
So
one
other
thing
that
I
did
talk
to
staff
about
before
we
started.
B
The
meeting
was
the
question
of
given
that
we
have
seven
different
areas
that
we're
potentially
going
to
discuss
tonight
of
whether
or
not
we
should
do
a
show
of
hands
about
the
areas
that
are
of
particular
interest
to
commissioners,
where
they
want
to
have
some.
You
know
significant
discussion.
Do
you
think?
That's
still
a
good
thing
to
do
tonight.
Eric.
E
C
B
G
C
H
B
To
the
Commission
for
general
questions
and
and
high-level
questions
on
the
specific
areas
that
staff
has
asked
us
to
discuss,
as
well
as
just
questions
about
particular
topics
of
interest
to
commissioners
that
were
not
outlined
in
the
report.
Are
they
were
commissioners
that
have
high-level
questions
to
ask.
D
D
Those
Rita
says
in
the
mixed-use
project.
Simply
the
same
common
usable
open
area
may
satisfy
multiple
portions
of
uses
of
common
area
requirements
subject
to
review
of
appropriate
program
accessibility.
He
can
compatibility
in
time
reviews
and
the
I
guess
what
I
was
left
with.
The
question
is:
who
is
that
staff
review?
What
is
how
is
that
evaluated
of
whether
whether
this
would
be
permitted
or
not,
staff
would
make
a
recommendation.
C
Know
the
the
criteria
are
that
the
programming
would
be
appropriate
to
both
uses.
That
is
that
it
would
be
appropriate
for
both.
You
know,
residential
users
and
non-residential
users,
that
the
space
is
accessible
to
both
residential
users
of
the
site.
You
know
and
non-residential
spaces
that
the
spaces
are
compatibly
designed
in
terms
of
both
aesthetics
and
operations
hours.
E
D
Second,
one
I
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
go
back
just
to
listen
to
the
council
discussion
on
the
additional
height
in
the
you
know
around
the
station
and
the
staff
report
didn't
just
said
they
asked
him
to
look
at
it.
Can
you
provide
a
little
context
as
to
was
there
some
there's
her
civic
concerns
that
they
had
or
what
was
the?
What
was
the?
What
was
the
basis
for
that
request
there
there
actually.
C
G
50
foot
radius
is
generally
considered
a
walkable
quarter-mile
from
that
station
area,
which
is
the
area
we're
trying
to
activate
with
ground-floor
retail
and
other
active
district
uses.
So
by
providing
that
height
incentive
in
that
area,
it
can
both
allow
for
greater
ground-floor,
retail
and
potential
open
space,
and
then,
in
that
walkable
radius.
D
B
Okay,
I
have
a
few
then
so
I
one
of
the
things
that
was
noted
in
the
questions
that
was
sent
earlier
to
staff.
Before
the
meeting
asked
a
little
bit
about
the
135
foot
height
limit
and
may
notice
of
the
fact
that
in
the
community
workshop
there
wasn't,
there
was
I
would
say
there
wasn't
a
clear,
strong
support
for
really
large
Heights
and
yet
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that.
B
C
B
Clearly
thinking
in
terms
of
you
know
over
ten
story,
buildings
and
so
I
mean
this
wasn't
shown
in
the
community
workshop
and
so
I'm,
just
I
I'm,
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
whether
this
is
going
to
be
a
surprise
to
council
or
not
or
or
whether
you
know
that's
that's
in
the
envelope
of
thinking
in
terms
of
the
precise
plan
right
now.
Well,
it's
certainly
up.
C
B
So
there
was,
there
was
some
discussion.
I
mean
a
key
point
in
the
precise
plan
has
been
the
jobs,
housing
linkage
and
we
had
been
talking
in
terms
of
you
know.
Three
units
per
thousand
square
feet
of
office
and
I
want
to
confirm-
or
you
tell
me
differently
whether
the
precise
plan
as
it
stands
now,
is
still
proposing
that
3.0
units
per
thousand
square
feet.
Yes,
okay
and
another
question
that
came
up
in
in
the
letters
that
we
got
from
from
summer.
B
Heerlen
Miramar
is
the
idea
of
you
know
the
DD
are
residential
projects,
whether
or
not
they
would
have.
You
know
a
marketable
credit
that
comes
from
you
know.
Their
participation
in
you
know
the
TDR,
a
nice
twist
and
precise
plan.
Certainly
it
was
I
think
it
was
clear
to
everybody
that
that,
once
the
precise
plan
is
in
place,
you
know
there's
there
is
some
some
credit
that
a
residential
developer
can
get.
B
You
know
in
order
to
help
make
his
project
more
feasible,
but
one
developer
raised
the
issue
that
he
was
surprised
that
that
wasn't
applied
back
to
his
project,
which
is
part
of
the
ddr's
and
so
I'm
wondering
I
want
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
from
staff
as
to
the
rationale
of
what
they've,
written
and
and
I
was
also
told
that
they
might
have
been
talking
to
you
today
and
I
wonder
if
there's
any
meeting
of
the
minds
and
and
coalescing
of
ideas
that
have
happened
since
he
talked
to
me
earlier
today.
Well,
we
we.
C
So
acknowledging
that
it's
very
difficult
for
a
project,
that's
already
submitted
to
kind
of
go
back
and
try
to
find
somebody
that
you
know
a
residential
project
that
could
basically
hold
them
hostage.
Writing
keep
them.
You
know,
keep
leading
them
for
money
just
to
get
to
the
next
step
in
the
process.
Basically.
C
Finding
a
residential
partner-
this
has
the
negative
effect,
though
of
making
it
so
that
the
the
residential
projects
can't
partner
with
somebody
else,
because
then
you're
out
of
balance
right,
then
you're
you're,
you're,
creating
office
based
on
the
residential,
that's
already
in
balance
with
this
other
office
right.
So
that
was
the
scenario
that
we
proposed
to
the
the
EPC
in
council.
C
You
know
again,
you
know
an
evolving
conversation.
We
we
recognize
now
that
it
does
create
a
disincentive
for
the
the
residential
projects
to
stay
with
the
TDR.
Like
I
said
we
are
working
on
a
range
of
potential
ideas.
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
how
much
I
can
say
right
now,
because
they
are
very
draft
form
at
this
point-
and
you
know
we
would
be
interested
in
hearing
the
EP
C's
priorities
on
things
like
you
know.
How
important
is
it
for
the
office
TDR
projects
to
go
through
without
being
forced
to
partner?
C
B
So
another
question
that
I
had
was:
we
talked
about
the
the
seventy
thousand
foot
threshold
on
the
review
of
projects
and
I
did
go,
look
through
the
exhibit
of
the
projects
that
you
mentioned,
but
they're
all
office
project
and
I'm
wondering,
but
it
sounds
like
from
the
staff
presentation
that
that
seventy
thousand
square
foot
threshold
would
also
apply
to
residential
projects.
Is
that
right?
That's
right.
Can
you
give
me
an
idea,
like
the
summer
Summer
Hill
project,
how
many
square
feet
is
that
I
don't
know.
H
C
B
C
B
F
B
Percent
was
studios,
30
percent,
one
bedrooms,
20
percent,
two
bedrooms
and
10
percent
three
bedrooms,
and
but
in
I,
was
concerned
at
the
way
that
this
was
rewritten
because
it
the
two
bedrooms
and
three
bedrooms
are
lumped
together,
and
so
there
could
be
a
potential
of
there
being
no
three
bedrooms
built
well
I
know
now
that
there
won't
be
none,
because
if
Summer
Hill
goes
forward,
they
will
provide
some
as
part
of
their
project.
Okay,
but
but
I'm
again,
I'm
wondering
another
comment.
B
C
E
C
C
C
So
part
of
the
goal
of
some
of
these
revisions
was
to
clarify
that
kind
of
aspirational
and
advisory
and
monitoring
role,
but
then
also
to
provide
ranges
so
that
there
isn't
the
expectation
that
a
project
needs
to
hit
forty
percent
exactly
and
to
to
acknowledge
that
you
know
future
is
uncertain
and-
and
we
don't
know
exactly
how
many
you
know,
studio
units
are
gonna
get
built.
Okay,
thank
you.
B
I
C
C
You
know
we,
you
know,
we
call
it
the
Vani
project,
you
know
it's
a
site
by
owned
owned
by
Vani,
and
you
know
his
company,
so
they
would,
if
they
were
to
go
up
to
0.75.
Fa
are
plus
the
TDR.
They
would
be
allowed
about
two
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
net
new
square
feet
of
office
plus
the
TDR.
So
it's
a
very
large
site
they
would.
They
would
be
building
a
lot
of
net
new
floor
area,
so
the
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
was.
C
J
Of
go
back
to
the
height
limitation
or
recommendation
135
feet.
Is
that
really
an
effort
to
have
mix
use
and
because
they
mentioned
that
you
know
they'd
like
to
have
more
more
heights
in
order
to
have
you
know
the
bottom
levels
be
a
little
bit
higher,
but
it's
hard
hard
to
envision.
The
hundred
and
thirty
five
feet
has
estimated
how
many
stories
and
does
you
know
a
grocery
store
or
other
commercial
or
is
that
like?
Would
you
say
that
would
be
two
stories?
I
mean
help
me
visualize
release
yeah,
so.
C
Yes,
you
are
required
to
provide
ground
floor
commercial.
If
you
want
this
additional
height
bonus,
135
feet.
I
would
estimate
ten
to
eleven
stories.
The
the
ground
floor,
commercial
space
itself
is
usually
not
more
than
one
story.
There's
just
not
much
appeal
for
retail
or
other
commercial
uses
to
not
be
on
the
ground
floor
and
kind
of
visible
and
accessible
from
the
street.
C
So,
but
in
a
lot
of
cases,
especially
grocery
stores
and
a
lot
of
other
commercial
uses,
they
like
to
have
a
lot
of
extra
height.
Part
of
that
is
to
have
the
interior
character
that
they
want.
Part
of
that
is
for
additional
equipment
and
HVAC,
and
things
like
that
that
they
might
need
part
of
it
is
to
create
a
lot
of
visibility
on
the
ground
level
of
for
for
the
public
to
know
that
hey
this
is
you
know
this
is
a
destination.
C
There
are
lots
of
reasons
why
they
like
to
have
a
lot
of
ground
floor
height,
so
that
could
be
one
reason
why
some
buddy
might
want
additional
height
is
to
accommodate
that
that
taller
ground
floor
for
the
commercial
use.
That
wouldn't
necessarily
add
stories,
though
the
store.
The
purpose
of
the
stories
staff
recognizes
that
the
the
maximum
FA
are
in
the
high
intensity
office
area
is,
is
a
lot
to
fit
into
eight
stories.
C
Given
our
expectations,
for
you
know
publicly
accessible
paths,
open
areas,
you
know
ground
floor,
commercial
which
doesn't
count
to
FA
are
so
if
you
want
to
accommodate
all
of
these
other
things
on
a
site,
it's
very
difficult
to
mat,
get
the
maximum
FA
are
within
the
eight
stories
identified
in
the
precise
plan,
so
so
in
in
a
lot
of
cases.
In
order
to
create
these
really
really
high-quality
open
spaces
that
we're
looking
for.
You
have
to
take
that
floor
area,
which
would
have
covered
more
ground
and
kind
of
stack
it
up
taller.
C
J
That
you
know
one
of
the
concerns
is,
you
know
we
have
so
much,
as
you
say,
ground
space
to
go
and
to
keep
going
up
and
up
and
up
I
mean
we
have
one
ten
story.
Building
in
the
city
and
I.
Think
that
you
know,
based
on
my
recollection
of
all
the
precise
plans,
we've
done.
We've
always
you
know,
talked
about
eight
stories,
so
you
know
push
comes
to
chef,
you
know.
Are
we
giving
up?
J
E
C
I
think
part
of
the
goal
of
the
the
design
standards,
so
we
have
distance
standards
between
where
these
tall
buildings
can
be,
and
we
also
have
maximum
dimensional
standards
of
how
big
the
buildings
can
be.
So
a
part
of
that
is
to
avoid
the
kind
of
Manhattan
ization
and
this
this
area
to
this
750
foot
radius.
This
is
actually
smaller
than
the
area
in
North,
Bay
Shore.
That's
allowed
to
go
up
to
14
stories.
C
J
K
K
C
Don't
have
that
language
specifically,
you
know
staff
would
be
interested
in
hearing
what
some
of
those
characteristics
are,
that
that
would
be
quality.
Certainly
we
do.
You
know
very
thorough
review
of
all
of
our
open
areas
for
landscape
design,
improvement,
design,
making
sure
that
there's
a
broad
range
of
amenities
in
every
residential
development.
We
also
have
design
guidelines
that
will
guide
how
that
kind
of
quality
is
is
is
created.
C
K
The
development
reserve-
and
it
was
noted
that
one
small
side
effect
may
be
that
smaller
companies
would
be
our
smaller
projects,
would
be
a
disadvantage
because
more
of
the
Development
Reserve
would
be
allocated
to
large
projects
for
longer
periods
of
time
and
I
already
understand
why
staff
is
making
the
recommendation
and
totally
get
that
I
was
just
wondering
if
a
proportion
of
the
Development
Reserve
could
be
allocated
for
small
projects,
not
necessarily
that
it
has
to
go
to,
but
that
we
we
try
to
balance
out
the
disadvantage
of
smaller
companies.
I.
K
C
D
For
the
longer
term,
we
keep
EC
members
forget
my
question:
what
is
the
typical
duration
of
a
master
plan?
I,
don't
have
a
sense
of
context
as
to
if
you
put
in
place
a
master
plan,
is
it
generally
it
laying
up
two
years
three
years,
five
years,
ten
years
a
minute.
What
is
you've
kind
of
limited
to
they've
got
to
do
something
everything
pretty
much
everything
within
is
that
the
typical
duration
of
a
master
plan
man?
What
what
are
they
so
I
don't
have
a
context?
Yes,
so
the
only.
C
L
Really
haven't
used
them
extensively
in
Mountain
View.
In
the
past
there
was
one
out
in
South.
Whisman
was
the
most
recent
I
believe,
but
it's
not
something
that
we've
really
used
extensively
and
that's
why
mr.
Anderson
has
put
in
that
language
for
restricting
the
timeline
when
it
must
be
acted
upon.
C
The
purpose
originally
with
master
plans
really
is
about.
You
know,
confirming
that
the
project
can
be
done
and
that
all
the
utilities
are
accounted
for
and
that
it
will
be
fit
completed
in
an
order
that
you
know
ensures
that
the
city
gets
certain
public
benefits
and
open
space,
and
things
like
that.
So
in
that
sense
they
have
a
timeline
of
the
construction
of
the
project.
C
Right
in
this
case,
you
know
when,
when
the
master
plan
areas
are
potentially
very
large
and
complex
staff
wants
to
make
sure
that
the
council
has
an
opportunity
periodically
to
come
back
in
and
make
sure
that
this
development
reserve
floor
area
is
being
used
as
effectively
as
they
want
it
to
work
towards
the
projects
that
they
wanted
to.
I.
C
C
Staff
recognizes
that
our
our
concern
is
kind
of
in
terms
of
regulatory
overlap.
We
have
a
tool
called
a
development
agreement
which
we
often
use
to
extend
development
timelines
for
very
long
periods
of
time.
You
know
we
have
one
now,
that's
I
think
ten
years,
and
so
our
goal
is
to
not
have
the
master
plan
replace
the
development
agreement
to
have
them
be
two
separate
tools
and
two
separate
processes
that
serve
different
purposes.
C
B
J
The
master
plan
I
think
originally,
when
we
came
up
with
the
master
plan
idea
just
to
follow
up
on
your
comment.
The
idea
was
to
be
able
to
deal
with
multiple
owners
of
property
and
to
make
sure
that
everybody
was
aligned
in
an
agreement,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
that
master
plan
idea
came
in
to
you
know,
probably
augment
you
know
the
developer
agreement
that
Eric
alluded
to,
but
I
just
wanted
to.
You
know,
make
the
point
there.
J
We
found
that
we
had
a
lot
of
property
that
was
small,
but
in
order
to
you,
know
kind
of
pull
it
all.
Together
we
wanted
to
kind
of
have
a
vehicle,
such
as
a
master
plan,
to
see
if
we
could
pull
it
all
together
to
make
sure
we
could
develop
a
particular
piece
of
property,
so
just
wanted
to
provide
that
input.
You
know
follow
through
one
on
Commissioner
Cranston's
question.
J
C
B
A
A
Mentioned
Ferrand
piers
did
a
pretty
good,
thorough
traffic
impact
analysis
and
they
identified
something
like
17
intersections.
That
would
be
severely
degraded,
but
they
could
be.
That
could
be
mitigated
with
the
proper
improvements.
I
submitted
a
lengthy
public
comment
which
actually
found
its
way
to
the
dir,
although
it
was
actually
intended
to
be
for
the
precise
plan
right
commented
about
why
the
precise
point
itself
makes
almost
no
mention
of
possible
improvements
that
will
immediate
need
to
be
made
in
order
to
get
people
in
and
out
of
East
whispah.
A
It
just
talks
a
little
bit
about
internal
roads,
pedestrian
paths,
things
like
that,
but
nothing
about
this
massive
amount
of
public
and
provement.
That's
gonna
be
needed
to
make
east
Whisman
feasible,
I
mean
I,
guess
you're,
gonna
they're
gonna
be
talking
about
school
strategy.
How
come
there's,
not
a
transportation
strategy
seems
like
any
kind
of
decent
urban
planning
has
to
consider.
You
know
transportation
in
Japan.
They
actually
build
a
subway
station
before
they
build
the
city.
A
They
know
that
it's
gonna
be
necessary
and
I
fail
to
realize
why
I
looked
through
the
precise
plan,
I
didn't
find
any
mention
of
how
the
surrounding
roads
are
going
to
be
handled
and
I.
Think
some
of
the
surrounding
cities
and
other
organizations
also
kind
of
wondering
how
that
was
going
to
happen.
I,
don't
know
what
you
can
do
about
that.
I
understand
that,
for
example,
the
reply
was
yeah.
The
state
now
doesn't
recognize.
You
know
intersection
performance
as
a
environmental
impact
and
so
yeah.
A
F
A
I,
don't
know
if
there's
something
you
can
do
to
add
something
to
the
precise
plan
saying
you
know
they
should
take
these
recommendations
from
fair
and
piers
more
seriously
or
something,
but
it
seems
like
there
should
be
some
mention
about
over
transportation.
In
the
precise
plan
I'm
they
going
to.
You
know,
excruciating
detail
on
road
with
some
parents
is
building
appearances.
You
know
setbacks
and
all
that,
if
there's
nothing
about
how
you're
gonna
get
people
in
and
out
of
this
place,
so
I
don't
know
yeah
at
this
stage.
A
B
H
My
name
is
Robert
Holbrooke,
I'm
speaking
to
you
as
a
Mon,
Vieux
resident
who's
concerned
about
airplane
noise.
Over
the
last
several
years,
I've
spent
many
many
many
hours
working
on
this
and
participated
in
community
forums
that
are
trying
to
address
the
increase
in
airplane
noise
over
Mountain,
View
and
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
some
of
my
findings
and
one
of
the
few
thoughts
that
might
impact
the
precise
plan.
H
H
There
is
every
likelihood
that
an
increase
in
the
proportion
of
traffic
will
shift
to
Whisman
Avenue
over
time,
and
we
know
that
San
Jose
Airport,
which
is
where
the
airplanes
are
heading,
is
one
of
the
fastest-growing
airport
in
the
country.
The
mayor
says
it's
the
fastest
I
believe
that
there
could
be
400
airplanes
a
day
in
2030,
or
at
least
a
number
close
to
that
on
days
when
we
have
traffic
over
us
now.
This
is
the
rub.
H
Only
one
in
seven
days,
our
weather
conditions
such
that
the
air
traffic
is
over
us
and
those
days
are
concentrated
in
the
winter
months.
So
it
would
be
easy
for
a
developer
to
miss
the
fact
that
airplane
noise
can
be
a
significant
issue
during
those
months
and
pass
on
the
opportunity
to
install
windows
that
could
give
residents
better
protection
against
the
noise.
H
What
I
encourage
you
to
consider
is
whether
or
not
the
precise
plan
can
in
some
way
ensure
that
developers
are
made
aware
of
the
situation
with
regarding
air
traffic
above
us,
which
I
want
to
say,
is
at
25
about
2,500
feet
over
Whisman
Avenue
and
the
planes
are
deciding
the
1,800
feet
over
Moffett.
Can
the
developers
be
made
aware
of
the
situation
with
regard
to
airplane
aircraft
noise
so
that
they
can
make
an
informed
decision
about
the
kind
of
windows
and
sound
insulation
that
they
might
want
to
equip
their
buildings
with
I?
H
B
M
It
is
increasingly
troubling
to
us
to
hear
the
concerns
of
the
developers,
the
developers
in
the
east
whispered,
precise
plan
area,
especially
those
with
residential
projects
who
are
trying
to
determine
if
they
can
make
their
plans
work
within
the
precise
plan
requirements.
I,
don't
pretend
to
understand
all
the
complexities
involved
and
all
the
issues
that
face
you
guys
that
you
have
to
consider
this
evening,
but
I'm
worried.
We
are
worried
in
the
school
district
that
there
may
be
and
uncertainties
that
would
cause
some
or
all
of
our
tdr
buyers
to
bail
on
us.
M
This
would
put
our
purchase
of
the
San
Antonio
site
at
serious
risk.
It
is
good
to
hear
tonight
that
there's
some
discussion
about
some
solutions
regarding
some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
brought
up,
so
we're
pleased
to
hear
that.
So
just
please
take
into
consideration
the
comments
from
the
TDR
buyers
tonight
and
my
comments
as
you
proceed
with
your
deliberations.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Kenyon.
B
N
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
John
Hickey
I'm
here
tonight,
speaking
on
behalf
of
Summerhill
housing
group,
I
want
to
start
by
saying
that
we
do
appreciate
the
effort
that
staff
has
made
to
address.
So
many
of
the
comments
and
recommendations
that
we
and
other
stakeholders
have
made
regarding
the
precise
plan
through
this
process,
we
are,
however,
still
very
concerned
about
several
issues
that
we
believe
pose
a
substantial
challenge
for
residential
development
in
the
plan
area,
especially
for
the
LASD
TDR
projects.
N
The
precise
plan
unfortunately
threatens
to
take
away
the
opportunity
for
the
residential
TDR
projects
to
participate
in
the
jobs,
housing
linkage
strategy
and,
in
so
doing,
unfortunately,
precise
playing
undermines
one
of
the
council's
key
goals
for
the
precise
plan,
which
is,
of
course,
to
support
residential
development
in
the
plan
area.
Now,
as
we
know,
the
jobs
housing
linkage
strategy
is
essential
to
the
success
of
the
precise
plan,
because
it
encourages
commercial
developers
to
partner
with
residential
developers
so
that
the
creation
of
new
jobs
doesn't
outpace.
N
B
O
Evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
Ellis
burns,
a
consultant
working
and
with
me
as
Jennifer
rank
and
attorney
with
Shepherd
and
Malone's,
and
we're
here
representing
Perry
Herrera
from
Miramar
capital.
The
owners
of
400
Logue
you've
received
a
letter
from
Miramar
capital
earlier
today
and
we'll
let
the
letters
speak
for
itself
from
the
earlier
speaker.
I
think
we
have
the
same
concerns
for
the
TDRs
I.
Just
have
two
points
that
we'd
like
to
get
some
clarification
on.
The
first
is
related
to
as
your
as
you
are
deliberating
over
the
recommendations.
O
Recommendation
six
talks
about
a
recommendation
regarding
resolution
to
approve
the
draft
administrative
guidelines
for
the
East
Whisman,
precise
plan,
job
housing
linkage.
We
hope,
as
you
consider,
that
recommendation
you
take
into
account
what
staff
has
discussed
tonight,
the
opportunity
to
spend
some
time
working
out
some
of
the
details.
So
we
hope
that
as
you're
deliberating,
you
think
about
you,
consider
that
and
we
appreciate
staff
effort
to
work
with
us
to
work
with
all
the
TDR
developers
to
try
to
make
it
to
make
this
happen.
O
So
really
appreciate
that
the
second,
the
second
point
of
clarification
I,
was
wondering
if
Erika
could
pull
up
figure
two.
This
is
related
to
the
height
exception,
and
it's
just
a
clarification.
I
want
to
make
sure
we
understand
this,
because
it
happens
that
the
property
400
loge
is
literally
out
just
the
next
property
over
outside.
O
If
you
look
on
loga
Avenue,
it's
the
next
property
over
that
is
not
included
in
this
particular
in
this
circle.
Thank
you
and
we
are
proposing
because
we
were.
We
are
gatekeeper,
a
project
that
has
two
buildings,
one
of
which
does
go
up
to
11
stories,
so
you
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
in
would
be
included
in
this
height
exception
or
an
understand
a
little
further,
how
that
would
how
that
would
work.
So
those
are
my
two
comments
and
requests
for
clarification.
Thank
you.
B
C
The
400
low
project
is
purchasing
about
60,000
square
feet
of
floor
area
from
the
Los
Altos
School
District,
that
floor
area
would
need
to
be
accommodated
somewhere
on
the
site,
and
the
draft
precise
plan
does
include
language
to
give
flexibility
to
TDR
projects,
to
accommodate
the
floor
area
that
they
are
purchasing.
Ok,
so
on
development
standards.
B
C
C
Guess
there
are
literally
nine
questions
here.
The
five
questions
in
the
staff
report
are,
you
know,
were
we're
based
on
a
kind
of
prioritization
that
staff
had
for
you
know,
kind
of
what
to
focus
on.
But
if
the
epc
has
specific
topics
that
they
want
to
focus
on,
whether
listed
here
or
not,
then
it
may
be
beneficial
to
see
what
those
topics
are
to
focus
conversation
on
those
ok.
So
then
here's.
B
What
I'll
do,
let's?
Let's
take
a
look
at
item
number
two
and
let's
just
do
a
show
of
hands
on
each
of
these
seven
topics
under
number,
two
to
see
which
one's
commissioners
are
interested
in
commenting
on
and
then
I
can
add
additional
topics
that
they
might
want
brought
up.
Okay,
so
I'm
number
one,
the
seventy
thousand
foot
limited
for
review
can
I
see
a
show
of
hands
of
people
who
would
like
to
discuss
this.
B
Now,
yes,
does
that
mean
that
that
were
mostly
okay
with
that
recommendation?
Okay,
yeah
and
I
would
say
the
same
thing.
I
mean
you
know,
I'm.
The
question
about
you
know:
I,
think
that
the
Summerhill
project
on
residential
is
a
good
dividing
line.
I'd
like
to
see
review
and
something
like
that,
smaller
things,
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
so
so
we'll
say
that
we're
going
ahead
with
the
stab
recommendation
on
that
number.
Okay,
how
about
master
plans.
B
B
B
Exceptions:
neighborhood
commercial,
all
right,
we're!
Okay,
with
that
office,
TDM
looks
like
we're.
Okay
with
that
and.
F
B
Area,
mister,
did
you
talk
about
open
area,
more
I
think.
B
H
B
Staff
earlier
on
I
mean
the
goal
here
is
for
commissioners
to
make
sure
that
they
can
focus
their
attention
on
areas
that
that
they
have
a
particular
interest
in
and
want
to
influence
the
result,
while
not
compelling
them
to
discuss
areas
that
they're
largely
in
agreement
with
staff.
Okay.
So
then,
having
done
that,
let's
go
back
to
question
number
one.
Does
the
EPC
support
the
draft
jobs,
housing
linkage,
program
guidelines
and
would
ABC
like
to
give
input
on
the
LSA
ad
DDR
projects?
Do
I
have
a
commissioner
who
would
like
to
start
with
that?
One.
J
Guess
that
my
concern
here
with
this
is
to
try
to
get
and
come
to
some
kind
of
I
think
it's
probably
going
to
be
a
compromise
now
on
on
what
what?
What
aren't?
What
are
the
benefits
that
are
being
denied
these
projects
that
are
so
important
that
they
feel
that
they
are
being
disincentive?
So
you
know
not
knowing
the
real
low
level
details,
because
in
the
precise
plan
it's
pretty
high
level,
so
I
would
like
to
really
have
a
further
understanding
of
the
details
of
exactly
where's
the
difference
here.
J
C
C
Part
of
me,
I
just
gave
a
presentation
on
this
and
Santa
Barbara,
so
I
should
have
it
right
off
the
tip
of
my
tongue,
but
I,
don't
I
apologize
yeah.
So
what
the
what
the
jobs
housing
linkage
program
does
is.
It
creates
a
strong
incentive
to
build
residential
by
giving
them
additional
monetary
resources
that
come
from
the
office
that
wants
to
build,
so
the
office
developer
would
need
to
partner
with
the
residential
project
in
order
to
build,
and
that
requirement
would
presumably
be
associated
with
some
kind
of
financial
resource.
C
Some
kind
of
financial
support,
because
the
the
residential
projects
in
the
TDR
program
are
kind
of
forced
into
partnership
with
each
other
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
they're
all
in
this
one
TDR
program
those
projects,
those
residential
projects,
don't
have
the
same
leverage
or
opportunity
to
ask
for
financial
resources.
So
it's
it's
unclear.
We
don't
know
right
now
how
much
that,
how
much
that,
what
those
financial
resources
are
worth
we're,
leaving
it
to
the
open
negotiation,
the
market.
C
You
know
the
the
private
discussions
between
office
developers
and
residential
developers
to
determine
how
much
that's
worth
part
of
it
would
be.
You
know,
what's
the
current
shortfall
to
actually
build
residential
right,
how
much?
How
much
more
money
does
a
residential
developer
need
today
to
build?
Given
you
know
the
cost
of
construction,
the
cost
of
land
and
the
cost
of
of
city
fees
and
other
requirements
so
presumption?
Presumably,
the
office
development
would
provide
that
shortfall,
so
that
is
potentially
what
the
residential
projects
in
the
TDR
program
are
missing
out
on.
J
C
So
I,
you
know
I'm
a
little
hesitant
to
put
anything
out
there
in
this
in
this
public
setting,
because
we
really
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
vet
it
through.
You
know
our
legal
counsel
or
or
other
kind
of
what-if
permutations.
Certainly
the
the
Summerhill
letter
had
kind
of
an
innovative
strategy
to
off.
You
know,
take
this
presumptive
amount
and
use
it
to
offset
some
of
their
fees
or
some
of
their
other
requirements,
and
you
know
staff
has
some
concerns
about
that.
C
There's,
there's
some
a
possibility
that
arbitrarily
or
or
I
mean
maybe
it's
not
arbitrary,
but
reducing
fees
for
certain
projects
under
certain
circumstances
may
not
be
legal
and
it
may
may
put
our
you
know
other
implementation
of
those
fees
in
in
in
question.
So
we
would
again,
if
that's
something
that
we
were
going
to
pursue
we'd
have
to
look
at
all
the
legal
ramifications
of
it.
C
J
I
I
think
we
need
to
address
that
so
that
it
doesn't
become
an
disincentive
for
developers
to
build
residential
projects
and
I
asked
earlier
the
question
of
the
130,000
and
I'm
wondering
if
staff
would
be
able
to
look
into
that
and
see
how
we
might
be
able
to
use
that
as
an
incentive,
so
that
the
playground
is
thank.
Ulis,
leveled
and
I
will
be
curious
to
hear
what
your
thoughts
are
to.
D
D
Whoever
it
was.
What
it
would
imply
is
that
by
participating
the
TDR
they're,
actually
spending
money
that
to
buy
something
that
they
don't
need
and
as
a
result,
they
would
be
losing
the
ability
to
monetize
the
square
footage
of
the
office
space
that
they're
retiring.
So
it
creates
the
situation
where,
if
they
continue
to
protect,
if
if
they
do,
if
that's
the
case,
then
someone
who's
participating
in
the
ter
would
be
incurring
an
expense
at
the
expense
of
eliminating
a
potential
source
of
income.
D
Okay,
which
is
something
that
I
would
say
that
stinks
if
I
were
in
their
case,
so
I
can
I
can
understand
the
concern.
I,
don't
know
whether
that's
still
the
case
or
not,
but
it
seems
like
a
pretty
serious
disconnect.
The
advantage
of
the
TDR
program
is
allows
them
to
go
into
into
the
area
of
the
program.
D
That's
today
consider
bonus
fer
without,
and
so
they
theoretically
offset
is
that
they
are
that
these
other
things
they
would
normally
have
to
pay
for
by
going
into
the
bonus
level,
they
don't
have
to
pay
for,
there's
should
be
some
benefit
there
associated
with
it.
So
my
hopefully
there's
still
there's
still
a
good
guy
there.
At
the
end
of
all
this,
my
first
instinct
says:
let
them
participate
in
the
in
the
transfer
program.
D
But
then
what
that
creates
is
a
situation
where
they
could
simply
say
well.
I'm
gonna
sell
that
space
to
somebody
who's,
not
in
the
TDR
program
and
the
office
developers
who
are
also
on
the
list
now
are
screwed
because
things
in
your
accounting
in
there's
more
than
that
hundred
thirty
thousand,
because
there's
other
ones
that
have
proposed
that
they
actually
need
that
in
order
to
be
able
to
meet
their
numbers.
D
That
contribution
would
also
be
in
a
situation
where
they
need
the
residential
developers
as
well,
and
so
that
it
creates
the
situation
where
hey,
if
you,
if
you're
in
the
TDR
program
and
you
stay
in
the
two-year
program-
and
you
play
nice
with
the
other
the
office
developers,
you
get
all
the
benefit.
If
you
go
outside
of
that,
then
sorry
it
doesn't
work
anymore.
That
was
my
feeling
was
going.
A
hundred
percent
one
way
hurts
the
school
district
or
one
hundred
percent,
the
other.
That
other
way
hurts
the
the
other
set.
D
K
It's
a
complex
problem
and
very
difficult
to
come
up
with
solutions.
Obviously
you
know
guys
aren't
looking
for
solutions
right
now,
since
it's
a
work
in
progress,
I
guess
the
overall
concern
I
have
it's
just
that
there's
a
little
bit
more
parity
for
the
residential
developers.
I
also
wasn't
sure
what
the
timeline
was
and
whether
or
not
there
was
an
understanding
prior
to
all
this.
K
That
there
would
have
to
be
it's
okay,
never
mind
forget
that
if
we
could
find
something
that
was
legal
which
provided
some
parity,
which
didn't
also
then
caused
complications
elsewhere
would
be
ideal.
I
just
don't
know
what
those
would
be
not
knowing
the
the
finer
details
of
the
situation.
No
one
wants
the
school
district
to
be
left.
You
know
high
and
dry,
so
we're
sort
of
you
know
coming
up
against
a
rock
there
and
at
the
same
time
yeah.
K
It
is
a
new
thing
we're
working
as
best
as
we
can
with
the
new
situation
as
it
develops.
I'm
hoping
everyone
is
patient
enough
to
to
allow
staff
and
us
to
come
to
some
sort
of
compromise
where
there
is
parity.
It
may
not
be
the
ideal
for
everybody
involved,
but
if
we
can
get
this
all
to
work
out,
it
would
be
great.
C
Review
the
individual
projects:
okay,
it's
hard
for
the
EPC
to
provide
feedback
on
how
those
projects
interrelate
at
those
meetings-
that's
probably
not
possible,
but
you
know
what
I
think
you
can
get
an
update
at
that
time.
You
know
in
terms
of
how
the
the
individual,
you
know
how
council
directed
the
individual
projects
to
be
reviewed.
Okay,
so.
K
B
Of
the
comments
that
I've
heard
from
the
other
commissioners
and
a
few
other
notes,
I
mean
in
particular,
you
know
when
I
think
back
on
the
TDR
process,
I
mean
my
initial
reaction.
When
I
saw
what
projects
were
coming
up,
was:
oh
wow,
there's
a
lot
of
office
projects
and
just
a
little
bit
of
residential
here.
It
kind
of
made
me
ask
the
question
of
whether
or
not
at
that
point
we
should
have
given
you
know
stronger
incentives
to
get
residential,
because
I
mean
you
know.
B
We
are
trying
to
achieve
a
jobs,
housing
balance
not
only
within
the
East
Whisman
area,
but
but
in
the
City
of
Mountain
View
as
a
whole,
and
even
we
would
like
to
inspire
other
places
in
the
Bay
Area
and
maybe
even
Santa
Barbara,
to
to
understand
the
importance
of
what's
going
on
here
and
and
to
you
know
to
adopt
that
as
well.
You
know,
after
you
know,
we've
taken
the
leadership
in
this
role,
so
you
know,
having
listened
to
what
mr.
Hickey
said
from
Somerville
this
afternoon,
a
few
things
do
come
to
mind.
B
One
is
that,
as
many
of
the
other
commissioners
have
echoed,
I
think
we
do
need
to
provide
some
kind
of
marketable
incentive
that
the
residential
projects
can
bring
to
bear
to
help
shore
up
the
viability
of
their
projects
relative
to
the
office
projects,
and
so
I
would
support.
You
know
some
way
of
making
that
happen,
since
this
is
as
it's
been
mentioned
right,
this
is
coming
in
at
the
eleventh
hour,
I
leave
it
open
to
staff
to
continue
their
negotiations
and
figure
out.
B
B
B
With
this,
because,
as
commissioner
Yin
pointed
out,
making
the
whole
thing
work
is
very
important
for
the
LASD
School
District
and
all
of
the
Mountain
View
students
within
it.
So
that's
that.
So
those
are
my
comments
on
that.
So
in
terms
of
so
I
guess,
we've
all
just
talked
about
the
LASD
TDR
projects.
C
B
B
D
D
I'm
open
to
the
idea
of
more
flexibility,
Commissioner
Copps
or
vice
chair
packs,
mentioned
the
elimination
of
the
requirement
for
3-bedroom
earlier
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
one
of
our
expectations
at
least,
certainly
my
expectations
are
accounts
of
this
process-
is
that
we
hope
to
get
more
residential
units
in
the
area
that
would
support
a
little
bit
larger
families,
and
so
having
at
least
some
percentage
as
three-bedroom
is
something
that,
in
my
mind,
was
it
was,
was
a
goal,
removing
the
specific,
removing
the
levels
all
the
way
across
the
board.
D
D
D
B
I'll
since
I
also
called
this
I
know,
I'll
echo
that
as
well,
you
know,
as
I
said,
like
with
the
with
the
North
Bay
Shore
precise
plan.
We
did
have
a
target
of
10%
and
and
honestly,
you
know
when
I
was
the
one
who
originally
proposed
the
mix
for
the
North
Bay
Shore
plan,
and
my
thinking
at
that
time
was.
You
know
there
was
a
strong
interest
on
councils
point
of
view
to
get
as
many
units
up
there
as
possible,
and
so
you
know
I
proposed
that
mix
as
an
aggressive
mix
towards
smaller
units.
B
You
know,
because
you
know
it
was
kind
of
like
98,
50
or
fight
okay
and-
and
so
you
know,
I
thought
the
best
way
to
try
to
make
such
a
large
target
would
be.
You
know
heavily
waiting
things
on
smaller
units,
but
I
also
didn't
want
to
I
was
concerned
about
the
idea
of
not
getting
three-bedroom
units
and
other
projects.
I
I
go
back
to
the
time
when
we
were
reviewing
801
West,
El,
Camino
and
I
had
talked
to
the
developer
at
that
time
and
and
as
he
was
going
through
with
me,
private.
B
The
benefits
of
the
project
he
said
and
we
are
providing
three-bedroom
units
and
I
said
to
him.
Okay,
how
many
are
there
and
he
said
five
and
it's
like
a
hundred
and
eighty
unit
project
and
I
said?
Well,
you
know
it's
not
a
large
part
of
the
mix
and-
and
he
shot
back
at
me,
we're
the
only
ones
who
are
doing
anything
at
all
and
that's
stuck
in
my
mind
is
yeah.
That's
part
of
the
problem
and
you
know
because
we
have
typically,
you
know
homes
when
people
get
to
that
point.
B
C
F
B
B
B
B
The
question:
well
is
part
of
the
problem:
the
idea
that
the
linkage
between
jobs
and
housing
is
expressed
in
terms
of
units
rather
than
in
terms
of
bedrooms,
okay,
and
that
you
know
I
mean
I'm,
not
saying
I
would
go
too
far
on
that,
but
maybe
a
three-bedroom
unit
could
up
to
say:
10%
could
be
credited
at
one
and
a
half
units,
okay,
instead
of
a
single
unit.
Just
you
know
to
allow
more
of
those
to
happen.
So
those
are
a
couple
ideas
and
I'm
interested
in
what
other
commissioners
think.
J
What
we're
trying
to
address
is
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
that
already
have
families
and
we
you
know
we
keep
talking
about.
We
want
people
to
live
close
to
where
they
work,
so
it
would
be
ashamed
to
have
it
limited
to.
You
know
two
bedrooms.
If
you
needed
three
with
the
cost
of
the
housing,
you
know
just
the
housing
market
in
general
around
here.
It's
just
you
know
pretty
pretty
ridiculous.
To
think
that
we
could,
you
know
people
people
could
afford
homes.
You
know
that
would
accommodate
the
three-bedroom
needs.
J
What
does
it
mean?
I
think
that
the
range
thing
makes
it
really
kind
of
nebulous
as
to
whether
you
go
to
bedroom
or
three-bedroom
type
of
things.
So
you
know,
is
it
right
for
us
to
be
a
little
more
specific?
As
you
suggest,
you
know
I,
you
know
I'm
not
I'm,
not
really
sure
I'm
trying
to
look
at
it
through
somebody
that
would
be
putting
together
a
number
of
units,
and
if
you
give
me
a
range
I'm
gonna
take
the
one
that
I
think
that'd
be
the
most
marketable.
J
K
Sorry,
a
small
number
wider
range
said
at
three
plus
and
the
reason
why
I
say
that
is
because,
as
we're
developing
out
mountain
view,
I
don't
see
that
many
more
single-family
homes
being
built
I
think
it's
going
to
be
higher
density
and
if
we
are
trying
to
have
people
stay
as
they
move
in
as
young
couples
or
singles.
Eventually
they
will
potentially
have
families
and
we
would
like
them
to
continue
staying
and
not
have
high
turnover
in
the
city.
E
B
C
Staff
was
seeing
the
mix
of
condos
and
apartments
being
built.
You
know
the
Summer
Hill
Miramar
projects,
the
in
in
ownership
projects.
There
is
actually
a
little
bit
of
a
market
for
three-bedroom
units.
It's
the
the
the
market,
just
isn't
there
in
in
rental.
So
you
see
a
lot
of
the
apartment
projects
maxing
out
at
two
bedrooms.
I
I
B
B
B
E
B
K
Really
wasn't
something
where
we're
going
to
find
a
three-bedroom
plus
units
aren't
something
we're
gonna
find
in
rent,
but
it
would
be
for
ownership
and
I
know
that
the
current
council
is
really
aiming
for
a
bit
more
ownership.
We
have
policy
that
aims
for
ownership,
specifically
yeah
in
the
new.
E
C
B
I
like
about
having
it
this
way
is
that
it
does
put
the
thumb
on
the
scale
a
little
bit
toward
own
ownership
or
partial
ownership
projects
like
some
real
is
doing,
and
so
that's
a
good
solution.
So
thank
you
and
let's
see,
let's
go
back
to
the
next,
so
didn't
were
there
other
questions
that
we
wanted
to
raise
on
the
character
areas,
or
is
this
the
only
one?
B
B
D
I'm
I
understand
the
desire
on
the
part
of
the
developers.
Part
of
my
question
for
where
this
came
from
in
council
was
to
try
to
better
understand.
What's
the
what
their
the
outcome
we're
attending
here,
I'm
the
one
that
asked
the
question
I
was
if
there
was
support
for
this
and
the
community
meetings,
because
I've
not
I've,
not
heard
people
say:
oh
yeah,
let's
build
really
tall.
H
D
Mountain
View
I
think
that
certainly
I
think
the
way
that
staff
kind
of
is
trying
to
kind
of
break
it
up
if
you're
gonna
have.
If
we're
gonna
have
the
extra
height,
it's
a
seems
like
a
reasonable
approach,
but
I'm
more
than
else
I'm
worried
about
Middlefield
becoming
a
Canyon
in
general.
If
height
is
not
visible,
it
doesn't
bother
me
as
much
okay.
D
The
challenge
right
now
is
that
you've
scented
this
right
on
the
middle
field
station,
which
is
very
close
to
middle
field.
Road,
I'm,
I
understand
the
the
feedback
was
I.
Guess
the
consultant
about
it
being
a
750
foot.
I
said
it's
over
50
feet
being
what
people
can
walk,
but
what
it's
gonna
do
is
is
this
puts
it
encourages
all
the
height
right
along
a
major
road?
That's
gonna!
D
D
B
Okay,
I'll
throw
a
few
comments
in
here.
I
guess
my
my
initial
comment
on
this.
This
subject
is
just
that:
I
was
just
a
little
bit
surprised.
E
B
Know
when
I
met
with
the
Google
representative
and
I,
you
know
I
do
they
gave
me
the
sheets
of
paper,
and
here
are
these
ten
and
eleven
story
buildings,
because
I
did
attend
the
community
workshops
and
we
weren't
talking.
You
know
that
level
of
height
and
I'm
not
saying
that
you
know
I
mean
I'm
against
it
out
of
the
box,
but
I
guess
what
I
would
really
like
is
I
would
like
a
sense
of
really.
What
are
we
buying
into?
B
We
go
ahead
and
do
this
I'd,
like
I,
think
what
I
would
recommend
is
that
when
you
go
to
council,
you
know
at
least
the
the
presentation
that
you
give
you
know
has
some
some
mock-ups
of
what
this
will
look
like.
You
know,
particularly
like
how
does
this
stand
out
with
regards
to
the
rest
of
the
precise
plan
area?
And
you
know
what
does
it
look
like
like
if
I'm
standing
on
Wisman
Road,
you
know
from
you
know
the
you
know
single
story,
developments
that
are
on
that
side
of
the
road?
B
What
are
they
going
to
see,
and
you
know,
and
also
the
idea
of
what
Miss
Commissioner
Cranston
just
brought
up
the
idea
of
what
is
this
alternative
versus
having
the
height
spread
out
over
a
wider
area?
You
know
look
like
as
an
alternative.
That's
the
kind
of
thing
that
that
I'd
like
to
see
so
that
I'd,
like
the
council,
to
see
it
I
guess.
F
B
They
have
a
good
sense
of
of
what
it
is
they're
buying
into
and
then
they
can
make
the
right
judgment.
I
mean
you
know
you
can
have
good
projects,
you
know
with
large
Heights
and
you
know
we
can
have
ones
that
don't
work
that
well,
but
I
mean
you
know
another
thing.
As
commissioner
Cranston
says
you
know
to
get
the
sense
of
what
it
is
looking
when
you
drive
down
Middlefield
Road
I
mean
you
know,
I
think
I
think
in
terms
of
disclosure,
that's
a
real
good
thing
to
have.
J
We
need
to
look
at
you
know
when
we
originally
looked
at
starting
with
the
precise
plan
we
felt
like
it
would
make
more
sense
to
have
higher
density
around
the
the
transit
station
simply
to
have
people
closer
to
public
transportation
and
this
sort
of
thing.
But
you
know
again
what
we're
giving
up
when
we
do
see
projects
that
are
higher
stories,
and
you
know
we
look
at
higher
stories
of
being
eight.
You
know
we
also
look
at
the
design,
so
I
think
what
my
concern
is
from
a
height
perspective.
J
Is
that
somebody's
going
to
build
an
11-story
high,
something
that
that
is
just
a
great
big
block
of
units
and
there's
no
creativity
in
what
the
design
is,
and
you
know
that
they
could.
Very
you
know
the
building
designs
within
within
the
project.
So
you
know
that
it's
really
hard
to
say:
oh
we've
got
height
exceptions,
because
you
know,
once
you
start
exceptions
to
guess
what
everybody's
going
to
take
them.
J
So
I
am
a
little
reticent
to
just
you
know,
give
cart
block
height
exceptions
out
there
without
some
concern
about
the
design
of
the
units
and
buildings
that
are
any
in
any
complex,
because
you
know
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
want
to
see
the
you
know.
The
Canyon
effect
and
I
know
that
we're
talking
about
the
you
know
the
separations
of
the
buildings
and
all
of
that
sort
of
thing,
but
this
is
Mountain
View
and
many
people
would
like
to
still
the
mountains.
J
So
that's
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out
and
I.
Think
that's
why
we
didn't
hear
people
you
know
saying.
Yes,
let's
do
11
stories
because
they
don't
want
that
shadow
effect
on
existing
properties
that
are
in
that
area,
so
I
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
very
cautious
and
careful
to
to
limit
the
heights.
You
know
within
this
particular
area.
J
C
Kind
of
a
comfortable
walking
distance,
it's
the
area
where
we're
really
trying
to
get
a
lot
of
neighborhood
commercial
users
kind
of
focused
in
this.
You
know
kind
of
dense,
walkable
area
that,
where
you
can
kind
of
jump
from
business
to
business,
you
know
on
a
single
trip
and
and
trip
chain
again
with
the
with
the
light
rail.
C
We're
also
looking
for
some
really
high-quality
open
areas
in
this
area
to
really
encourage
gathering
events,
kind
of
be
a
marquee
open
space
for
the
the
East
Whisman
area,
a
place
to
really
give
it
a
sense
of
place
and
an
identity.
So
those
are
all
the
things
that
we're
kind
of
trying
to
look
for
in
this
area
and
and
in
in
order
to
help
kind
of
incentivize
that
vision,
some
additional
height,
would
would
help
to
to
help
incentivize
that
vision,
because
I
I'm.
J
Also
noted
that
we
were
taking
out
the
C
Street,
you
know
in
order
to
promote
more
walkable,
bikeable
areas.
You
know
in
that
area,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
decisions
that
we
do
make
from
a
height
and
an
open
space,
and
all
of
that
is,
is
gonna,
make
make
sense
what
what
is
what
is
located
like
outside
of
this,
this
area.
That
would.
J
C
So
this
height
this,
this
location
right
here,
is
currently
under
construction.
You
see
where
my
cursor
is
yes,
yeah.
It's
currently
under
construction,
I
think
it's
three
to
four
storey
apartments
or
just
three
storey,
and
this
site
is
currently
vacant.
No
plans
to
happen
there.
This
site
is
the
orchard.
There's
no
current
plans
for
anything
else
there.
The
rest
of
this
is
part
of
the
precise
plan,
so
it's
either
going
to
stay
what
it
is
today.
This
is
a
six
story:
office
building.
C
You
know
these
are
four-story
office
buildings.
This
is
a
large
four
story.
Office
building,
miss
Symantec
headquarters,
the
big
kind
of
teal
colored
building
okay.
So
these
are
it's
either
gonna
stay.
What
it
is
today
or
it's
gonna
be
redeveloped
at
higher
intensity
office
and
residential
and
the
nearest
existing
neighborhood
is,
is
across
north
Wisman,
Road
I,
don't
know
exactly
how
far
away
it
is,
but
I
can
I
can
look
it
up
if
you,
if
you'd
like
to
no?
No
that's
okay,
I'm.
E
J
You
know
I,
think
I,
think
we
give
hide
exceptions
per
project.
I
wouldn't
want
to
just
see
this
in
general
in
the
precise
plan,
I
think
it
has
to
be
done.
What
is
the
project?
Look
bad
look
like
and
what
does
the
rest
of
the
area?
Look
like
so
in
general
to
say
sure,
build
11
stories.
You
know
not
sure
what
that
message
brings
to
the
developers,
so
in
general
I
think
we
ought
to
review
it
per
project.
K
C
K
I
was
listening
to
what
the
other
commissioners
had
said
and
I
totally
I
get
it,
and
especially
since
neighborhoods
had
given
input
community
input.
I
personally
am
NOT
so
averse
to
extra
height
if
it
gains
us
the
neighborhood
commercial
space,
because
we're
trying
to
develop
a
neighborhood
and
I
think
tying
more
use
and
service
into
the
area
helps
cut
back
on
trips
and
just
makes
it
more
of
a
neighborhood.
K
But
that's
just
personal
I
understand
their
point,
so
I'm
just
wondering.
If
maybe
there
are
some
things
we
can
look
at,
such
as
increasing
the
setback
at
certain
Heights.
If
they
are
going
to
take
place,
so
let's
say
at
three
storeys:
it
has
back
at
an
additional
amount
or
maybe
just
the
setback
in
general.
Then
you
get
more
sidewalk
a
little
bit
if
it's
going
to
go
higher
things
of
that
nature,
design
wise
that
we
can
look
at
and
as
far
as
trying
to
envision
what
it
would
look
like.
K
I
think
3d
models
are
great,
but
there's
no
replacement
for
physical
models.
I
think
when
a
project
comes
in.
If
we
do
go
project,
my
project,
that
we
can
see
it
see
what
it
looks
like
on
the
street
and
I
think
that
gives
a
good
sense
to
everyone,
the
community
as
well,
what
that
will
be
and
how
tall
that
will
be
and
how
that
feels.
It's
just
a
thought.
K
I
Certainly
says
a
thousand
word
and
mono/poly
will
help
too
I
have
lived
in
Hong
Kong,
so
I'm
personally,
not
against
height,
just
for
her
sake,
I
think
the
the
criteria
that
we
have
listed
here,
calling
you
know
it
has
to
be
a
neighborhood
commercial
building
that
includes
ground
floor
commercial.
It
has
to
have
variety
of
building
heights
different.
You
know,
separation
and
whatnot.
I.
Think
having
these
parameters
helps
us
to.
You
know,
realize
the
vision
you
were
describing.
One
idea
I
have
to
kind
of
get
back
to
your
concern
about
making
this
an
exception.
C
Exception
is
structured;
it
allows
it
to
be
reviewed
on
more
of
a
case-by-case
basis,
rather
than
being
kind
of
the
default
expectation.
If
we
were
to
define
a
character
area
around
this
around
this
additional
height,
then
that
would
be
saying
that
this
is.
This
is
the
expectations
the
community
expectation.
This
is
what
we,
this
is,
what
we
envision
rather
than
this
is
something
that
could
be
okay
if
we
review
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
and
they
provide
all
of
these
extra
things
that
we
really
want.
C
B
B
I've
have
also
heard
some
other
ideas
expressed
by
one
or
two
commissioners,
like
Mrs
Cooper,
Alice's,
suggestion
of
of
taking
things
asking
for
the
exceptions
explicitly
rather
than
having
it
in
the
plan.
I,
don't
know
what
what
mr.
Anderson?
What
do
you
think
is
a
good
way
to
summarize
what
we've
been
saying
yeah?
Well,
let
me
let
me
just
kind.
C
Of
clarify
another
couple
of
other
kind
of
key
design
points
in
the
plan.
You
know
we
have
this,
this
street
wall
requirement,
which
does
require
buildings
to
step
back
at
75
feet
in
height,
so
these
these
tall
buildings
would
not
be
right
at
the
street.
They
would
have
to
step
back
at
that
height
and
then
go
up.
C
We
also
have
the
the
internal
separations
between
buildings
and
the
maximum
building
size,
so
part
of
that
is
intended
to
reduce
the
canyon
effect,
but
certainly
we
could
look
at
increasing
those
minimum
separations
that
would
further
reduce
the
canyon
effect
and
change
the
reduce
the
likelihood
that
it
would
be
all
tall
buildings
along
middlefield
herd,
certainly
desire
to
see
more
visualizations
I
think
that's,
certainly
something
that
we
can
do
before.
We
go
to
Council
heard
about
the
importance
of
design.
L
B
It
was
a
more
mixed
support,
okay,
and
that
that
we're
looking
for
staff
to
give
more
visual,
more
pictures
of
you
know
particularly
about
what
would
look,
what
things
would
look
like
in
middle
field,
Road
and
from
the
adjacent
neighborhoods
and
and
just
with
particular
emphasis
on
what
kind
of
Canyon
effect
might
result
and
also
to
understand
whether
ask
Council
to
deliberate
on
whether
they
want
just
the
special
high
exceptions
in
this
particular
area
or
they're.
More
interested
in
having
the
larger
heights
spread
over
a
wider
area.
K
Just
had
another
thought:
if
you
are
going
to
list
some
certain
ideas
that
come
forward,
another
would
be
a
limitation
would
be
that
an
entire
project
isn't
granted
this
height
exception,
it's
that
if
they
have
a
neighborhood
commercial
whatever.
Maybe
it's
a
certain
square
footage
that
a
percent
of
that
square
footage
whether
or
not
be
smaller
or
greater
than
is
what
is
granted
the
height
exception,
because
I
would
hate
to
see
like
a
three-block
project.
I'll
go
up
just
because
they
provided
one
little
shop.
Mm-Hmm.
B
J
E
B
F
D
D
D
That's
not
that
far
from
this
area
that
could
be
the
can
people
could
walk
to
so
I
would
be
quite
frankly,
I'd
be
and
I
would
feel
far
better
if
this
was
located
on
the
north
side
of
the
middle
field.
Road
I
agree
in
and
those
are
areas
that
are
gonna
eat,
open
space
as
well:
okay,
open
space
on
the
south
side
of
middlefield
Road.
D
It's
not
missus!
You
know
it'll
be
great
for
the
people
that
were
there,
but
it's
not
necessarily
you're
not
going
to
take
your
kids
on
a
walk
across
middlefield
road
to
get
there.
You're
gonna
go
you're,
gonna,
stick
with
the
smaller
streets,
you
know
to
go
play
in
a
park,
so
if
we
can
get
so
if
the
goal
here
is
to
make
it
more
attractive
to
provide
more
open
space,
then
it
seems
like
it
would
be
more
beneficial
to
keep
it
concentrated
in
the
area.
D
Above
that's
kind
of
that
way,
we're
more
likely
to
get
that
I.
Just
I
questioned
the
the
the
benefits
that
you're
expecting
to
see
will
be
derived
by
items
but
on
to
the
south
side
of
middle
field,
but
we
would
be
more
likely
to
achieve
those
going
farther
north
and
I,
don't
believe
I
believe
the
750
foot
distance
is
correct
to
some
extent
arbitrary,
and
you
know
a
thousand
feet.
D
E
D
B
D
B
B
Off
of
what
commissioner
Cranston
just
said
right,
we
have
that
Loesch
building
up
there.
That's
on
the
north
side.
That's
that's
asking
to
be
higher,
and
if
we
were
to
shift
this
up,
that
would
kind
of
like
put
it
in
there.
While
you
know-
maybe
maybe
that's
a
better
centering
I
I
am
sympathetic
to
what
commissioner
Cranston
just
said
and
that
you
know
it
may
be
easier
to
envision
something
viable
without
so
much
of
a
canyon
effect.
C
C
F
Wanted
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things,
because
the
condition
of
middle
field
isn't
necessarily
today
what
it
might
be
in
five
or
ten
years
and
what
happened
south
of
it
might
be
different,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
improvements
that
are
recommended
in
the
implementation
chapter
in
terms
of
transportation,
improvements,
mid-block
crossings,
greenways
and
then
open
space
identified
on
south
of
middle
field.
Those
are
also
just
things
that
part
of
that
consideration
of
maybe
why
it
extends
south
beyond
the
other
side
of
middle
field
as
well.
It's
just
contextual,
that's
all.
H
B
K
B
K
What
you
said,
I
I'm,
hoping
that
it
does
get
implemented
out,
the
precise
plan
gets
implemented
where
middle
field
Road
isn't
a
barrier
anymore.
That
they're
more
tied,
and
my
thought
was
that,
because
the
station
is
right
on
middle
field,
if
we
are
gonna
have
neighborhood
commercial
I'd,
like
it
more
sort
of
clustered
around
that
area.
K
So
to
me,
if
it
crosses
middle
field
and
you
get
the
corners
that
have
neighborhood
commercial
yay,
so
I
I'm,
okay,
with
a
crossing
middle
field,
I'm
also,
okay
with
it,
you
know
just
being
around
the
park-
that's
going
to
be
around
the
station
as
well,
but
for
commercial
and
retail
they
tend
to
like
to
cluster.
So
that's
it's
a
good
option
in
my
mind
to
have
it
cross
and
have
that
intersection,
be
very
walkable
and
porous
between
the
two
sides.
K
I
C
C
This
property
is
currently
owned
by
a
residential
developer
and
they've
expressed
interest
in
redeveloping
it.
As
residential
the
site
is
identified
for
a
mini
park.
In
the
precise
plan,
it
is
not
identified
for
any
required
neighborhood
commercial.
So
if,
if
the
Commission
is
interested
in
seeing
neighborhood
commercial
on
these
sites,
south
of
middle
field,
we
would
you
would
either
have
to
recommend
changes
to
the
required
neighborhood
commercial
areas
or
this
incentive
would
be
a
way
to
to
encourage
that
to
happen.
E
K
That
encourages
the
neighborhood
commercial
I,
don't
know
that
anybody
else
would
also
want
to
require
it
south
of
middle
field,
but
I'd
be
all
for
it,
but
just
having
the
incentive,
there
is
good
for
me.
I
again,
I
would
limit
the
the
amount
of
the
building
or
the
project
that
goes
up
depending
on
how
much
commercial
there
is,
so
that
I'm
pretty
sold
on.
B
D
D
B
B
P
E
P
C
P
Be
either
I
mean
I
think
you
could
just
provide
the
indication
that
there
was.
You
know,
discussion
on
the
height
exceptions,
if
you
wanted
to
keep
it
real
general
there's
extensive
discussions.
You
know
about
that,
including
some
of
the
following
and
kind
of
list
them,
but
but
I
still
would
like
to
be
clear
about
that.
Since
it
is
a
motion,
that's
being
made
to
make
it
clear
what
what
you
want
to
convey
to
counsel
on
that
point,.
K
That
this
helps
clarify
I
think
maybe
then
Commissioner
Cranston.
It
may
not
be
necessary
to
shift
it
if
height
is
already
concerned.
For
you,
this
is
an
exception.
If
people
do
all
these
things,
then
they
get
the
exception
to
go
higher,
and
if
you
don't
think
this
is
the
south
of
middle
field
is
there
will
be
any
takers.
It
actually
decreases
the
amount
of
area
where
people
will
go
even
higher.
So
if
it
helps.
D
D
The
station
I
get
ok
I
like
that
idea,
the
idea
of
giving
developers
something
that
ok,
you
go
an
extra
floor
or
two
you're
gonna
give
us
some
more
open
space.
That's
a
good
thing.
So,
in
my
mind,
is
it's
less
a
concern
about
whether
we
allow
it
than
it
is?
Are
we
gonna
get
what
we
want
out
of
doing
it?
If
what
we
want
is
to
get
more
neighborhood
commercial
and
we
want
to
get
more,
you
know
open
space
as
part
of
it.
D
Then
let's
put
it
in
the
area
that
it
might
actually
produce
that
we
were
trying
to
set
it
around
middle
field
station.
Well,
maybe
maybe
it
extends
a
little
bit
further
north,
ok
and
it
becomes
a
place.
The
the
offices,
people
in
offices
can
walk
to
people
that
are
in
other
areas
of
the
residential
can
walk
to
as
well.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
all
down
in
that
area
and
that
we've
listed
a
great
commercial
as
a
as
a
target
area,
but
I
don't
know.
D
We've
said
that
if
somebody
were
to
go
a
little
bit
beyond
the
commercial
area
that
we'd
say
who
know
you
can't
do
that,
but
if
it
create
somewhere
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
of
a
quarter.
Ok
I,
look
at
Castro
people,
it's
all
on
a
block:
okay,
they're,
all
working
back
and
forth
along,
but
get
farther
from
those
downtown
blocks.
And
people
don't
go
there.
So
I'm
looking
at
this
as
if
we,
if
we
believe
that
we're
trying
to
get
that
open
space,
we're
trying
to
get
that
commercial,
a
little.
D
Of
course
your
viability,
then
let's
look
at
it
is
more
than
just
the
station
itself
and
look
at
extending
it
potentially
a
little
bit
giving
the
option
of
it
being
able
to
extend
a
bit
farther
so
that
we
actually
get
those
things,
because
I
do
have
a
concern
that
the
5,000
square
feet
is
actually
pretty
small.
You'll
get
a
you
know.
Starbucks
is,
you
know,
is
about
1,500
square
feet,
okay,
so
you
get
three
and
you
get
maybe
one
little
restaurant
and
the
Starbucks,
and
and
that's
it,
but
the
5,000
square
feet
that's
being
proposed.
D
Could
we
get
a
little
bit
more?
Could
we
get
a
couple
of
restaurants?
Could
we
get
a
drycleaners?
Could
we
get
a
bank?
Those
would
be
good
things
in
my
mind,
so
I'm
I'm,
looking
at
is
I
I,
like
the
idea
of
getting
some
of
these
things.
I,
don't
believe
that,
as
included,
we
will
realize
the
benefits
that
this
is
proposing,
that
we
might
be
able
to
derive
from
increasing
the
height
okay,
I
hear.
B
Here's
my
thought,
okay,
and
that's
that
I
hear
that
Commissioner
Cranston
is
very
passionate
about
the
idea
of
wanting
to
shift
this
northward
above
middle
field
and
so
I
think
we
should
take
at
least
a
straw
vote
to
see
whether
there's
a
majority
support
for
that.
If
not,
then
I
think
it's
okay
to
echo
in
general
comments
from
you
know,
staff
that
we
discussed
this
at
length,
probably
a
more
length
than
anything
else,
and
that
that
you
know
there
were
various
things
suggested
that
council
can
consider.
B
B
I
I
was
thinking
of
the
relationship
between
this.
You
know
commercial
area
with
the
village
center
I
don't
mean
to
throw
in
more
things,
but
I'm
just
wondering
it
might
be
relevant
because
that's
another
area
where
we
want
to
get
more
commercial
as
well
in
the
village
center.
Well,
the
village
center
is
required.
C
C
Of
our
urban
design
goal
for
middlefield
is
to
create
a
you
know
when
I'm
interesting,
you
know
a
vibrant,
active
bicycle
friendly.
You
know
that's
a
way
to
kind
of
link
the
spaces
sustainably
and
we
are
also
creating
a
number
of
other
links
through
the
precise
plan
you
know
paseo
links,
you
know,
other
other
kind
of
walkable
links
to
break
up
the
blocks.
So
a
big,
a
big
part
of
the
precise
plan
is
this
idea
around
kind
of
creating
more
connection
to
the
village
center
and
vice-versa
I
guess.
B
The
one
thing
I
would
say
about
the
village
center
is
that
never
I
mean
versus
this
location
is
that
this
is
actually
a
central
area
in
the
precise
plan-
and
you
know
the
village
center
is
kind
of
off
to
the
side,
a
bit
and
very
close
to
us
very
low-density
residential.
So
there's
a
limit
on
how
high
you
can
go
there,
and
so
my
hope
would
be
that
we
didn't
have
that.
B
We
did
have
a
place
like
this
more
central
to
precise
plan
where
the
heights
could
go
higher
and
could
provide
some
of
this
kind
of
thing.
So
yeah
I
guess
I
like
the
idea
that
the
de
village
center
will
develop,
but
I
don't
believe
it
can
bear
the
whole
burden
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
so
so
anyway.
I
think
we
still
need
to
take
a
straw.
G
B
F
J
Suggest
perhaps,
within
the
height
exceptions,
that
we
extend
the
750
feet
to
a
thousand
and
not
specify
how
that's
going
to
be
done
and
and
leave
the
height
exceptions.
The
way
they're
currently
read
in
the
precise
plan,
and
that
would
extend
that
another
250
feet
and
if
you
want
to
say
specific
to
the
north,
I
don't
care.
But
it
seems
like
that
would
kind
of
capture
the
direction
that
you
want
to
go
in
without
it
being
too
specific.
Does
that
make
sense.
C
J
C
When
I'm
hearing
is
correct,
is
is
there's
two
aspects
of
shifting
to
the
north
right
and
there's
taking
the
bottom
and
shift.
You
know
moving
middlefield
road,
but
then
also
taking
the
top
and
moving
it
up
north
and
and
so
what
you're
asking
is
what,
if
we
leave
the
bottom,
where
it
is,
but
also
move
the
top
okay
is
that
does.
C
B
A
show
hands
on
that
proposal.
How
many
people
would
support
commissioner
Capri
Liz's
revised
proposal
of
Commissioner
Cranston's
proposal
to
move
the
hide
exceptions
area,
another
750
feet,
250
feet
right,
250,
feet
north,
and
that
would
then
that
would
cover
the
lowest
building
right
and
some
of
the
adjacent
area.
Okay,
so
so,
let's
see,
show
hands.
E
P
C
P
B
A
C
B
And
I
think
I
heard
from
Commissioner
the
idea
of
oh
yeah
don't
measure
it
with.
B
E
K
B
C
I
I
Here,
I
have
some
comments
specific
to
chapter
4
points
3,
which
is
on
site,
open
space
and
landscaping
in
section
4
point
3,
3,
title,
open
space,
location
and
context.
I
would
like
to
add
one
point
which
I
titled
connecting
green
spaces
and
the
text
reads:
public
and
private
open
spaces
should
be
connected
by
a
safe
and
shaded
past
paseo.
Is
that
how
you
pronounce
multi-use
path
or
greenways
to
provide
easy
access
to
nature
for
all
residents
such
linkages?
I
The
first
one
was
four
point:
three
one
sorry
so
this
one
is
for
me
I
sure,
I
have
an
older
copy.
Four
point:
three
three
I
would
propose
adding
a
section
that
I
titled
trees
and
native
plants
and
the
text
reads:
climate
resilient,
shade,
trees
and
native
understory
plants
should
be
planted
along
streets,
multi-use
paths,
greenways
and
patios,
and
then
I
have
suggested
some
modification
to
the
following
sections
in
Section
4.3
for
landscaping
and
sustainability.
I
In
addition
to
the
existing
text.
In
section
1,
large
cannon,
trees,
I
added
the
Texan
blue,
so
the
whole
paragraph
reads:
open
spaces
should
provide
large
canopy
trees
and
support
up
the
city's
community
tree
master
plan.
Strong
preference
should
be
given
to
tree
species
that
are
adaptable
to
climate
change.
Threats
can
foster
resilience,
built
biological
diversity,
support
native
wildlife
and
are
resistant
to
insect
and
disease
damage.
I
Building
heating
and
cooling
efficiency
I
expanded
that
to
rebuilding
energy
conservation
through
measures
such
as
trees
and
green
roofs,
and
then
for
stormwater
management,
I
added
green
infrastructure
and
for
landscaping,
I
added
it
should
be
climate
resilient
and
then
there's
a
very
minor
modification
to
section
4.43
for
service
surface
parking
design
where
bullet
number
five
there's
a
there's,
basically
a
typo
that
we
corrected
here.
So
it's
now
it
reads:
when
site
and
building
improvements
are
made,
treat
canopy
and
surface
parking.
Lots
should
be
increased
to
at
least
fifty
percent
coverage
and
maturity.
K
I
B
C
B
M
B
K
C
B
D
C
You
know
the
400
foot
block
standard
that
we
have
in
the
Civic
spaces
section
and
the
the
green
lines
that
we
have
on
the
conceptual
circulation
plan.
So
if
the
street
aligns
with
with
those
lines,
it
would
need
to
be
publicly
accessible
the
if
a
developer
is
building
another
service
street
that
doesn't
serve
those
blocks
or
that
minimum
connectivity
they
have
the
option
to
make
it
publicly
accessible
or
not.
In
no
cases
would
a
service
street
be
a
public
street
in
that
it
would
have.
We
wouldn't
have
public
utilities
in
it.
D
A
service
street-
that's
not
one
of
those
things
that
you
just
described.
Okay,
it's
it's
another
service
street
that
right
chosen
to
put
in
is
the
is
the
way
the
precise
plan
worded
I
they
required
to
meet
the
service
street
thing
in
here.
Is
that
a
is
that
a
required
to
meet
service
street
standard.
C
Like
dimensions
or
yes,
they
would
be
required
to
meet
the
service
street
standards.
Part
of
that
is
just
in
terms
of
livability
and
character
of
of
the
the
part
of
the
design
they
may
have
the
option,
depending
on
the
configuration
of
the
site.
They
may
have
the
option
to
apply
the
Ali
standards
if
they
need
vehicle
access,
but
they
don't
want
to
use
the
service
street
dimensions.
D
J
F
C
K
D
D
D
K
If
it
helps,
but
someone
wanted
to
point
it
out
to
me
all
of
downtown
can
fit
between
East
Middlefield
Ellis,
this
once
upon
a
time
Street
a
and
this
once
upon
a
time,
Street
C.
So
if
we
didn't
have
those
you
could
potentially
have
just
project
for
the
entire
area
of
downtown,
with
no
break
so
I
guess
and
then
maybe
service
Street
is
the
name
service
tree.
D
So
you
folks
have
pointed
out
the
area
behind
Trader,
Joe's
and
I.
Think
you
know
that's
a
reality.
Okay,
you're
gonna
have
a
back
end
of
the
back
side
of
of
retail
spaces,
and
those
kind
of
things
in
my
in
my
head.
A
service
street,
is
where
that
that
truck
goes.
Okay,
I
would
actually
prefer
not
to
have
people
walking
along
that,
so
that
the
semi
coming
in
is
is
in
the
middle
of
it.
D
There's
you
know
that
that
they
that
I,
would
not
necessarily
want
them
walking
through
the
middle
of
that,
so
that
it
is
actually
to
me
even
seem
safer
to
isolate
those
areas
rather
than
having
them
places
where
people
are
wandering
around.
So
maybe
you
can,
am
I
misinterpreting
the
intention
of
these
standards
for
that
kind
of
a
thing?
Well,
the
reality
is.
C
The
the
intention
and
the
precise
plan
is
that
service
streets
and
alleys
could
serve
those
garbage
needs
the
emergency
access
needs
and
other
kind
of
incidental
needs
in
internal
to
the
site.
Part
of
the
goal
of
the
service
street
standards
is
to
create
also
a
pedestrian
friendly
environment,
even
though
there
may
be
garbage
trucks
coming
through.
C
D
B
Yeah
I
guess
I
I
would
just
throw
in
the
comment.
You
know
and
echo
hear
what
Commissioner
Cabrales
said:
I
mean
I
some
I
Drive
past
that
intersection
I
Drive
through
that
area
behind
the
traders
Jose
every
Saturday
and
I
mean
I've
noticed
that
at
least
when
I'm
there
it's
at
that
intersection
between
you
know
that
goes
in
back
of
the
Safeway.
In
the
back
of
that
parking
area
leads
down
to
the
traders.
B
That
was
something
that
I
wish
had
been
done
differently
and
think
that
you
know
having
some
guidelines
spelled
out
like
this,
you
know
can
help
avoid
that
I
think
you
know
you
know
we
can
always
have
counsel,
have
a
specific
exception.
You
know
under
you
know,
under
their
appropriate
circumstances,
I
mean
I.
B
If
I
think,
for
instance,
of
the
street
that
I
live
on
right
now,
I
mean
you
know
it's
it's
20
feet
across
and
it
required
a
variance,
and
that
was
a
case
where
it
was
good
to
have
the
variance,
because
there
was
no
way
to
do
that
street
unless
you
did
it
that
way,
but
in
general
I'm
more
inclined
toward
keeping
what
you
have
here.
You
know
for
the
kind
of
reasons
that
Commissioner
Cabrales
brought
up
and
other
things
that
I've
seen
so
I.
D
B
C
But
I
think
there
there
are
also
other
kind
of
engineering
and
other
policy
considerations
right
so,
except
where
the
city
determines
otherwise
through
the
development
review
or
CIP
process.
I
think
would
give
the
council
some
flexibility
to
approve
an
alternate
in
alignment.
If
there
is
some
greater
good
that
can
be
demonstrated.
C
B
B
J
I
would
like
to
move
that
the
EPC
provide
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
certified
the
East
Whisman
precise,
planned
final
environmental
impact
report
and
adopt
the
sequa
findings,
including
statement
of
overriding
considerations
and
mitigation
monitoring
and
reporting
program
to
be
read
in
title.
Only
further
reading
waived
exhibit
one
to
the
staff
report.
We
also
would
recommend
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
approve
the
general
plan
map
and
text
amendment
for
the
East
Wisman
mixed
use,
designation
consistent
with
the
East
Whisman
precise
plan
to
be
read
in
title.
J
Only
further
reading
waive
exhibit
two
to
the
staff
report.
A
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
approve
the
zoning
map
amendment
for
parcels
located
in
the
East
Wisman
precise
plan
from
M
L
limited
industrial
M,
L
dash,
T,
limited
industrial
woods,
transit
floating
C,
n
commercial
neighborhood
CEO
commercial
office
are
three:
two
residential
multiple
family
NP
planned
community
P
forty-one,
East
Wisman
precise
plan
to
be
read
in
title.
Only
further
reading
waved
exhibit
three
the
staff
report,
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council,
adopt
the
East
Whisman
precise
plan
to
be
read
in
title.
E
J
P
P
P
P
Respect
to
height
exceptions,
direction
to
staff
for
additional
or
more
diagrams,
exceptional
type,
design,
standards,
expansion
of
additional
of
an
additional
250
feet
for
the
area
north
of
middle
field
Road
and
for
neighborhood
commercial,
making.
It
proportion,
the
height
increase,
proportional
relative
to
the
proportion
of
commercial
provided
and
all
of
commissioner
Lowe's
proposed
modifications,
as
provided
I,
believe
that
is
it
unless
I
failed
to
include
something
mr.
Anderson
I
believe
that's.
P
J
Resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
approve
a
zoning
text
amendment
to
remove
that
transit
tea,
district
and
transit
oriented
development
permit
from
chapter
36
of
the
city
code
to
be
read
in
title
only
for
the
reading
wave
exhibit
five
to
the
staff
report
and
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
approved
draft
administrative
guidelines
for
the
east
wisdom,
precise
plan
jobs,
housing
linkage
program
to
be
read
in
title.
Only
further
reading
waived
exhibit
six
to
the
staff
report
and
do
we
put
any
additional
recommendations
in
for
the
job
housing
staff
we'll
just
forward.
B
B
Yin
yes,
Commissioner
Cranston,
yes
and
I
also
vote
yes,
so
the
resolution
passes
5-0
with
two
commissioners
absent
okay,
so
that
closes
item
5.1.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
a
long
and
productive
discussion
on
that
and
now,
let's
move
on
to
item
number
two
request
for
minor
zoning
text:
amendments
to
chapter
36,
zoning
ordinance
of
the
city
code
of
the
are
for
multifamily
standard
handout.
Oh
I
think
there's
a
request
to
take
a
short
break.
How
about
if
we
come
back.
B
Time
so,
let's
continue
with
item
5.2
request
for
minor
zoning
text,
amendments
to
chapter
36,
so
any
ordinance
of
the
city
code
and
the
far
for
multifamily
standards
handout.
But,
as
Nicole
pointed
out
to
me,
because
it
is
after
10
o'clock,
we
need
to
take
a
vote
on
whether
we
will
continue
so
how
many
people
are
willing
to
continue
put
your
hands
up
all
right.
It
looks
like
we're
willing.
Q
My
name
is
Erin.
Her
an
assistant,
planner
and
I
will
be
presenting
the
minor
code
amendments
item
here,
along
with
Lindsay
Hagen,
our
deputy
Zoning
Administrator,
and,
to
give
you
some
background
staff,
periodically
reviews
the
chapter
36
zoning
ordinance
for
any
updates
that
are
necessary
due
to
recent
city,
code
updates
and
state
and
federal
legislation,
as
well
as
to
increase
clarity
and
consistency
within
the
zoning
ordinance.
Q
Recently,
the
City
Council
adopted
the
short
term
rental
ordinance
on
November,
13th,
2018
and
created
chapter
44,
so
staff
is
proposing
to
add
a
section
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
state.
This
is
a
permitted
use
and
with
no
zoning
permit
required
and
referred
to
the
chapter
44
for
specific
regulation
requirements,
staffs
also
proposing
to
add
the
definition
of
short-term
rentals.
That
is
also
in
Chapter
44
into
the
definitions
of
the
zoning
ordinance
for
communication
facilities
in
September
of
2018.
Q
The
FCC
passed
a
declaratory
ruling
restricting
cities,
regulatory
authority
of
wireless
facilities
in
the
right-of-way
and
on
our
public
property,
as
well
as
reducing
the
time
frame
for
reviewed
fees
and
discretionary
static
criteria
which
effectively
makes
this
process
administer.
Review
staff
proposes
to
remove
in
three
sections
of
the
code
the
words
including
to
add,
excluding
and
put
in
the
public
rights-of-way
for
zoning,
permit
review
of
wireless
facilities
and
continue
the
review
strictly
with
the
Public
Works
Department,
with
an
excavation
permit,
which
will
still
require
review
by
the
building
and
Planning
Department.
Q
Evie
charging
stations
were
passed
with
a
B
1236,
a
streamlining
law
that
requires
cities
to
expedite
permitting
of
e
V
charging
stations.
So
staff
is
proposing
adding
a
section
to
clarify
this
exemption
from
a
zoning
permit
and
refer
to
chapter
8
for
building
permit
requirements,
and
currently
it
is
not
clear
how
AV
charging
stations
and
ad
a
parking
spaces
are
counted
in
the
total
required
parking
spaces.
Q
Staffs
also
proposing
to
amend
this
figure
of
the
parking
stalls.
Striping
graphic.
The
parking
stripes,
as
you
see,
are
noted
to
be
18
inches
from
an
outside
edge
to
outside
edge,
and
the
stripes
are
supposed
to
be
four
inch.
Stripes
each
in
the
interior
dimension
was
showing
12
inches
and
if
you
do
the
math
there,
the
four
and
four
and
twelve
do
not
equal
18.
Q
So
we
would
amend
that
the
dimension
there
does
show
10
inches
so
that
it
will
equal
the
appropriate
18
inches
staff
is
proposing
to
include
a
height
exception
for
roof
screens,
specifically
because
currently
it
is
pointed
out
in
the
height
limit
section
that
parapet
walls
can
extend
4
feet
above
the
maximum
building
height
and
a
parapet.
Wall
is
a
low
wall
that
is
part
of
the
exterior
wall
of
a
building
and
can
be
used
to
screen
equipment
or
add
an
architectural
detail.
Q
Roof
screens
are
are
usually
more
interior
to
the
rooftop
and
are
used
to
screen
larger
utility
equipment
as
you'll
see
in
the
diagrams,
the
top
showing
the
parapet
wall
and
lower
image,
showing
what
a
roof
screen
would
look
like.
So
staff
is
proposing
to
include
a
specific
section
that
calls
out
that
rooftop
screens
could
extend
above
the
maximum
building
height
to
be
the
net.
The
least
amount
necessary
to
fully
screen
equipment,
but
put
a
maximum
up
to
10
feet,
and
this
is
a
demonstration
to
show
what
that
has
looked
like.
Q
This
is
an
office
project
on
Terra,
Bella
and
Northshore
line
1001
with
shore
line
that
you
can
see
the
detail
on
the
right.
That's
showing
the
building
height
was
up
to
65
feet
and
an
additional
8
feet
of
a
roof
screen
was
added
there
to
screen
the
HVAC
equipment
and
there
was
a
telecommunication
facility
that
was
screened
inside
there
as
well.
Q
So
staff
is
proposing
to
add
a
section
to
specify
that
mechanical
mechanical
equipment,
such
as
an
AC
unit,
to
be
allowed
only
in
the
side
or
rear,
set
back
three
feet
from
the
property
line
not
allowed
in
the
front
yard
or
visible
from
the
public
street
and
can
be
allowed
in
the
street
side
yard,
set
back
within
a
fenced
yard.
So
the
diagram
here
illustrates
where
you
could
potentially
see
something
like
an
AC
unit.
Q
Q
The
MLM
and
PF
districts
have
duplicate
information
for
the
building
mounted
and
freestanding
monument
signs.
So
staff
is
proposing
to
remove
the
depth
the
duplicate
information
for
added
clarity
of
the
requirements
and,
in
conclusion,
staff
is
recommending
that
the
EPC
adopt
a
resolution
recommending
that
the
City
Council
approved
minor
zoning
text,
amendments
to
chapter
36
of
the
city
code
for
improved
clarity
and
consistency
with
legislative
updates
to
be
read
in
title.
Q
Only
further
reading
waived
exhibit
1
of
the
staff
report,
with
the
modification
presented
by
staff
on
October,
2nd
2019,
revising
Section,
3612,
55
H
for
the
amount
of
mechanical
equipment
and
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
approved
text
amendments
to
the
r4
multi-family
standards
to
be
right
in
title.
Only
further
reading
waived
exhibit
2
of
the
staff
report
and
that
and
staffs
presentation.
B
Does
anyone
well
first,
let
me
just
say
that
I
did
have
a
phone
call
with
Lindsay
and
other
staff
members
before
the
hearing
tonight
and
had
asked
for
clarifying.
You
know
illustration
of
the
rooftop
screening
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
showing
that
to
me.
That's
alleviated
any
concerns.
I
have
on
that
area,
so
I'll
just
open
it
up
to
other
commissioners
as
to
whether
they
have
particular
areas
of
concern
that
they
would
like
to
discuss
on
these
minor
code.
Amendments.
B
R
So
currently,
the
code
allows
for
a
4-foot
parapet,
but
not
all
buildings
are
suited
to
have
parapet
walls,
nor
does
it
make
sense
for
all
equipment
type.
So,
by
adding
this
language
are
trying
to
add
clarity
that
it's
an
option
to
have
a
roof
screen.
We
capped
it
at
10
feet
just
to
have
a
cap
and
it
makes
sense
for
the
type
of
telecom
facilities
that
we
see
proposed
on
rooftops
of
commercial
buildings.
They
tend
to
need
the
extra
length
to
have
the
antennas,
for
example,
questioning.
D
R
Part
of
it
is
the
visual,
even
though
it
a
roof
screen
may
be
proposed
at
10
feet
from
the
street
or
from
the
sidewalk
perspective.
It
wouldn't
read
as
10
feet
since
its
interior
to
the
footprint
of
the
building
yeah,
it's
kind
of
a
sight
line
thing
from
the
sidewalk.
If
you
were
an
average
person
looking
up
any.
B
F
D
F
D
Resolution
recommending
that
the
City
Council
approve
minor
zoning
text,
amendments
to
chapter
36,
joining
hortons
of
the
city
code
for
improved
clarity
and
consistent
see
what
legislative
updates
to
be
written.
Only
further
reading
wave
exhibit
one
at
the
staff
report,
with
modification
presented
by
staff
on
October
2
2019,
revising
Section,
3612,
55,
H
mechanic,
Whitman
and
a
resolution
recommending
the
City
Council
approved
text
amendments
to
the
arm
for
multifamily
standards
to
be
written
title
only
further
weaving.
What
reading
waved
exhibit
two
of
the
staff
report?
D
B
And
seconded
by
Commissioner,
Cabrales:
okay,
let's
take
the
boat.
Well
I
mean
do
we
want
to
do
this
just
by
a
show
of
hands,
because
we've
had
problems
with
the
equipment
before
I'll?
Do
a
roll
call
vote
dock
Commissioner,
Cabrales,
Commissioner
Lowe,
mr.
Yin?
Yes,
Commissioner,
Cranston
and
I
also
vote
yes,
so
it
passes
5-0
with
two
commissioners:
absent:
okay,
so
I'll
close
item
5.2
and
then,
let's
move
on
to
item
six
Commission
staff,
announcements,
updates,
requests
and
committee
reports,
as
are
the
reports
from
staff,
so
I
just
wanted.
R
R
There
will
be
one
study
session
item
where
we
will
introduce
and
talk
about
SB
743,
the
vehicle
miles,
traveled
or
VMT
discussion,
and
then
we
will
have
a
public
hearing
as
well
that
night
for
the
Terra
Bella
visioning
plan.
So
we
will
be
seeking
a
recommendation
from
EPC
on
that
and
just
that
I
think
we've
sent
out
a
survey
for
the
holiday
party
mm-hmm,
so
just
making
sure.
B
E
I
B
Association
here
in
Mountain
View,
we
held
our
second
annual
heritage,
harvest
festival
at
Heritage
Park
on
last
Saturday,
and
it
was
well
attended
and
many
thanks
to
the
city
staff
members
that
helped
us
put
all
of
that
together
and
I
also
need
to
remember.
But
I'd
forgot
it
tonight.
The
two
of
the
commissioners
were
given
copies
of
our
history
of
mountain
view
that
I
didn't
bring
tonight,
but
everybody
else
got
one
so,
commissioner,
Cabrales
and
mister,
and
make
sure
that
you
get
those
for
me.
So
and
that's
that's.