►
From YouTube: November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
2Nd
2022
meeting
of
the
environmental
Planning
Commission
of
the
city
of
Mountain
View
at
701
pm
during
this
declared
State
of
Emergency.
The
meeting
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
California
government
code,
54953e
AS
authorized
by
resolution.
All
members
of
EPC
are
participating
in
this
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members.
B
A
Public
wishing
to
observe
the
meeting,
May
do
so
live
at
mountainview.lightingstar.com
on
YouTube,
at
mountainview.gov
YouTube
and
on
Comcast
channel
26..
As
noted
in
the
meeting
agenda,
members
of
the
public
May
provide
oral
public
comments
during
the
public
comment
period
of
an
item
by
joining
the
zoom
webinar
with
the
webinar
ID
of.
A
D
D
A
Agenda
is
the
minutes
we'll
be
reviewing
the
minutes
from
August
17th
and
October
19th
2022
meetings.
Do
any
Commissioners
have
any
comments
or
questions
I'd
like
to
discuss
on
the
minutes
as
they
were
distributed.
A
A
Up
to
public
comment
would
any
member
on
the
line
like
to
comment
on
this
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
start
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
mute
themselves
with
star
six.
Ppc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
If
you
have
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
the
minutes,.
E
Sure
can
we
do
them
together.
E
Just
wanted
to
make
sure
it's
been
a
little
while
I
moved
to
adopt
the
August
17th
and
October
19th
2022
meeting
minutes
as
submitted
by
staff
in
the
staff
report.
A
F
A
G
H
B
A
All
right
so
we'll
move
on
to
item
four
oral
Communications.
This
portion
of
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
EPC
on
a
matter
that
is
not
on
the
agenda.
This
evening,
speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
any
non-agenda
item
when
memory
any
member
of
the
public,
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
a
non-agenda
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
him
button
in
Zoom
or
press
star.
A
A
E
F
I
did
meet
with
the
proposing
oh
geez,
the
person
who
is
proposing
and
I
didn't
visit
the
site,
but
I
have
been
there
in
the
past
and
I
Google
locked.
It.
A
Okay,
commissioner
Dempsey.
K
I've
been
to
the
site
a
few
times,
I
believe
I
I
didn't
meet
with
the
applicant
this
time
around,
but
I
believe
I've
met
with
them
before
when
they
were
originally
proposing.
This
a
few
years.
L
B
A
And
I
met
briefly
with
the
applicant
and
I
drive
by
the
site
at
least
once
a
week,
so
I've
seen
it
quite
a
bit.
So
so
we
will
start
with
a
presentation
from
Edgar
maravia
senior
planner
and
Rebecca
Shapiro
Deputy
zoning
administrator.
H
The
project
parcel
is
located
on
the
south
corner
of
Montecito
Avenue
and
North
Shoreline
Boulevard.
It
is
an
exterior
parcel,
approximately
1.04
acres
and
has
an
existing
12
300
square
foot
vacant
two-story
office
building,
which
is
proposed
to
be
redeveloped
into
an
85
unit,
100,
affordable
housing
project,
the
parcel
surrounded
by
multiple
uses,
including
a
shopping
center,
anchored
by
a
Safeway
grocery
store
to
the
north,
a
three-story
multi-family
residential
project
to
the
South,
a
self-car
wash
to
the
East
and
a
two-story
multi-family
residential
project
to
the
West.
H
This
is
a
no-fa
project
that
was
allocated
City
funds
and
therefore
has
gone
through
two
additional
meetings.
As
shown
in
this
Slide,
the
project
was
presented
at
the
near
was
presented
at
a
neighborhood
meeting
on
January
14
2021,
presented
to
the
nofa
Review
Committee
on
June
7
2021,
presented
to
city
council
for
funding
reservations
on
June
22
2021,
presented
at
two
development
review
committee
meetings
held
on
November
2021
and
July
2022.
Today's
environmental
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
city
council
is
tentatively
scheduled
for
December
6
2022..
H
The
project
is
a
100,
affordable
housing
project
proposing
85
units.
The
site
has
an
existing
General
plan,
designation
of
neighborhood
commercial
in
a
zoning
designation
of
CN
neighborhood
commercial,
not
allowing
for
residential
uses
to
allow
residential
uses.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
general
plan
map
amendment
to
high
density
residential
and
a
Zony
map
amendment
to
R4
high
density
residential.
The
project
has
also
been
processed
by
way
of
a
developer
view.
Permit
a
Heritage
tree
removal
permit
to
remove
six
Heritage
trees
located
within
the
proposed
building
footprint
in
the
bio
retention
areas.
H
H
Here's
the
side
plan
parking
for
the
site
is
provided
in
an
at
grade,
Podium
garage
level
tucked
behind
the
building
area,
with
a
race
entry
Plaza
along
the
Montecito
Avenue
Frontage
vehicle
access
to
the
garage
is
provided
via
single
driveway
entrance
to
and
from
Montecito
Avenue
along
the
Westerly
property
line.
The
project
includes
a
bicycle
room
facing
North
Shoreline
Boulevard,
allowing
for
easy
access
shown
in
blue.
H
There
are
also
several
open
space
amenities,
including
a
small
gathering
space
with
a
barbecue
area
in
the
southwest
corners
shown
in
Orange,
a
children's
play
array
and
other
smaller
amenity
space
shown
in
yellow
these
spaces
are
connected
via
exterior
stairs
to
a
larger
landscape,
Podium
Courtyard.
On
the
second
level,
the
project
also
includes
off-site
sidewalk
upgrades,
specifically,
the
sidewalk
width
will
be
extended
from
5
feet
to
10
feet
to
accommodate
landscape
and
10.
H
Overall,
the
project
is
compliant
with
the
applicable
R4
zonium
regulations
pursuant
to
prohibitions
of
the
state
density
bonus
law,
the
R4
standards
allow
up
to
80
units
per
acre
and
84
units
per
the
parcel
size.
The
project
is
proposing
85
units,
one
more
than
the
allowed
City
density.
For
that
reason,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
1.2
percent
State
density
bonus.
Additionally
per
state
density,
bonus
law,
the
project
qualifies
for
four
incentives,
flash
concessions
and
unlimited
waivers.
The
project
is
only
requesting
one
concession:
to
provide:
no
additional
personal
storage.
H
The
proposed
unit
will
include
bedroom
closets
and
some
units
have
additional
common
area
closets,
but
no
additional
personal
storage
would
be
provided.
The
project
site
is
located
within
half
a
mile
of
a
major
Transit
stop,
and
that
is
the
downtown
Transit.
Center,
thereby
it
qualifies
for
a
state
density,
bonus
parking
requirement
which
are
half
a
space
per
unit.
This
project
is
only
required
to
provide
44
parking
spaces
and
they
are
providing
45.
again.
Overall,
the
project
is
compliant
with
the
applicable
R4,
selenium
regulations
pursuant
to
prohibitions
of
the
state
density,
bonus
law.
H
M
I
I
will
be
a
Marvel
Ang
I'm
with
Charities
housing.
Also
with
me
is
Kathy
Robinson
and
Edgar
I
think
you're
in
the
controls
right.
If
you
could
also
Elevate
Joe
ahead
as
a
palace
I
don't
see
him
on
here
should.
M
All
right:
can
everyone
see
that
yep?
Okay,
thank
you
well
good
evening.
Commissioners,
first
and
foremost,
I
want
to
thank
Edgar,
Rebecca
and
entire
planning
staff
on
all
their
hard
work
on
the
project.
It's
been
a
journey
but
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
we're
all
very
happy
and
with
the
resulting
projects
so
again,
I'm
Marvel,
Ang,
I'm,
a
senior
project
manager
at
charities.
Housing
here
with
me,
is
Kathy
Robinson
and
Joe
head
from
Charities
housing
and
also
Kevin
Bassett
from
Studio
ER
architect.
M
M
We
have
we
primarily
work
in
the
South
Bay
Area.
One
thing
I
would
highlight:
is
we
own
and
manage
all
of
our
affordable
communities?
That's
something
we
take
great
pride
in.
You
know
we
build
in
the
community
and
really
become
part
of
the
community
as
we
stay
with
the
development.
After
it's
built,
we
primarily
serve
extremely
and
very
low
income
households.
Most
of
our
units
are
restricted,
income
restricted
between
zero
and
fifty
percent
area,
median
income
or
Ami.
M
We
originally
were
affiliated
with
Catholic
Charities,
but
Incorporated
in
1993,
and
so
we've
been
around
for
a
while.
Our
portfolio
Carly
includes
over
1400
homes
across
28
properties.
M
M
So
this
is
a
map
of
all
of
our
affordable
communities.
As
you
can
see,
we're
all
over
the
South
Bay
Area,
primarily
in
Santa
Clara
County.
You
can
see
we
have
projects
in
San,
Jose,
Santa,
Clara,
Campbell,
Los,
Gatos,
Pino,
Sunnyvale,
new
Mountain
View.
You
know
really
all
over
the
South
Bay
next
I'll
present
a
few
project
examples.
M
M
We've
built
nine
100,
affordable
housing
projects
over
the
Bay
Area,
and
here
are
some
pictures
of
a
few
of
those
projects,
and
I
will
highlight
two
next
that
we've
worked,
the
studio
e,
the
first
being
The
Veranda.
This
one
is
in
Cupertino.
We
completed
this
in
2019,
it's
three
stories:
18
Studio
units,
there's
six
permanent
supported
housing
units
or
psh.
The
affordability
range
is
the
two
thirty
percent
Ami.
This
is
actually
the
first
project
to
be
funded
and
completed
with
measure
rate
bond
funding.
M
The
next
two
UE
project,
or
the
second
one
I
mentioned-
is
the
Metropolitan.
This
one
is
in
San
Jose.
It
is
a
large
family
project
completed
in
2018
in
two
phases.
It's
four
stories
with
102
homes
and
as
a
large
family
project.
You
know,
50
of
the
units
are
two
and
three
bedrooms
and
there's
an
affordability
range
between
30
to
60
percent
am
I,
and
the
last
Charities
project
example
I'll
present
to
you
tonight
is
San
Antonio
place.
This
one
is
right
here
in
Mountain
View.
M
We
completed
this
in
2006,
it's
three
stories:
120
Studio
units,
40
psh
units
between
15
to
45,
Ami
and
cooler
restrictions.
M
So
I'll
briefly
go
over
a
few
project
highlights
you
know:
Edgar
did
a
great
job
going
over
it,
but,
as
you
know,
it's
a
100,
a
horrible
project,
85
units.
One
thing
I
highlight
is
it's
a
large
family
project,
something
we're
very
happy
to
be
able
to
present
to
you.
So
that
means
we
have
21
two
bedrooms
and
21
three
bedrooms.
We're
very
excited
about
that.
As
we
know
it's
in
need,
there
is
84,
affordable
homes
and
we're
looking
at
income.
Restrictions
between
30
to
60
percent
am
I.
M
The
target
population
is
going
to
be
families
of
children's
children
extremely
and
very
low
income
households,
and
we
are
anticipating
having
42
rapid
rehousing
units
in
the
project
through
the
County's
measure,
a
funding
just
a
few
amenities
to
highlight
here.
You
know
we
have
a
good
amount
of
common
and
private
open
space
with
residents
to
enjoy
large
community
room.
You
know
ground
floor
on-site,
laundry,
indoor,
secure
bike,
parking
on-site,
Property,
Management
Services
office
and
the
last
bullet.
Here
you
know
it's,
it's
a
really
great
location.
M
It's
right
across
the
street
from
Safeway,
it's
a
half
mile
from
a
lot
of
amenities,
including
public
transit
auctions,
bus
routes,
VTA
Light,
Rail,
Orange,
Line,
Caltrain,
Parks
Pharmacy.
You
know
an
elementary
school
oops
right
by
the
farmers
market
and
Castro
Street
and
a
lot
of
Community
Resources
such
as
a
community
service
agency.
It's
it's
a
you
know,
it's
really
just
a
wonderful
site
in
terms
of
sustainable
strategies.
These
are
our
typical
strategies.
You
know
we
recently
committed
to
building
all
100
electric
buildings
and
we
want
to
see
to
is
included.
M
We
look
to
provide
rooftop
solar
panels,
drought,
tolerated
plants,
stable
finishes,
EV
charging
stations,
secured
bike,
parking,
alternate
Transportation
methods
and
ultimately,
we
pursue
an
equivalent
to
weed
gold
and
and
Green
Point
gold
rating
went
better
and
at
all
of
our
developments,
are
our
residents
receive
services
from
Catholic
Charities
on
the
right
here
you
can
see
a
very
Abridged
list
of
services
they
provide.
We
also
strive
to
have
food
delivery
at
our
sites
and
for
our
special
needs
residents.
N
Thank
you
very
much
Marvel
and
the
good
evening.
Commissioners
Edgar
did
a
pretty
good
job
explaining
the
site,
so
I'll
try
and
go
over
some
of
the
details.
This
is
again
1265
Montecito.
It's
bordered
on
the
west
by
a
two-story
apartment,
building
to
the
South
by
a
three-story
apartment,
building
and
Safeway
across
the
street,
and
the
intersection
of
North
Shoreline
Boulevard.
N
The
massing
strategy
for
this
project
was
to
identify
the
maximum
zoning
envelope,
which
is
a
60-foot
height
limit,
with
15-foot
setbacks
on
all
four
sides
and
then
to
arrange
a
L-shaped
bar
of
double
loaded
units
along
the
north
and
west
property
lines.
And
then
the
key
moved
to
reduce
the
bulk
and
scale
of
the
building
was
to
split
that
into
two
which
allowed
us
to
increase
the
density
and
also
created
an
opportunity
to
run
landscaping
and
open
space
through
the
center
of
the
site.
N
At
the
back
and
over
the
last
two
years,
we've
worked
with
City
staff
to
further
refine
the
design
and
articulate
the
facade
with
recessed
private
balconies
parapits
that
step
in
and
out
and
up
and
down
bay
windows
facing
the
street
Frontage
lowered
building
volumes
at
the
corners
to
better
relate
to
the
lower
scale
existing
buildings
on
Montecito,
including
four-story
volumes
at
the
driveway
and
at
the
North
Shoreline
intersection,
and
further.
We
added
decorative
screens
awning
overhangs
and
accent,
siding
materials.
N
This
is
a
view
of
the
finished
project
showing
all
those
elements
together.
You
can
see
again
decorative
screens,
Eve
overhangs
parapet,
stepping
in
and
out
and
up
and
down
the
accent
volumes
that
are
clad
in
a
vertical
staggered:
fiber
cement,
Batten
siding
painted
with
an
accent
red
oxide
color.
N
N
On
the
driveway
side,
you
can
see
that
we've
employed
the
same
strategies
to
reduce
the
bulk
and
scale
and
add
Rhythm,
where
the
building
faces
the
two-story
apartments
and
lower
density
residential
to
the
West.
And
you
can
see
that
the
main
strategy
for
storm
water
retention
and
treatment
is
a
stormwater
Garden
along
the
Montecito
sidewalk,
which
will
have
planting
and
low
planting
to
create
a
buffer
between
the
common
spaces.
On
the
sidewalk.
N
N
And
then,
at
the
ground
floor
we
have
tucked
the
parking
into
the
middle
of
the
site
and
screened
it
with
a
combination
of
cast
in
Place
Ford,
formed
concrete
decorative
screens
and
put
a
bar
of
common
spaces,
including
the
common
room
offices,
Property
Management,
Lobby
and
mail
along
the
front,
the
front
of
the
site
to
activate
the
Montecito
Avenue
Frontage.
There's
an
entry
Plaza
off
Montecito.
N
You
can
see
the
bike
storage
to
the
left
or
the
right
of
the
entry
Plaza
and
behind
that
is
the
at
grade
managers
unit
with
a
private
patio
and
its
own
entry
porch
at
the
very
rear
of
the
site.
You
see
the
rear
play
area
with
the
on-site
laundry
room
immediately,
adjacent
for
supervising
children
and
all
the
utilities
are
pushed
to
the
very
back
of
the
site
at
the
end
of
the
driveway,
including
trash
electric
rooms
and
fire
pumps.
Mechanical.
N
These
are
eye
level
perspectives
along
Montecito
likely
from
the
Safeway
parking
lot
again.
You
can
see
the
architectural
strategy
to
bring
the
eye
down
through
the
use
of
projecting
awnings
over
the
balconies
parapits
that
step
in
and
out
to
modulate
the
roof
line
attention
plate
paid
to
transparency
along
the
ground
floor,
especially
at
the
community
room
where
there's
large,
double
glazed
french
doors
and
also
the
idea
of
creating
a
welcoming
entry,
patio
or
entry
Plaza.
Excuse
me.
N
This
is
a
close-up
view
of
the
entry
Plaza
showing
an
accessible
ramp
up
to
the
entry
door,
which
also
accesses
the
bike,
storage,
and
you
can
see
a
sight
stair
with
an
entry
trellis
welcoming
residents
and
guests
in
from
the
street,
and
both
of
these
elements
span
over
our
stormwater
Garden,
which
is
landscaped
and
provides
a
landscape
Frontage
along
Montecito.
N
And
the
final
image
today
is
a
view
of
the
rear
of
the
project
from
Shoreline,
where
you
can
see
the
same
Strategies
employed
on
the
back
staggered
parapets
accidents,
accent,
materials
at
the
receding,
portions
of
the
facade,
staggered
Windows,
mixed
with
stacked
windows
and
stepped
down
volumes
at
the
corners.
Thank
you.
I
Hi,
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
so
I
have
a
quick
question.
What
made
you
go
for
this
type
of
place
structure
as
opposed
to
a
traditional
one,.
N
O
And
I
would
just
add
shining
chiming
in
that
I
believe
this
was
actually
a
topic
of
discussion
when
the
project
came
through
for
funding
authorization
with
city
council
and
the
naturalistic
play
structure
idea
was
something
that
got
a
lot
of
positive
feedback
through
that
process
as
well.
I
Cool
I
just
want
to
double
check
that
so
that
for
those
of
us
who
weren't
part
of
the
process
would
know
this
had
been
covered
and
then
a
friendly
reminder
that
maybe
about
a
block
away,
there's
two
schools
with
a
lot
of
actual
play
structures
and
traditional
ones
as
well,
so
I
think
I
think
you
did
a
good
job
on
that
front.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah,
just
two
really
quick
questions.
First
question
for
the
applicant
I
just
wanted
to
ask
about
closets.
If
I
understand
it.
G
There's
not
going
to
be
closet
space
set
aside
for
the
units.
I
thought
that
was
an
interesting
choice
and
I
can
understand
why
you
would
do
it
because
it
means
you
can
get
more
units
in
there,
which
means
we
have
some
more
people.
Do
any
of
your
other
units
that
you've
already
built
follow
the
same
model.
We
don't
have
closets
and
how
has
that
worked
out?
I'm,
just
sort
of
curious
to
know
in
your
experience?
What
is
that
meant
for
tenants
who
live
without
closets.
M
I
can
speak
a
bit
to
Charities
experience.
You
know
the
project
we
do
have
closets
in
the
bedroom
and
I
think
we
have
can
we
have
like
coat
closets
and
things
to
that
effect.
So
there
is
Storage
in
the
units.
The
concession
really
is
that
you
know
we
did
not
want
to
provide.
M
Feet
requirement,
as
you
know,
in
our
experience
we,
you
know
the
amount
of
storage
that
we're
providing
is
similar
to
the
projects
that
we
have
in
general,
and
you
know,
as
I
mentioned,
Studio
Ian.
We
work
together
a
lot
so
this
this.
This
is
a
design
that
has
worked
in
our
previous
projects.
It's
been
adequate
storage
and
has
a
proven
track
record
and,
as
you
alluded
to
you
know,
between
that
and
the
choice
of
adding
more
units
reducing
overall
costs.
You
know
it
was
pretty
clear
that
this
was
a
concession
that
made
sense.
G
Thank
you
for
clearing
that
up,
I
apologize
that
I
had
it
wrong
sounds
like
you
just
have
kind
of
smaller
than
regulation
closets.
But
so
that's
fine.
Thank
you
and
the
last
question
I
had
was
for
staff.
There
was
a
I
think,
an
email
we
had
gotten
from
the
public.
Somebody
was
worried
about
jaywalking
I'm
curious
to
know
if
staff
has
put
any
thought
into
whether
there
would
need
to
be
a
mid-block
crosswalk.
H
Great
question
I
I
did
reach
out
to
the
public
works
department
and
get
it
there
Insight
on
this.
In
this
particular
case,
they
did
not
take
into
consideration
a
mid
block
Crossing,
as
those
are
typically
placed
a
minimum
of
400
feet
from
lighted
intersections
and
as
there
is
a
light
intersection
there
at
the
corner
of
moncito
Avenue
and
North
Shoreline
Boulevard.
So
that's
the
reason
behind
that.
F
Yes,
yes,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions.
Commissioner
Dempsey
had
brought
up
the
storage
and
I.
Had
one
question
about
the
storage
and
I
was
going
to
ask
the
architect
I
know
you
had
said
that
there
you
felt
that
there
was
enough
storage,
but
in
my
experience
at
least
especially
for
families,
it's
really
hard
to
just
use
the
the
code
closets,
because
there's
just
you
know
larger
items.
F
I
was
wondering
when
you
said
common
storage,
where
that
was
because
it
doesn't
have
to
necessarily
be
80
square
feet
per
unit
but
or
per
person
per
unit.
I
believe
it
was,
but
I
was
wondering
if
there
were
some
nooks
and
crannies,
where
we
could
find
a
bit
of
storage
that
maybe
people
who
need
it
could
then
have
a
locker
or
something
and
padlock
it
is
that
something
that
is
possible.
N
Yes,
I
mean
I,
think
we
we
quickly
realized
well,
I
guess
I
would
add.
We
are
providing
bike
storage
for
one
bike
for
every
for
every
unit,
so
a
total
of
85
racks.
So
in
a
sense
that
is
storage,
our
storage
is
also
proportional
to
the
size
of
the
unit.
So
the
studios
get
a
closet.
The
one
bedrooms
get
a
closet
plus
a
smaller
hall
closet
and
then
the
two
and
three
bedrooms
actually
have
fairly
sizable
closets
in
the
hallway.
N
The
requirement
for
the
zoning
was
to
provide
160
cubic
feet
or
80
square
feet,
so
just
to
put
it
in
perspective,
we're
we
are
providing
a
fair
amount
of
of
closet
space
in
a
thousand
square
foot
three
bedroom
unit
between
that
and
the
the
bike
storage.
You
know
we
understand
that
there's
bulky
items
that
are
hard
to
find
a
place
for,
but
again
we're
forced
to
make
trade-offs
every
day
with
a
lot
of
competing
interests,
one
of
which
being
Financial
feasibility
and
and
providing
as
many
affordable
units
as
we
can.
N
F
We
understand
yeah,
it's
it's
good,
that
you
have
like
slightly
more
per
unit
than
in
terms
of
closet
space
that
you'd
normally
have,
and
that
might
help
sort
of
alleviate
the
issue
there.
F
Typically,
the
barbecue
areas
are
kind
of
near
the
space
where
people
can
kind
of
hang
out
and
sit
down
and
eat
be
together
and
since
it's
so
far
back
kind
of
near
the
trash
cans,
it's
very
very
far
from
the
the
open
space
I
was
wondering,
if
that's
even
necessary,
perhaps
there's
a
way
to
move
the
trash
over
to
that
zone
and
then
therefore
free
up
some
space
near
the
laundry
room
for
some
just
a
little
bit
of
storage.
N
I
think
the
idea
with
the
barbecue
speaking
on
behalf
of
our
landscape
architect,
was
to
just
provide
a
variety
of
spaces
where
people
could
do
different
things
right.
So
the
idea
with
the
barbecue
pit
is
that
it's
relatively
nearby
the
play
area
and
the
laundry
and
you
know
as
for
trash
the
trash
is
inside
a
room.
So
it's
not
as
if
they're
right
next
to
an
open
enclosure,
but
that's
a
good
idea
and
we'll
take
it
under
consideration.
O
Some
of
its
location
is
defined
by
the
the
points
in
the
building
where
on
each
floor,
residents
can
access
the
the
traffic.
F
O
F
F
So
if
there's
a
better
use
for
it,
I'm
all
for
it
too
I
don't
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
residents
might
prefer,
but
since
they're
not
living
there.
Yet
it's
kind
of
hard
for
them
to
provide.
B
F
Input,
okay,
also
in
the
drawings
I
noticed
that
on
the
floors,
there's
something
called
a
wh
is
that
the
the
trash
chute
area,
or
so
in.
N
Order
in
order
to
provide
an
all-electric
building,
one
of
the
major
energy
demands
is
water
heating,
water,
heater.
Okay.
So,
instead
of
instead
of
a
central
boiler,
we
actually
have
trios
of
electric
heat
pump
water
heaters
every
four
units.
So
that's
what
those
are.
Okay,.
I
Thank
you.
Yes,
a
quick
follow-up
question
in
terms
of
the
bike
storage,
so
we've
got
a
lot
of
two
and
three
bedroom
units,
which
means
hopefully
we'll
have
a
lot
of
families.
That'll
be
part
of
the
community
and
you
know
there's
a
school
close
by
and
we're
happy
with
over
two
of
them,
which
is
nice.
So
here's
my
question
right.
If
you're,
if
I
understood
you
correctly,
I
think
you
mentioned
one
bike
per
unit,
but
many
cases
when
there's
more
than
one
child
there's
more
than
one
bike.
I
M
Thanks
for
the
question
so
I,
you
know
you
you
kind
of
hit
it
on
the
head.
We
don't
expect
every
unit
necessarily
to
have
a
bike
or
use
it,
so
we
do
try
to
be
flexible.
Of
course
we
try
to
let
everyone
that
needs
bike
space
to
use
it,
but
you
know
we
do
expect
to
have
extra,
so
some
of
them
would
be
able
to
use
the
the
Extra
Spaces
and,
and
that
that
is,
you
know,
part
of
that
solution.
M
G
Yeah
I
I
can't
believe
I
have
more
storage
questions.
Do
your
lease
agreements
allow
tenants
to
store
personal
property
on
those
little
tiny,
balconies
I
think
some
of
the
units
have
small
balconies.
Do
I
understand
that
correctly
they.
K
M
No
they're
not
yeah,
so
then
the
lease
agreement
they're
not
allowed
to
store.
You
know:
yeah
they're
not
allowed
to
store
property
on
personal
property,
as
you
put
it
on
the
balconies
of
course,
like
furniture
and
whatnot
patio
furniture
things
like
that,
it's
okay.
G
That's
fantastic
because
I
was
kind
of
worried.
If
you
didn't
have
enough
storage,
you
might
start
seeing
a
lot
of
boxes
creeping
up
on
the
balcony
and
that's
not
something
that
other
folks
are
going
to
want
to
look
at
I.
Think
the
my
other.
It's
really
more
of
a
comment
than
a
than
a
question.
Have
you
have
you
spent
any
time
thinking
about
given
the
storage
constraints,
putting
lockers
I?
Think
Vice,
chair
Yen
had
mentioned
something
about
lockers.
G
Putting
lockers
up
in
the
parking
spaces
right
at
the
very
edge
of
the
parking
space
have
seen
actually
other
apartment
buildings
that
have
those
is
that
something
that
you've
looked
at
to
give
people
a
little
bit
extra
storage
space
that
you
could
padlock?
N
N
Have
looked
at
it
in
great
detail
since
we
had
requested
the
concession,
but
under
these
parking
garages,
unlike
a
a
smaller
density
project,
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
mechanical
and
electrical
equipment,
so
they
would
have
to
be
dropped
down.
So,
in
short,
no,
we
haven't
looked
into
it
in
great
detail.
F
Apologies
my
hand
was
still
raised.
A
And
this
may
be
a
Rebecca
can
answer
this
because
she's
on
the
head
of
the
DRC
right,
they
I,
didn't
understand
in
the
description
of
the
property.
I
didn't
hear
stucco
anywhere
in
the
description
of
what's
there,
but
the
DRC
said
something
about
Brenda
work
in
Stucco.
I,
don't
get
it.
O
No
there's
a
but
there's
a
cementitious,
sorry
long
day,
I
was
at
DRC
earlier
today
there
are
stucco
components
of
the
building,
and
the
discussion
at
the
RCU
is
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
it
didn't
have
too
rough
a
texture
and
was
comparable
to
what
we
tend
to
see
in
in
other
developments
in
in
Mountain
View.
So
there
are
stucco
stucco
wall
surfaces,
I,
believe
the
white
wall
areas
that
you
see
on
the
elevation
are
are
one
of
the
key
areas
where
stucco
is
used.
O
It's
lower
levels:
the
west
elevation
where
the
entry
Drive
is
located,
the
fire
requirements
are
for
26
26
foot
wide
Lane
with
I,
think
it's
14
and
a
half
feet
of
vertical
clearance.
Edgar,
probably
it's
stamped
on
his
eyeballs,
but
so,
unfortunately,
the
the
second
floor
balcony
is
on
the
west.
The
west
elevation
specifically
had
to
be
removed
in
order
to
provide
for
compliant
fire
access,
while
retaining
the
landscape
buffer
along
the
western
Westerly
property
line,
where
there
are
existing
cypress
trees.
That
I
believe
the
project
will
be
retaining.
B
K
It's
just
a
quick
question
for
the
applicant
with
the
with
the
reservation
of
funding.
I
should
have
just
gone
back
to
the
to
the
prior
meetings
to
look,
but
with
the
reservation
of
funding
you're
assuming
all
goes
well,
do
you
need
to
go
out
for
other
funding
tax
credits,
those
sorts
of
things,
or
will
you
be
pretty
much
ready
to
go
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
timeline
and
help
are
you
or
how
far
we
are
from
realizing
this
project?
After
it's
all
approved.
M
Sure,
absolutely
after
we're
approved,
you
know
we
have
the
city
funding.
We
are
anticipating
County
funding
as
I
mentioned,
and
we're
also
hoping
to
allocate
project-based
vouchers
and
with
all
of
that
combined
and
entitlement
approvals,
we
are
hoping
to
apply
for
tax
credits
actually
the
first
round
of
next
year.
So
you
know
we
can.
That
would
mean
we
would
start
construction
at
the
end
of
2023
and
we
potentially
done
by
the
end
of
2025..
A
Now,
we'll
open
up
for
public
comment
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
in
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six.
Epc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
you
know:
do
we
have
any
people
looking
to
speak.
C
All
right,
David
Wilson,
you
may
speak
yeah.
P
Yep
hi
I'm,
David,
Watson
I,
actually
I'm
a
member
of
Mountain
View
yimby,
and
we
we
endorse
this
project,
we're
in
favor
of
it
not
only
that
I
actually
live
on
the
street.
You
know
I,
guess
two
blocks
away,
although
they're
pretty
long
blocks
and
I
really
like
this
project,
I'm
happy
to
see
it
I
walk
by
where
this
is
anytime.
I
want
to
walk
to
downtown
and
it'll
be
nice
for
there
to
be
a
new
building
there.
P
Instead
of
a
an
old,
an
old
one,
that'll
be
a
that'll,
be
terrific
I'll
be
happy
to
see
sidewalk
improvements
in
the
normal
stuff.
That
happens
when
there's
a
new
construction.
So
that's
all
terrific
I,
I
I'm,
not
sure
I,
have
much
more
to
say,
I.
Think
I'm
impressed
by
the
work
that
the
architect
did
to
fit
a
couple
more
units
by
by
splitting
up
that
L
shape.
That's
really
cool
with
the
bridge.
P
I
know
you're
you're
working
within
the
the
tough
constraints
of
the
Dual
staircase
mandate
and
you've
done
a
done
a
great
job
of
finding
finding
a
way
to
to
fit
just
a
couple,
more
units
which
is
really
really
great
to
see
so
Mountain
View
needs
more
more
housing
and
more
affordable
housing,
and,
and
this
is
it
and
I
like
to
see
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
All
right,
the
next
person
is
CJ
paymer.
You
can
speak
now.
D
Hi
I'm
Celia,
Palmer
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
green
spaces,
Mountain
View
love
that
there's
more
housing,
we're
always
looking
to
make
that
view
a
more
inclusive
place,
but
we
were
wondering
if
there
was
a
possibility
of
opening
up
the
hetch
hetchy
right-of-way
south
of
the
Montecito
property.
This
would
both
be
a
community
benefit
and
one
for
our
new
residents
as
well,
so
something
to
consider
as
well.
Thank
you.
K
Yeah
I'll
go
first
and
just
to
address
the
the
the
last
public
speaker,
I
totally
agree
with
you.
That
would
be
wonderful.
I
can
personally
attest
to
having
gone
to
battle
with
the
puc
over
that
strip
of
of
land
for
the
adjacent
project
a
number
of
years
ago
and
I
can
tell
you
that
Unfortunately
they
are,
they
are
they're
not
amenable
to
to
opening
that
up.
K
I
wish
they
were,
but
not
only
would
they
let
us
do
that,
but
they
also
almost
tanked
the
adjacent
subsidized
housing
project
over
it
because
of
the
the
parking
which
we
which
was
required
for
that
project,
so
in
any
case
a
wonderful
idea
but
I'm
afraid
unless
staff
knows
something
otherwise,
I
think,
unfortunately,
that
Avenue
is
closed.
The
the
sfpuc
is
not
amenable
to
doing
that
on
edge
hetchy.
As
far
as
I
know,
overall
I
think
this
is
a
great
project.
K
It's
been
great
to
watch
it
grow
and
evolve.
I
think
it's
a
really
great
use
of
the
layout
is
a
great
use
of
that
particular
parcel.
I
think
it
will
add
a
lot
and
it's
always
great
to
have
the
additional,
affordable
housing.
K
K
You
know
in
in
10
to
15
years,
and
it's
going
to
be
a
better
canopy
than
we
had
today
with
trees
that
don't
use
as
much
that
don't
require
as
much
water
like
redwoods,
do,
which
aren't
native
to
that
particular
area
and
and
re,
and
are
increasingly
due
to
droughts
in
poorer
and
poorer
health
and
are
difficult
to
remove
at
that
point.
So
I
think.
Overall,
the
trade-off
makes
sense
here.
I
understand
the
storage
concerns,
but
I
think
that's
a
that's.
K
A
a
fine
trade-off
in
terms
of
a
concession
I
can
attest
personally
that,
especially
during
the
pandemic,
that
any
storage
that
isn't
in
a
unit
that's
secured
is
a
prime
theft
Target.
So
anything
in
a
garage
complex
where
I
live
in.
You
know
people
don't
sneak
into
the
garage
to
go
break
in
the
cars
they
sneak
into
the
garage
to
break
open.
All
the
storage
cages
cut
the
locks
and
and
go
out
and
just
take
everything
out
so
as
much
as
I
love
storage.
K
Anything
that
isn't
provided
in
a
unit
is,
unfortunately,
a
creates.
A
prime
deaf
Target
and
a
security
concern
so
overall
I'm
supportive
of
the
project
I'm
happy
to
when
folks
have
have
said
their
piece,
I'm
happy
to
move
the
staff
recommendation,
but
I
won't
do
that
right
now
with
everyone
else,
chime
in
first
yeah.
F
Yes,
I
agree
that
generally,
this
is
a
very
nice
project.
I
think
it's
pretty
clever
how
they
did
the
split
to
make
use
of
the
the
lot
shape
and
it
provides
a
break
in
a
wall
That's
much
taller
than
what
is
there
now.
F
So
it
makes
them
more
comfortable
as
you're
walking
down
the
sidewalk,
which
I
also
appreciate
we've
added
the
greenery
and
I
do
like
the
storm
water
and
Landscape
planter
idea
to
take
care
of
some
of
the
drainage
yeah
aside
from
Storage,
which
you
know
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
going
to
be
practical
and
usable
and
whether
or
not
there
were
ways
we
can
just
Cloud
a
little
storage
for
those
who
might
need
it.
F
F
It
just
came
to
me:
I
know
that
there's
a
right-of-way
on
the
corner
and
when
you're
on
the
site,
you
can
see
a
well-worn
path
that
people
take
as
a
shortcut
around
I
was
wondering
if
the
city
had
any
plans
to
sort
of
formalize
that
and
make
that
area
a
little
bit.
O
I'll,
let
Edgar
chime
in
if
I'm,
remembering
incorrectly
but
I
I
know
that
plot
of
land
did
come
up
in
discussions
with
the
applicant.
There
were
questions
about
whether
it
could
be
incorporated
into
the
site
or
you
know,
improved
with
Landscaping.
One
of
the
things
we
learned
from
our
Public,
Works,
stuff,
or
rather
reminded
of
by
our
Public
Works
stuff,
is
they're
working
on.
O
You
know
the
broader
Shoreline
Boulevard
Corridor
improvements
and
the
Montecito
Shoreline
Sterling
intersection
is
at
some
point
in
the
future
slated
to
get
some
improvements,
and
so
our
Public
Works
felt
it
important
to
to
you
know
Reserve
that
space,
knowing
that
that
that
intersection
was
going
to
to
see
changes
in
the
future.
Okay.
F
Great,
thank
you
in
general,
yes,
I'll,
be
supporting
the
project.
J
Yeah
I
will
be
happy
to
support
this
project.
G
And
I
would
just
add
You
know,
despite
all
my
fetching
about
about
storage,
I,
actually
think
this
is
a
wonderful.
This
is
a
wonderful
project.
I,
don't
we
don't
get
to
see
100
affordables
come
through
here.
You
know
every
two
weeks,
so
this
is
it's
kind
of
a
special
thing
and
the
fact
that
it's
got
an
emphasis
on
larger
families
with
the
larger
two
and
three
bedroom
units,
that's
fantastic.
We
need
that
and
those
families
need
that.
G
So
you
know
forget:
I
complained
about
all
the
storage.
What
you're
doing
really
is
wonderful
and
it's
going
to
be
really
good
for
Mountain,
View
and
I'm
really
excited
about
it's
a
good.
It's
a
good
location.
You're
gonna
end
up
with
about
four
to
one
on
planting
more
trees.
That's
wonderful,
and
it's
going
to
be
great
in
15
years
and
particularly
I'm
really
glad
to
see
that
the
city
is
contributing
money
to
this
project.
I
love
it
that
we
are
gonna.
G
You
know
we're
gonna,
walk
the
talk
and
we're
gonna
help
make
this
happen.
So
I'm
going
to
be
proud
to
support
this.
This
project
tonight,
yeah.
E
Just
to
Echo,
my
fellow
commissioner,
is
really
excited
to
support
this
project
and
it's
a
fairly
narrow
project,
parcel
and
I.
Think
the
design
is
innovative
and
just
so
excited
that
it'll
be
close
to
a
lot
of
services,
and
so
here
that
Public
Works
has
this
intersection
on
the
list
for
future
improvements.
So
great
project
I'm
excited
to
have
it
built
and
I
think
the
timeline
was
expedited
from
what
I
had
last
checked
in
on
this.
So
Enzo
2025
isn't
that
far
away.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Gutierrez.
I
Thank
you,
sir.
Yes,
so
my
only
question
is
for
the
applicant:
hey:
do
you
have
any
more
yeah?
Can
you
pitch
in
with
more
any
additional
sites
about
I
mean
if
you,
you
have
future
potential
here
and
I?
Think
you'll
have
a
city
government,
along
with
an
EPC,
that's
open
to
these
ideas,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
ability
to
bring
something
online.
That's
realistic,
that's
doable
and
then
it
has
also
involved
Partnerships
throughout
the
city
and
the
county.
That
always
is
a
key
for
me.
I
A
Particular
the
larger
units
is
something
that
really
appealed
to
me.
So
unless
there
are
other
comments,
I
will
have
my
endorsements
by
asking
commissioner
Clark.
If
you'd
like
to
now
actually
make
a
motion.
Okay,.
I
C
A
Q
Q
Q
This
temporary
office
limit
applies
to
new
construction
and
additions
associated
with
office
development.
Only
the
limit
does
not
apply
to
residential
or
other
commercial
uses
such
as
retail
restaurants.
Staff
would
like
to
clarify
that
this
would
also
not
make
existing
offices
non-conforming,
so
they
would
not
be
impacted
by
these
proposed
amendments.
Additionally,
certain
projects
would
be
Exempted
from
this
.35
far
limit,
such
as
small
additions
for
building
upgrades
government-owned
property
projects
with
a
development
agreement
and
currently
entitled
projects.
Q
This
limitation
is
only
temporary
and
is
proposed
to
Sunset
December
31st
2024,
to
allow
staff
to
implement
policies
to
manage
parking
and
create
incentives
to
improve
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance
in
downtown
the
city's
already
going
through
a
downtown
precise
plan,
Amendment,
which
are
limited
in
scope
and
only
limited
to
certain
areas
in
downtown.
This
proposed
amendment
to
cap
office
development
is
separate
as
it
covers
all
of
downtown
and
focuses
specifically
on
impacts
of
office
development.
Q
So
the
intent
of
the
amendments
are
to
help
improve
the
jobs.
Housing
balance
manage
parking
impacts
from
employment,
generating
uses
such
as
large
Office
Buildings,
while
finding
the
appropriate
balance
of
daytime
population
from
Office
uses
to
support
retail
and
restaurants
in
downtown
to
provide
some
context
to
this
amendment.
Here's
a
brief
overview
of
the
ongoing
Trends
in
downtown.
Over
the
years.
The
city
has
seen
a
growing
trend
of
new
large-scale
office
developments
in
downtown,
such
as
the
recently
approved
590
Castro
Street
project.
Q
Q
The
Inland
fees
are
intended
to
help
the
city
pay
for
a
new
parking
structure.
If
additional
parking
is
needed
in
2020,
the
city
adopted
the
Downtown
parking
strategy
to
create
a
framework
to
continue
managing
Downtown
parking
alvare
with
the
passage
of
new
state
legislation.
Ab2097
such
state-led
bills
prohibits
the
city's
ability
to
have
minimum
parking
requirements
or
charge
an
in-move
fee
payment
for
sites
near
major
Transit
stops
such
as
the
mountain
view
downtown
Transit
Center.
Q
Q
E
Thank
you,
I
just
have
a
handful
of
questions
and
maybe
starting
with
the
the
largest
one
first
I'm,
trying
to
understand
the
urgency
for
this
I
know
that
there's
some
staff
planning
that
needs
to
happen,
and
but
maybe
you
can
help
me
understand
why
why
this
two-year
period
is
so
critical
and
and
what
would
happen
to
the
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline
right
now
and
we
got
a
couple
of
public
comment,
letters
from
proposals
that
are
in
the
works,
so
I'd
love
to
hear
from
staff
on
those
two
items
and
then
my
final
question
would
be
around
the
timing
at
the
transit
center.
R
Sure
well,
I'll
start
with
the
simplest
I.
Don't
have
any
updates
on
the
transit
center.
Okay,
our
master
plan.
Unfortunately,
I,
can
look
into
that
and
maybe
report
Back
to
Future
meeting.
The
urgency
is
really
about
the
you
know.
The
this
new
state
law
was
just
adopted
and
goes
into
effect
in
January,
so
I
think
that's
a
major
factor.
R
I
think
the
the
tenor
of
concern
from
the
community
and
from
Council
also
kind
of
prompted
quick
action
and
so
I
think
all
of
that
coming
together.
You
know
it.
It
really
is
the
this
is
an
opportunity
that
you
know
the
the
EPC
and
city
council
can
consider
for
kind
of
how
to
study
these
issues
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
R
We
do
expect
a
lot
of
interest
in
office
development
downtown
and
unfortunately
you
know
if,
if
a
lot
of
office
a
lot
of
underutilized
sites,
kind
of
move
forward
with
with
office
development,
we
may
lose
opportunities
for
residential
development
or
other
mix
of
uses
that
may
be
of
interest
so
really
just
acting
proactively
regarding
the
projects
under
review.
So,
as
of
the
date
that
this
project,
this
amendment
was
noticed,
we
didn't
have
any
projects
under
review.
That
would
be
negatively
impacted
by
this
Amendment.
R
However,
as
you
received
a
a
letter
from
one
group
that
was
interested
in
building
office
and
has
been
has
submitted
and
then
subsequently
withdrawn
applications
with
the
city,
they
have
now
submitted
an
application
as
of
a
couple
of
days
ago
for
a
new
office
development,
so
they
would
be
affected
with
by
this
application
or
by
this
amendment,
if,
if
it
were
not
changed,.
R
Right
yeah,
we
we
have
had
some
informal
conversation
with
them.
You
know,
as
of
2021,
you
know
the
last
time
I
believe
we
we
shared
any
information
with
them
or
discussed
anything
with
them
was
in
very
early
2022.
They
have
not
submitted
an
application.
So
really
is
you
know
we
weren't
aware
that
they
were
moving
forward
with
the
project.
It
may
you
know
negatively
affect
them
if
they
are
interested
in
submitting
an
application
in
the
near
future,
but
they
hadn't
submitted
an
application.
E
Okay
and
then,
if
I
can
indulge
my
Commissioners
with
one
more
question,
Eric
I'd
love
to
follow
up,
so
are
you?
Does
the
city
or
the
downtown
committee?
Is
there
someone
that
has
like
an
inventory
of
the
potential
sites
that
you
could
imagine
a
mix
of
uses,
because
I
thought
that
we
would
have
to
do
this
broader
downtown,
precise
Plan
update
to
really
even
consider
residential
along
Castro
in
some
of
these
areas?
R
R
You
know
our
Downtown
parking
strategy,
our
we're
working
on
a
TDM
ordinance
and
all
of
that
kind
of
intersects.
With
these
issues
that
that
we're
seeing
downtown
in
terms
of
especially
parking
but
also
Transportation
impacts
so
I.
It
is
something
that
we
can
study,
but
it
also
wouldn't
be
wasted
time.
K
Yeah
I
still
have
a
few
questions,
some
of
which
sort
of
tell
with
what
commissioner
Haymarket
asked
so
I
I'm,
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
got
here
because
in
in
my
head,
the
overall
strategy
of
reviewing
and
making
changes
in
downtown
precise
plan
was,
you
know,
phase
one.
You
know
really
focused
on
the
100
200
blocks,
the
you
know
the
more
historic
sections
of
Caster
Street.
You
know
doing
that.
First
then
phase
two.
K
Looking
at
the
broader
precise
plan,
I
realized
a
state
law
was
passed,
but
we
presumably
have
been
tracking
that
for
a
number
of
months
and
maybe
had
some
reasonable
expectation
that
that
might
pass
so
I'm
just
trying
I
I'm,
not
it's
unclear
to
me
how
this
got
initiated.
K
Did
a
majority
of
council
say
we
want
to
study
capping
office,
did
staff
sort
of
proactively
say
you
know
we
heard
things
from
the
community
based
on
the
sobrato
project
and
and
the
state
law
and
everything
we're
going
to
sort
of
proactively
bring
this
forward
it
just
it
feels
like
it
came
out
of
nowhere,
but
maybe
it
didn't.
Maybe
this
has
been
going
on
since
before
my
time
and
something
that's
under
consideration,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
we,
how
we
got
here
to
start
with.
R
Yeah,
it
was
really
the
latter.
You
know,
staff
seeing
an
opportunity
to
you
know,
kill
multiple
birds
with
one
stone
kind
of
thing,
and,
and
certainly
you
know
they
like
I,
said
the
the
enter
of
the
con.
The
discussion
with
the
590
Castro
project
really
was
kind
of
a
prompt
for
for
staff
to
to
work
on
this
and
to
try
to
propose
a
solution
that
seemed
to
address
a
lot
of
concerns
that
were
coming
out
from
the
community
and
Council.
K
Okay,
that's
fair.
Did
we
consider
alternatives?
Like
you
know,
I,
don't
know
how
we
picked.
0.35
I,
don't
know
if
we
considered
like
instead
of
just
saying
you
can't
build
anything
but
0.35,
maybe
anything
above
0.35.
Isn't
you
know
conditional
discretionary
review
I
realize
it's
just
easier
to
say
you
can't
build
above
0.35,
but
it
just
feels
like
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know
how
we
arrived
at
that
number
and
whether
we
consider
it
Alternatives.
We.
R
Did
we
considered
a
lot
of
Alternatives,
including
you
know,
a
square
footage
maximums,
including
you
know,
more
kind
of
aggressive
caps?
That
would
be
like
no
net
new
things
like
that.
The
0.35
really
supported
enough
kind
of
flexibility
for
small
additions
in
potential
locations
where
a
site
might
be
really
underutilized,
but
also
wouldn't
create
a
lot
of
value
for
that
and.
A
R
Provide
for
kind
of
that
that
time
and
space
for
the
city
to
study
those
those
different
incentives,
yeah
and
I,
think
you
know
allowing
a
you
know
continuing
to
allow
a
a
small
amount
is,
is
also
just
kind
of
a
good
idea
in
terms
of
protecting
from
unforeseen
circumstances
of
maybe
takings
concerns,
and
things
like
that.
Okay,.
K
And
then
there's
in
the
staff
report,
it
talked
about
concerns
that
you
know
there
might
be
substantial
office
development
that
would
limit
the
ability
for
housing
to
develop.
But
then
it
also
called
out
there.
There
aren't
a
lot
of
like
undeveloped
sites
remaining
and
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
my
head.
If
it
has
taken
underutilized,
parcel
yeah,
I
assume
the
0.35
doesn't
preclude.
K
You
know
if
I
wanted
to
do
ground
floor,
retail
or
or
you
know,
a
dentist
office
or
something
on
the
ground
floor
and
0.35
of
office
above
we
could
do
someone
could
do
that
right.
The
the
far
doesn't
preclude
like
a
you
know
some
sort
of
Medical
Services
on
the
ground
floor
and
would
allow
0.35
of
office
above
or.
R
Yeah,
so
the
the
office
definition
that
we're
using
doesn't
doesn't
include
medical,
so
yeah
it
could
be
theoretically
but
0.35,
especially
on
the
relatively
small
sites
in
downtown.
Is
you
know
a
it
could
be
possible,
but
we
don't
expect
that
to
be
a
a
valuable
approach
in
on
you
know,
as
opposed
to
pursuing
residential,
where
you
can
still
do.
You
know
up
to
50
units
per
acre
in
a
lot
of
locations
downtown
or.
K
K
Got
it
and
then
last
question
in
terms
of
impacted
projects?
I
know
everything
with
the
da
is
excluded
but
I'm
trying
to
remember
I.
You
know,
obviously
the
hotel
project
that
had
a
D.A
I
think
marwood
had
a
D.A.
K
What
about
the
there?
Was
the
I
think
the
bicycle
shop
I
closed,
but
there's
there's
a
pending
development,
I
think
like
Castro
and
El
Camino,
but
I
think
that's
housing.
Are
there
I
guess
there?
There
are
no
other
like
office
projects
that
we're
aware
of
right
now
that
are
in
the
queue
that
this
would
impact
aside
from
the
ones
you
are
notified,
no.
R
Yeah,
just
the
the
ones
from
the
letters.
Those
are
the
only
ones
that
we're
aware
of.
G
So
I've
right
now,
I
think
I've
got
three
questions
and
I
believe
Eric.
You
can
help
me
with
these
help
me
understand
the
potentiality
for
exceptions,
so
there
was
I
think
it
was
705
Dana
that
there
was
a
letter
where
they
said
you
know,
they've
been
they've,
been
trying
real
hard
to
to
do
everything
right.
If
this
comes
it
sort
of
upsets
the
apple
cart
for
them
and
I
believe
David
said
they'd
be
willing
to
you
know
voluntarily
Pony
after
the
parking
I
guess.
G
My
question
is
this:
if
we
pass
this
measure
that
you
put
before
us
tonight,
would
an
applicant
that
would
you
know,
on
the
face
of
it,
be
barred
from
doing
what
they
wanted
to
do?
Buy
this
this
shift
by
this
cap?
Would
they
be
able?
Would
they
have
the
power
to
come
in
front
of
EPC
and
ask
for
an
exception
for
it,
or
are
they
just
completely
blocked
out.
R
No,
they
they
would
have
to
go
through
a
gatekeeper
process
yeah
when,
whenever
Council
opens
up
the
gatekeeper
process,
they
would
have
to
do
that.
R
This
so
we
we
included
the
D.A
provision
and
that's
because
back
when
we
adopted
the
Downtown
parking
strategy,
Council
indicated
that
they
would
be
willing
to
work
with
other
developers
to
help
fund
a
new
parking
structure
downtown
through
a
DA
process,
and
so
we
wanted
to
keep
that
door
open.
R
So
that's
really.
The
other
Avenue
is
the
The
Da
path.
G
R
Well
right
now,
we
need
to
do
a
little
bit
more
analysis
through
the
the
public
works
department
has
started
working
on
the
design
for
the
new
garage,
and
we
have
to
do
a
little
bit
more
analysis
about
how
much
money
is
needed.
How
much
space
in
the
garage
is
available,
but
we
do
intend
once
that
analysis
is
available
to
to
open
up
an
opportunity
for
for
Partnerships.
G
And
I
have
a
question
about
the
downtown,
precise
plan
and
forgive
me
if
this
already
got
mentioned.
But
when
are
we
slated
to
do
that?
To
do
the
revise
of
that.
R
It's
not
per
it's
not
scheduled
right
now
we
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we're
going
to
be
asking
Council
when
they
take
up
this
this
this
item
and
as
well,
it's
going
to
be
probably
discussed
during
early
next
year's
goal,
setting.
G
Okay,
so
perhaps
I'm
I'm
stating
the
obvious,
but
if
we
are
going
to
act
on
an
urgency
measure
like
this,
the
all
of
the
the
kind
of
the
other
work
like
doing
the
precise
plan
and
everything
else.
I
would
think
that
that
would
take
on
a
slightly
more
urgency.
In
order
for
us
to
be
consistent.
So.
G
Already
got
that
in
process,
my
hope
would
be
that
we're
gonna
treat
the
whole
thing
as
an
urgency.
If
we're.
If
we're
going
to
move
this
fast
last
question
I
had
and
I
probably
could
have
figured
this
out
if
I
was
a.
If
I
was
a
good
planner,
how
far
down
Castro
Street,
where
where's
that
half
mile
sort
of
end
of
the
blast
zone,
that
for
purposes
of
the
a
b
that
we've
been
talking
about,
where?
Where
does
that
where's?
That
half
mile
line
cut.
R
Let's
see
I've
I'm
I've
got
my
Google
Maps
open.
Fortunately,
I
always
keep
it
open
for
just
such
occasions.
It
looks
like
it's
at
about
at
about
Church
Street.
G
I'm
not
sure
it's
true,
okay,
so
the
the
band
that
we
are
excuse
me.
The
cap
that
we're
talking
about
today
goes
farther
than
the
the
half
mile
Zone.
That
would
cause
the
sort
of
you
know
the
the
parking
concerns
that
parkopolitics
that
would
come.
You
know,
because
of
the
assembly
Bill,
the
cap,
we're
talking
about
goes
beyond
that.
Is
that
correct.
R
Yeah
they're
a
few
blocks
past
that
between
church
and
cast
and
El
Camino
yeah.
J
Yeah
thanks
so
sorry,
I
missed
this,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
asked.
Is
there
a
like
a
certain
cut-off
date
or,
or
you
know,
kind
of
like
a
retroactive
point
in
time
where,
if
someone
is
rushing
to
get
their
application
in
because
they
see
this
coming
down
the
pipe
has
there
been?
Is
it
possible
for
us
to
if
there
isn't
one
already
to
set
like
a
retroactive
date
or
to
suggest
or
recommend
one
I
guess
how
that
gets.
J
R
Right,
so
if
you
wanted
to
recommend
a
pipeline
provision
date,.
H
R
A
date
that
wherein
somebody
who
has
submitted
an
application
would
be
allowed
to
proceed.
We
usually
recommend
putting
that
date.
You
know
somewhat
in
the
past
so
that
you're,
not
creating
this
opportunity
for
somebody
to
you
know,
submit
a
one-page
piece
of
paper
that
has
a
you
know:
chicken
scratch
on
it
and
call
that
an
application
and
thereby
be
vested
that
way.
R
J
Cool
and
sorry
my
I
guess
my
question
was:
is
there
like
a
a
retroactive
like
denial
date,
not
exemption.
J
So
if
you
recall
with
like
rent
control
when
it
kind
of
like
started
and
it
got
put
on
the
ballot,
there
was
like
a
October
15th
25th
I
forget
exactly
2014
whatever
it
was
date.
That
said,
you
know,
any
rents
increased
after
this
date
12
months
ago,
will
revert
back
to
Market
or
to
the
original
rent.
Is
there
like
a
date?
J
We
and
so
have
I
missed
it,
but
is
there
a
date
we
have
in
place
that
kind
of
says
any
new
office
applications
submitted
post
November
1st
2022
shall
be
deemed
not
acceptable
or
something
like
that.
R
T
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
that
the
way
that
the
exceptions
are
already
structured
would
basically
prevent
applications
that
are
pending
from
right.
They
would
still
be
subject
to
the
cap
if
they're
pending,
but
but
what
Mr
Anderson
said
is
that
we
only
have
we
have
only
one
pending
application
for
office
development.
Is
that
correct.
T
Right
because
current
the
current
draft
of
the
exceptions
or
exemptions
is
that
in
entitled,
projects
would
be
exempt,
but
if
they're
pending
applications,
they
don't
have
their
entitlements.
They're
not
exempt.
So
in
order
to
exempt
them
you'd
have
to
add
another
kind
of
pipeline
provision,
but
I
know
that's
not
wasn't
your
interest
totally
all.
A
This
is
Professor
Clark,
other
questions.
K
I
have
one
more
sorry
so
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
play
this
all
out
of
my
head.
So
it
sounds
like
the
primary
yeah
there's
the
jobs,
housing
piece,
but
there's
also
sounds
like
the
primer.
A
primary
concern
is
is
parking
and
state
legislation.
It
just
went
into
effect,
and
so,
if
we're,
if
we're
putting
this
in
place
for
two
years,
let's
assume
State
legislation
doesn't
change
in
two
years.
Let's,
let's
assume
that
there's
you
know
we
still
can't
charge
in
Luffy's.
We
still
can't
impose
parking
requirements,
but
we
can
pursue.
K
K
So
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
we're
getting
out
of
this
like,
if,
if
really,
if
the
state
is
saying
that
we
can't
charge
in
movies
or
require
minimum
part
or
have
minimum
parking
requirements
and
so
our
strategy
to
ensure
that
you
know
we,
we
aren't
inundating
the
the
neighborhoods
with
with
parking
or
that
we
have
a
solid
yeah
strategy
around
this.
Whether
it's
paid
parking
or
or
a
modified
neighborhood
parking
program
permit
program.
K
R
Yeah,
that's
a
great
question:
I
I.
Think
one
thing
is
really
just
about
transparency
and
really
making
sure
that
developers
know
what
they're
getting
into
when
they
are
applying
for
projects.
I.
R
Think
one
of
the
challenges
with
parking
and
the
reason
why
we
have
parking
regulations
is
because
it's
what
they
call
a
tragedy
of
the
commons
where
early
users
tend
to
fill
up
the
the
available
resource
and
later
users
are
crowded
out,
and
you
know,
I
think
the
you
know
the
the
paid
parking
and
everything
like
that
is
certainly
meant
in
part
to
address
that.
But
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
when
developers
are
going
through
this
process,
they
know
what
the
future
is
going
to
hold.
R
And
likewise
we
know
when
we
are
reviewing
the
project,
what
the
future
is
going
to
hold.
There
are
a
lot
of
complicated
interplays
for
all
of
these
things
and
it
it's
really
best
for
us
to
be
able
to
tell
a
coherent
story
both
to
applicants,
as
well
as
to
the.
R
How
concerns
and
impacts
are
going
to
be
addressed.
F
B
R
I
mean
that's
obviously
subject
to
change,
but
that's
that's
what
we're
saying
now:
okay,.
F
Just
curious-
and
the
second
part
is
commissioner
Clark-
had
asked
if
the
main
sort
of
Genesis
for
this
was
the
parking
and
the
new
state
laws,
I
I
guess
I
was
looking
at
the
jobs,
housing
balance.
I
know
that
is
a
part
of
it,
but
how?
How
big
is
that
in
terms
of
what
staff
is
trying
to
do
here.
R
It
was
certainly
a
lot
of
discussion
at
the
590
Castro
project
was
was
a
lot
of
that
I
think
as
a
part
of
the
housing
element
to
the
the
community
is
really
interested
in
seeing
housing
and
higher
opportunity.
Areas
like
like
downtown
places,
with
a
lot
of
resources
and
and
Transportation
opportunities,
and
things
like
that.
So
I
think
all
of
this
is
kind
of
coming
together
in
the
in
the
community.
B
R
And
in
the
conversations
I
it's
hard
to
compare,
but
you
know
if
they're
certainly
both
big
issues.
R
F
Second
round
and
I
know,
this
is
not
going
to
be
finished
before
that,
but
just
practically
speaking
in
reality.
Would
this
help
us
gain
a
larger
buffer
for
even
future
yeah.
R
I
mean
I
I
think
any
housing
that
gets
built
is
good
for
the
arena
right
because
you're
you're
protecting
yourself
against
no
net
loss
in
the
future.
So
there's
no
question
about
that.
Whether
you
know
a
the
housing
element
should
you
know
effectively,
you
know
write
in
blood
that
we're
going
to
do
the
downtown,
precise
Plan
update
and
it's
going
to
have
these
particular
outcomes.
R
I'll
leave
to
a
different
meeting,
but
we'll
you
know
the
any
housing
like
I
said
is
good
for
arena.
It's.
A
Couple
questions,
so
my
recollection
was
that
the
downtown
precise
plan
was
posed
as
to
two-phase
project
in
the
gold
plan
for
the
current
Council
and
they
sent
based
on
staffs
the
city
manager's
guidance.
It
was
only
bandwidth
to
do
the
first
phase
during
this
last
two-year
cycle.
Is
that
correct
and
then,
but
they
did,
they
phase
two
was
still
left
on
the
table
as
something
that
could
be
or
would
be
likely
to
be
brought
back
in
the
future.
At
that
time,
correct.
R
Yeah,
although
it
was
not
actually
adopted
as
part
of
the
council
work
plan
for
this
cycle,
so
phase
two
was
not
so
it
it
was
kind
of.
It
was
discussed
as
something
that
we
could
consider
picking
up
in
the
future,
but
only
phase
one
was
actually
adopted
in
the
world.
A
R
Yeah,
that's
part
of
it.
I
I
know
that
there
were
probably
other
considerations.
You
know
I
know
that
council
members
wanted
to
make
sure
to
take
part
in
some
of
this
and
I
know
that
there
was
some.
You
know,
location,
conflict
of
interest
concerns,
but,
and
so
I
think
that
may
have
been
one
reason
why
they
focused
on
areas
a
g
and
H
in
Phase
One,
but
but
yeah
that
certainly
staff
resources
and
and
other
priorities
is
is,
is
always
a
consideration.
R
B
A
Thanks
any
other
questions
before
we
go
to
public
comments,
all
right,
you
know,
would
any
mayor
of
the
public
on
the
Limelight
to
come
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item.
If
so,
please
re
click,
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
start
on
in
your
phone
phone
users
commute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6..
You
can
see
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
Joe
is.
Can
you
call
our
first
speaker?
Please.
C
Okay,
the
first
speaker
is
John
Frawley.
A
U
U
Good,
thank
you.
That's
funny.
I
was
listening
on
the
phone
and
I
was
not
aware
that
I
was
raised
my
hand.
Maybe
it
happened
accidentally,
but
in
any
event,
I
feel
comfortable,
talking,
I
I'm,
an
architect,
that's
representing
an
owner
on
Castro,
and
we
have
been
in
the
planning
stages
for
a
an
addition
to
his
building,
which
would
be
affected
by
this.
This
ordinance
or
this.
This
motion
to
change
this
and
put
a
cap
on
buildings,
Office
Buildings
and
my
our
main
comment.
U
He
was
the
one
that
wrote
the
letter
to
the
Planning
Commission
about
that
it
will
affect
our
project
because
we
were
in
the
stages
of
early
development
and
we
were
planning
to
submit
it
very
soon
actually,
this
month.
Our
problem
is
this
kind
of
broadsided
us,
you
know
without
knowing
that
it
was
coming
up.
It
was
just
kind
of
just
as
it
was
thrown
at
you,
unknowingly
in
the
last
week,
or
so
without
any
awareness,
and
we
wouldn't
have
gone
as
far
as
we've
gone.
U
If
we
knew
that
we
were
not
going
to
be
able
to
if
there's
going
to
be
some
type
of
time
limit
or
pipeline
limit
on
this,
we're
at
the
point
which
we
can
submit
within
a
a
couple
of
weeks.
We've
got
enough
data
to
submit
it,
but
we're
going
to
be
extremely
penalized
now
for
and
all
the
work
that
we've
done
up
until
this
point
to
make
improvements
on
this
building.
It's
a
historic
building
where
we're
going
to
be
doing
some
Rehabilitation
of
the
building
as
well
as
addition
to
it.
U
So
we
feel
as
though,
until
this
is
actually
approved
by
city
council,
that
we
should
have
the
opportunity
to
get
our
application
in,
and
so
the
the
discussion,
in
particular
about
having
a
pipeline
restriction,
really
greatly
affects
our
ability
to
move
forward,
because
if
you
set
the
date
of
November
2nd
we're
pretty
much
dead
in
the
water.
At
this
point,
and
so
I
understand
the
concern
that
people
would
be
handing
in
things
on
a
napkin.
But
that's
not
the
case
and
I
think
this.
U
The
planning
department
will
know
if
that's
the
case,
so
I
want
you
to
take
that
into
consideration
and
to
really
you
know,
it
will
really
greatly
affect
my
clients,
investment
in
our
time,
in
designing
the
building
that
he
is
care
so
much
about
and
is
doing
a
very
sensitive
job
and
trying
to
enhance
the
downtown
area
with
a
little
bit
more
office
space
and
some
retail
space
below,
and
this
will
add
foot
traffic
of
course,
and
help
restaurants
and
those
kinds
of
things
so
anyway.
V
Hi
this
is
Connor
Morales
I'm
talking
on
behalf
of
myself
and
nine
other
Morales
family
members.
We
do
oppose
this
move
for
a
cap
on
office,
space
and
Downtown
Mountain
View,
not
only
because
the
loss
of
Vibrance
in
Downtown
Mountain
View
during
the
day.
We
really
need
to
get
people
back
into
offices
and
just
get
the
traffic
in
downtown
Mountain,
View
recirculating
and
just
bring
more
people
into
downtown
another
reason
being
my
family
and
I
have
owned
multiple
prop
Parcels
of
land
in
Downtown,
Mountain
View
for
decades
from
the
beginning,
early
1900s
and
migrant.
V
My
great
grandmother
moved
here
from
Spain
and
worked
so
worked
so
tired,
tirelessly
hard
to
accumulate
property
in
Downtown
Mountain
View
for
the
sake
of
her
whole
entire
family,
and
she
left
these
Parcels
of
land
with
her
daughter.
My
grandmother,
who
has
now
is
now
96
or
92
years
old
and
really
wants
to
see
a
project
that
we've
been
working
on
for
actually
the
last
15
years
and
it
didn't
it
was
dropped
in
the
past,
because
there
was
a
point
where
we
weren't
Trust
of
trusting
of
developers.
We
didn't
have
that
professional
background.
V
I
am
a
college
graduate
student
and
I'm
26
years
old,
I'm,
not
I'm,
now
helping
my
family
through
a
development
process
with
a
very
trusted
developer
in
Downtown
Mountain
View
for
multiple
Parcels
right
off
of
Castro,
Street
and
Bryant
in
California,
and
we
really
want
to
see
this
project
go
up
and
I
really
want
my
grandmother
and
all
of
her
kids
to
see
this
happen.
V
We've
been
working
tirelessly
hard
on
this
for
the
past
year,
thousands
of
dollars
in
attorney
fees
to
actually
get
to
where
we
are
and
we're
so
very
close
and
working
through
our
environmental
steps
for
phase
one,
and
we
want
to
see
this
beautiful
building
go
up
that
will
bring
foot
traffic
back
to
Mountain
View.
My
recommendation
is
that,
instead
of
an
far
limit
of
0.35,
we
do
a
square
foot
limit
of
50
000
square
feet,
so
anything
above
50
000
would
not
be
permitted.
V
S
The
principal
of
cement
development
we've
been
working
on
application
to
develop
a
property
located
at
705,
West
Dana.
You
guys
have
referenced
the
knights,
it's
with
the
mixed-use
office
project
in
area
H,
the
downtown
precise
plan.
Our
current
application
is
based
on
a
lot
of
feedback.
We've
gotten
from
the
community
and
City
staff,
and
also
members
of
the
city
council
actually
talked
about
it
tonight.
Earlier
this
week
we
submitted
a
formal
application
of
a
formal
comment
letter
about
the
proposed
temporary
downtown
precise
plan
cap.
How
it
relates
to
our
project.
S
We
understand
there
to
many
considerations
from
opposing
the
office.
Job
is
to
address
the
Downtown
parking,
particularly
in
light
of
the
new
parking
legislation.
Ab2097
that's
been
discussed
tonight
that
will
come
online
in
January,
which
may
impact
the
city's
ability
to
require
the
projects
in
close
proximity
to
Transit
and
provide
sufficient
parking
regardless
of
ab2097.
We
are
committed
to
fully
parking
our
project,
both
on
site
and
within
Luke
feeds,
as
we've
shown
our
application
just
the
night.
S
If
you
proceed,
please
consider
a
fifth
exception
of
the
office
cap
for
projects
with
pending
applications
that
voluntarily
fully
Park
their
project
and
or
pay
the
income
fees.
Despite
ab2097,
our
project
has
been
in
the
pipeline
actually
since
the
beginning
of
2019
informally,
and
then
we
submitted
a
formal
application
in
late
2019,
so
it's
been
more
than
three
years
we've
been
in
the
process,
but
without
the
pandemic
we
would
likely
be
through
the
discretionary
process.
The
city
would
not
have
to
worry
about
the
impact
of
ab2097
or
overflow.
S
S
Unfortunately,
if
we
are
limited
to
0.35
far,
our
project
will
not
be
economically
feasible
and
we'll
have
no
choice
but
to
leave
the
building,
abandoned
and
fenced
off
for
the
foreseeable
future.
In
conclusion,
we
are
hopefully
will
consider
our
suggested
exception
to
the
office
cap,
we're
likely
voluntarily
and
fully
Park
our
project.
We
would
not
be
subject
to
the
office
cap
thanks
for
your
time
and
attention.
We
welcome
the
opportunity
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
as
well
the
first
time
for
that.
L
Hi
Commissioners,
can
everyone
hear
me?
Okay,
great,
my
name
is
Christian
Hansen
I
am
a
local
property
manager.
L
We
manage
several
commercial
and
Retail
properties
in
Downtown,
Mountain,
View
down
to
Palo
Alto
downtown
Menlo
Park,
and
you
know
one
thing
that
I've
noticed
during
this
conversation
is,
you
know
most
of
the
data
that's
being
referenced
seems
to
be.
You
know
backward
looking
rather
than
forward-looking.
L
I
have
the
opportunity
to
look
into
our
office
buildings
daily
and
see
how
these
office
users
are
using
their
spaces,
and
I
will
tell
you
that
if
there's
a
parking
problem
in
downtown,
it's
not
from
Office
users
and
I
also
don't
see
a
problem
with
parking
downtown
now
or
over
the
past
two
years.
Since
the
pandemic
started.
Most
of
these
office
spaces
are
at
most
50
percent.
L
Utilized
most
of
these
office
tenants
have
gone
to
a
hybrid
model
where
they're
no
longer
in
the
office
full
time,
and
this
has
really
been
a
struggle
for
some
of
our
retail
tenants
because
they
rely
on
our
office
tenants
to
patronize
their
their
restaurants
and
other
retail
stores
during
the
day
at
night
time.
L
I'm
sure
you
know,
if
you
go
to
Downtown
Mountain
View,
it
is
it's
hopping,
it's
hard
to
find
a
parking
spot,
but
during
the
day
you
know
these
restaurants
really
need
help
and
the
way
they
get
help
is
through
these
office
tenants.
So
we
have
a
very
delicate
ecosystem
that
relies
heavily
on
office
and
I
I,
don't
know
if
that
has
necessarily
been
taken
into
consideration
for
this
office
cap.
Like
many
of
you
have
mentioned,
this
felt
like
it
came
kind
of
out
of
the
blue
and
and
is
backward
looking
forward.
L
Looking
I
I,
we
are
not
going
to
see
the
same
density
in
office
that
we've
seen.
I.
Think
that
you
could
even
say
that
you
know
the
amount
of
people
that
are
ubering
and
as
self-driving
cars,
progress,
we're
going
to
need
less
parking,
I
I,
think
Mountain
View
is
a
forward-looking
city
and
we
should
stay
forward-looking
and
not
pull
the
rug
out
from
those
that
you
know.
L
Even
those
there
are
some
people
that
are
ready
to
submit
an
application
like
the
Smiths
that
there's
no
reason
why
they,
they
shouldn't
be
part
of
an
exception,
but
there's
many
others
like
I,
think
Morales
family
just
talked
about
they've
been
working
on
their
project
for
several
months
and
years,
and
so
anyway,
I
would
propose
that
if
this,
it
does
go
through
that,
you
also
extend
the
amount
of
time
to
get
get
your
application
in.
Thank
you
thank.
W
That
would
be
me
Now
for
Something
Completely,
Different,
I'm
Robert
Cox.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
steering
committee
of
livable
Mountain
View.
We
strongly
support
the
staff
recommendation
for
the
temporary
cap
on
office
development
in
the
area
of
the
downtown
precise
plan
on
the
590
Castor
Street
project
proposal.
Sobrato
insisted
that,
since
their
proposal
was
precise
plan,
the
council
must
accept
it
and
they
did.
W
This
sets
a
new
bad
precedent
for
future
Council
decisions
about
what
downtown
office
projects
I
plan
all
of
the
development
parameters
over
which
the
council
will
have
discretion
to
avoid
a
future
similar
situation.
The
temporary
office
cap
would
provide
breathing
room
for
that
and
we
urge
the
EPC
to
support
it.
W
We
furthermore
recommend
that,
when
the
downtown
precise
plan
does
come
back
to
the
EPC
that
the
EPC
considering
to
incorporate
a
jobs,
housing
policy
linkage
similar
to
that
which
is
adopted
by
the
East
wisman
precise
plan,
my
Mountain
View
needs
to
get
its
jobs,
housing
imbalance
under
control.
There
have
been
serious
consequences
to
that
from
San
Francisco's
Arena
demands
on
our
city
and
the
epcn
council
must
take
direct
and
immediate
action
on
the
jobs,
housing
and
balance
to
make
the
situation
better.
W
Since
I
have
a
minute
and
a
half
left
I'm
going
to
comment
on
what
some
of
the
earlier
speakers
have
said.
I
understand
they
have
a
strong
desire
to
develop
their
properties,
it's
time
to
think
differently
and
think
residential
rather
than
office,
and
help
solve
the
problem
rather
than
make
it
worse
and
the
other
thing.
W
Several
years
ago,
livable
Mountain
View
did
a
study
of
you
know
the
usage
of
these
office
complexes
in
terms
of
their
employees
going
out
and
using
the
restaurants,
and
we
found
out
that
more
often
than
not
the
office,
people
were
bringing
food
in
for
their
employees
and
they
were
not
patronizing
the
businesses.
So
I,
don't
personally
believe
that
that
is
a
strong
motivation
to
vote
against
the
staff
recommendation
and
I
strongly
personally
supported
and
our
organization
does
too.
Thank
you
very
much.
W
A
X
Yes,
good
afternoon,
Commissioners
and
City
staff,
my
name
is
Hala.
Al-Shawani
I
would
like
to
support
staff
recommendation
that
a
moratorium
would
be
placed
on
the
office
building
permitting
until
the
precise
plan
for
downtown
is
updated.
I
have
lived
in
Mountain
View
since
1984.
X
I
raised
my
kids
here,
I've
lived
in
Cuesta,
Park
and
I
I
now
live
actually
in
downtown.
I
use
the
downtown
every
day
and
downtown
belongs
to
everyone,
not
just
the
folks
that
want
to
work
or
have
jobs
here.
It
should
belong
to
everyone
and
having
Office
Buildings
along
a
downtown
that
should
really
be
enjoyed
by
all
the
Mountain
View.
Residence
is
really
very
disruptive.
Very
uninviting.
There
will
be
a
lot
of
dead
space
and
590.
X
Castro
Street
was
a
a
good
example
for
that
many
many
public
comments
came
in
to
oppose
the
the
height
the
massive
building,
the
massive
underground
parking,
which
is
going
to
cause
us
to
lose
the
beautiful
Heritage
trees
by
Pioneer
Park.
It's
going
to
block
our
view
for
the
wonderful
Park
that
we've
enjoyed
for
so
long.
X
It
was
really
it
was
very
upsetting
to
see
that
project
approved
and
if
we
don't
do
anything
about
the
precise
plan
as
it
currently
is,
we're
going
to
have
more
and
more
of
these
projects,
which
will
affect
us
all,
and
it's
it's
really.
It's
not
fair
I
invite
all
the
property
owners
that
give
input
tonight
that
would
like
to
contribute
to
the
community
and
build
their
properties,
as
other
people
have
said
before
me
to
please
consider
residential
building.
We
are
in
great
need
for
that.
X
Affordable,
Residential,
Building,
especially
I,
applaud
the
project
that
was
discussed
before
that
it
was
wonderful
to
see
all
the
things
that
they're
trying
to
do
with
the
100,
affordable
housing.
Why
don't
we
do
that?
Instead,
it's
profitable
for
the
owners
and
it's
it's
wonderful
for
the
residents
of
Mountain
View
and
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
balanced
with
all
the
needs
for
res
for
housing
that
we
that
we
have
right
now
and
it
will
serve
everyone.
X
We
should
really
think
about
all
the
people
that
live
in
Mountain
View,
not
just
the
folks
that
own
companies
and
you
know,
are
able
to
build
these
office
building
to
serve
themselves.
Thank
you.
City
staff,
I
support
your
recommendations
and
I
hope.
City
council
will
approve
it
as
well.
Thank
you
very
much.
J
Great
thanks
chair
so
yeah
I'm
I'm,
actually
really
glad
that
we're
starting
to
make
progress
on
this
discussion
of
all
over
my
hand.
J
Yeah,
it's
unfortunate
in
terms
of
you
know
are
the
way
our
society
and
market
economy
produces
winners
and
losers,
and
you
know
not
to
describe
that
title
to
anyone
in
the
community
or
presidents
called
what
have
you,
but
that's
that's
just
fundamentally
the
you
know
part
of
the
dynamic
of
our
economy
here
and
in
terms
of
how
the
public,
you
know,
governance
structure.
J
You
know
my
view
is
that
it's
really
intended
to
look
out
for
what
is
benefiting
the
community.
Should
we
do
more
of
that?
What's
harming
the
community?
How
do
we
resolve
that?
How
do
we
address
that?
How
do
we
minimize
the
pain
that
you
know
people
are
experiencing
on
their?
You
know
day-to-day
attempts
at
at
living
and
and
living
well
right
and
so
I
I
do
I
I'm
very
clear
on
office
development
being
a
huge
contributor
to
the
affordable
housing
crisis
that
we've
had
for
so
many
years.
J
The
amount
of
office,
development
and
growth
that
you
know,
cities
around
the
Bay
Area
have
experienced
over
the
last
two
decades
is
significant.
It's
it's
beyond
significant.
J
It
is
hugely
and
grossly
outpaced
the
amount
of
residential
development,
because
the
profits
also
are
far
greater,
and
so
it
you
know,
there's
no
right
to
make
a
maximal
amount
of
return
on
an
asset
that
that
we
are
guaranteed
in
in
life
right
and
so
I
think
it's
unfortunate
for
you
know
like
individually,
for
the
people
who
were
on
this
call
and-
and
you
know,
have
these
projects
that
you
know
they
would
like
to
bring
to
term.
J
You
know
I
I
can't
say
I
I
understand
what
that's
like,
but
I
can
imagine
the
disappointment
and
and
the
upsetness
that
that
you
might
be
feeling
but
I
think
our
role
is
to
look
at
what
is
actually
not
just
the
community
asking
for,
but
what's
the
underlying
need
and
the
reason
why
they're
asking
for
that,
and
so
me
personally
I'm
extremely
glad
to
support
this
staff
recommendation.
J
I
I
have
lots
of
ways
that
I
think
we
could
do
something
even
more
like
I
guess,
forceful
in
terms
of
tackling
this
issue
and
our
jobs,
housing
imbalance
and
you
know,
I
I,
don't
think
that's
in
the
scope
of
this
discussion.
I'm
gonna
very
strongly
and-
and
you
know,
gladly
support
this
temporary
approach
to
to
addressing
this
problem.
J
I
hope
that
you
know
the
my
colleagues
on
the
commission
can
also
support
this
and,
and
just
kind
of
you
know,
try
and
try
and
imagine
for
how
long
you
know
we've
skewed
so
much
in
One
Direction
when
it
comes
to
Land
Development
in
our
city
and
what
the
impacts
of
that
have
been
the
downstream
impacts.
The
negative
externalities
of
you
know
increased.
J
You
know,
homelessness,
I,
I,
hope
that
that's
something
that
we
factor
in
what
are
the
broader
negative
costs
that
our
city
is
incurring
by
not
doing
this
opposed
to
you
know,
maybe
the
individual
costs
that
you
know
Land
Development
might
incur
by
not
being
able
to
develop
within
a
certain
time
frame,
so
I'm
I'm
happy
to
consider
to
support
this
and
yeah
I
appreciate
staff's
work
on
this.
So
thank
you.
K
You
know
a
complete
shift
in
you
know
from
from
you
know
what
I
think
is
not
an
unreasonable
density
of
office
to
high
density
housing,
but
the
reason
that
I
don't
first
I
I
I'm
a
little
hesitant
here,
is
a
lot
of
the
folks
who
are
calling
for
a
you
know
a
cap
so
that
we
can
redo
the
plan
in
order
to
focus
more
on
housing
or
and
who
say
that
they
wish.
For
example,
the
Serato
project
would
have
been
housing.
K
I
I
see
a
lot
of
the
in
in
terms
of
the
letters
that
are
coming.
I
see
a
lot
of
the
same
folks
who
have
opposed
high
density
housing,
downtown
a
number
of
projects
and
I.
Would
it
would
not
surprise
me
if
I
brought
over
a
seven
story,
Apartment
project
or
condo
project,
to
have
the
exact
same
complaints
that
we
have
with
sobrato?
You
know
the
underground
parking
taking
out
the
trees,
the
building
being
too
tall
and
too
dense,
and
yes,
there's
ground
core
retail.
K
That
invites
people
in,
but
I
just
I'm,
not
buying
that
and
in
my
mind,
jobs
housing
is
a
it
is.
K
That
is
a
that's
a
city-wide
thing,
that's
a
region-wide
thing
and
we
should
absolutely
do
our
part,
but
different
parts
of
our
city
have
diff,
have
certain
micro
economies
within
them,
whether
it's
San
Antonio,
whether
it's
downtown
downtown,
is
supported
during
the
day
by
folks
who
come
in
yes,
some
folks
come
in
to
have
lunch
at
the
restaurants
and
to
to
to
visit
whatever
service
providers
are
there,
but
by
and
large
the
daytime
population
is
composed
of
folks
who
are
there
to
be
at
the
office,
and
now
it's
more
like
three
days
a
week.
K
Instead
of
five
and
and
there's
more
vacancies,
and
yes,
those
folks
at
least
pre-pandemic
create
a
lot
of
parking
issues
and
some
of
the
larger
tenants
may
bring
in
their
own
food.
But
the
I
think
we
tend
to
focus
on
the
really
large
tenants
who
have
the
capability
to
do
that
and
not
the
30
000
square
foot
startup
that
doesn't
have
the
budget
to
cater
food.
When
we
had
25
000
square
feet
of
of
office
near
downtown,
you
know
we
brought
in
food
from
the
restaurants.
K
You
know,
apparently
we
didn't
send
our
people
out
for
an
hour
every
day
to
restaurants.
We
catered
it
all
in
from
local
restaurants
and
I.
Think
I,
just
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
these
concerns
or
I
feel
like
we're.
We're
we're
doing
something.
We
typically
don't
do
in
Mountain
View.
We
when
we
when
state
laws,
have
changed
when
we've
said.
We
really
want
to
change
course,
for
example
in
North,
Bay,
Shore
and
add
housing.
We
didn't
freeze
everything.
K
We
didn't
say
that
you
know.
There's
a
you
know
we
didn't
cap
everything
you
know.
Suddenly
we
said
we
didn't
change
the
rules
on
people.
We
said
you
know,
follow
the
existing
rules
until
we
have
the
new
rules
in
place
and
I
think
the
only
time
I've
seen
that
seen
us
do.
K
Something
like
that
was
was
Cannabis,
which
was
more
like
we're
going
to
put
a
moratorium
on
on
on
dispensaries
while
and
which
was
basically
status
quo
until
we
can
craft
our
own
regulations
right,
I,
I
can't
recall
a
period
or
a
recent
example
of
us
sort
of
changing
the
rules
to
deal
with
State
legislation
or
to
deal
with.
K
K
This
is
not
the
traditional
way
that
we
handle
these
sorts
of
problems
in
Mountain
View
we've
tended
to
be
not
change
the
rules
of
the
game
on
folks,
while
we
sort
things
out,
we've
been
very
you
know,
forthcoming
and
and
head
up
public
process
to
to
make
these
sorts
of
changes
and
I'm
trying
to
weigh
like
the
benefits
that
we
give
this,
which
I
understand
like
I
yeah.
The
reason
I'm
torn
is
because
staff
is
recommending.
K
You
know
remove
those
requirements
or
if
they
have,
if
they'd
have
to
submit
a
new
one,
then
obviously
that
then
what
I
propose
might
work,
but
I
I
just
feel
like
I'm
I
I
also
can't
come
up
with
proposals
like
that
on
the
spot,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
here
is
I
I,
don't
think
I
think
this
is
too
blunt
of
an
approach
and
if,
if
there
were
truly
a
job,
a
major
jobs,
housing
implication
year,
which
you
know
I,
don't
think
we're
I,
don't
think
the
city
frankly
is
ready
for
I
would
be
shocked
if
folks
are
very
comfortable
with
a
seven
and
ten
story.
K
You
know
residential
projects
in
downtown
in
place
of
some
of
these
office
Parcels.
That
would
actually
have
a
meaningful
impact
on
job
on
the
job,
housing
and
balance
in
whatever,
in
the
district
that
we're
talking
about
versus
what
I
think
will
ultimately
end
up
happening,
which
is
basically
we're
we're
sort
of
trying
to
freeze
things
in
time
and
and
minimize
the
developable
potential
of
a
lot
of
areas
of
downtown,
which
I
think
would
be
unfortunate.
K
So
anyway,
I
I've
said
my
piece.
I'm
very
torn
here,
I,
don't
think
this
is
the
right
approach.
I'm
open,
but
I
also
understand
staff's
concerns
here
and
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
path
forward
to
put
some
of
the
ordinances
and
and
a
new
framework
in
place
that
everyone
can
abide
by,
and
everyone
knows,
is
there
so
when
they
as
they're
signing
up
for
you
know
submitting
a
development
application
so
I,
don't
know
how
I
get
myself
out
of
this.
But
those
are
those
are
my
thoughts
right
now.
K
E
Thank
you
and
I
I.
Really,
commissioner
Clark,
you
took
a
lot
of
my
thoughts
and
said
them
before
I
could,
like
you,
I
I,
appreciate
the
the
attempt,
on
behalf
of
staff,
to
really
be
responsive
to
what
they've
heard
in
regards
to
a
recent
project
and
I
I
tend
to
generally
defer
to
the
staff
recommendation.
I,
don't
think
this
is
the
right
instrument
and
I
think
it
feels
a
little.
It
feels
a
little
rush
and
it
feels
like
a
piecemeal
approach.
E
It
doesn't
feel
like
the
kind
of
comprehensive
planning
that
we've
done
and
I
think,
particularly
in
the
downtown
I
I.
Think
some
of
what
we're
seeing
is
one
of
the
the
public
commentators
mentioned.
Some
of
it
is
just
the
nature
of
hybrid
work.
Right
I,
don't
know
that
our
office
vacancies
can
be
attributed
to
an
abundance
of
office
in
in
downtown
and
so
I
think.
The
last
time
we
took
this
up,
I
was
a
lone
voice
and
saying
you
know:
I
I
would
much
rather
have
office
downtown
than
empty
retail
and
I.
E
E
Don't
know
that
the
parking
issue
is
is
really
what
I
see
is
the
most
pressing
and
and
compliance
with
state
law
is
depressing
urge
for
that
and
I'm
not
totally
sure
that
restricting
future
office
growth
is
going
to
help
Save
retail,
so
I'd
love
to
hear
what
others
say,
but
I
think
I'll
be
in
the
same
campus
commissioner,
Clark
and
and
reluctant
to
support
this,
and
even
though
I
think
what
we
are
trying
to
work
toward
is
a
greater
balance
and
as
jobs
and
housing
I,
just
it's
close
Downtown
is
close
to
Transit,
it's
close
to
a
lot
of
services
I.
E
If
you're
gonna
put
your
office
somewhere,
you
want
it
to
be
in
an
area,
that's
rich
and
vibrant,
and
and
can
build
off
of
the
existing
infrastructure.
That's
already
there
and
I'm,
not
sure
I
see
high
density
residential
coming
I'd
love
to.
If
that
is
the
reality,
but
that
just
hasn't
been
what
I've
been
tracking
so
really
curious
to
hear
more
from
others.
But
that's
that's
where
I'm
I
am
at
this
moment.
G
It's
really
hard
to
follow,
Commissioners,
haymeier
and
Clark,
because
I
think
they
just
said
very
eloquently
what
kind
of
what
I
was
thinking
and
I'm
really
I'm
really
torn
on
this
one,
this
one's
hard.
This
is
probably
one
of
the
hardest
ones
I've
seen
all
year
for
me
personally
and
I.
Think
for
me
that
I
I
I
feel
a
couple
of
different
ways.
G
I
think
on
process
I'm
a
little
concerned.
I
do
feel
that
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
rough
job
and
it
sort
of
fell
out
of
the
sky,
because
a
development
cap
like
this,
that's
a
pretty
big
change
of
state.
That's
not
a
small
remedy.
It's
a
big
deal
and
I
and
I
feel
like
we
I'm
kind
of
getting
I'm
getting
rushed
into
something.
That's
a
really
big
deal,
not
only
because
it's
an
important
it's
a
pretty
big
remedy
for
the
folks.
That'll
have
impact,
but.
H
G
Know
this
is
a
the
beginning
of
a
much
larger
conversation.
I
think
that
we're
going
to
end
up
having
in
Mountain
View
about
about
how
are
we
going
to
solve
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance?
That's
a
huge
question.
It's
huge!
G
It
has
some
really
interesting
significant
implications
for
the
rest
of
the
city
and
and
I
I
feel
like
we're
we're
kind
of
just
jamming
through
it
and
and
that
doesn't
sit
well
with
me.
That's
a
big
part
of
what
I'm
struggling
I
mean
this
didn't
even
come
to
us
as
a
formal
request
of
the
council.
I,
don't
think
this
didn't
even
have
a
study,
a
session
attached
to
it.
G
I
think
if,
if
this
had,
even
if
we
just
had
a
study
session,
I
would
have
felt
a
little
bit
more
prepared
and,
frankly,
I
think
for
something
that's
important.
The
community
needs
perhaps
deserves
a
little
bit
more
due
process
and
more
chance
to
to
talk
about
it,
and
that's
you
know
so
that
that
part
hurts
now
I
will
say.
Conversely,
you
know
the
concerns
about
how
this
newly
passed
assembly
Bill
might
impact
our
ability
to
you
know
to
to
have
Parking
Solutions
downtown.
G
That's
not
a
small
issue
that
I
take
that
very
seriously
when
livable
Mountain
View
raises
this
is
an
issue
I!
Listen
to
that,
like
you,
don't
want
a
parking
apocalypse
downtown
and
so
I
I
get
why
there
is
urgency
and
concern
I,
totally
I
totally
totally
get
it
but
and
downtown
is
special.
Its
Health
right
now
is
fragile.
We
have
a
lot
of
empty
businesses.
Downtown
and
I.
Think
we
need
downtown
needs
more
care
than
it's
gotten.
G
I
would
like
us
to
approach
the
downtown
precise
plan
and
revising
it
dealing
with
a
parking
plan
for
down
there
with
a
little
bit
more
urgency,
because
I
worry
about
downtown
and
I
want
it
to
get
the
attention
that
it
deserves,
because,
right
now
it's
struggling
my
gosh.
What
else
would
I
even
want
to
say
I?
G
Guess
let
me
I'm
gonna
sit
here
and
listen
to
everybody
else
before
I
decide
how
I'm
gonna
vote,
but
I
will
say
this
going
forward,
regardless
of
what
our
recommendation
is
or,
however,
I
vote
My
Hope
Is
that
to
the
council,
we
would
ask
first
of
all
that
we
put
a
higher
priority
on
going
back
and
doing
all
the
planning
that
we
need
to
do
for
downtown
and
put
a
little
bit
more
urgency
behind
that
and
second,
if,
if
we
do
go
forward
with
this
plan,
my
hope
is
is
that
we
would
consider
our
Council
would
consider
some
type
of
race
period
for
the
potential
applicants
that
are
very,
very
close
to
being
able
to
apply,
because
what
I
don't
what
I
don't
want
is
for
property
owners.
G
Who've
been
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
to
feel
whipsawed
by
kind
of
instant
changes
in
state.
That's
not
fair
and
property
owners,
and
people
too,
we
got
to
treat
everybody
fairly.
That's
a
really
core
part
of
what
cities
need
to
do.
So
those
are
the
two
things
I'd
ask
for
thanks
for
listening.
F
Oh,
thank
you
yeah.
This
one
is
interesting
and
I
can
understand
sort
of
what
makes
it
very,
very
tough,
some
of
the
same
same
questions
that
others
have
brought
up.
F
I've
been
thinking
about
as
well,
and
if
we
just
go
back
a
little
when
it
comes
to
the
jobs,
housing
balance
Alone,
you
know
I
wish
we
could
put
a
sort
of
little
temporary
breather
on
the
whole
city
just
so
we
can
sort
of
catch
up
and
figure
out
what
we
could
do
to
get
that
all
in
check,
but
that
that's
not
what
we're
talking
about
now
and
I
understand
why
downtown
might
be
a
little
different.
Why
they've
focused
on
this?
F
Why
may
be
because
the
precise
plan
is
coming,
I'm
hoping
it
is,
I
really
feel
like
it's
much
more
effective
if
we
are
looking
at
the
price-
a
precise
plan
sooner
rather
than
later,
so
that
it
it's
sort
of
in
tandem
with
this
we're
making
the
best
use
of
the
time
and
also
just
to
take
a
breath
and
look
at
everything
else
that
staff
has
mentioned
if
I,
if
I
don't
look
at
like
individual
owners,
Property
Owners,
I
sort
of
have
the
question
about
our
our
downtown
right
now,
if
we're
just
looking
at
jobs,
housing
is
already
skewed,
so
much
towards
office,
and
so
much
of
the
office
is
vacant
in
general.
F
F
Maybe
it's
just
because
it's
habitual
at
this
point
we're
always
playing
catch
up
to
all
the
changes
and
everything
that's
going
on
with
the
that's
coming
out
of
the
state,
we're
like
scrounging
for
funding
everywhere,
just
to
get
some
affordable
housing,
even
when
we
do
market
rate
ones
we're
getting
such
a
small
percentage
and
then
now
with
state
laws.
F
These
are
the
rules,
and
this
is
what
we're
looking
for
as
a
community
and
as
a
city,
we
took
a
little
time
we're
concentrating
on
this.
Here
they
are
so
developers
come.
Please,
and
you
know,
send
in
your
proposals
and
well
it
can
be
done
a
little
bit,
maybe
more
expeditely
if
the
rules
are
laid
out
to
begin
with.
F
F
I
just
think
that
a
breather
would
be
great,
it's
not
to
say,
let's
not
do
anything,
it's
temporary
and
we're
not
taking
away
what
people
can
do
now
we're
not
even
taking
away
the
ability
to
do
some
office
we're
just
saying:
okay,
let's
just
do
a
tiny
little
pause
now,
I
totally
understand
why
some
people,
who
are
almost
finished
they're
ready
to
submit
and
they
haven't.
You
know
they
didn't
know.
This
was
coming.
F
Maybe
staff
and
Council
together
could
figure
out
what
that
deadline
is
I,
don't
know
what
that
is.
I,
don't
know
what
you
know.
Staff
has
already
talked
to
with
other.
F
For
this
idea
in
Broad
terms,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
just
truly
assess
take
stock
of
where
we
are
put
rules
in
place
that
it
goes
back
to
you
know
holistically
looking
at
things
and
right
now,
we've
just
been
scrambling.
This
would
be
a
chance
to
at
least
take
a
breath
and
look
holistically
at
least
this
little
tiny
part
of
our
city.
F
I
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
agree
with
a
majority
of
the
concept
been
shed
already
I'm,
not
going
to
repeat
that,
but
I
will
emphasize
the
difference
right
and
at
this
point
there
was
no
formal
request
by
the
city
council
to
have
this,
be
something
that
we
looked
at
from
their
vantage
point.
But
my
experience
says
that
when
staff
recommend
something,
we
should
look
into
that
and
having
her
Vice
chair's
perspective
on
a
temporary
pause
and
why
I
completely
agree
with
that
perspective,
right
and
I.
Think
when
you
look
at
it
holistically.
I
This
is
the
role
that
we
play
right
now
as
EPC
members,
but
we
also
see
the
value
that
city
council
takes
into
consideration
when
they
deliberate
about
these
types
of
issues,
also
at
that
level
and
in
that
formal
process.
So
it's
important
to
at
least
look
at
this
as
an
opportunity
to
just
take
a
breather.
It's
for
a
set
period
of
time,
so
that
possible
through
city
council
and
whoever
comes
in
or
if
the
group
stays
the
same.
Can
then
I'm
thinking.
I
This
is
more
like
an
Ask
of
time
for
them
to
be
able
to
explore
this
step
by
step,
hoping
that
also
the
council
in
general
will
look
at
everything
in
general.
That
needs
to
be
re-examined
as
a
packet
right,
but
that's
not
my
job
right,
I
am
not
city
council,
I
am
EPC,
and
you
know,
in
this
case
I
understand
both
sides
of
the
issue,
but
I'm
going
to
give
the
benefits
about
to
the
staff,
because
I
don't
think
that
will
lead
us
in
the
direction
that
would
be
negative
as
a
whole.
I
I
think
it's
more
of
a
hey.
We
need
the
timeout
here
so
that
we
can
try
and
figure
out
these
things
at
the
next
level,
which
is
your
city,
council,
colleagues
and
and
possibly
how
that's
going
to
be
dealt
with
in
the
future,
and
then
we
can
come
back,
lift
up
this
temporary
cap
and
then
move
forward
so
I'm
trusting
in
the
process
right
now.
For
that,
that's
what
I'm,
listening
to
and
and
I'll
be
in
support
of
of
staff
recommendation
thanks.
J
Absolutely
and
I
I
just
want
to
you
know,
say
for
making
my
own
comments.
How
much
I
I
do
appreciate.
Commissioner
Yin
and
gutierrez's
viewpoints
on
this
as
well,
especially
with
regards
to
that
temporary
nature
of
of
this
proposal
again
as
a
means
to
give
us
some
space
to
understand.
J
You
know
how
we
can
approach
things
a
little
bit
more
holistically
in
the
city,
and
so
one
of
the
you
know,
just
in
terms
of
speaking
to
people's
open-mindedness
about
this,
as
as
I
kind
of
heard.
Some
of
my
colleagues
mentioned.
I'll
say
this:
let's
consider
that
you
know
there.
There
is
such
a
thing
as
in
an
appeal
to
tradition
that
you
know,
while
because
things
have
been
done
a
certain
way
before
you
know,
and
that
can
be
a
variety
of
things.
J
Personal
Traditions,
you
know
are
enjoyable
and
and
warm,
and
you
know
we
enjoy
them.
But
when
it
comes
to
governance
and
to
you
know,
like
large
macro
level,
you
know
kind
of
Trends
and
how
that
percolates
down
into
the
everyday
lives
of
people
in
our
communities
that
that
really
ought
not
to
be
left
up
to
tradition
or
in
general.
J
How
things
have
been
done
before
how
things
have
been
done
before
has
led
us
to
this
point
where
we're
at
right
now,
where
yeah
as
as
commissioner,
you
noted
there's
almost
this
sensation
of
you
know
trying
to
scrap
for
morsels
of
affordable
housing,
and
that
does
need
to
change
how
we
go
about
making
that
change
needs
to
be
Innovative.
It
needs
to
be
new.
J
We
need
to
figure
things
out,
because
how
we've
approached
it
in
the
past
has
continued
to
produce
inadequate
results
for
the
community
at
large,
so
I
I
would
ask
I
would
suggest,
consider
ask
whatever
you
know
that
we
consider
not
necessarily
basing
our
decisions
in
that
kind
of
traditional
methodology.
J
The
second
point
I
wanted
to
make
here-
is
you
know,
I
I'm
personally,
not
in
favor
of
finding
ways
to
make
exemptions
or
to
minimize
them.
With
regards
to
you
know
any
kind
of
like
new
applicants
or
applications,
not
already
you
know,
basically,
whatever
staff
has
recommended
anything
outside
of
that
I'm
I'm
personally,
not
very
supportive
of
that
again,
it's
it's
unfortunate,
but
making
that
kind
of
exemption
now
is
just
choosing
to
add
more
load
onto
the
problem.
J
That
I
think
an
initiative
like
this
gives
us
the
breathing
space
to
try
and
resolve.
So
those
are
my
comments
and
I
would
iterate
support
again
for
the
staff
recommendation.
A
A
And
I
decided
in
a
collect
as
a
simple
answer
here
to
me,
a
couple
initial
thoughts
right.
This.
H
A
Bill
doesn't
go
away
if
we
pass
this
and
Council
passes
us
that
the
perking
restriction
is
there
no
matter
when
it
is
I,
don't
I
have
I'm
skeptical
one
small,
precise
plan
being
the
solution
to
our
jobs,
housing
balance
when
I
saw
this
what
I
and
what
I
heard
during
the
discussion
around
590
was.
A
What
do
we
want
our
downtown
to
be,
and
that
to
me
is
the
precise
plan.
Precise
plan
is
old.
It
was
written
at
a
time
when
council's
had
a
lot
of
discretion
and
the
state
has
done
a
lot
to
remove
discretion
from
City
councils
over
time
same
time,
I'm
also
a
very
big
believer
in
you
know.
If
somebody
follows
the
rules,
then
damn
it,
they
should
be
able
to
do
that
and
I'm.
A
This
idea
of
changing
something
here
at
the
last
minute
without
a
path
to
completion,
really
bothers
me
when
we
did
the
mental
commute,
a
precise
plan
and
I
was
not
on
the
commission
at
the
time.
I
was
an
observer.
One
of
the
things
that
I
found
very
frustrating
was
all
of
The
Gatekeepers
that
occurred
during
the
development
of
the
precise
plan.
In
fact,
what
ended
up
happening
in
my
view
was
that
The
Gatekeepers
became
the
way
the
precise
plan
was
developed
instead
of
the
precise
plan
being
the
way
it
was
developed.
A
If
this
was
being
proposed
as
a
as
a
item
that
was
in
conjunction
with
a
decision
by
a
council
to
take
the
next
step
and
do
accept
the
plan,
the
phase
two
of
the
of
the
downtown
precise
plan,
then
this
would
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
because
it
would
be
some
kind
of
of
you
know
we're
going
to
put
things
on
hold,
but
now
there's
a
very
definitive
plan
in
place
for
coming
up
with
what
we
went
downtown
to
be.
What
is
this
supposed
to
be
going
forward?
A
The
fact
that
the
phase
two
of
the
precise
plan
is
not
a
goal
at
this
point
is
not
a
something
that
is
replaced
by
staff.
A
staff
priority
to
me
says
this
is
premature,
this
I.
If
this
was
something-
and
it
was
something
it
was
proposed
in
conjunction
with
the
the
phase
two
of
the
downtown
precise
plan-
then
I
would
be.
Then
this
would
make
sense
to
me,
but
right
now
this
feels
it
feels
too
early.
A
B
A
The
Bay
Area
is
in
fact
negative
people
are
leaving,
it
doesn't
mean,
there's
still
not
a
job,
a
housing
problem,
but
I,
don't
I'm
not
expecting
that
all
of
a
sudden,
because
AP
whatever
is
2089,
goes
into
effect
that
there's
going
to
be
an
interrash
of
office
space
being
built
downtown.
But
this
doesn't
feel
fair
to
me
to
the
people
who
are
that
have
been
playing
by
the
rules
so
far.
A
So
if
I
mean
commissioner
Clark
your
your
timeline
to
me
is
you
know
this
would
go
into
effect
when
Council
votes
to
approve
a
work
plan
item
for
phase
two
of
the
downtown
precise
plan.
There's
some
variant
of
this.
A
That
says
during
the
development
of
the
precise
plan
we're
not
going
to
allow
you
know,
Gatekeepers
and
other
radical
changes,
but
doing
this
independently
of
the
of
a
downtime,
precise
plan
feels
disconnected
to
me,
and
it
feels
unfair
to
the
to
the
landowners
that
are
that
are
there
today
and
it's
also
unfair,
because
I
agree:
Krishna,
Clark,
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
people
would
have
been
excited
with
a
seven-story
apartment,
complex
or
housing
development
in
in
that
corner
either.
A
So
I
think
the
question
that
came
out
of
that
discussion
was
what
did
we
went
downtown
to
be
and
I
don't
know
that
we
know
that
at
this
point-
and
this
feels
premature
so
I'm
I'm-
reluctant
to
support
this
at
this
time,
but
I
they're,
taking
this
to
council
and
saying
you
know
something
like
this
in
conjunction
with
a
decision
to
move
forward
with
phase
two
of
the
downtime
precise
plan
would
make
sense
would
be
something
that
I
would
be.
It
would
make
sense
to
me
to
communicate
to
council.
K
Yeah
I
I
agree
with
you.
There
is
an
aspect
to
it
that
I
I
do
want
to
respect
to
and
that
I
actually
agree
with
the
you
know:
livable
Mountain,
View
and
others,
which
is
you
know
the
the
the
legislation
taking
effect
in
January.
One
I
I
totally
get
like
not
wanting
a
rough
to
applications
that
don't
have
sort
of
any
respect
for
our
existing
regulatory
framework
in
terms
of
in
movies
or
parking
minimums
or
other
things.
K
So
so
I
do
think
if,
if
something's
done
here,
it
probably
does
need
to
coincide
with
that,
and
just
briefly
to
address
commissioner
Nunez
earlier
comments
like
it's:
it's
not
about
tradition
for
me,
I'm.
Actually,
someone
who
doesn't
really
care
for
tradition
that
much
it's
more
about
good
governance
and
I.
It
would
be
one
thing
if
these
were
like
large
corporate
landlords,
but
but
from
my
from
my
experience
downtown,
you
know
a
lot
of
these.
Are
you
know
these?
Are?
K
These
are
folks
who
are
either
part
of
the
community
or
been
part
of
the
community
for
Generations,
or
these
Parcels
have
been
passed
down
for
Generations?
They
aren't
you.
K
You
know
they're
individual
families,
as
we
heard
from
some
speakers
earlier,
and
you
know
they
they
feel
part
of
the
community
and
I
feel
like
they're
in
most
of
them
are
good,
have
been
good
partners
to
us
in
the
past,
and
they've
worked
with
us
through
through
boom
times
and
recessions,
and
not
all
of
them
are
are
purely
self-interested
and
so
I
I
do
think
that
we
owe
a
duty
of
care
to.
You
know
not
just
change
the
rules.
K
You
know,
rent
control
was
one
thing
that
was
a
debate
that
was
raging
for
a
very
long
time.
There
were
a
number
of
proposals
put
forth
over
years.
People
were
thinking
about
it,
this
sort
of
just
reared
his
head.
After
you
know
an
office
application
and
and
granted
it
had
been
festering
for
a
while
and
and
there
was
State
legislation
that
sort
of
became
as
part
of
it
too,
but
it's
just
very
rare
for
us
to
change
the
rules
on
on
folks
on
short
notice,
and
sometimes
there
may
be
good
reasons
for
that.
K
But,
but
that
to
me
is
is
not
about
tradition,
it's
about
being
a
good
governing
body
and
and
respecting
our
our,
not
just
our
our
residents
but
our,
but
our
partners
in
the
community
who
help
make
our
community
Thrive
so
I,
guess
I
I
have
a
question
for
staff,
and
just
tell
me
if
this
is
isn't
feasible,
but
I
mean.
Is
there
some
way
that
we
could
allow
folks
to
who
who
want
to
submit
you
know
compliant
or
applications
that
are
compliant
with
the
current
downtown
precise
plan?
K
You
know,
for
example,
through
the
end
of
the
year
and
have
those
have
those
processed
you
know
would,
could
we
do
that
or
would
they
then
have
the,
but
or
could
they
just
simply
revise
those
applications
based
on
the
new
state
law
after
January
1,
and
be
able
to
do
that?
My
assumption
would
be
they
would
have
to
withdraw
and
resubmit.
K
In
which
case
you
know,
then
our
new
rules
here
would
apply
and
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
that
state
law,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is.
If
there's
some
way
to
allow
someone
who's.
You
know
fully
complying
with
our
our
existing
rules
in
terms
of
parking,
new
fees
or
or
fully
parking
their
project
to
to
proceed
up
until
the
point
where
the
state
law
kicks
in
which
I
think
is,
is
I.
K
R
Yeah,
that's
a
great
question
and
I'll
I'll
try
to
answer
it,
but
then
I
think
City
attorney
might
might
need
her
confirmation
on
this
or
not.
But
my
my
understanding
is
that
we
would
not
be
able
to
enforce
any
provision
of
parking
after
January
1st.
So
that
means,
if
somebody
came
in-
and
you
know
their
submittal
on
December
5th
had
you
know
two
levels
of
underground
parking,
then
we
and
we
approved
it.
You
know
in
you
know
the
next
year
or
something
like
that.
R
Not
be
able
to
before
spout
on
the
building
permit
is
that
correct,
Sandy
or
I
just
want
to
confirm.
T
I
think
alternatively
I
mean
so
this
is
a
new
law,
so
we're
still
kind
of
grappling
with
how
it's
going
to
work
in
practice,
but
to
the
extent
that
they
they
may
have
to
come
in
for
a
development.
The
amendment
to
the
development
permit,
but
the
city
would
not
be
in
a
position
to
deny
that
Amendment,
because
the
city
can't
enforce
or
impose.
You
know
parking
minimums
on
Parcels
that
are
within
a
half
mile
of
a
major
Transit.
T
K
Understood
and
so
I
guess
I
have
a
second
part
to
that,
which
is
you
know,
is
there
some
way
for
us
to
I'm
thinking
in
my
head,
like
I
I?
Don't
care
that
much
about
additions,
or
you
know
if
you
have
a
historic
building
and
you're
adding
on
to
it.
You
know.
Maybe
it's
maybe
it's
somewhat
more
than
0.35
far,
but
we,
but
maybe
we
don't
necessarily
want
another.
You
know
empty
parking
lot
to
develop
into
a
a
large
office
during
this
period.
K
K
You
know
an
office
building,
maybe
with
some
ground
floor
retail
but
primarily
office
above
3.35,
but
we
don't
really
care
that
much
if
you're
redeveloping
an
existing
parcel
and
you're
not
scraping
it
and
you're,
preserving
most
of
what's
there
and
you're
just
adding
some
additional
office,
but
maybe
that's
too
difficult
to
carve
out
in
the
short
period
that
we
have
in
the
next
six
days.
But
that
was
my
other
thought.
R
Yeah
I
mean
I
would
just
say
that
if
that's
the
consensus
from
the
EPC,
you
know,
however,
you
want
to
put
those
ideas
together.
We
you
know
we
can
Endeavor
to
put
turn
that
into
you
know
a
concrete
standard
to
present
the
chemical.
K
Got
it
okay,
well,
I
think
just
for
others
benefit
like
the
the
place
where
I've
sort
of
landed
is
I
I'm
comfortable
with
something
going
into
effect,
to
sort
of
give
us
time
to
figure
out
what
we're
going
to
do
about
how
this
relates
to
the
parking
and
other
things,
but
but
I
I
would
hope
that
and
I
think
we
should
recommend
that
the
council
take
the
step
to
prioritize
phase.
Two
of
the
downtown
precise
plan
is
part
of
this.
K
They
can
you
know
it's
one
thing
to
prioritize:
it's
another
schedule
whether
they
decide
to
you
know
make
themselves
a
note
to
ensure
that
this
is
you
know
top
of
the
list
when
they
consider
their
goal,
setting
for
what
whoever's
on
the
new
Council
and
in
the
spring
like
that,
would
be
sufficient
for
me,
but
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
like
do
this
and
then
like
kick
the
cam
down
the
road
in
terms
of
them
in
terms
of
everyone
determining
sort
of
to
to
prioritize
this,
and
then
the
other
piece
would
be
trying
to
find
some
way
to
allow
those
who
those
who
might
want
to.
K
You
know
whether
it's
studying
a
November
1
cut
off
or
setting
the
cut
off
to
whenever
the
council
hearing
is
I.
Don't
know
what
the
right
answer
there
is,
but
I
just
want
to
I
want
to
take
into
account
the
the
folks
who
have
generally
been
working
pretty
hard
on
applications
and
might
be
impacted
this
by
the
last
minute.
I
Yeah
Chris
actually
mentioned
a
lot
of
other
points
that
I
had
planned
to
speak
about.
So
thank
you,
commissioner.
Clark
on
that.
But
I
think
the
important
thing
to
remember
here,
though
too,
is
if
we
can
carve
in
some
sort
of
exception,
for
those
who
are
not
soprano,
because
I
think
that's
what
it
I
think.
That's
what
what
happened
with
from
a
Layman's
perspective,
big
company
comes
in
so
Prada
comes
in
I
love
him
right,
I
mean
alumni
from
Santa.
Clara
are
very
attentive.
I
Community
have
given
back
to
those
in
need
throughout
Santa
Clara
County
and
the
Bay
Area
as
a
whole.
I
get
it,
but
this
one
project
was
really
a
bad
taste
in
everyone's
mouths
right
and
because
of
that,
all
the
little
people
who
are
not
massive
owners
of
production
or
owners
of
a
big
company
like
Serato,
are
paying
the
price
for
it,
and
that's
not
fair
right.
I
So,
if
is
that,
if
there's
any
way
that
we
can
use
counselves
bring
in
language
if
it's,
if
it's
feasible
enough
to
be
specific
to
those
current
owners
of
Parcels
in
Mountain
View,
that
then
I
think
that's
very
different
from
just
that.
I
think
that
goes
to
the
point
of
comparing
them
to
a
vacant
lot,
where
anything,
maybe
can
go
right.
So
I
leave
that
into
Sandy's
perspective
in
terms
of
finding
the
language
to
be
specific
enough
to
be
impactful
with
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
understanding.
I
The
reason
why
this
is
even
brought
to
us
in
the
first
place
and
I
think
when,
when
Eric
mentioned
to
me
that
they're
trying
to
be
proactive
for
me,
that
was
a
part
of
good
governance
and
governing
isn't
easy.
It's
messy,
and
sometimes
you
come
into
these
issues
where
you
hear
both
sides
of
the
issue
and
you
understand
both
perspectives.
But
when
staff
also
comes
into
play
and
says
hey,
this
is
why
we
think
we
can
do
this
and
why
we
should
then
do
this.
I
It
goes
to
that
issue
of
being
in
good
governance
mode
because
we
have
been
behind
the
eight
ball
for
the
last
five
eight
years
with,
for
whatever
reason,
many
issues
when
the
state
says
something,
then
we
have
to
catch
up
and
if
the
team's
trying
to
say
hey,
here's
an
opportunity,
though
it's
small
in
nature,
it's
still
going
to
have
an
impact
on
everyone
involved.
Let's
take
the
time
to
do
the
time
out
now,
because
we
think
it's
worth
it
so
I.
I
F
G
You
know
you
know
I'm
feeling
a
bit
split
about
it
and
I
think
that
this
is
an
important
conversation.
I
think
some
of
the
concerns
about
what
could
happen
downtown
are
well-founded.
However,
you
know,
process
is
important
and
fairness
is
important.
G
I'll
just
tell
you
what
I
wish
would
happen.
What
I
wish
would
happen
is
I
wish
staff
could
just
take
in
the
conversation
that
we
had
tonight
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
then
in
two
weeks
come
back
with.
You
know
a
staff
member.
That's
got
that's
a
little
bit
evolved.
That
has
a
couple
of
options
in
it.
That
lets
us
decide.
Well,
should
it
be
0.35
far,
should
it
be
50
000
square
feet?
G
Maybe
it's
a
third
thing,
and
you
know,
maybe
you
know
bacon
some
very
reasonable
exception
for
folks
that
are
just
about
there
and
then
then
we
could
vote
on
it
and
it
would
have
been
out
of
the
public.
It
wouldn't
feel
like
a
like.
It
fell
out
of
the
sky.
G
G
A
What
do
you,
what
are
you
proposing?
I
am
I
mean
I'll,
say
that
anything
that
doesn't
allow
some
kind
of
grace
period
for
current
donors.
I
know
I
I
would
not
support
I,
don't
know,
but
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
what
you
are
kind
of
proposing
as
something
else
and
I
I
to
a
certain
extent.
Agree
with
commissioner
Dempsey
that
I
I'd
like
to
see
something
different,
but
I.
Don't
know
that
we're
I,
don't
know
that
we're
the
right
place
to
come
up
with
the
answer
that
at
this
point
so
I
get
you.
A
K
Yeah,
well
that
that's
fair,
that
was
my
my
hard
brain
trying
to
figure
out
something
on
the
Fly,
but
I
do
think
and
and
Eric
tell
me
if
you
disagree
like
you
know,
if,
if
staff,
you
know,
if
staff
worked
really
hard
on
this
and
their
recommendation
is
what
they
presented
to
us
like
I,
you
know
I,
think
that
should
be
one
of
the
options
for
Council
to
consider.
K
You
know
I,
you
know
they've
they've
made
good
arguments
in
in
the
staff
report,
so
so
I
think,
if,
if
it
were
me
like
presenting
it
to
council
I
think
what
I'd
say
was
you
know,
here's
the
staff
recommendation,
the
the
EPC
had
some
concerns
about
it.
We
still
recommend
it,
but
here
is
here
is
here,
are
some
of
the
here
are
some
of
the
concerns
that
EPC
had
and
here's
how
we
might
be
able
to
address
them?
K
One
being
you
know,
providing
a
a
grace
period
for
folks
to
to
apply,
and
here
are
some
options
for
those
dates
you
can
set
it
to
the
original
public
notice
date
like
what
is
currently
being
proposed.
Now
you
can
set
it
to
maybe
Today
this
meeting
date
that
we
had
on
November,
2nd
where
you
could
set
it
to
be.
You
know
the
council
meeting
date
or
or
a
date
at
the
end
of
the
year.
K
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
is
and
I
think
there
are
probably
some
some
things
that
the
city
attorney's
office
should
probably
look
at
as
part
of
that,
but
I
think
so
one
concern
would
be
you
know,
providing
some
sort
of
grace
period.
K
I
think
the
other
would
be
that
at
least
my
concern
was
I
I'm
much
more
concerned
about
you
know.
After
January
1
someone's
submitting
you
know
a
significant.
K
You
know
a
high,
far
proposal
for
a
vacant
site
or
a
site.
That's
going
to
be
scraped
than
I.
Am
you
know
someone
making
some
modifications
to
an
existing
structure?
K
You're
doing
some
additions,
those
sorts
of
things
I,
don't
know:
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
to
better
state
that,
but
I
think
I
think
what
we,
what
we
don't
want
in
the
next
during
this
period,
where
we're
developing
phase
two
of
the
precise
plan
is,
you
know
a
another
like
you
know,
High
far
off
purely
office
project
right,
maybe
with
ground
floor
retail,
but
but
still
like
that's
sort
that,
but
that
doesn't
have
any
parking,
Provisions
or
anything
like
I.
Think,
that's,
that's
really.
K
What
we're
we're
trying
to
to
get
at
here
and
I,
don't
know
how
to
better
what
attack
but
I
think
those
are.
Those
are
the
two
like
primary
primary
concerns
that
I
have
is:
is
some
sort
of
some
sort
of
grace
period?
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
date
is.
I
think
they're,
probably
legal
implications
for
choosing
that
right
date
and
then
the
other
would
be.
K
If
the
council
wants
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
leniency
around.
You
know
you
know
additions
or
add-ons
and
instead
wants
to
sort
of
really
Target.
You
know
vacant
or
or
sites
that
could
be.
You
know
scraped,
but
then
you
also
have
to
craft
that
language
which
I
feel
bad
about.
You
know
staff
having
to
figure
out
those
are
the
two
big
things.
I
think
the
you
know
this
sort
of
came
out
of
it.
You
know
this
was
pretty
short
notice.
K
Those
sorts
of
things
like
that's
water
under
the
bridge.
At
this
point,
so
I,
I,
don't
and
and
I
do
genuinely
feel
like
we
we
do
need
to
do
something.
K
I
generally
want
just
given
the
the
state
law
there
and
being
able
to
develop
our
ordinances.
So
that's
where
I'm
at
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
helped
Eric,
but
maybe
it
does,
maybe
it
doesn't,
but.
A
Vegetarian
right
did
you
Eric.
Did
you
want
to
respond
to
that.
R
No
I
I
think
that's
a
you
know
that
that
direction
is
is
something
that
we
can
work
with.
I
think
as
as
other
Commissioners
speak,
maybe
we
might
have
to
kind
of
further
refine
that
direction.
But
you
know
I,
don't
have
any
thoughts
or
questions
or
comments
on.
F
Thank
you,
yeah
I
was
gonna
jump
in
there
to
try
to
help
craft
something
too,
and
it's
very
similar
to
what
commissioner
clerk
was
saying.
I
I
I
do
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
note
to
council
that
prioritizing
phase
two
would
be
important
to
us
if
everyone
else
agrees.
F
I
I
also
think
that
you
know,
as
I
said
earlier,
that
the
exceptions
and
I
was
going
to
leave
to
council
and
sorry
and
staff
and
to
sort
of
tweak
that
a
little
bit
and
just
give
a
little
bit
more
detail,
and
maybe
Sandy
you'll,
have
something
to
say
to
this
because
I
don't
understand
the
legal
aspects
and
repercussions
at
all,
maybe
by
the
date
Council
sees
this
and
I
don't
know.
F
If
staff
can
do
this
see
how
many
applications
come
in
and
what
they
are
and
just
present
them
as
they
are
so
by
today's
date,
as
staff
has
made
the
recommendation.
These
are
the
projects
that
would
be
affected
if
more
end
up
coming
in
I.
Don't
know
how
much
time
staff
takes
to
do
it,
but
just
draw
a
map
of
where
they
are.
What
the
proposal
is.
F
Generally,
like
how
large
it
is
and
what
either
the
jobs
housing
balance
would
be
off
by
this
much
or
you
know
just
the
sort
of
key
data
points
very
quickly
and
compare
this
date,
the
date
of
council
meeting,
and
maybe
some
other
one
that
you
feel
is
key
and
let
counsel
then
see
what
the
repercussions
are
and
they
can
choose
out
of
like
three
dates.
What
they
feel
is
best.
F
I
Great
idea,
that's
true
yeah.
Those
are
that's
great
I
like
that,
because
at
least
the
council
then
has
the
option:
well,
not
the
option,
but
the
accounts
can
then
look
at
the
immediate
impact
of
how
this
would
affect
those
that
are
in
waiting
and
who
have
just
applied
or
will
apply,
and
so
that
gives
them
a
better
holistic
perspective
of
the
impact
to
such
a
short-term
cap.
The
other
thing,
though,
is
Eric.
I
I,
don't
know
if
you
know
this
or
not,
but
I've
got
to
ask
and
Sandy
as
well
in
terms
of
capacity.
I
If
you
were
to
have
these
types
of
suggestions
added
on
to
what
we're
discussing
now
and
we
were
to
incorporate
this
as
into
the
resolution,
the
staff
recommendation
I'm
wondering
if
that's
the
ideal
point
or
if
there's
enough
time,
as
it
was
suggested
before
by
commissioner
Clark
and
others
to
go
back
and
then
bring
this
back.
I
I'm,
not
sure
that
there's
enough
time,
because
we
only
have
I
believe
one
meeting
in
November
right
and
then
I
think
there's
only
another
meeting
in
December
for
us,
but
then
Council
schedules
jammed
packed
as
far
as
I
know.
So
the
so,
if
we're
working
on
a
type
timeline
so
that
they
can
have
something
in
full
so
that
we
can
accommodate
what
they're
doing
to
review
things
before
the
end
of
the
year,
then
we
may
not
have
enough
time
to
have
you
beef.
I
R
So
let
me
let
me
respond
to
both
what
what
you
said
in
the
recommendation
from
the
vice
chair
regarding
what
you
said,
I
think,
ultimately,
what
we
would
have
to
do
is
take
the
recommendation
to
council
now
the
EPC
can,
as
part
of
the
recommendation
say,
we
think
this
is
premature,
and
so
we
don't
think
you
should
adopt
this
right
now.
But
you
know
in
the
you.
R
R
What
you're
saying
is
that
you
know
somebody
could
actually
submit
an
application
the
morning
of
the
council
meeting
and
then
the
staff
would
have
to
present
that
application
that
night
at
the
council
meeting
and
I
that
that's
kind
of
an
extreme
example,
but
really
the
the
the
the
analysis
and
Report
preparation
time
is
it
it's
not
immediate
right,
I
mean
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
have
a
month
between
EPC
and
Council
meetings
and
it's
very
difficult
to
include
a
significant
amount
of
additional
analysis,
especially
the
closer
and
closer
you
get
to
the
the
council
meetings.
R
And
so
we
would
expect
that
anybody
who
would
be
wanting
to
submit
an
application
would
want
to
take
as
much
time
as
possible
to
do
so,
and
so
it
would
be.
It
would
be
a
very,
very
difficult
for
us
to
present
a
set
of
applications
to
counsel
and
have
them
make
a
determination
on
a
cut
off.
Based
on
that.
I
So
I
have
a
quick
follow-up,
then
Eric.
So
if
that
option
isn't
available
for
city
council
to
review
applications
up
to
set
deadline
time,
including
the
date
of
when
this
is
going
to
be
discussed
at
that
moment
with
City
Council
I
I,
don't
know
what
you
heard
from
my
suggestion:
I'm,
not
sure
we
understood
each
other
that
clearly,
my
point
was
more.
I
Right,
okay,
so
I
think
based
on
that,
based
on
the
items
that
were
brought
up
by
the
Commissioners
as
a
whole,
I
think
Sandy
has
a
good
amount
of
understanding
of
what
type
of
language
we're
looking
for
for
the
restrictions
or
the
exceptions
that
we'd
like
to
look
at
and
add
on
to
the
recommendation
as
points
of
interest
for
Council
to
review.
Does
that
make
sense.
T
T
Lot
of
things
but
I,
don't
know
what
a
majority
of
the
EPC
is
going
to
support.
So
I
need
to
hear
a
motion
with
kind
of
the
bullet
points
of
what
you
would
like.
I
mean
it
could
be.
You
move
the
staff
recommendation.
You
know
with
an
additional
exemption
for
a
pipeline
provision
to
exempt
projects
that
have
submitted
an
application
by
such
and
such
a
date
and
any
of
the
dates
actually
that
you've
floated
could
potentially
work.
I
mean
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
legal
problem
with
any
of
them.
T
No
one
will
be
vested
anyway
for
for
an
office
project
so
and
then,
and
then,
if
there's
other
bullet
points,
you
want
to
add
to
the
the
motion,
then
we'll
see
and
then
and
then
we
may
be
able
to
work
with
with
that
craft
language.
Well,.
I
That's
wonderful
because
now
at
least
we
all
have
a
framework
from
what
you
need
from
us
to
be
able
to
figure
that
out
right.
So
that's
that's!
That's
key
to
be
able
to
figure
out
okay.
What
does
Sandy
need
to
move
this
forward?
So
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
Clark's
perspective
early
on
with
the
two
points
that
he
made
now
I.
Don't
know
what
the
other
Commissioners
think
so,
maybe
now's
a
good
time
to
find
out.
Do
you
all
like
that
perspective
or
in
favor
of
that?
T
Chair
no,
it
doesn't
because
it's
an
amendment
of
The,
precise
plan,
which
is
done
by
resolution,
so
it
doesn't
require
a
second
rating.
B
R
No
generally,
these
resolutions
go
into
effect.
30
days
later.
We
we
have
an
effective
date
for
the
resolutions.
T
A
I
guess
but
I'm
getting.
It
is
picking
on
what
commissioner
Clark
talked
about,
which
is
picking
a
date.
Okay
and
the
idea
of
giving
them
multiple
choice.
Let's
not
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
that,
but
I
would
either
either
it's
the
date
that
it's
the
date.
You
know
the
the
grace
period
goes
up
until
December
6th
or
if
it's
goes
into
effect.
30
days
later,
any
project
submitted
up
until
January
6th
but
I'm
not
comfortable
with
now
or
yesterday,
kind
of
a
thing.
A
And
if
the
thinking
about
what
professional
Clark
said,
if
it's
something
in
the
in
your
in
the
staff
report,
it
says
Small
Change
associated
with
building
upgrades
of
governmental
property.
If
there
was
Improvement
in
this
one
before
is
improving
and
placed
buildings,
but
not
to
add
office
space
greater
than
a
3.5
far
that
could
be.
It
sets
some
some
specific
square
footage
limit
that
might
maybe
that
would
address
the.
A
H
A
That
says,
you
know
if
they're
approving
a
space
of
the
upgrading
existing
space,
expanding
something
that's
already
there
within
a
you
know
within
some
number,
within
the
precise
plan,
I
think,
like
I,
said,
the
process
plan
allows
up
to
0.4
is
what
you
said
earlier
Eric,
so
if
it
was
within
that
guideline
and
on
on
upgrading
an
existing
building
or
something
like
that
better,
that
would
make
some
sense
that
then
that
would
make
more
sense
to
me,
commissioner.
Clerk.
K
Yeah,
so
it
sounds
like
it
would
be.
The
staff
recommendation
with
with
three
additional
points.
One
would
be
that
the
the
EPC
recommend
that
the
council
prioritized
phase
two
of
the
downtown
precise
plan
review
and
update
alongside
the
adoption
of
this
resolution
or
or
berries
in
there
after
you
know,
at
minimum,
with
the
note
to
prioritize
it
if
they're
goal
setting
but
anyway
that
I
think
the
first
position
would
be.
You
know
in
court.
K
You
know
in
concert
with
adopting
the
resolution
that
they
also
prioritize
phase
two
of
the
downtown
precise
Plan
update
process
as
soon
as
possible,
two
that
the
the
two
that
they,
the
council,
that
the
EPC
recommends
that
there
be
a
pipeline
provision,
I
think
you
can
basically
present
to
council
the
applications
that
you've
received
up
up
through
the
point
where
you're
comfortable
you
know,
including
them
in
the
staff
report
that
that
goes
out.
K
You
know
as
of
the
time-
and
maybe
you
know
my
personal
view-
is
that
the
the
the
earliest
date,
the
Airways
cutoff
date,
would
be
the
date
that
you
notice
the
council
meeting,
which
would
be
approximately.
You
know
four
weeks
from
now,
but
if
the
council
wants
to
you
know,
if
the
council
sees
the
list
and
they
decide
that
they
want
to
provide,
you
know
additional
time,
then
that's
perfectly
fine
too,
but
I
think
there
I
think
at
minimum.
K
There
should
be
a
pipeline
provision
in
my
personal
preference,
I,
don't
know
how
my
colleagues
feel
is
that
the
the
latest
or
the
the
airway
state
that
should
be
should
be
the
the
the
noticing
of
the
of
the
council
I'm
hearing
on
this,
and
then
the
third
would
be
that
that
the
council,
you
know,
consider
you
know
a
separate
cap
for,
for
you,
know,
additions
or
or
modifications
to
a
structure,
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
best
word
this,
because
I
don't
want
people
to
sort
of
be
able
to
weasel
around
it,
but
but
basically
you're
you're
0.35,
for
you
know
a
vacant
site
or
a
site,
that's
being
scraped
or
that
that's
you
know,
a
separate
structure
is,
is
fine
I,
just
think
if
someone,
if
you
want
to
do
like
a
if
you
think
a
square
footage
cap
makes
more
sense.
K
For
you
know.
In
addition,
if
someone's
adding
a
couple
of
floors
of
something
to
an
existing
building
or
adding
on
to
a
historic
structure,
they're
they're,
preserving
the
historic
portion
of
it
and
adding
on
to
it,
and
if
that's
that,
if
it's
easier
to
do
that
as
a
square
footage
cap
as
opposed
to
an
apar
cap,
then
I'd
be
open
to
that
too.
K
But
the
I
think
the
fundamental
the
fundal
fundamental
recommendation
there
is
to
maybe
consider
having
a
a
a
more
lenient
cap
for
that
that
type
of
project
versus
you
know
just
a
scrape
site
or
a
vacant
site,
that's
starting
from
scratch.
I
All
right,
I
agree
with
the
perspective
that
Chris
brought
up
now,
it's
just
a
matter
of
the
rest
of
us
trying
to
figure
out
if
we'd
like
to
go,
you
know
with
a
square
footage
amount
or
or
the
the
far
I'm
I'm
open
to
to
either
or
but
I.
Think
if
we
go
with
the
square
footage,
we'd
have
to
we'd
have
to
really
look
into
the
size
more
seriously
and
not
just
throw
a
number
out
that
way.
I
E
Yeah,
you
would
also
just
have
concerns
about
picking
a
square
footage
amount
without
greater
information
and
I,
don't
know
anything
about
the
Morales
project
or
where
that
would
be
and
would
want
to
make
sure
it's
Equitable
across
any
other
projects
that
would
be
in
the
pipeline
and
I
also
would
like
to
command
commissioner
Clark
for
coming
up
with
a
three-pong
approach
on
the
cuff.
So
thank
you
for
for
that
framework.
F
I,
concur
with
the
other
Commissioners
that
I
I
don't
feel
like
I
have
enough
information
to
determine
Square,
footages,
so
I
sort
of
in
that
realm
sort
of
leave
it
up
to
staff
to
figure
out
where
that
cutoff
needs
to
be.
For
me,
I
would
be
amenable
to
looking
at
a
date,
though
I
can't
say
what
that
date
might
be.
F
For
me,
it
would
be
the
two
things
which
is
prioritizing
phase
two
and
a
sort
of
a
pipeline
exemption
date.
I
would
be
comfortable
with
just
going
with
staff
recommendation
as
well
on
that
too.
So
I'm
not
ruling
that
out,
but
I
I
do
totally
understand
the
the
parody
issue.
So
I'm
I'd
be
open
to
looking
at
a
date.
J
Let
me
lower
my
hand,
yeah
I
also
don't
want
to
get
into
the
technical
weeds
of
a
you
know,
square
footage,
number
and
yeah
I
mean
setting
a
date.
I
think
would
be
a
good
compromise
here.
So
I
can
definitely
support
that,
not
sure
that
I
want
to
be
the
one
to
come
up
with
a
date
or
that
you
know
really
kind
of
think
about
it
too
hard.
If
we
don't
have
to,
if
staff
feels
there's
a
good
framework
they
can
deploy,
then
that
would
also
be
good.
J
But
commissioner,
Clark's
compromising
is
pretty
reasonable.
A
Hey
sir
quick
question
for
Eric
Do,
you
have
a
thought
on.
How
do
we
deal
with
these?
You
know
existing
site
approach
is
it
sounds
like
the
majority
of
Commissioners
are
uncomfortable
deciding
on
a
square
footage
number?
Is
there
a
different
way
of
addressing
the
if
they
are
a
number
that
would
excellent.
R
That's
a
that's
a
good
question.
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
look
at
it.
You
know,
if
you
focus
on
square
footage,
then
you're
letting
smaller
sites
go
through
and
probably
not
letting
larger
sites
go
through.
If
you
focus
on
far
it's
probably
a
little
more
vice
versa.
R
If
you
are
really
interested
in
the
addition
question,
you
may
want
to
have
something
in
there.
That's
about
like
what
percentage
increase
is
happening
on
the
building
right,
so
that
they're
not
just
saving
a
wall,
you,
you
know
those
are
all
different
ways
of
thinking
about
the
the
question
and
there
are
probably
more
you
know
it
sounds
to
me.
Like
you
know
what
the
focus
of
the
conversation
has
been
has
been
really
around.
R
You
know
that
there
is
already
a
significant
structure
on
the
building:
that's
not
being
reduced
in
any
way
and
that
the
you
know
what's
being
added
on
is,
is
you
know?
Maybe
it's
and
I
I
can't
say
right
now,
not
knowing
it
very
much
about
the
you
know,
the
the
198
Castro
project,
I,
really,
don't
know
how
much
they're
proposing
to
add
I.
Don't
know
you
know
what
the
footprint
is
of
that
part
of
the
building
or
how
any
of
that
would
would
be
affected
by
any
of
this,
but
these
are
the
the.
R
R
You
know
the
how
much
of
the
building
is
being
preserved?
Things
like
that
and
then
we
may
be
able
to
craft
a
standard,
or
you
know.
K
The
second
part
being
I,
don't
know
if
it's
unanimous
but
the
you
know
there
being
a
pipeline
provision
and
you
can
present
to
council
their
their
options,
but
maybe
State
as
long
as
my
colleagues
agree
that
that
the
epc's
recommendation
was
that
the
or
or
that
one
of
the
dates
that
the
EPC
recommended
looking
at
was
the
the
date
of
the
the
notice
of
for
the
city
council
meeting
went
out,
but
obviously,
if
they
want
to
go
farther
back
to
like
November
one
or
even
beyond
that
they
can
and
if
they
want
to
be
more
lenient.
K
They
can
do
that
too,
but
but
always
capturing
that
the
I
think.
Maybe
there
was
a
consensus
amongst
the
EPC
that
there
should
be
a
pipeline
provision
that
it
should
be.
It
should
be
after
today,
but
I'm
not
sure.
We
all
feel
that
way,
but
it
sounded
like
a
majority
might
have
and
then
the
third
thing
I
think
from
a
staff
perspective,
it's
probably
most
important
to
get
those
first,
two
things
plus
the
actual
resolution
in
place
at
that
at
that
December
6
council
meeting.
K
Assuming
that's
what
council
wants
to
do,
I
think
you
could
also
you
know,
you're,
probably
not
going
to
be
able
unless
you're
superhuman,
which
sometimes
stuff
is
in
the
next
five
weeks
to
you,
know
craft.
What
a
reasonable
carve
out
or
or
more
lenient
development
standard
would
be
for
an
existing
structure,
but
I
get.
But
you
could
ask
the
question
of
council
and
you
could
say
that
EPC
was
interested
in
you're,
perhaps
having
a
more
lenient
standard
for
existing
structures
that
aren't
for
for
additions
and
things
like
that.
K
It
is
it
the
sense
of
counsel
that
they'd
like
to
look
at
that,
because
you
can
always
add
that
later
you
can
always
be
more
lenient
later,
if
you,
if,
if
Council
wishes
it's
hard
to
foreign,
it's
hard
to
go
the
other
direction
so
that.
K
That
in
my
head
is
sort
of
emotion,
so
it's
the
it's
the
it
would
be.
The
the
staff
recommendation
with
one
that
the
the
EPC
recommends
that
the
council
prioritize
phase
two
of
the
precise
plan
development,
alongside
the
deduction
of
the
resolution
to
that
the
council
will
adopt
a
pipeline
provision.
That
is
a
date
that
provides
you
know.
K
K
The
other
options
to
council
too,
if
they
don't
like
that
recommendation
and
three,
that
that
Council
consider
a
more
lenient,
a
more
lenient
standard
for
existing
structures
like
a
at
where
for
additions,
and
things
like
that,
and
if
they
wish
to
do
that,
you
know
we
can
explore
that
further,
where
staff
can
explore
that
further
and
bring
back
something
more
fully.
K
They
are
interested
in
it
and
they
want
to
keep
it
super
clean,
then
so
be
it.
But
at
least
we've
noted
that
the
the
discussion
here
was
there
was
at
least
I
think
some
consensus
around,
maybe
looking
at
a
more
lenient
standard
from
those
particular
cases.
F
R
Yeah
anybody
can
propose
any
application
that
doesn't
comply
with
development
standards
through
the
gatekeeper
process,
and
so
that
would
be
councils
acquiescence
to
for
staff
to
study
and
work
on
that
project.
Okay,.
A
F
T
F
Really:
okay,
okay,
I
I'm
comfortable
with
what
commissioner
Clark
had
presented,
because,
at
least
from
what
I'm
seeing
that's
the
direction
we're
going.
That
would
that
feels
comfortable
for
I?
Think
the
majority
of
the
EBC
is
my
sense
of
it,
but
I'll
wait
till
everyone
else
speaks.
G
Yeah,
it
looks
like
we're
getting
close
to
a
boat
here.
I
wanted
to
say
just
two
things,
one
with
the
Nuance.
That's
been
added,
I.
Think
to
this.
That
gets
me
close
enough,
so
I
I'll
be
comfortable.
G
I'll
be
comfortable
going
along
with
this
and
I
wanted
to
commend
commissioner
Clark
for
all
this
hard
work.
Trying
to
like
you
know,
piece
all
that
piece
all
that
stuff
together
to
get
us
to
where
we
were
so
I
commend
him
for
his
clever
work
there
and
look
forward
to
get
this
done.
E
A
Looks
like
we
have
so
you're
gonna
make
it
a
formal
motion.
Commissioner.
R
R
Plan
that
recommendation
that
a
pipeline
provision
also
be
included
with
the
cutoff
date
or
some
options
for
cutoff
date,
but
likely
no
later
than
the
notice
for
the
council.
B
A
B
R
Okay,
okay,
I'm
glad
I'm
clarified
and
then
a
also
a
recommendation
that
Council
request
staff
to
study
a
separate,
more
lenient
cap
for
additions
or
modifications
to
a
building
that
we
could
come
back
to
later.
K
Just
two
minor
changes,
the
the
last
one,
not
that
the
EPC
requests
that
Council
do
that,
but
that
the
council
basically
indicates
that
the
there
was
interest
amongst
the
APC
and
having
a
separate,
more
lenient
standard
and
that
the
council
consider
that
I
I
wouldn't
go
so
far
as
to
say
that
we
want
the
council
to
do
that.
And
then
there
was
one
other,
oh,
yes
and
and
I,
while
the
epcs
I
I.
K
Think
General
consensus
was
that
the
the
date
should
be
no
earlier
than
the
for
the
pipeline
provision
should
be
never
aware
than
the
council.
The
note.
The
public
notice
of
the
council
meeting
for
that
item
that
you
you'll
present
all
the
options
that
they
have
to
be.
K
You
know
more
strict
or
more
lenient
and
then
not
really
part
of
what
we
go,
but
just
maybe,
if
you'd
be
willing
to
just
update
the
list
of
applications
for
Council
that
you've
received
at
that
point,
whatever
you
feel
is
most
reasonable
for
you,
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
do
it
up
until
the
point
when
the
staff
report
goes
out,
but
but
I'm
sure
Council
might
be
interested
in
what
has
come
in
since
so
they
can
make
a
make
a
decision
on
whether
to
make
it
earlier
or
later.
H
K
Pipeline
provision,
because
there
might
be
folks
we
haven't
heard
from
tonight
who
submit
something-
and
maybe
those
won't
be
those
applications
won't
be
of
interest
but
anyway,
that
that
all
captures
it
I
think
and
if
Eric,
that's
okay
with
you,
then
I'll
I'll
make
that
my
motion.
F
I
was
gonna,
say
what
commissioner
Clark
just
said,
which
is
to
to
not
say
we're
requesting
that
it
be
no
later,
but
that
it
is
up
to
their
discretion
if
they
wanted
earlier
or
not,
and
I
was
also
going
to
to
just
ask
if
we
wanted
to
put
a
later
the
the
latest
date
for
for
the
point
that
commissioner
Clark
had
said
earlier
about
the
state
law
passing
and
there's
a
there's
that
date
that
is
looming.
F
That
would
sort
of
take
us
into
the
realm
of
you
know
losing
out
on
some
of
the
the
benefits
for
which
we're
doing
this
entire
thing
and
I.
Don't
know
exactly
what
that
date
would
be
if
it
doesn't
take
effect
30
days
until
it's
noticed
or
until
the
vote
so
wait.
A
minute.
December
6
is
when
the
council
might
meet
on
this,
so
it's
possible
that
it
would
be
January
6th.
R
A
R
Would
would
get
their
their
vesting
rights
in
that
period.
H
B
K
Yeah
before
we
vote
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
everyone
like
I
know,
I'm
still
personally
uncomfortable
with
this,
but
I
I
feel
better
about
it
and
I'm
sure
we
all
have
some
level
of
discomfort
with
the
compromise
we've
agreed
to,
but
I
anyway.
I
really
appreciate
you
all
sort
of
putting
up
but
trying
to
come
up
all
all
all
of
your
recommendations,
sort
of
putting
everything
together
so
that
we
could
figure
out
a
path
forward.
B
C
G
A
S
A
Thank
you
for
everyone
good
work,
so
we
will
move
on
to
item
six.
Commission
staff,
announcements
updates,
requests
committee
reports.
No
action
will
be
taken
by
any
item
brought
up
during
this
time.
So
Eric
did
you
have
update
on
our
next
meetings.
R
Sure
yeah,
so
the
next
meeting
is
going
to
be
the
housing
element,
we're
getting
all
of
that
ready
for
you.
You
should
expect
the
final
eir
out
end
of
the
week.
R
R
R
Yeah
we
do
tentatively,
let's
see
well
I'll,
just
say
right
now
that
we
we
do
technically
have
some
items.
I,
don't
I'll
have
to
give
a
report
on
those
next.
R
So
it
was
a
special
EPC
meeting
on
the
original
calendar.
It
actually
doesn't
look
like
we
have
any
items
scheduled
for
that
meeting
at
this
time.
Give
us
another
two
weeks,
yeah
and
we'll
we'll
give
let
you
know
if
it.
If
it's
going
to
be
officially
canceled.
A
K
R
Yes,
the
Set,
the
seventh
but
sorry,
but
not.
R
R
Just
that
it's
getting
to
be
that
time
and
so
I'm
gonna
be
sending
out.
You
know
holiday
party
ideas.
It's
always
nice
to
get
together
outside
of
this.
These
great
heady
discussions,
but
in
a
more
relaxed
atmosphere.
So
any
just
be
ready
for
that
and
I'll
set
up
some
dates
and
some
possible.