►
From YouTube: September 21, 2022 - City of Mountain View's Environmental Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Live Teleconference of the City of Mountain View's Environmental Planning Commission Meeting
A
A
C
D
A
Yeah,
the
next
on
an
agenda
is
oral
Community
oral
Communications.
This
portion
of
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
EPC
on
a
matter
that
is
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
A
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
a
non-agenda
item.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comments
on
the
non-jet
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
waves
hand
button
in
zoom
we're
going
to
press
star
9
on
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
and
how
do
we
have
I'm
gonna?
Have
anyone
wishing
to
speak
foreign.
A
Or
Communications
item
before
on
the
agenda,
4.1
is
mixed:
use
development
at
334,
San,
Antonio
Road.
First,
do
we
have
any
Commissioners
wish
to
disclose
either
contact
with
the
applicant
or
visits
to
the
site?
All
right,
I
didn't
talk
to
the
applicant,
but
it's
pretty
hard
for
me
to
not
drive
past
the
site,
since
it's
not
that
far.
H
D
J
J
The
project
site
is
located
on
the
southwest
corner
of
San
Antonio
Road
and
California
Street.
It
is
immediately
surrounded
by
one
story:
commercial
uses
to
the
South,
the
west
and
the
North,
and
across
San
Antonio
Road
to
the
East
are
other
recent
developments,
including
the
gray
star,
mixed-use
residential
project
under
construction,
kitty
corner
to
the
project
site
and
The
Village
at
San
Antonio
developments
in
the
San
Antonio
Center.
J
In
addition
to
the
proposed
state
density,
bonus
requests,
there's
a
provisional
use
permit
request
to
allow
rooftop
amenities
above
the
third
floor,
and
the
project
also
includes
a
request
to
exempt
the
ground
floor
commercial
floor
area
from
the
far
calculations
for
the
project
pursuant
to
allowances.
Under
the
San
Antonio
precise
plan,
the
proposed
project
would
transform
the
existing
gas
station
site
with
more
pedestrian-friendly
uses
and
design.
J
The
project
will
implement
the
street
design
standards
from
the
precise
plan,
which
include
wider,
detached
sidewalks,
widened
vehicle
and
bike
Lanes
along
California
Street
in
front
of
the
project
site
bike
parking
for
visitors
and
at
the
corner
there
will
be
a
small
public
Plaza
with
covered
arcade
that
features
Landscaping,
seating
and
public
art.
The
off-site
and
other
on-site
improvements
will
require
the
site's
three
existing
Street
trees
to
be
removed.
So
those
are
shown
in
red
bashed
circles
on
the
screen
right
now
and
those
will
be
replaced
by
nine
new
Street
trees.
J
While
the
site
design
prioritizes
the
creation
of
pedestrian
spaces
along
public
frontages,
the
building
design
also
tries
to
create
some
visual
interest
along
the
commercial
Frontage
at
San
Antonio
Road.
This
includes
a
portion
that
has
a
zigzag
glazing
pattern.
Those
textured
materials
that
are
applied
in
angular
shapes
and
other
bright
pops
of
color.
J
Amongst
the
project,
63
resident
or
sorry
62
residential
units,
the
current
proposal
includes
13
below
market
rate
units
that
would
be
affordable
to
low
and
median
income
households.
The
this
proposed
mix
of
affordable
units
makes
the
project
eligible
for
a
50
state
density
bonus
which
is
the
maximum
that's
allowed
for
the
project
under
state
law,
I
mean,
and
this
mix
also
complies
with
the
city's
BMR
ordinance,
with
application
of
the
requested
State
density
bonus
sessions.
J
Staff
prepared
an
initial
study
of
environmental
significance
for
the
project,
which
found
that
it
would
not
cause
any
new
or
substantially
more
severe
environmental
impacts
than
have
already
been
analyzed
and
previously
certified
environmental
documents
that
cover
the
precise
plan
area.
This
slide
has
the
full
staff
recommendation,
and
that
concludes
staff's
presentation
tonight.
City
staff,
as
well
as
our
lead
super
consultant
spring
Marine.
Con
are
available
for
any
questions
that
the
EPC
may
have,
and
the
applicant
team
is
also
here
tonight
and
has
a
great
presentation.
Thank
you.
J
I
think
leading
off
will
be
mircha.
Blueic
has
been
provided
already.
K
Yes
is
I
saw
that
we
have
Brent
he's
going
to
pull
the
presentation,
Brent
I'm,
going
to
pull
the
presentation
or
it's
going
to
be
on
the
city.
Side.
J
Brent
should
be
able
to
do
that.
Oh.
K
Good
evening
honorable
planning
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Amir
chavascript
I
am
the
co-owner
and
the
applicant
for
this
project.
First
I
wanted
to
emphasize
and
thank
Rebecca
Shapiro
and
Public
Works
City
staff
that
help
us
to
achieve
this
goal
to
be
in
front
of
you
tonight.
After
about
15
months
of
work
and
I
know
that
everybody
put
a
long
hours
and
on
a
very
challenging
project.
K
K
It's
an
all-electric
building
in
this
development,
we
believe
is
going
to
strengthen
the
neighborhood
retail
with
along
the
San
Antonio
and
in
the
process,
is
going
to
offer
62
condominium
units
for
families
in
the
Mountain
View.
That
would
wanted
to
have
ownership
since,
as
we
understand,
there
are
a
lot
of
apartment
buildings-
and
this
will
be
a
condo
for
sale
type
of
product
I
also
wanted
to
move
quickly
because
I
know
I
have
a
very
limited
time
to
the
BMR.
K
Yes,
so
I.
Thank
you
so
much.
K
This
project
started
to
with
providing
option,
one
which
is
13
BMR
units
with
11
low
and
three
moderate
and
in
the
process
of
in
the
last
couple
of
days,
we
were
made
aware
of
more
guidance
from
hcd,
which
we
provided
Rebecca
with
the
letter
and
also
he
was
aimed
in
another
public
comment
similar
that
this
Ami
requirement
policy
by
the
city
might
be
something
that
our
city
will
have
to
look
into
and
that's
what
we
came
with
option
two
for
the
project
option:
two:
basically
what
he
does
it's
offering
to
10
BMR
units,
but
it
gets
rid
of
the
concession
that
will
allow
us
to
do
unit
mix
kind
of
going
from
two
bedrooms
next
to
less
to
bedroom
mix
and
offer
more
one
bedrooms
like
in
option
number
one.
K
K
So
our
understanding
is
that
the
state-
it's
not
encouraging
cities
to
have
an
MI
requirement
to
get
in
100
and
in
the
process
to
be
able
to
lose
the
opportunity
to
have
more
lower
units
and
in
the
process
to
have
actually
a
better
mix
of
units.
In
this
case
for
option
two,
it
will
be
actually
again
to
the
CD
of
the
two
bedroom
two
bath
versus
in
option
one
when
we
exercise
our
concession,
I'm
sure
Rebecca
can
provide
more
background.
K
And-
and
of
course
we
have
the
letter,
but
I
know
I
have
limited
time
so
I'm
sure
that
we
would
like
to
see
if
we
can
open
it
for
discussion
and
eventually,
if
the
planning
Commissioners
will
decide
to
consider
one
of
the
options
or
both
of
the
options.
We
definitely
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity
to
have
been
referred
and
recommended
to
city
council.
So
they
can
also
have
the
opportunity
weigh
in
which
option
they
would
like
to
proceed.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
time.
A
L
Yeah,
if
it's
okay,
we
can
we
present
for
a
few
more
minutes.
Yes,
I,
misunderstood
sorry,
okay
I
mean
I,
know,
Rebecca
did
a
great
job
of
summarizing
the
whole
project
and
three
minutes.
She
did
a
great
job
just
wanted
to
reiterate
what
she
said.
There's
a
lot
of
development
going
on
in
San
Antonio
right
now,
some
beautiful
large-scale
projects
taking
place
and
really
our
goal
was
along.
L
This
Red
Arrow
coming
into
town
was
that
this
really
is
a
key
element
that
greets
people
as
they
come
into
the
San
Antonio
district.
L
L
That
Rebecca
spoke
about
as
well
as
provide
a
a
residential
Courtyard
that
greets
people
kind
of
safely
gets
people
away
from
the
hustle
and
bustle
of
San
Antonio
Road
and
greets
them
on
Californians
Street.
L
L
L
The
residential
Courtyard
really
provides
a
special
place
for
the
residents
here
and
kind
of
lets.
People
know
from
the
street
there's
something
special
going
on
here.
We
like
how
at
the
roof
level,
there's
a
roof
Terrace
with
a
glass
railing
that
visually
really
ties
the
the
two
open
common
Open
Spaces
together
and
provides
View
views
toward
the
San
Francisco
Bay.
L
Then,
along
San
Antonio.
We
made
sure
we
positioned
the
retail
door,
so
it's
readily
seen
from
the
corner
calling
people
in
we
angled
the
glass.
It
goes
back
and
forth,
and
that
was
to
really
reward
the
traffic
as
it
goes
on
both
sides
in
both
directions
on
San
Antonio.
So
you
see
very
varied
Reflections.
L
L
A
lot
of
this
Rebecca
and
the
staff
were
very
pleased
with
this
angular
pattern
that
took
place
here,
and
so
there
was
a
lot
of
effort
to
try
to
integrate
that
into
more
components
of
the
building.
So
ways
that
that
was
done
was
the
canopy
over
the
arcade
has
angles
to
it,
and
we
brought
the
angle
up
through
a
wood
pattern
so
that
it
starts
to
bring
that
playfulness
to
the
project.
L
One
of
the
main
things
we
tried
to
do
with
the
addition
of
the
fifth
floor
was
to
minimize
it,
so
it
stepped
back
and
has
a
darker
color
calling
attention
to
the
second
third
and
fourth
floors.
With
these
framed
elements.
We
also
where
there
were
balconies
at
that
level.
We
used
glass
to
help
minimize
the
appearance
and
try
to
bring
the
scale
of
the
building
down.
L
Then,
along
California
there
was
an
effort
to
put
the
garage
entry
off
of
California
Street
farthest
away
possible
from
The
Busy
Street
intersection.
L
We
have
two
exit
stairs
out
of
the
garage
for
people
to
come
to
the
retail
and
we
brought
some
of
the
angular
playfulness
to
those
exits
so
that
people
could
feel
connected
and
reminded
to
head
towards
the
retail
and
well
that's
what
I'll
say
for
that
slide.
L
L
There
was
a
lot
of
effort
to
to
make
this
building
look
good
from
all
sides,
and
here
you
can
see
these
the
white
frames
with
the
horizontal
wood
paneling
running
through
the
building
providing
a
nice
rhythm
and
a
distinction
for
for
the
living
units.
There.
L
We
also
just
right
here
you
can
see
some
of
the
pop
of
color
and
some
triangular
patterns
again
really
thinking
through
how
this
building's
experienced
from
the
streets
day
in
and
day
out
and
making
it
attractive
at
The,
Pedestrian
level.
L
It's
just
more
views.
You
can
see
here's
the
garage
also
there
was
an
effort
to
integrate
a
core
10
steel
finish
into
some
of
the
site,
work
amenities
just
to
bring
some
warmth
and
materiality
at
the
human
scale.
L
Then
this
is
the
back
corner
that
faces
the
Bank
of
America
building
and
the
Chinese
restaurant
here
again
just
trying
to
make
this
project
attractive
to
all
sides.
This
West
Side
faces
the
existing
residential
Apartments.
So
there
was
an
effort
to
provide
landscape
at
the
roof
here
over
the
garage
to
soften
that
and
be
pleasing
to
the
the
neighbor
go
to
just
across
this
parcel.
L
I
mentioned
some
of
the
materials
there's.
A
combination
of
high
quality
materials,
Park
Lex
Pro
demo
is
a
natural
wood
veneer,
that's
very
durable
and
also
on
the
balconies.
We
are
proposing
to
use
a
caboni
wood
rail
that
has
a
20-year
warranty,
maintenance
free
so
that
it
will
look
good
and
provide
a
natural
experience
both
from
the
street
and
from
a
user
an
owner
perspective
when
the
materiality
will
be
there
as
they
come
out
to
the
decks
to
enjoy
The
View.
L
So
this
is
just
some
views
of
the
project
you
can
see.
There
was
a
an
effort
to
really
put
a
lot
of
trees,
I'll,
let
the
landscape
architect
speak
to
the
types
of
trees
and
then
the
view
some
views
around
the
building,
just
to
give
a
sense
of
what
it
will
be
like
to
enjoy
being
around
the
building.
This
is
from
the
corner.
Looking
towards
the
retail
you
can
see
here
around
the
residential
Clubhouse.
We
have
an
exciting
pattern.
That's
actually
slanted
again
the
it's
visually
trying
to
draw
people
towards
the
retail.
L
This
is
the
community
room,
so
at
night
time
there
it'll
be-
and
you
know
lit
up
and
let
the
street
know
that
there's
life
there-
and
here
you
can
see
how
the
awning
over
the
arcade
has
been
angled
to
kind
of
again
Echo
that
that
feel
and
then
through
this,
you
can
see
how
this
Courtyard,
fencing
and
Landscaping
really
brings
the
amenities
closer
to
the
street
to
be
enjoyed
and
offers
protection
and
makes
it
a
special
place
for
the
residences.
L
Then
inside.
Let
me
make
sure
I
didn't
I
didn't
skip
a
slide
inside
that
Courtyard.
There's
a
water
fountain
that
will
help
re,
that's
recirculated,
water
that
will
help
to
mask
the
noise
of
the
traffic
and
provide
an
area
for
kids
that
they
can
play,
run
their
crazy
circles,
invent
new
games
and
universes
and
play
on
this
structure.
L
L
L
Really.
The
effort
here
at
the
roof.
Terrace
was
it's
an
all-electric
building.
We
provided
electric
amenities.
There
is
no
gas
here,
it's
an
electric
barbecue
here
at
the
kitchen.
Hopefully
Kevin
will
start
taking
over.
For
me,
I'm
sure
he'll
represent
it
better
than
me.
Living
Spaces
exercise
bikes
again
all
facing
towards
the
San
Francisco
Bay,
with
great
views,
then
down
at
the
ground
level.
L
I
think
he's
just
having
trouble
getting
on.
You
can
see.
There
was
an
effort
to
provide
as
many
Street
trees
as
possible.
Again
there
was
a
lot
of
effort
working
with
the
staff
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
get
as
many
trees,
with
all
the
utility
lines
running
through
the
area.
L
As
Rebecca
stated
I
we're
at
75
percent
native
plannings
for
this
project
and
really
again,
the
effort
was
made
to
provide
as
many
trees
as
possible
for
the
project
so
again
just
to
iterate
what
merch
has
said
at
the
beginning.
This
project
really
does
transform
a
fossil
fuel
dispensing
pass-through
gas
station.
That's
not
very
attractive
into
a
Gateway
residential
destination
where
people
can
own
and
live
and
really
enjoy
being
in
the
city
of
Mountain
View.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
then,
we
will
bring
it
to
EPC
questions.
Do
any
Commissioners
have
questions
for
either
staff
or
the
applicant.
A
E
Thanks,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
May
I
ask
a
follow-up
question
about
the
ground
floor.
Retail
and
my
understanding
of
the
precise
plan
is
that
there
are
two
purposes:
one
and
use
their
preservation
of
a
local
business
or
a
non-profit
space
I
the
option
one
and
option
two
were
shown
pretty
quickly.
Is
that
one
of
the
concessions
that
has
changed
or
would
that
remain
the
same
under
option?
Two.
K
Yeah
this
is
your
child.
I
can
answer
the
questions,
so
the
retail
preservation
square
footage.
It's
not
part
of
any
of
the
options.
I
mean
it's
not
something
that
we
we
try.
We
wanted
to
have
these
two
thousand
square
foot
retail.
What
we
have.
We
have
a
waiver
for
a
depth
in
the
retail
space
as
part
of
our
consideration,
because
what
we
can
achieve
on
this
corner,
but
the
retail
space,
it's
I,
believe
about
two
thousand
eight
square
feet
or
about
two
thousand
square
feet,
and
so.
J
E
E
K
K
So
the
concession
two
or
the
option
two
also
has
the
BMR
location
as
one
of
the
concessions.
E
Oh
I
see
okay
I'm,
sorry,
I
was
looking
at
the
wrong
thing.
Okay,
thank
you
and.
J
If,
if
I
could
interject
I
think
at
this
stage,
but
the
what
city
staff
at
least
has
seen
is
is
merely
the
I
guess,
you
could
say
that
the
top
two-thirds
of
these
two
of
the
option-
two,
you
know
we
we
haven't-
had
a
chance
to
to
review.
If
the
applicant
an
actual
series
of
floor
plans
that
would
show
where
the
five
one
bedroom
and
five
two
bedroom
units
would
be
located,
nor
to
completely
evaluate
this.
J
This
option
to
in
regards
to
the
overall
concession
requests,
the
key
differences
between
the
options
are
in
how
BMR
units
are
are
provided
both
in
the
total
number
and
the
split
between
one
and
two
bedroom
units
and
depending
on
what
we
hear
from
the
EPC
tonight.
As
far
as
your
recommendation
is
concerned,
we
would
work
more
closely
with
the
applicant
to
understand
what
that
would
mean
as
far
as
the
overall
density
bonus
requests
that
would
be
presented
to
council
and
provide
our
analysis
to
council.
G
Thank
you,
sir.
Yes,
so
that
that
ties
into
the
questions
I
had
in
terms
of
the
viability
of
the
concession
number
two
particular
and
the
placement
of
the
units.
I
was
going
to
ask
you
based
on
the
email
that
we
received
almost
last
minute
yesterday.
In
the
response
we
see
the
developers
say:
we've
got
two
options
here
and
then,
if
these
don't,
if
these
aren't
feasible,
then
there
really
is
no
no
option
right.
G
It's
not
affordable
to
do
the
the
project,
so
my
question
for
you
was:
have
you
have
the
time
to
then
review
that
email
and
let
everything
sink
in
so
that
you
can
do
an
analysis
for
us?
It
sounds
like
you,
don't
have
enough
time
or
didn't
have
enough
time
to
do
that,
and
so
you'll
do
that
for
city
council,
though
right.
K
Yes,
commissioner,
this
was
the
letter
from
hcd
that
we
put
as
a
public
record
it's
as
dated
September,
the
second.
It
was
just
made
public
very
recently,
I
think
it's
a
very
detailed
letter,
the
requested
by
City
of
Hollywood,
West,
Hollywood
I
believe,
and
it's
very
in
our
opinion.
K
Again,
it's
it's
a
very
good
guidance
for
the
city,
where
they
basically
point
out
clearly
that
cities
that
potentially
try
to
have
a
policy
around
the
Ami
to
get
to
100
Ami
will
will
actually
sacrificed
larger
units
in
this
case
versus
lower
units,
so
that
unit
mix.
Actually
it's
going
to
be
impacted,
so
they
were
trying
to
basically
says
say
that
100
Ami
weighted
average
should
not
be
imposed
by
the
cities
as
a
policy
and
that's
what
we
would
like
the
commission.
K
That's
what
we're
like
the
you
know,
Rebecca
and
the
city
itself
to
actually
study
this,
but
we
we
looked.
We
looked
into
it
in
the
last
two
days
a
lot
and
that's
why
this
is
kind
of
like
a
last
minute
consideration
that
we
added
it
as
an
as
a
as
an
option
to
to
the
project.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
answers
your
question
well,.
G
It
answers
it
in
a
way
right
and
I
appreciate
your
ability
to
share
the
information
with
us
as
fast
as
you
could
right.
So,
having
said
that,
I'm
going
to
turn
to
my
team,
now
our
team
and
and
our
City
attorney
and
and
Eric,
and
the
team
in
general,
having
heard
what
the
developers
just
mentioned
and
what
we've
read
just
recently,
have
you
all
had
the
time
to
be
able
to
reconsider
that
perspective
into
the
staff
reports?
Like
recommendation?
G
Does
this
change
that
any
of
that
and
that
are
there
any
intersections
of
mandates
or
or
prerequisites
that
we
asked
for
with
BMR
units
and
Ami
conditionings?
That
interfere
to
the
point
where
those
two
options
that
were
given
to
us
by
the
developer
are
really
the
only
two
options
or
is
there
a
third.
O
I'll
go
first
and
others
can
join
just
to
answer
your
last
question
first,
commissioner.
What
the
city
needs
to
consider
are
the
requested
concessions
by
the
developer.
So
if
the
developer
has
two
sets
of
options
with
respect
to
concessions,
that's
what
we
consider
the
city
does
not
come
up
with
its
own
alternative
concept
or
Suite
of
concessions.
So
there's
there's
only
those
two
options,
so
we
have
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
hcd
letter
that
we
received
yesterday
afternoon
and
I
guess.
O
I
would
say
that
it's
not
completely
clear
how
that
hcd
guidance
to
the
city
of
West
Hollywood
applies
to
the
Mountain
View
BMR
requirements.
We
will
be
taking
a
closer
look
at
it.
I
guess
I
would
say
that
that
the
letter
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
the
city's
program
has
has
issues.
The
letter
says
that
this
that
City
and
I
think
this
would
apply
to
Mountain.
O
View
should
be
prepared
to
Grant
a
request
for
a
state
density
bonus
concession
to
modify
provisions
of
its
inclusionary
ordinance,
especially
ordinances
that
mandate
the
level
of
affordability
of
inclusionary
units.
So
that's
where
the
weighted
average
requirement
comes
in.
So
we
do
believe
that
that
this
option,
two,
where
would
be
an
appropriate
concession
where
the
developer
can
essentially
substitute
the
moderate
income
units
that
would
otherwise
be
required
under
the
BMR
program
with
low-income
units
and
that's
what
they're
proposing
with
the
with
the
10
10
low-income
units
is
option.
Two.
J
And
so
just
adding
to
that
and
and
sort
of
summarizing
it
in
a
slightly
different
way,
our
initial
assessment,
although
we
we
have
not
had
a
chance
to
fully
delineate
the
the
city
of
West
Hollywood
guidance
and
its
ramifications
for
the
BMR
program
here,
our
initial
assessment
is
that
either
of
the
two
options
could
be
carried
forward
as
an
acceptable
density.
Bonus
request
from
the
applicant.
A
G
Yeah,
thank
you
Bill.
Thank
you,
chair
that
helps
out
because
I
know
having
trying
to
digest
this
and
incorporate
what
we
look
at
as
prerequisites
compared
to
what
the
vendor's
looking
at
and
then
having
in
at
the
last
I
can
come
in
with
two
options
and
support
a
documentation
of
what's
happened
in
another
location
with
just
a
day
or
so
notice.
It's
a
lot
to
intake
right,
I'm
sure.
G
All
of
you
can
understand
that
so
I
figured
to
ask
the
question
I'm
sure
other
Commissioners
have
other
questions,
so
I'll
reserve
the
rest
of
my
questions
until
a
couple
minutes,
and
thanks
for
helping
me
with
my
current
question,.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
and
forgive
me,
and
maybe
maybe
I'm
I'm
a
little
slow,
but
I
I
want
to
stand
this
point
a
little
bit
because
I
don't
fully
understand
it.
I
want
to
understand
better
what
is
essentially
option
zero,
which
is
to
not
accept
any
concessions
on
this
particular
Point
related
to
BMR
for
Miss
Lee.
Is
the
city
required
to
provide
any
type
of
concession
in
this
case.
J
I
can
start
off
and
Sandy.
Please,
please
jump
in
the
state
density.
Bonus
law
lays
out
the
scenarios
in
which
a
an
applicant
May
identify
requested
concessions,
and
the
number
of
concessions
that
a
project
is
eligible
for
depends
on
the
the
BMR
mix
in
the
veteransi
bonus
project.
J
J
A
concession
has
to
provide
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions
to
provide
for
the
affordable
housing
costs
and,
and
we
have
found
that
all
of
the
requested
concessions
meet
that
criteria,
the
only
scenarios
in
which
a
concession
cannot
be
granted
by
a
city
or,
if
there's
a
significant
adverse
impact
to
health
and
safety,
an
adverse
impact
to
Historic
resource
or
something
that
is
specifically
contrary
to
state
or
federal
law.
J
H
Are
we
are
we
in
fact,
do
we
in
fact
have
to
decide
between
option
A
and
option
b,
as
proposed
to
us.
J
At
this
point
in
time,
what
what
staff
will
carry
forward
is
is
the
recommendation
of
of
EPC
the
project
that
we
have
identified.
You
know,
findings
and
recommendations,
for
is
the
original
option,
with
13
bullet
market
rate
units
and
and
if
EPC
prefers
the
alternative
options,
and
that
should
be
made
part
of
your
recommendation
tonight
and,
and
that's
what
will
be,
that
recommendation
will
be
carried
towards
Council.
H
Okay,
if
at
some
later
point
before
we
we
start,
you
know
voting
on
any
of
these
particular
things
that
the
city
wants
to
provide
any
additional
clarification
on
precisely
what
our
obligations
here
are,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
sort
of
what
we
want
to
say
what
we
can
and
cannot
do.
H
So
if,
at
some
point,
obviously,
if
you
can
help
me
understand,
perhaps
a
little
bit
better,
what
my
Lane
is
here.
That
would
be
really
helpful
to
me,
because
I'm
still
a
little
confused
about
these
options
and
later
we
can
I
have
a
couple
of
comments
about
how
I
feel
about
some
of
the
concessions,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
I
get
kind
of
the
legalities
here
right.
Then
let
me
change
and
go
to
a
completely
pedestrian
different
question.
H
That's
far
lower
Stakes.
If
the
applicant
can
show
me
the
plan
for
the
I
want
to
call
it
not
the
park.
But
the
thing
with
the
the
triangle
that
the
kid's
been
around
I'm
actually.
M
H
H
P
L
H
The
civilians
in
the
time
for
comments,
but
I'll
just
simply
say
that
if
you
have
a
retail
that
might
end
up
being
food
of
some
type,
food
or
beverage,
You
probably
can
have
a
lot
of
people
working
in
Tech
that
may
be
working
from
home.
To
the
extent
that
you
can
have
a
few
more
spaces
where
somebody
could
actually
put
a
laptop
down
and
down
and
work,
you
may
actually
find
more
activation
in
the
space.
That
was
it
for
me.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
it.
J
Just
one
more
bit
of
information
to
be
aware
of
on
the
left-hand
side
of
this,
this
area
is
the
ground
level
community
room
in
the
very
corner
and
and
that
community
room
Brent
Pickney.
If
I'm
I'm,
just
remembering
does
have
you,
can
see
there,
a
nanowall
which
allows
the
community
room
to
open
up
and
create
a
more
expanded,
become
a
more
expanded
part
of
this.
Otherwise
you
know
smaller
and
more
intimate
Courtyard
area.
C
Cool
I'll
lower
my
hand,
awesome
cool,
so
I
guess
a
quick
question
for
Sandra.
C
With
regards
to
hcd
for
like
in
terms
of
like
their
powers,
let's
suppose
there's
like
a
a
misbehaving
City
out
there,
that
is
imposing
like
a
30
BMR.
You
know
inclusionary
housing
requirement
in
part
of
their.
You
know,
zoning
code
and
a
developer
you
know
comes
in
and
they
want
to.
You
know,
take
advantage
of
the
state
density,
bonus
rights
that
the
state
has
afforded
them
and
they
show
up,
and
you
know
they
try
to
get
their
project
approved.
C
And
you
know
the
30
BMR
requirement
is
extremely
onerous.
Their
project
gets
denied
in
terms
of
like
seeking
relief,
for
that
is
hcd
like
a
quasi-judicial
agency.
That
would
receive
that
case
and
then
be
able
to
make
a
ruling
on
that.
That
has
like
an
enforceable,
like
is,
is
enforceable
by
by
law
or
does
or
is
that
scenario
routed
to
like
state
court
or
or
is
it
possible
for
hcd
to
get
that
case?
And
you
know
if
the
developer
doesn't
like
the
ruling?
C
Are
they
then
able
to
appeal
to
a
state
court,
or
is
that,
like
the
end
of
the
matter,.
O
So
hcd
is
both
a
kind
of
a
resource
and
an
investigative
and
enforcement
agency.
So
if
a
complaint
is
filed
with
hcd
they'll
investigate
it
and
determine
whether
or
not
there's
a
violation,
an
issue
that
notice
a
violation,
the
the
applicant
can
also
file
suit.
O
If
they're,
if
they
believe,
there's
been
a
violation
of
state
law
in
an
improper
denial
of
a
project
and
so
there
that
is
also
a
separate
Avenue
that
can
be
taken
and
yeah
and
if
there
is,
and
if
the
the
city
is
determined
to
have
violated
state
law,
these
housing
laws,
it
could
also
be
on
the
hook,
for
you
know,
costs
and
attorneys
fees
that
result
cool.
C
So
in
any
dispute
of
the
kind
in
that,
like
scenario
that
I
just
described,
would
the
developer
like
if
they
went
straight
to
file
like
suit
in
a
in
in
like
a
core
outside
of
hcd?
Would
it
be
either
likely,
or
is
there
like
a
routing
back
to
age?
Would
the
courts
essentially
be
like
hey
thanks
for
you
know
submitting
this
suit,
but
we're
gonna
send
it
to
hcd
first,
and
you
know,
want
to
hear
their
thoughts
on
the
matter
prior
to
like
engaging
in
this
case.
C
O
No
I
think
if
the
lawsuit
was
filed
in
State
Court,
then
the
court
will
not
remand
it
back
to
hcd,
so
I
I
think
a
lot
of
complaints
are
filed
with
hcd
and
Lou
filing
a
lawsuit
because
it
actually
doesn't
cost
money
to
contact
hcd,
and
so
that
is
a
way
to
I
think
get
a
quicker
and
easier
resolution,
whether
in
favor
or
against
the
complainants,
because
hcd
doesn't
always
find
a
violation.
O
You
know
by
the
cities,
so
I
think
it's
often
taken
as
an
initial
step
to
see
if
the
matter
can
be
resolved.
That.
C
Way:
okay,
perfect
and
then,
as
far
as
like,
like
judicial
deference
and
all
that
stuff
like.
C
Is
it
the
case
that,
because
this
is
part
of
our
zoning
code
and
because
the
city
right
like
cities,
municipalities,
like
the
police
power
right,
gets
a
lot
of
deference
in
terms
of
like
development
standard
and
from
my
understanding.
Typically,
these
kind
of,
like
zoning
and
kind
of
like
you
know,
land
use
regulations.
C
Unless
there
is
a
strong
identifiable
like
case
that
can
be
made
that
the
zoning
standard
is
not
doesn't
have
a
Nexus
with
the
general
public
good
that
there's
a
lot
in
terms
of
just
risk
management
right,
not
in
terms
of
like
a
yes
or
no
here,
but
in
terms
of
like
Risk
Management
right,
the
gradient
in
between.
C
O
I
think
in
general,
when
the
cities
are
exercising
their
police
power,
the
the
courts
do
provide
a
lot
of
deference
I
would
say
in
the
housing
Arena
that
deference
has
been
truncated
a
bit,
and
so,
if
you
know,
for
instance,
there's
a
violation
asserted
violation
of
the
housing
accountability
act,
the
burden
is
actually
on
the
agency
to
prove
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
that
it
hasn't,
you
know,
violated
that
statute.
O
C
Cool
yeah,
so
that's
that's
helpful.
So
the
reason
why
I'm
asking
is
because
I
did
take
a
look
at
that
letter.
You
know,
look
for
it
actually
the
West
Hollywood
letter
and
that
court
I
guess
before
actually
going
to
that.
So
our
zoning
code
section,
what
is
it
like?
3640.10,
the
I
guess,
letter
I,
it
says
density
bonus.
C
Compliance
with
the
provisions
of
this
article
may
be
applied
towards
a
request
for
a
density
bonus,
provided
that
the
affordable
units
meet
the
stricter
of
the
BMR
program
requirements
and
the
density
bonus
law
so
that
that
piece,
compliance
with
provisions
of
this
article
may
be
applied
towards
a
request
for
a
density
bonus
can
before
I
ask
my
next
question.
What
does
that
mean
foreign
can.
C
I'll
ask
the
direct
question
then,
in
terms
of
like
our
because
the
court
case
that
they
cite
here
the
hcd
sites,
the
Latinos
versus
like
I,
forget
what
my
understanding
is
that
that
court
case
is
in
reference
to
a
scenario
where
the
I
think
it
was
a
county,
but
whatever
like
the
subservient,
you
know
agency
or
government
body,
whatever
we're
requiring
a
additional
right
amount
of
BMR
units,
whereas
for
and
if
I
remember
this
from
like
a
couple
EPC
meetings
ago,
it
came
up
as
well
with
the
question
around
like
the
concurrence
of
it.
C
So
my
understanding
is
that
we
do
credit.
Our
BMR
program
does
credit
the
developer
for
that
10.
So
they're
not
going
above
15
right.
It's
not
like
here's,
the
10.
You
need
to
get
the
density
bonus
and
here's
our
BMR
ordinance
now,
in
effect,
you'd
have
a
25
BMR
requirement.
That's
not
our
BMR
policy
right.
O
I
think
that's
referring
to
a
specific
issue
which
is
you
know.
The
15
BMR
requirement
is
generally
considered
a
Safe,
Harbor
and
so
I
think
in
the
West
Hollywood
case
they
would
actually
required
I
think
20,
and
so
it
again
it
was
specific
to
its
facts
and
I.
Think
if
yeah,
if
you
exceed
kind
of
20
or
above
hcd,
may
take
a.
C
J
J
What
we
have
there
is
13
BMR
units
10
of
those
are
specifically
being
utilized
by
the
project
to
be
eligible
for
a
50
percent,
State
density
bonus,
seven
of
the
BMR
units
are
being
provided
to
comply
with
the
city's
BMR
ordinance
requirements,
and
in
that
scenario
that
includes-
and
let
me
see
it
includes
four
four
units
that
could
be
affordable
to
low-income
households
and
and
three
and
it's
affordable
to
to
households
ordering
up
to
120
Ami.
So
again.
In
summary,
the
the
city's
BMR
ordinance
requires
only
15.
C
Okay,
cool
because
yeah
I
know
what
they're
proposing
I
guess
like
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
they're,
citing
this
letter,
where
it
seems
to
me
like
the
most
important,
like
fact
being
cited,
is
or
relates
to
the
percentage
requirement
which
in
this
case
is
20,
which
is
five
percent
above
the
Safe
Harbor
that
we've
established,
which
makes
this
a
completely
different
scenario,
because
we're
not
requiring
more
than
15
percent.
C
C
Equivalently
between
like
bedroom
mix,
as
well
as
through
the
like
distribution
of
the
location
of
the
units,
and
so
if
when,
if
if
we
are
not
requiring
more
than
15
percent
and
if
this
guidance
or
this
letter
is
materially
based
on
a
fact
that
the
Santa
Monica
or
West
Hollywood
is
trying
to
require
20
more
then
I
have
a
very
strong
interest
in
in
getting
to
the
bottom
of
that.
Because
I
don't
want
us
to
be
beholden
to
guidance
that,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
it's
just
not
applicable
to
us.
J
Sandy,
please
please
jump
in
if
I,
I,
misstate
anything
I,
think
again,
hearkening
back
to
some
of
the
answers
that
we
provided
to
earlier
questions
based
on
staff
analysis,
understanding
that
it
option
two
has
come
in
fairly
late
in
the
game.
J
We
believe
that
either
scenario
it
has
a
basis
for
approval,
given
the
allowances
of
State
density,
bonus
law.
So,
setting
aside
the
letter
of
reference
to
the
city
of
West
Hollywood,
you
know
what
you're
you're,
seeing
here
and
and
again,
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
fully
vet
the
need
or
which,
which
specific
concessions
might
be
necessary
for
option
two.
J
But
looking
at
what
the
the
applicant
has
shown
on
the
screen.
Staff's
assessment
is
that
the
original
proposal,
which
is
what
is
described
in
this
city
staff
report,
complies
with
State
density
bonus
law
and
complies
with
the
city's
BMR
ordinance
with
the
application
of
allowable
State
density
bonus
concessions,
and
we
believe,
similarly,
that
option
two
has
the
ability
to
follow
that
same
path,
and
so
one
of
the
questions
before
the
EPC
tonight
would
be
to
make
a
recommendation
that
takes
into
account
epcs.
J
So
the
majority
majority
recommendation
for
the
BMR
proposals,
the
two
BMR
proposals
that
have
have
been
put
in
front
of
you
by
the
applicant
all.
F
Thank
you,
I
know
it's
a
lot
to
take
in
I'm.
My
question
actually
jumps
a
little
bit
in
topic.
I
appreciate
that
these
are
going
to
be
condos.
That's
rare
here
in
the
city.
As
far
as
the
sales
go,
I
am
not
super
educated
in
what
is
allowed
in
terms
of
being
able
to
sell
them
I.
F
My
my
fundamental
worry
is
that
they
get
sold
to
investors
and
it's
not
you
know,
people
who
live
and
work
in
Mountain
View
that
are
purchasing
them
and
I
know
very
often
when
condos
are
for
sale,
there's
an
HOA.
So
in
the
HOA
documents
will
there
be
some
language
that
says:
there's
only
a
certain
number
that
can
be.
You
know,
purchased
for
rental
right
away
or
something
along
those
lines.
K
I
can
I
can
attempt
to
answer
part
of
that
question.
I.
Think
it's
a
little
bit
down
the
road
but
I
my
experience,
I
I,
don't
know
between
a
couple
of
cities
here:
Los,
Altos
and
Palo
Alto.
Is
that
those
condos
they
sell
individually?
K
It
is
no
goal
for
sell
them
in
bulk
or
anything,
and
we
have
an
assignment
as
part
of
the
public
benefit
for
the
HOA
escrow,
which
is
going
to
be
something
going
towards
the
affordable
units
for
any
increases
of
the
HOA
for
the
affordable
units
over
time
that
the
city
helped
us
arrive
that
will
protect
the
affordable
units.
K
Hoa
increases
over
time.
That's
one
item
second
item
the
HOA
and
the
ccnrs
they
are
not
developed.
This
is
it's
going
to
be
part
of
the
final
map
recording
that
has
to
be
done.
That
HOA
has
to
be
in
place
at
least
drafted
at
a
time
and
eventually
finalized.
So
we
do
not
have
any
of
that
and
as
far
as
I
know,
you
know,
Rebecca
can
jump
in
it's
not
a
requirement
at
this
time
and
we
don't
have
any
more
information
of
what
it
is
our
plan.
K
It's,
of
course,
it's
condominiums
for
sale
from
day
one.
There
was
that's,
that's
basically
our
stand
right
now.
F
Okay,
so
yeah,
just
the
HOA
is
not
been
flushed
out
completely
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
city
ordinance
or
if
there's
any
language
from
the
city's
point
of
view,
that
sort
of
takes
a
look
at
that
kind
of
thing
or
if
that
is
something
that
is
just
by
right.
The
the
condo
ownership
or
developer
can
determine
so.
F
J
As
far
as
a
response,
you
know,
the
city
has
specific
requirements
for
the
market
rate
units
that
that
bear
on
occupancy
or
the
market
rate
units.
I
am
not
aware
of
any
city
ordinance
that
that
that
mandates.
My
my
experience
is:
it's
not
uncommon
for
HOAs
to
elect
to
include
in
our
ccnr's
a
limitation
on
the
number
of
units
that
can
be
rented,
but
that's
in
my
experience,
typically
something
kind
of
between
the
HOA
and
developer
and
the
department
of
Real
Estate.
K
Okay
and
one
more
one
more
thing
that
I
might
add
is
that
in
general,
HOA
definition
when
they're
done,
they
have
a
limited
number
of
rental
units
that
any
type
of
investor
can
do
or
any.
You
know
it's
a
limited
number
of
units
that
the
HOA
needs
to
determine
by
themselves
the
owners
they
have
to
determine.
Let's
say
we
got
62
units
was,
you
know,
so
many
affordable
and
then
the
rest
of
the
market
cell
units.
The
owners
have
to
decide.
K
We
are
okay
to
have
10
units
in
the
building
every
year
to
be
rented
out
and
the
owners
will
not
live
in
there.
So
there
are
conditions
that
are
put
by
the
ownership
of
the
for
market
rate
units
into
the
HOA
rules
and
regulations,
as
that
will
be
developed,
but
right
now
we
we
not
even
have
a
draft
for
for
that.
A
Sandy
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
chime
in
here,
I
was
a
member
of
an
HOA
that
had
a
limitation,
a
number
of
rental
units
and
it's-
and
it
was
two
or
three
years
ago,
the
State
Assembly
passed
a
law
that
prohibited
that
rule
from
being
enforced.
Hoas
are
not
permitted
to
set
any
limitation
on
the
number
of
rental
units
in
their
HOAs,
so
these
are
so
even
though
it's
in
the
Itchy
documents
at
the
time
they're
actually
now
prohibited
by
law.
F
F
Yes,
thank
you.
So,
given
the
concession
in
the
retail
depth,
what
types
of
retail
I
don't
know
if
you've
gotten
this
far
are,
are
probable
or
likely
to
to
go
in
just
to
give
us
an
idea,
just
the
regular
folks
about
like
what
kind
of
store
shops
Services.
K
I
I
mean
we
believe
that
will
be
very
appropriate
to
be
some
type
of
like
coffee
shop
or
maybe
coffee
pastry
shop.
Something
like
that
of
course,
the
space
it's
only
2
000
square
foot,
but
he
has
a
little
bit
of
a
patio
in
the
benches
that
people
can
sit
outside.
We
identified
I
believe
as
a
blue
bottle.
Actually
we
put
that
in
there
just
because
we
just
started.
Maybe
there
will
be
something
that
a
blue
bottle
company
might
be
interested,
since
this
is
a
gateway
to
Mountain
View.
K
F
J
J
F
Thank
you
Rebecca
one
last
one,
and
this
is
for
the
developer.
Can
you
really
see
the
Bay
from
the
roof
deck.
F
D
F
G
Good
chance,
sir,
thank
you
thanks.
Everyone,
real
good
discussion
here
so
I
have
a
quick
question
here
for
our
team
in
general.
Looking
at
Option
what
what
is
option
one
and
the
updated
I'll
say
updated
option
two
when
we
look
at
the
concessions
and
since
Marcia
bear
with
me
here,
I'm
new
to
the
committee,
so
I've
got
basic
questions.
I
have
to
ask
just
to
make
sure
I
do
my
my
homework
and
due
diligence
right
and
make
sure
everyone's
happy
with
the
outcome
as
best
as
possible
here
right.
G
So
so
continuing
on
with
my
question
when
we
look
at
the
concessions,
my
concern
is
the
location
of
these
units
right
I,
understood
earlier
that,
if
concessions
don't
violate
state
or
federal
law,
we
should
be
fine
and,
in
your
opinion,
the
way
things
look
like
right
now,
based
on
what
regulations
we
have
with
both
BMR
and
Ami
and
the
request
from
the
developer.
G
Whatever
these
two
options
end
up
prevailing
as
a
majority
Viewpoint
and
support
of
will
be
fine,
but
to
double
check
when
we
look
at
concessions
in
option
two
and
location
is
a
question.
Are
we
saying,
then,
that
these
below
market
rate
units
can
be
placed
on
all
grouped
together
in
a
certain
location,
or
will
they
still
be
spread
out?
G
In
other
words,
I
don't
want
in
the
end
to
just
have
the
adverse
effect
that
if
we
do
allow
this
to
happen,
for
whatever
reason
that
the
end
result
ends
up
being
that
you
can
tell
what
that
BMR
units
where
they're
at
and
who's
there,
and
why
and
we
don't
want
to
accidentally
promote
something
of
that
type
of
negative
environment
in
general,
because
I
think
that
once
you
do
that,
then
it
wow
I
don't
have
to
explain
what
that
really
means.
Or
what
that
looks
like
right.
J
J
You
know:
I
I'll,
just
as
a
starting
point
indicate
that
at
this
point
we
haven't
seen
a
floor
plan
layout
for
where
the
BMR
units
would
be
located
under
option.
Two,
and
so
I
can
only
say
at
a
very
high
level
that,
because
this
project
has
a
high
proportion
of
two
bedroom
units
in
a
scenario
that
has
a
larger
number
of
two-bedroom
units,
there
is
the
potential
for,
and
it's
sort
of,
a
an
improved
distribution
within
the
the
project.
J
One
of
the
challenges
with
their
original
option
as
far
as
locations
with
11
one
bedroom
units
is
that
there
are
a
limited
number
of
one
bedroom
units
and
the
floor.
Plans
do
tend
to
stack
so
there'll,
be
similarities
or
or
floor
plans
will
duplicate
across
levels
and
Michaela.
J
Please
jump
in
I
think
the
staff
assessment
as
far
as
the
BMR
unit
locations
under
option,
one
is
that
it
was
close
to
being
able
to
sort
of
meet
our
criteria
for
for
distribution,
but
was
not
quite
there
and
and
that's
why
it
appears
as
a
concession
request.
In
that
scenario,.
P
That's
right:
Rebecca.
We
always
work
with
the
applicant
to
see
if
there's
a
possibility
of
Distributing
them
as
as
reasonably
as
possible
throughout
the
development,
and
once
we
stop,
we
see
a
proposal
for
option
two.
We
would
have
the
same
conversation,
but
you
know
I
can't
guarantee
what
the
outcome
will
be,
having
not
seen
it
yet.
G
Okay
and
then
my
follow-up
question
is,
and
thank
you
so
much
Rebecca
and
Michaela
for
your
help
with
this,
it's
truly
appreciated,
I'm
learning
as
I
go.
So
thank
you
so
much
so
to
our
developer
friend.
By
when
do
you
think
you'll
have
a
revised
update
of
what
option
two
will
look
like
in
terms
of
locations
for
these
BMI
units.
K
Yes,
so,
commissioner,
our
goal
is
that,
of
course,
to
be
a
win-win
for
the
city
and
also
for
the
affordable
pool
of
of
housing
on
option
two,
where
we
offered
three
additional
two-bedroom
two-baths,
and
since
this
one,
like
everybody,
said,
came
in
the
last
minute,
we
did
not
have
the
time
to
work
on
that
in
the
last
24
hours.
K
What
we
would
like
to
see,
if,
of
course,
if
the
Commissioners
will
will
agree,
it's
that
both
options
have
to
be
available
and
on
the
table
and
maybe
potentially
recommended
to
city
council.
Our
goal
is:
if
the
Commissioners
tonight
decide
that
option,
two
is
something
that
they
would
like
to
see
totally.
Our
commitment
is
that
we
will
start
working
with
Michaela
and
Rebecca
right
away
and
actually
putting
that
together
and
I.
Think,
in
my
personal
opinion,
seeing
how
you
know
we
developed
the
initial
BMR
location
for
the
option,
one.
K
Of
course
we
get
challenges
for
the
one
bedrooms,
because
they
are
only
in
a
certain
area
of
the
building.
I
think
we
can
finalize
it.
I,
don't
know
within
days.
In
my
opinion,
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
meeting
between
Rebecca
Mikhail
and
myself
and
The
Architects,
and
we
can
come
with
a
proposal
and
then
we
can
start
looking
at
what
will
be
appropriate.
Also
for
the
city.
K
I
think
we
already
got
the
feedback
from
Rebecca
on
the
two
bedrooms
of
where
the
city
was
was
looking
for,
some
of
the
units
that
are
a
little
bit
larger,
maybe
100
150
square
foot
larger,
but
then
the
ones
we
already
got
initial
feedback
of
the
direction
that
the
city
would
like
to
see
those
units,
the
two
bedroom,
two
baths.
K
So
we'll
move
immediately
to
put
that
proposal
together
and
the
goal
is
I
think
we
can
come
up
with
a
solution
for
option
two
pretty
quickly
and
have
that
ready
for,
of
course,
for
city
council
to
review
and
their
decision.
If
it's
a
feasible
option
for
the
city.
G
Great
and
my
final
point
on
this
is
and
I
understand
your
perspective
completely,
and
the
reason
why
these
questions
are
being
brought
up
is
this
because
we're
here
to
serve
everyone
in
the
community
and
make
sure
that
everyone
has
a
fair
Shake
in
terms
of
opportunity
in
these
types
of
developments
and
who
lives
there
and
how
they
get
there
and
where
they
live,
and
how
that
came
about
through
a
partnership
between
what
you
suggest
and
propose
and
and
our
community
in
general-
and
we
understand
city
council
ultimately
has
the
final
say
in
all
this,
which
is
great
and
we
do.
G
A
So
I
have
some
questions
on
my
part:
I'll
do
the
simplest
one
first
Rebecca
in
the
stock
and
the
staff
report.
It
said
the
current
treat
coverage
is
zero.
It's
going
to
six
percent,
but
there
are
trees
and
I
couldn't
figure
out
how
that
were
our
Street
fees,
not
included
in
our
calculations.
J
Yes,
and
in
this
case
we
we
did
not
count
the
three
trees,
they
do
have
a
little
bit
of
canopy.
It
is
fairly
minimal,
but
the
street
trees
are
currently
located
off-site
and
so
to
be
conservative.
They
they
were
not.
They
were
not
counted
in
either
scenario,
the
existing
condition
or
the
project
condition,
and
so,
in
the
same
way
that
there
might
be
minimal
canopy
from
the
three
existing
Street
trees.
The
nine
new
Street
trees
are
likely
to
over
time,
create
a
little
bit
of
on-site
canopy.
J
But
again,
the
street
existing
Street
trees
are
not
counted
in
the
existing
canopy
data
and
the
proposed
Street
trees
are
also
not
counted
in
the
project.
Canopy
data
to
be
consistent
with
each
other.
A
The
second
question,
my
understanding
from
both
the
staff
report
and
looking
at
the
plans
with
the
parking
and
the
parking
in
the
first
floor
of
the
the
parking
garage
that's
intended
to
be
used
by
the
retail.
There
is
no
entrance
to
the
retail
space
to
the
either
the
stairs
that
goes
down
to
the
parking
or
from
us
from
or
from
the
elevator.
A
So
two
questions
as
there
will
that
be
changed
as
the
design
is
refined
number
one
and
what
would
be
done
to
prevent
parking
in
the
Bank
of
America
lot
and
people
walking
into
this
property.
Instead
of
using
the
underground
parking.
K
A
Actually,
it's
not
that
level
the
one
you
had
before.
That
is
the
one
that
matters
to
me.
There's
no
entrance
from
the
either
the
stairwell.
That
goes
turn
the
parking
garage
into
the
back
of
the
retail
space
or
from
the
elevators
into
that
space,
and
it
would
appear
that,
if
there's
retail
parking
down
below,
if
those
people
use
the
elevator,
they
can
get
into
the
residential
portion
of
the
building.
L
The
the
the
building
will
be
regulated
by
access
control
so
that
the
idea
is
that
people
will
be
able
to
use
the
elevator
to
access
the
lobby.
There
can
be
potentially
adored
into
the
commercial
commercial
space
off
the
residential
Lobby.
It
was
not
shown,
but
there
is
that
option
for
that.
L
You
are
correct
that
coming
up
from
the
stairs
you
do
have
to
Traverse
through
the
sidewalk
to
get
to
the
space,
although
there
is
an
option
here
in
this
corridor
to
provide
access
into
the
commercial,
if
that's
determined,
to
be
beneficial
to
what
goes
in
there.
Just
from
a
security
standpoint.
L
A
Is
there
anything
in
the
in
the
in
the
documents
Rebecca
that
says
anything
about.
J
I
mean
the
the
product
before
us
is
is
on
this
site.
Enforcement
on
private
property
is,
is
something
that
really
is
is
over
in
in
PD's
realm,
but
you
know
typically,
they're
are
a
few
things
that
happen
in
in
scenarios
like
that
one,
you
know
the
retail
operator
up
in
the
project.
Sort
of
does
does
what
they
can
to
to
educate
and
encourage
their
customers
to
utilize.
The
project
parking-
and
you
know-
hopefully
maybe
in
rainy
weather
it'll,
be
attractive
for
folks
who
use
the
underground
parking
garage.
J
There
is
also
often
and
and
onus,
sometimes
on
the
adjacent
neighbor
to
to
enforce
on
their
own
property
and,
typically
that's
why
you'll
see
signage
in
in
parking
like
parking
lots
like
at
the
Bank
of
America
that
sort
of
site
vehicle
codes
and
allow
for
them
to
to
call
call
local
enforcement
to
to
ticket
ticket
parking
by
non-customers
on
their
on
their
property.
J
But
in
this
case
the
proposed
parking
for
the
project
is
compliant
with
applicable
regulations
and,
and
the
zoning
code
does
does
not
say
anything
further.
As
far
as
regulating
off-site
parking
Beyonds,
the
the
conditions
of
approval
that
we
have
to
bring
something
back
to
hearing
and
if
possible,
find
conditions
or
limitations
that
can
be
placed
to
try
to
further
discourage
parking
if
or
when
problems
arise.
A
D
A
J
So
I
think
I
understand
your
your
question,
but
what
the
applicant
ended
up
proposing
under
option
one
is
to
provide
three
three
moderate
income
units
to
care
with
four
of
the
lower
income,
80
Ami
units
that
were
being
proposed
as
part
of
the
density
bonus
package
to
try
to
meet
the
city's
BMR
ordinance
requirements.
J
This
is
a
small
project
and
so
15
of
41
units
is
seven.
So
it's
it
it
would.
It
would
be
a
challenge
for
the
project,
given
the
amount
of
low
income.
Lower
income
units
that
are
are
part
of
the
original
proposal
to
meet
the
weighted
average
requirement,
but
they,
the
the
applicant,
got
close
I
think
they're
at
about
97.
As
far
as
weight
related
average
is
concerned,
with
the
with
three
lower
income,
80
Ami
units
and
and
sorry
for
lower
income,
80
Ami
and
three
120
Ami
units.
J
J
There
was
a
table
in
the
staff
report
which
I
modified
to
incorporate
the
alternative
option
to
the
knowledge
that
we
had
available
as
I
was
working
on
this
last
night.
So
you
know
if
you're,
looking
at
the
differences
between
the
two
options,
the
project
Proposal
with
the
13
other
market
rate
units
provides
more
BMR
units.
It
has
fewer
two-bedroom
units
than
the
alternate
option
and
it
includes
units
at
both
80
and
120
Ami.
J
The
alternate
proposal
includes
fewer
BMR
units
10
versus
13,
but
it
has
more
two
bedroom
units,
but
the
units
are
only
at
80
Ami
and
those
are
the
key
differences
between
the
the
Alternatives
before
you
at
a
macro
level,
and
what
we
would
be
reviewing
with
the
applicant,
if
you
can
see
supports
the
alternate
option,
is,
is
what
that
means.
As
far
as
the
specifics
of
the
density
bonus
request,
but
again,
our
preliminary
assessment
is
that
it
has
a
capital
alert
for
approval
under
State
density,
bonus
law.
A
J
A
P
A
Okay,
all
right:
where
is
there?
She
is
all
right.
So
we
will
this
point
open
up
to
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
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
meet
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
six
EPC
clerk
will
start
the
timer
and
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
Ms
Whitehall.
Do
we
have
any
attendees
wishing
just
to
become
this
item.
B
B
B
Okay,
thanks
for
your
patience,
Giovanni
otolini
NorCal
Carpenters
go
ahead.
Q
Q
We
have
more
homeless
than
ever
in
our
community
and
an
article
in
the
San
Jose
Spotlight
last
week
stated
the
Santa
Clara
county
is
facing
the
worst
housing
crisis
in
the
nation.
However,
time
and
time
again,
when
there
are
discussions
regarding
specific
developments
such
as
this
one
and
the
impacts,
these
developments
will
have
on
the
community,
such
as
traffic,
Aesthetics
density
and
other
very
valid
concerns.
I
rarely
hear
any
mention
of
the
economic
impact
these
projects
will
have
on
the
blue
collar
workers
that
will
build
them.
Q
We
need
to
have
a
very
serious
conversation
about
adopting
labor
standards
to
prevent
the
exploitation
of
these
skilled
carpenters
and
apprentices
in
Mountain,
View
and
Santa
Clara
County.
At
a
time
when
we
are
experiencing
40-year,
High
inflation
record
fuel
costs
and
the
average
home
in
Mountain
View
is
just
over
2
million
dollars.
It's
our
duty
to
be
a
voice
for
the
overlooked:
blue-collar
men
and
women
of
Mountain
View
and
Santa
Clara
County
that
are
struggling
to
stay
afloat
in
one
of
the
most
expensive
areas
in
the
world.
Q
We
must
include
strong
language
that
require
area,
standard
carpenter,
wages,
Healthcare
and
a
commitment
to
hire
local
Carpenters,
including
apprentices.
Apprenticeship
programs
give
those
without
the
opportunity
to
attend
college,
the
ability
to
acquire
skills
that
lead
to
good
paying
jobs
and
a
shot
of
the
American
dream.
Q
R
Hi,
yes,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
I,
don't
I
I,
certainly
approve
of
development
and
housing
and
think
that
we
need
to
move
quickly
so
just
to
put
that
out
there
as
context.
R
However,
I
just
really
want
to
not
gloss
over
the
fact
that
the
BMR
options
presented
as
we
discuss
this
and,
let's
just
be
very
honest
about
what's
happening,
which
is
we're
like
children
here
being
given
the
option
of
peppermint
or
orange
toothpaste
when
we
didn't
want
to
brush
our
teeth
in
the
first
place
and
when
I
say
that
I
mean
neither
of
these
proposals
are
compliant
with
our
requirements
as
they
are
and
that's
clear,
can
you
say:
option
one
and
two
are
both
compliant
with
income
level
requirements?
R
No,
can
you
say
that
both
are
compliant
with
Equitable
placement?
No,
so
just
as
context
for
this
conversation,
if
we
can
be
honest
that
we
have
been
presented
with
two
non-compliant
options
and
we're
being
asked
to
pretend
that
the
premise
at
the
end
of
the
day
is
you're,
accepting
our
premise
that
this
isn't
that
you're
going
to
have
a
non-compliant
option,
so
I
think
we
should
keep
moving
forward.
I
do
think
we
should
build
so
I'm
not
even
coming
out
against
this,
but
it
feels
dishonest
and
it's
already
expressed
correct.
R
R
Also,
please
don't
look
over
the
men
and
women
that
are
working
on
these
projects.
I
would
concur.
All
of
that
said
it
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
are
not
pro
development
like
I
am
and
when
developers
kind
of
pull
things
like
this
and
pretend
they're
two
options
like
this
I
think
it
erodes
trust
when
we
need
to
actually
be
building
Community
Trust,
that
we
can
move
things
forward
and
move
them
quickly,
and
this
is
what
slows
down
development
is
Shady
stuff
like
this
and
that's
what
it
feels
like.
R
It's
very
shady
and
not
honest
and
I,
don't
like
when
a
developer
is
treating
us
like
children
and
asking
us
to
accept
a
premise
that
is
very
dishonest.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
I
also
agree
with
Giovanni
that,
of
course,
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
protecting
our
labor,
so
I'm
kind
of
glad
he
was
unmuted
because
absolutely
but
yeah
I
would
just
like
to
say
the
context
of
this
conversation
is
Which.
Non-Compliant
choice.
Do
you
want
and
let's
keep
moving,
please
do
better
next
time.
A
We'll
bring
it
back
to
the
commission
for
deliberation,
we'd
like
to
go
first
good
cheers
and
Christopher
Clark
raise
their
hands
at
the
same
time
we
haven't
heard
from
Kushner
Clark,
so
maybe
maybe
I'll
give
him
the
chance
to
speak
first
here,
Mr
Katie
is
if
you're,
okay
with
that.
I
Yeah
yeah
I'm
happy
to
go
so
look.
I
could
buckled
for
a
long
time
about
some
things
that
I
I
don't
like
either
in
in
state
law
or
in
or
in
even
some
of
our
local
policies
that
have
been
updated
for
a
while.
I
But
the
fact
is
that
what
we're
being
asked
tonight
is
to
evaluate
this
project
against
what
what
exists
in
the
regulatory
framework
today
and
whether
or
not
I
know
it's
not
fully
compliant,
but
whether
or
not
it's
it's
reasonably
compliant
and
and
the
concessions
and
exceptions
that
are
being
requested
are
reasonable
and
reasonable
enough
for
the
project
to
move
forward,
as
Steph
has
recommended.
So
just
at
a
high
level.
I
want
to
start
with
a
good,
let's
not
gloss
over
the
fact
that
we.
I
What
we
have
proposed
here
are
one
what
will
hopefully
be
reasonably.
You
know
stacked
by
condos,
which
we've
been
hoping
to
get
more
and
more
of
over
the
last
several
years
in
the
mount
in
the
city,
and
we've
tried
to
put
policies
and
incentives
in
place
to
to
get
to
get
those
we're
not
displacing
any
residents
we're
replacing
a
gas
station
which,
and
and
on
top
of
that
we
can
most
I,
don't
think
anyone
can
claim
that
this
will
result
in
more
traffic
than
a
gas
station.
I
Would
so
we're.
Actually,
you
know
reducing
our
transportation
impacts
by
doing
this
cleaning
up
the
environment
and
providing
the
stock
quite
condos
and
more
entry-level
housing,
plus
we're
getting
inclusionary
units
which
we
haven't
had
a
lot
of
in
on
the
ownership
side
in
Mountain
View,
so
also
I.
Think
it's
a
very
well
designed
project.
You
know
I
I'm,
not
sure
you
know.
If
it
were
me
just
making
the
decisions
I
I
would
have
I
would
have
allowed.
I
You
know
maybe
a
concession
for
one
additional
story
to
allow
some
additional
BMR
units
and
a
Better
Mix,
but
but
I
understand
that
what
they
requested
now
is
is
an
exception
to
height,
to
begin
with,
let
alone
to
go
for
another
story,
but
the
the
the
only
concession
that
really
concerned
me
was
so
I.
I
For
those
of
you
don't
know,
I
live
in
a
in
a
small
condo
complex
and
it
was
one
of
the
first
to
have
inclusionary
BMR
units
in
it
and
so
I've
seen
firsthand.
I
You
know
how
the
the
community
that
that
the
community
within
that
building
is
benefited
from
from
those
folks
being
there
from
the
units
being
a
mix
of
different
bedroom
counts
and
in
different
parts
of
the
building,
and
really
no
one
there
can
tell
you
know,
knows
which
units
those
are
and-
and
you
know
everyone
is
is
you
know,
everyone
appeals
like
they're,
they're
part
of
that
community,
that
small
community
that
we've
we've
built
there
in
that
small
condo,
complex,
so
I
think
my
and
and
I
I
want
to
say
I
I
get
that
this
is
a.
I
This
really
is
a
small,
a
challenging
footprint
for
a
building
to
be
on
and
condo
complex
of
40-something
units
like
it's
being
proposed
here
is,
is
pretty
difficult
to
lay
out
in
a
compact.
I
The
area
like
that
so
I
understand
the
challenges
and
just
to
cut
to
the
chase.
I
think
the
the
one
thing
that
I
would
I
agree
generally
with
staff
recommendation.
I
I
The
the
three
units
for
a
better
unit
mix
for
more
two
bedrooms,
especially
in
this
particular
area,
where
you
know
we'll
hopefully
someday-
have
a
School
site
across
San
Antonio,
where
I
think
folks,
who,
at
least
in
the
complex
that
I
live
in
folks,
are,
are
are
raising
families
there
in
in
a
two-bedroom
setup,
small
families
and
so
to
the
extent
that
the
second
option
works,
I'm
willing
to
trade,
the
three
units
for
the
better
mix
or
for
the
the
additional
two
bedrooms
in
the
in
the
mix
there.
I
The
only
thing
that
I
would
ask
is
I.
I
hope
that
when,
when
we
sit
down-
and
it
sounds
like
the
applicant
is
willing,
you
know
is
working
in
good
faith
here.
If,
if
a
staff
and
the
applicant
sort
of
look
through
that
option
between
now
and
when
is
presented,
the
city
council
look
at
where
the
units
are
generally
located.
I
I
think
what
I
really
want
to
avoid
is
you
know
if
there's
a
if
the
floor
plan
is
such
that
or
the
floor
plates
are
such
that
all
the
two
bedrooms
are
on
you
end
up
on
a
single
floor
or
a
single
side
of
the
building
or
or
you
know,
the
basically,
the
the
BMR
units
are
are
somehow
not
as
spread
out
as
we
like
in
addition
to
having
the
greater
mix
of
bedrooms.
I
That
would
concern
me
and
and
sort
of
make
me
lean,
maybe
a
little
bit
more.
The
other
way
as
I
am
to
have
a
whole
bunch
of
one
bedroom
bmrs,
but
anyway
I.
The
the
overall
summary
of
my
comments
is
I.
I
agree
with
the
the
overall
staff
recommendation,
with
the
the
concessions
and
exceptions
have
been
proposed
to
make
what
I
think
will
be
a
high
quality
project,
get
us
some
much
needed
housing,
replace
the
gas
station.
I
Add
some
retail
and
and
I
would,
as
part
of
that
recommendation,
give
some
weighted
preference
toward
option
two
as
long
as
Steph
and
the
applicant
can
work
together
and
stop
gets
comfortable
with
the
the
locations
of
those
units
and
and
maybe
present
both
options
to
council
I.
Don't
think
we
should
preclude
Council
from
considering
both
options.
One
and
two
but
I
think
the
recommendation.
I
would
recommend
that
our
recommendation
be
to
the
city
council
that
option
two
is
generally
more
attractive.
G
Yes,
thank
you
check.
Thank
you.
Chris
I
I
agree
with
what
commissioner
Clark
has
mentioned.
I
mean
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
there's
going
to
be
a
School
site
there
across
the
way
pretty
soon
and
to
have
an
increase
of
two
unit.
G
Residencies
in
that
section
makes
a
lot
of
sense
so
between
one
and
two
I'm
varying
towards
two
overall,
although
I
strongly
believe
that
SVG
Architects,
hey
man,
this
is
your
time
to
shine
work
with
us
to
place
these
residencies
in
areas
where
it's
not
obvious
that
people
are
in
BMR
units.
That's
the
big
challenge
you
have
and
I'm
sure
you
can
meet
that
along
with
a
developer,
because
if
you
win
those
shoes
you
want
to
be,
you
wouldn't
want
to
be
identified
like
that
common
courtesy.
G
But
the
other
thing
is
the
relationship
between
how
these
ideas
are
brought
up
to
us
and
what
we
can
review.
So
you
know
some
people
have
said
it
looks
kind
of
shady
I.
Don't
know
if
it
was
shady
or
not
all
I
know
is
it
was
last
minute
and
when
last
minute
changes
happen,
I
understand
because
I
used
to
work
in
law
and
and
and
in
those
moments
you've
got
last
minute
cases
that
come
up
and
you
use
those
as
case
law.
G
Examples
exemplars
per
se
send
them
into
the
court,
they
review
them,
and
then
they
decide
the
letter
of
the
law
in
the
case
that
they're
looking
at
in
this
case
it's
housing
and
that's
the
challenge,
because
the
way
the
laws
are
set
up
right
now,
there's
not
not
there's
not
much.
We
can
do
to
be
able
to
regulate
and
do
oversight.
G
G
That
makes
no
sense
so
based
on
what
we
have
I
agree
with.
Commissioner
Clark
I
would
go
with
a
two-bedroom
option.
That's
available
to
us
in
option
two
and
in
the
future,
I
hope
that
we
get
these
updates
soon
around
and
later
so
that
we
don't
have
a
misunderstanding
that
just
you
know,
stalls
the
growth
of
Mountain
View
and
the
opportunities
of
housing
that
exists
or
could
possibly
exist
for
everyone's
benefit
here
in
the
city,
thanks.
C
Yeah
so
like
the
interesting
thing,
if
I
was
observing
myself
or
this
meeting
from
like
a
bubble
outside
of
my
own
being,
is
that
I'm
really
pro-housing
I'm,
really
Pro
development
story?
I,
don't
care
about
four
or
five
star
like
seven
I?
Don't
care
and
I
think
we
should
build
and
should
build
faster
and
I
think
we
should
build
equitably.
C
What
have
we
as
a
commission?
What
has
the
council
for
like
for
the
last
two
years,
a
year
and
a
half
with
the
housing
element?
What
have
we
been
talking
about?
Affirmatively,
furthering
fair
housing
and
ensuring
that
there
is
sufficient
housing
for
all
income
levels
and
there's
a
reason
that
we
have
laws
and
regulations
on
our
books
on
our
Municipal
books
when
the
BMR
was
regulation
was
updated,
it
had
I
think
it
was
two
years
ago.
It
had
broad
support
from
the
people
on
council
at
the
time.
C
In
fact,
I
think,
commissioner
Clark,
you
were
on
the
council
when
you
voted
for
this
BMR
regulation
and
so
there's
a
reason
why
we're
implementing
these
regulations
and
these
regulations
are,
if
you
look
at
our
performance
in
the
latest
housing
element
update
that
middle
income,
housing
is,
is
just
garishly,
the
worst
performing
of
all
the
income
levels
in
terms
of
housing
production.
This
is
not
about
like
comparing
the
value
of
a
very
low
income
unit
or
a
middle-income.
No.
No.
C
This
is
about
us
having
regulation
the
city
exercising
its
powers,
its
legislative
power
to
look
after
the
well-being
of
our
city,
and
so
when
the
developer
comes
in
here
and
presents
two
options:
option
one:
you
don't
get
to
comply
with
your
requirements
for
an
equitable
distribution
of
placement
of
the
units
and
you
don't
get
to
comply
with
equitable
distribution
of
the
bedroom
size,
because
it
would
impact
our
ability
to
make
more
money.
And
yes,
I
know
that
the
developer
is
saying:
oh,
you
know,
it'll
make
it
unfeasible
have
have
we
I
don't
know.
C
Have
we
seen
the
Pro
Forums?
Have
we
seen
that
I
would
want?
I
would
want
to
see
that
play
out.
I
would
really
want
to
see
that
play
out
that
this
is
like
really
upsetting
that
we
have
these
two
options:
oh
option,
two,
like
10
units,
you
get
less
units,
oh,
but
we'll
make
the
concession
that
will
comply
with
your
equitable
distribution
requirements.
C
I'm
extremely
pro-housing,
I'm,
extremely
knocking
down
barriers
to
making
our
state
more
Equitable
in
terms
of
housing.
But
this
is
not.
This
is
not
the
trust,
building
steps
that
our
community
is
expecting
us
to
take
to
allow
developers
to
come
in
here
and
not
comply
with
the
laws
that
we
have
on
our
books
and
site
a
letter
from
hcd
from
West
Hollywood
with
completely
different
material
facts
I'm
not
finding
that
to
be
at
the
very
least
palatable.
C
So
definitely
no
I
am
not
supportive
of
option.
Two
there's
no
way
I
I
could
in
good
faith,
get
behind
that,
because
I
don't
think
that
option
was
presented
to
us
in
good
faith
and
I'm
disappointed
about
that
I
might
I
might
get
behind
option
one,
but
honestly,
like
just
the
way,
this
has
all
gone
down.
C
A
Okay,
commissioner
Dempsey.
H
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
I
guess
in
the
in
the
spirit
of
you
know
getting
through
the
agenda
tonight
and
wrapping
things
up
at
a
reasonable
hour.
I'll
be
brief.
You
know,
Commissioners
Gutierrez
and
Clark
I
think
spoke
very
well
and
I
found
myself
nodding,
along
with
with
what
they're,
saying
and
I
think
they.
What.
H
I
think
represented
very
well
kind
of
what
I
was
thinking
and
how
I
was
feeling.
Let
me
just
sort
of
Simply
say
this:
you
know
I
wasn't
when
I
read
this
I
wasn't
thrilled
to
see
that
the
that
the
unit
mix
wasn't
proportional
and
that
the
project
was
not
sort
of
evenly
distributed
throughout
the
entire
project
site.
H
There
may
be
some
justifications
for
that,
but
I
feel
like
they
really
weren't
well
explained
and
so
I
think.
Perhaps
there
was
a
bit
of
a
framing
problem
here,
at
least
for
me,
because
the
the
justification
for
what
appeared
to
be
saying
well,
we're
we're
not
really
going
to
follow
the
BMR
ordinance
here.
H
The
justification
was
pretty
thin
and
it
felt
like
it
was
a
little
bit
of
well
because
it's
a
little
too
expensive
to
want
to
pay
for
it,
I'm
sure
there's
more
to
it
than
that,
but
but
I
haven't
really
heard
it,
and
so
that
that's
probably
the
underlying
cause
for
why
I
had
a
bit
of
a
bit
of
discomfort.
I!
Think
about
that
part.
H
You
know
I
I,
didn't
say
this
up
front,
but
I
do
think
it's
important
I.
Actually,
like
the
project,
you
know
it's
General,
it's
General
plan
and
and
bonus
law
compliant.
It's
it's
the
right,
neighborhood
for
building
a
building
of
that
size
and
a
type
you're
going
to
have
way
more
trees,
it'll
be
all
electric
you're
gonna
have
ground
floor
retail
and
it's
ownership
units
and
ownership
units
are
great
because
that's
not
only
housing.
It's
wealth
generation,
I,
love
that
we
need
more
of
that
right.
H
So
don't
let
what
I
said
at
the
beginning
kind
of
take
away
too
much
from
all
the
good
that
this
project
brings.
There's
a
lot
I
like
about
this,
but
the
the
BMR
part
of
this
was
not
well
framed
and
I.
Think
it
just
sort
of
he
had
a
bunch
of
his
wrong.
H
And
so
my
hope
is
is
that
the
city
can
kind
of
take
that
discussion
away
and
and
sort
of
help
it
get
framed
better
when
it
goes
in
front
of
the
council,
so
that
it's
it
really
is
a
Clear
Choice
and
we
understand
sort
of
what
what
what
we
have
discretion
in
and
what
we
don't
and
since
I
guess,
I
have
to
pick
between
option
one
and
option
two
little
torn
I
actually
like
option
one,
because
it's
more
units,
which
means
more
wealth
generation
option
two
doesn't
appear
to
have
the
middle
income
band,
which
you
know
we
do
actually
have
to.
H
F
Yes,
thank
you.
There
are
a
lot
of
things
about
about
commissioner
Clark's
statements
that
I
do
agree
with
I'm
not
going
to
get
too
much
into
the
positives.
F
So
I
appreciate
that
I
think
oh
I
understand
the
frustration
that
commissioner
Nunez
has
I
think
it
is
not
specific
to
this
project.
I
think
it
is
for
a
lot
of
projects.
We
don't
have
an
idea.
We
have
no
data
that
supports
what
is
feasible
and
what
is
not
economically
to
have
something
done
so
I
think
that's
just
in
general,
an
issue
for
us.
F
We
don't
know,
and
again,
as
others
have
said,
it
is
difficult
when
things
are
last
minute
but
given
what's
before
us
and
that
the
state
has
imposed
certain
regulations
that
we
cannot
control
at
this
point,
I
would
I
would
be
for
moving
the
project
forward
as
far
as
option
one
and
option
two
I
don't
have
enough
information
to
make
a
choice.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
flushed
out
equally
between
the
two
and
we'll
let
Council
decide.
F
One
thing
I
did
note
was
that
some
of
the
BMR
units,
the
one
bedroom,
there's
one
where
the
bathroom's
not
near
the
bedroom,
granted
it's
usually
the
two
bedrooms
that
might
have
a
child
and
it's
more
important,
I,
just
think
that's
kind
of
to
have
that
floor
plan.
So
if,
if
it
does
go
I'm,
okay
with
that,
just
that
floor
plan,
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
A
A
So
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
thinking
about
this
over
the
weekend.
So,
like
commissioner
Clark
I
I
like
the
design
there's
a
lot
of
good
things
about
it,
the
reality
is
the
state
bonus
density
law
doesn't
allow
us
a
great
deal
of
flexibility.
A
The
court
case
is
very
recently.
Commissioner.
Nunez
have
said
that
cities
are
allowed
to
ask
for
the
performance,
but
they're
not
allowed
to
ask
for
why
and
how
those
calculations
were
made
simply
they
have
to
provide
the
numbers,
and
the
ruling
in
the
court
was
that
the
law
does
not
give
the
jurisdictions
the
authority
to
actually
look
at
and
just
and
required.
A
Justification
for
the
financials
that
have
been
provided
and
Sandy
can
shoot
that
if
she
thinks
I'm
wrong,
but
that's
that's
what
I
read
is
that
we
can
ask
for
the
numbers,
but
we
can't
actually
look
at
details.
So
when
I
look
at
what
we
have
the
developer
has
said.
This
is
when
I
need
to
make
the
project
work
and
he's
looked
at
the
concessions,
and
the
statement
does
bonus.
Censula
says
that
they
can
ask
for
those
things
and
so
I'm
as
I.
Look
at
it,
it's
like!
Okay,
where
is
this
project?
A
Who
is
who
is
going
to
be
living
in
this
area?
What's
in
this
area?
And
what's
the
best
thing
for
the
area
and
the
location
is
exactly
where
we
want
housing
to
be
it's
near
Transit,
with
close
proximity
to
Caltrain
and
close
proximity
to
the
VTA
State
VTA
main
Bus
location
over
on
the
inside
by
the
Walmart,
a
very
jobbridge
area,
we've
got
large
Facebook
sites,
you've
got
waymo
on
the
other
side
of
the
of
the
highway.
A
You've
got
all
kinds
of
retail
and
work
opportunities
in
the
area,
there's
plenty
of
access
to
groceries
and
and
and
drugstores,
and
the
kind
of
amenities
that
you
want
to
have
nearby
and
but
one
of
the
other
things
that
makes
us
somewhat
unique,
is
I.
I
lived
in
The
Crossings,
initially,
when
I
was
out
here.
M
A
Crossings,
like
this
is
part
of
Los
Angeles,
school
district
and
all
due
respect
to
my
fellow
Commissioners,
who
might
have
have
experience
with
Mountain
View
Westman,
every
person
that
moved
into
the
crossings
when
I
was
there
was
moving
in
because
they
wanted
to
go
to
Los,
Altos
School
District.
That's
why
they
moved.
There
were
families
moving
into
the
area
they
wanted
to
have
access
to
those
schools.
A
A
I
understand
you
know:
I
read
the
the
developers
letter
and
it
was
a
result
of
the
response
to
the
legal
voters
letter
and
their
letter
was
I.
Thought
was,
it
was
not
quite
as
passionate
as
mine
would
have
been,
but
it
was
pretty
darn
close
and
so
I
look
at
it
and
say:
what's
of
the
things
that
are
most
important
to
me,
is
it
the
the
weighted
average
mix?
Is
it
the
the
the
type
of
the
units
where
they
are?
A
In
my
mind,
the
type
of
units
are
the
most
important,
because
this
is
an
area
where
I
hope
that
the
people
that
move
in
there
are
families
and
right
now,
the
in
the
in
option.
One,
the
middle
income
units
are
where
the
two
bedrooms
are
the.
If
you
look
at
our
community,
the
people
who
are
who
are
in
lower
income
levels
and
less
fortunate
are
people
in
in
ethnic
minorities
and
those
I
think
minorities
in
general.
A
If
you
look
at
data,
I
found
said
that
that
the
Hispanic
community
in
general
has
more
people
living
per
household
than
others
do,
and
so.
Okay,
if
I
want
to
give
some
benefit
to
access
to
those
schools
and
those
other
benefits,
then
in
my
mind,
the
two
midterm
units
are
that
are
are
more
important
to
I
agree
with
commissioner
Clark
that
they
need
to
be
better
distributed
through
the
through
the
area.
A
I'd
love
to
have
more
middle
income
units,
but
if
I
look
at
this
specific
project,
the
thing
that
to
me
I
think
we
need
is
the
the
two
bedroom
units
of
the
people
that
can
move
in
here
can
come
in
here
with
kids
that
can
it
can
can
build
their
equity
in
this,
but
can
also
take
advantage
of
something
that's
somewhat
unique
to
this
particular
portion
of
the
city
and
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
other
parts
of
Mountain
View
that
are
part
of
the
Los
Angeles
school
district
and
so
I
am
in
favor
of
the
project.
A
But
I'm
I
have
I,
have
come
down
in
my
own
mind
on
the
side
of
option,
two
there's
a
better
option
going
forward
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
those
are
the
people
that
I
think
can
benefit
the
most
the
collection
of
amenities
in
that
area,
and
we
all
know
I,
don't
like
the
density
bonus.
That's
not
not
a
secret,
but
we
got
to
work
within
the
law
and
within
those
constraints,
that's
my
view.
So.
E
Sure,
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
I
I
really
appreciate
the
conversation
tonight,
because
I
think
reading
through
the
staff
report
reading
through
the
letters
I
have
experienced
every
sentiment
that
has
been
expressed
like
chair
Cranston,
just
shared
I,
mean
I,
think
the
people
that
we
want
to
see
living
in
this
neighborhood
and
benefiting
from
the
amenities
that
are
going
to
come
as
a
result
of
the
San
Antonio
precise
plan.
E
Our
families,
in
my
ideal
world
I
think,
like
commissioner
Clark
said
like
you
know,
I,
would
love
to
entertain
an
additional
floor
and
see
how
we
get
to
the
ideal
mix
of
what
we
want
that
satisfies
both
the
city's
regulations
and
the
density
bonus
and
I
I.
Think
that's
what
I
would
love
those
aren't.
The
options
that
are
before
us,
and
so
like
many
others
I
think
I
would
come
down
on
option
two.
If,
if
that's
where
we're
going
tonight,
but
commissioner
news
I
I
share
your
sentiment.
E
I
know
that
this
is
not
this,
isn't
the
ideal
circumstance
and
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
to
rectify
that,
except
if
this
is.
If
this,
if
the
option
is
this
or
no
housing
right,
they're,
not
that's
not
exactly
the
choice
that
we
want
to
come
down
with
so
I,
don't
know
in
terms
of
process
and
timing
right
like
whether
there
are
real
opportunities
to
go
back.
I.
Think
because
of
permit
streamlining
I
think
this
will
likely
move
forward.
E
A
C
C
Just
this
one
or
like
how
many,
how
many
like
times
has
this
business,
so
this
would
be
number
one
so
like
is
it
true
that,
like
the
state
says
that
project
once
it's
deemed
complete,
can
only
have
like
up
to
five.
J
So
that's
that
there
are
different
laws
that
provide
a
lot
of
overlapping
process
input.
The
the
law
that
you
are
thinking
of
speaks
about
the
number
of
meetings
that
can
occur
once
a
project
has
been
deemed
complete.
That
does
not
supersede
other
permit
streamlining
requirements
for
bringing
a
project
to
hearing
within
a
certain
time
frame,
after
which
the
project
has
been
deemed
complete
and
environmental
review
completed.
So
this
this
project
does
need
to
continue
to
go
through
the
hearing
process.
Okay,.
C
Cool
and
then
I
guess
like
because
one
thing
I'm
thinking
about
is
like
why?
Why
are
we
even
discussing
option
one
and
option
two
like
personally
I,
don't
feel
that
there's
enough
information
that
yeah
and
I
think
I've
heard
even
staff
members
repeatedly
say
tonight
like
hey,
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
assess
the
merits
and
you
know
like
what
that
would
look
like,
and
so,
if
there's
streamlining
requirements
that
are
saying
that
this
has
to
go
to
counsel,
you
know
we.
C
We
recommend
this
like
project
generally,
but
this
whole
decision
around
option
one
and
option
two
we're
just
gonna
like
basically
put
that
to
council,
given
that
by
that
time
the
developer
will
have
done
all
the
due
diligence
with
staff
to
flesh
out
both
options
and
then
Council
can
make
a
much
more
informed,
Choice
around
option,
one
and
option
two
versus
like
us
kind
of
locking
Council
or
boxing
Council
in
to
like
one
of
the
two
options.
When
we
don't
really
have
that
full
availability
of
information.
J
I
guess
the
short
answer
is:
is
no
and
I
I
think
that
I've
heard
that
sentiment
from
sort
of
I
guess
both
sides
is
not
the
correct
way
of
putting
it.
But
you
know
it
it
if
I'm
doing
the
counting
and
chair
Cranston.
Let
me
know
if
I,
you
think
I've
counted
incorrectly.
J
It
seems
like
there
is
strong
sentiment
amongst
the
Commissioners
at
least
four
folks
who
the
favor
option
two
for
certain
reasons
over
option,
one
but
agree
with
what
commissioner
Clark
indicated,
which
is
that
that
recommendation
from
EPC,
if
a
majority
feel
that
way
should
not
preclude
counsel
from
considering
both
options
and-
and
if
that
is
indeed
the
final
recommendation
that
comes
from
EPC,
then
I
think
that
is
is
similar
to
what
you're
suggesting
commissioner
Nunes
I
think
the
commission
could
move
the
staff
recommendation
for
the
project
and
say
the
same
thing.
J
There
are
a
few
different
ways
you
could
package
it,
but
I
I'm,
not
hearing
anything
from
Commissioners
tonight.
That
says
that
you
want
to
foreclose
Council
through
your
recommendation,
taking
action
on
either
of
the
options
right.
C
And
the
reason
why
I
bring
that
up
is
because,
like
you
know,
framing,
is
very
powerful,
like
in
terms
of
like
rhetoric
and
discussion
and
I
feel.
Like
you
know,
the
developer
has
done
a
very
good
job
at
establishing
a
frame
around
option,
one
or
option
two
and
like
I.
Just
don't
think
I
can
support
that.
I
I
would
really
like
you
know,
or
I
guess.
I
would
like
to
elevate
and
or
like
raise
awareness
that
hey
like
if
we
could
take
a
third
option,
two,
not
two
like
also
which
is
hey.
C
Let's
support
the
project,
but
totally
like
explicitly
say
not
in
our
our
transmittal
is
powerful.
If
our
transmittal
goes
to
council
saying,
we
prefer
option
two
when
both
staff
and
the
developer
haven't
had
the
ability
and
time
to
do
their
due
diligence
on
that
I
I
would
like
or
I
would
like
to
offer
up
for
consideration.
C
A
frame
of
supporting
this
project
generally
without
supporting
the
framing
the
developer
has
established
on
option
one
or
option
two
so
that
by
the
time,
this
does
get
to
council
all
that
due
diligence
has
been
established
and
they
as
like,
not
appointed
I'm
appointed
but
like
as
elective
Representatives,
can
make
that
determination
at
a
time
around,
with
the
fully
fleshing
out
of
information
as
unbiased
as
possible
from
a
choice
where
option
two
hasn't
even
been
fleshed
out.
That's
what
I!
That's
what
I
could
that's
what
I
could
support.
I
And
that's
almost
exactly
what
I
was
planning
to
to
propose
as
a
motion,
except
that
maybe
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
more
information
and
context
for
Council
around
the
discussion
that
occurred
around
options,
one
and
two
because
you're
you're,
absolutely
right!
Commissioner,
you
know
it's
like
you
know:
option
two
hasn't
been
fleshed
out
and
I
think
what
staff
was
really
seeking
tonight.
Was
you
know,
here's
the
basic
information
that
we
have
about
this?
It
isn't
fully
fleshed
out.
I
But
do
you
have
a
you
know,
an
initial
sentiment
of
like
no,
this
isn't
attractive
at
all.
Don't
spend
a
bunch
of
time
on
it
before
taking
it
to
council
or
yes,
it
is,
and
let's
try
and
flush
it
out
a
little
bit
more
and
let
the
council
make
a
decision
so
so
I'll
move
the
staff
recommendation
and
and
on
the
BMR
options
front.
I
I
would
also
recommend
that
we
in
the
in
the
report-
that's
transmitted
to
council,
that
that
we
indicate
that
you
know
the
the
EBC
reviewed
the
two
options
that
it
received,
that
second
option
sort
of
last
minute
and
staff
had
and
the
EPC
hadn't
had
a
lot
of
time
to
look
into
it.
But
based
on
the
limited
information
that
we
had,
you
know
a
slim
I,
don't
I
I
was
trying
to
count
I,
don't
even
know
if
it
is
this
limb
majority.
I
But
but
you
know
some
some
number
of
Commissioners.
Whatever
the
number
was
indicated,
you
know
they
would
that
they
might
be
interested
more
in
option
two
than
option
one.
If,
if
the
information
they
had
was
was
accurate
and
the
the
locations
of
the
the
issue
around
the
locations
of
the
units
could
be
better
fleshed
out
and
that
several
Commissioners
I
I
don't
know
the
number
also
expressed
support
for
either
option
one
or
we're
we're
also
comfortable
with
option
one
and
so
it'd,
be
in
the
day.
I
It
really
becomes
a
question
for
Council,
because
they'll
have
you
know
more
information
than
we
have
today,
but
but
based
on
the
limited
information
that
we
had,
the
commission
was
either
sort
of
split
or
slightly
tipped
toward
toward
option
two,
but
understands
that
Council
might
have
more
information
than
we
have
at
the
time
that
they
review
this
I
hope
that
makes
sense.
A
Another
floor
in
the
do
you
think
it
has
Merit
but
he's
more
work,
Maybe
their
category
and
two
in
the
kind
of
like
one
better
category
was
what
I
had
as
what
I
had
was
the
account
that
I
had
so
personally
unions,
commissioner
Dempsey
in
the
leaning
towards
one
commissioner
yen
in
the
neither
neither
category
and
the
other
four
Commissioners
in
the
we
think.
There's
Merit
in
option
two
being
explored
further
for
Council
to
see
them
both.
J
My
counts
was
four
Commissioners
favoring,
as
commissioner
Clark
described
and
characterized
option.
Two
I
had
one
commissioner
as
slightly
favoring
option
one
but
persuadable
and
two
commissioner,
is
neutral.
J
So
Switzerland
neutral
was
Commissioners
Ian
and
Nunes
option.
One
I
had
commissioner
Dempsey
and
option
two
I
had
Commissioners
Clark,
Gutierrez,
Cranston
and
hamar.
C
Yeah,
so
my
my
position
or
what
and
I
guess
this
is
in
reference
to
I,
guess
point
of
clarification
to
also
commissioner
Clark's
proposed
motion,
which
is
that
what
I'm
putting
out
there
for
us
to
consider
explicitly
is
in
the
official
motion
or
what
have
you
to
say.
We
back
neither
option.
C
We
are
literally
going
to
leave
it
up
to
staff
in
the
develop
and
and
the
developer
to
move
all
this
information
forward
and
bring
it
to
council,
and
then
they
can
decide
as
part
of
that
motion
because,
like
in
terms
of
like,
if
we
give
meeting
minutes
and
all
that-
and
it
just
comes
out
and
emerges
that,
like
okay
well
like
four
people,
but
if
we're
like
explicitly
taking
a
straw
boat
or
like
a
poll
and
saying
four
Commissioners,
this
two
Commissioners
that
and
like
that.
That's
that's
a
vote.
C
That's
like
essentially
like
going
to
frame
the
council
meeting
from
that
vantage
point.
So
what
I'm
throwing
out
there
is
I,
don't
know
if
it's
like
emotion
or
what
have
you
or
point
of
clarification
to?
Commissioner
Clark
is
hey,
let's
explicitly
state
or
let's
explicitly,
vote
on
backing.
Neither.
I
Right,
I'm
uncomfortable
with
that,
because
I
think
it
denies
counsel
a
pretty
clear
set
of
facts
and
information
that
is
on
public
record
and
I.
Personally,
if
I
were
a
council
member
with
the
limited
information
that
I
have
before
me
tonight,
I
would
still
lean
toward
option
two,
and
you
know
if
someone,
if
there
are
four
votes
to
to
you,
know,
supersede
that
motion.
That's
fine,
but
I
I.
C
A
Sure
Sandy
I
think,
is
what
commissioner
Clark
said
sufficient
as
a
motion.
The
way
he
kind
of
presented
it
or
am
I
or
is
it
too
vague,
I
mean
he
said
he
was
going
to
kind
of
put
out
there.
The
motion
and
I'm
I
think
we
had
a
it's.
If
it
is,
then
it
should
be
a
second
in
me
and
we
and
we're
discussing
about
moving
ahead
with
that
is
that
was
that
definitely
clear,
rosendian
record.
We
need
commissioner
clerk
to
kind
of
state
it
explicitly
or
Andy.
O
Can
we
just
restate
it
now
that
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversation
about
it,
just
one
more
you're,
removing
the
staff
recommendation
and
then
with
respect
to
the
BMR
peace.
I
Yeah,
so
it
was
moving
the
staff
recommendation
and
then,
including
for
the
for
the
bmrps,
just
stating
that
you
making
it
clear
that
the
EPC
had
limited
information
at
the
time
that
reviewed
it,
but
but
but
then
listing
the
break
down
that
you
had.
I
You
know
before
four
Commissioners
generally
felt
that
option
two,
our
favorite
option,
two
based
on
the
information
they
had
and
then
the
other
breakdown
which
I've
already
forgotten,
but
but
also
stating
that
you
know
the
EPC
felt
it
was
best
for
Council
to
consider
both
options
with
the
additional
information
with
the
lab
between
now
and
then.
I
Then
I
just
not
deny
not
denying
them
the
ability
to
to
consider
either
one.
O
H
D
H
A
G
F
Yes,
I
think
commissioner
Clark
clarified
it
much
better
to
my
liking,
initially
just
framing
it
as
I
was
neutral.
I
just
wanted
to
put
my
sense
in
there
to
say:
I
was
not
neutral
on
the
ideas.
My
point
was
that
the
two
ideas
are
not
equally
fleshed
out
and
should
be
flushed
out
and
put
towards
Council,
which
is
different
than
saying
I
find
neither
favorable
I
find
that
there's
not
enough
information
to
say
it's
favorable
and
if
that
can
be
put
in
I'm
I'm
with
it.
A
D
O
So,
are
you
saying
that
so
you're
basically
trying
to
clarify
what
you
meant
by
what
neutral
means-
you're
not
completely
neutral
you're,
just
you're,
not
in
favor
of
option
two?
But
you
don't
have
enough
information
to
to
make
a
recommendation
on
either
correct.
F
So
from
what
commissioner
Clark
just
clarified,
he
is
putting
out
the
point
that
in
the
minutes
we
will
say
that
the
EPC
finds
that
there's
not
enough
enough
information
that
we're
going
to
put
it
towards
Council.
But
we
can
also
say,
as
he
says,
that
four
people,
given
the
limited
information,
find
too
favorable.
C
O
A
Any
further
discussion
on
this
before
we
go
ahead
and
put
it
to
the
okay
there
you
are,
can
you
please
call
the
roll.
D
A
A
S
S
S
Since
the
approval
of
the
scope
staff
held
several
stakeholder
meetings
with
developers,
Property
Owners
business
owners
and
neighborhood
groups,
information
gathered
at
the
events
was
presented
at
two
study
sessions,
one
with
the
environmental
Planning
Commission
in
May
of
2021
and
City
Council
in
June
of
2021.
At
the
study
session,
Council
director
staff
too
remove
the
historic
preservation
components
from
the
downtown
precise
fund
directing
staff
to
update
the
city's
historic
preservation
ordinance
for
the
entire
city.
This
is
a
separate
process
that
is
currently
ongoing.
S
The
goals
of
the
downtown,
precise
Bank
update,
are
to
provide
clear
design
and
historic
design.
Printables,
provide
objective
design
standards,
encourage
active
uses
and
preserve
the
look
and
feel
of
downtown
and
strengthen
The
Pedestrian
level.
Experience,
as
mentioned
in
the
previous
slide.
Specific
Outreach
was
conducted
to
multiple
stakeholders
in
February.
2021
meetings
were
conducted
with
business,
slash,
Property,
Owners,
Chamber
of
Commerce,
the
development
community
and
neighborhood
groups
in
August
and
September
of
2021.
Two
open
house
meetings
were
held
in
person
in
August
2022.
S
To
encourage
ground
floor
activation
and
present
directly
received
at
the
June
8
2021
city
council
study
session,
the
downtown
precise
Plan
update.
Would
this
allow
Administrative
Office
on
the
ground
for
a
building's
fronting,
Castro
and
the
side
streets
of
Castro
and
area
H
existing
administrative
office
would
be
allowed
to
continue.
This
change
does
not
impact
offices
such
as
law
firms,
Architects
and
other
local
Services
if
they
are
activating
only
to
apply
Ground
Force
administrative
offices
would
continue
to
be
allowed
on
Floors
above
by
way
of
a
prohibitional
use.
Permit.
S
Area,
a
g
and
H
were
updated
to
be
consistent
with
one
another.
They
now
follow.
A
similar
flow
users
were
organized
into
charts,
making
them
easier
to
read.
Multiple
Figures
were
included
like
the
favor
on
the
screen
detailing
minimum
requirements,
and
guideline
paragraphs
were
converted
to
objective
standards.
S
Specific
development
and
design
standards
now
include
area
age
to
be
allowed
in
maximum
office.
Far
of
2.75,
that
is
fluctuarial
ratio.
Buildings
will
require
character,
changes
at
least
every
75
feet,
neo-historic
adjacency
standards.
Buildings
must
provide
traditional
material
in
minimum
window
and
Frontage
design
standards
to
strengthen
pedestrian
activation
it
a
high-level
economic
analysis,
was
conducted.
The
key
findings
show
downtown,
has
desirable
characteristics
but
compete
with
a
retail
region
that
is
mature
and
well
developed.
Restaurant
and
fitness
uses
are
growing
in
the
retail
world
and
downtown
allows
both
uses.
S
S
The
analysis
is
also
recommending
the
city
make
a
strong
push
and
promote
retail
growth,
something
that
could
be
further
explored
by
the
ongoing
city-wide
economic
Vitality
analysis
being
led
by
The,
Economic,
Development,
Division
and
overall,
encourage
upgrades
and
other
complementary
infill
development
with
that
here
are
staff
recommendations.
Thank
you.
For
your
time,
staff
and
the
Consultants
are
happy
to
answer
questions.
C
Cool
thanks
so
in
terms
of
I,
we
received
some
comment.
Public
comment
on
this
that
I
found
pretty
compelling
and
I
just
wanted
to
check
it
out
with
staff,
so
in
terms
of
conditional
use
permits.
Anyone
that's
currently
in
the
ground
floor
for
a
conditional
use.
Permit
long
administrative
office
is
what
options
do
we
have
for
recommending
that
Council?
C
N
N
Rights
to
particular
uses
and
use
permits
generally
go
with
the
land
and,
in
this
case
the
tenant
space
as
it
applies.
So
the
council
would
basically
have
two
options:
could
either
set
a.
N
Council
could
either
say
that
once
a
tenant
space
is
vacant
for
a
certain
amount
of
time,
then
it
would
have
to
revert
to
one
of
the
permitted
uses
or
they
could
say
that
there's
some
amortization
period,
you
know
30
years
or
something
like
that
where
all
office
uses
would
have
to
be
phased
out
at
some
point
in
order
to
justify
the
amortization
period
generally,
we'd
have
to
find
some
kind
of
you
know:
health
and
safety
impact.
N
It's
not
something
that
we
do
very
often,
but
we
do
have
other
non-conforming
standards
that
basically
say
once
a
tenant
space
is
vacant,
then
they
can't
go
back
to
the
non-conforming
use,
so
that
differs
from
what
the
draft
standards
these
draft
standards
are,
which
say
for
office
that
as
long
as
there's
a
vacancy,
it
can
be
repopulated
with
office
until
it
turns
into
a
non-office
use,
and
then
it
can't
go
back
to
office.
Perfect.
C
And,
and
is
that
a
common
thing
to
find
in
our
downtown
core
that
distinction,
basically
a
lot
of
the
current
land
or
the
tenants
using
the
site
through
a
non-conforming
use?
Is
that,
like
a
typical
thing
that
we
see.
N
E
E
My
follow-up
question-
maybe
it's
somewhat
related-
is
just
whether
the
types
of
uses
that
are
potentially
being
zoned
out
or
made
and
conditional
over
a
period
of
time.
N
Yeah,
so
it's
a
great
question,
commissioner:
haymeyer
and
I'll
Tee
It
Up
to
our
consultant,
Libby
seifel,
who
drafted
a
an
economic
analysis
for
us,
with
kind
of
three
main
points
for
recommending
additional
vibrancy
for
downtown.
So
I,
don't
know
Libby.
If
you
can
summarize
those
three
main
big
picture
recommendations.
T
Yeah
well,
and-
and
some
of
them
are
already
in
place
good
evening-
Commissioners
they're
already
happening.
The
city
council
has
approved
a
number
of
initiatives
that
are
happening,
including
you
know,
working
on
the
downtown
streetscape,
which
is
very
important,
having
more
gathering
places
and
activity
areas
to
really
enliven
to
to
build
on
what
commissioner
highmeyer
was
just
saying.
T
T
I,
think
the
recommendation
is
for
ground
floor,
we're
not
thinking
of
office
space
along
Castro
Street,
but
potentially
I'm.
Considering
the
allowance
of
you
know
additional
health-oriented
facilities,
Fitness
oriented
facilities,
things
that
may
not
generate
tax
revenues
as
much
but
do
bring
more
activity
and
allow
people
to
combine
trips.
So
that's
very
important.
T
New
residential
and
office
development
is
important
because
it
brings
more
patrons
right
to
improve
the
area,
but
doesn't
again
we're
not
talking
about
office
on
the
ground
floor,
except
for
in
The,
Limited
circumstances
that
Eric
and
Edgar
just
talked
about,
and
last,
but
certainly
not
least,
we're
talking
about
encouraging
upgrades
with
some
programs
that
the
city
could
sponsor
and
complementary
infill
development,
particularly
on
the
corner.
Parcels,
which
was
Shira,
can
talk
about
more.
E
Is
there
any
talk
about
some
kind
of
business
relocation
as
sites
are
getting
redeveloped
right?
One
small
business
is
moving
to
another
site.
As
you
know,
new
property
is
coming
online.
I
just
I
feel
like
the
options.
Are
businesses
get
forced
out
right,
like
they
don't
have
that
opportunity
to
LeapFrog
while
something's
being
redeveloped?
Is
that
considered
or
that's
not
part
of
the
suite.
N
So
that's
not
exactly
part
of
this
project,
but
we
are
working
on
the
economic
Vitality
strategy
and
we're
just
kicking
that
off
and
I
think
you
know,
those
types
of
comments
are
are
good
to
kind
of
tea
into
that
project
as
well.
Okay,.
E
H
Thank
you
just
a
couple
of
quick,
minor
questions,
and
forgive
me
if
I
missed
in
the
sac
report
the
answers
to
some
of
these
questions.
When
would
this
go
into
effect,
if
it's
approved
by
the
city
council,
I
assume,
is
it
going
to
affect
January
1
or
when
does
it
become
effective.
N
All
ordinances
go
into
effect,
30
days
after
the
Council
approval.
Oh
well,
this
isn't
you
know
this
resolution
would
go
into
effect.
30
days
after
the
council.
H
Okay
and
how
many
administrative
offices
are
there
now
or
how.
S
None
of
the
top
of
my
head,
I,
don't
know
exactly
how
many
I
do
know.
I
spoke
to
two
of
them
and
essentially
how
we
write
it
in
the
in
area.
Age
of
the
updates
doesn't
necessarily
make
a
non-conforming
per
se.
They
would
be
allowed
to
continue
to
stay
there
until,
as
Eric
highlighted
earlier
said
time
that
day
transfer
over
to
a
different
prohibition
of
use
permit
or
to
and
and
allowed
use.
S
That
yeah
I
think
most
of
the
office
uses
that
you'll
find
on
in
area
age,
don't
fall
under
administrative
office.
They
fall
under
services
such
as
law
firms
or
architect,
offsets
Etc.
H
N
Yeah
so
oftentimes
we
will
set
conditions
that
say
that
talk
about
the
level
of
transparency
that
has
to
be
in
the
the
windows
or
we
will
review
the
improve
the
tenant
improvements
to
show
that
they're,
not
you
know
putting
private
offices
in
the
front
along
the
street
or
you
know
having
forbid
restrooms
or
anything
like
that.
You
know
so
you
know
we.
N
We
do
actually
iterate
quite
a
bit
on
many
of
these
provisional
use
permits
on
the
floor
plan
just
to
ship
just
to
have
bring
them
the
most
kind
of
public-facing
pieces
of
the
use
towards
the
towards
the
street.
G
Thank
you,
sir.
So
I've
got
two
quick
questions
Eric,
so
the
first
one
is
in
terms
of
when
Council
referred
to
other
types
of
businesses
such
as
health,
were
they
do
they
go
specific
enough
to
detail
what
health
did
not
mean?
N
Well,
we
don't
allow
cannabis
use
for
this
downtown
or
not
canvas
retail,
that
that
has
been
that's
a
separate
use,
as
defined
in
our
zoning
ordinance,
and
so
we
would
need
to
include
that
specifically
listed
in
the
downtown
precise
plan
and
it's
not
listed
the
so
I
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
council
comment:
you're
referring
to
Edgar.
Do
you
do
you
know
what
council
comment
he's
referring
to?
Oh.
S
That
so
I
I
think
commissary
Terrace.
That
was
one
of
the
recommendations
from
the
economic
analysis,
I
I,
don't
believe.
Council
particularly
referred
to
medical
or
health
uses.
G
Okay,
all
right
great,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that,
and
the
second
question
is
in
terms
of-
and
this
is
for
my
information
here-
you
didn't
bear
with
me
parking
fees.
Is
that
also
part
of
this,
or
is
that
a
discussion
that
would
be
tied
into
the
economic
revitalization
of
downtown.
N
So
parking
is
absolutely
a
big
deal
and
it's
a
big
deal
for
the
precise
plan
and
the
zoning
in
general.
N
A
F
Thank
you.
Yes,
I
had
a
few
questions,
one
the
Alleyways,
that's
city
property,
or
is
that
on
private
property?
Now,
currently
the.
F
Okay,
excellent
now
is
there
an
intention
that
those
alleys
are
going
to
go
away
or
is
the
intention
that
they
stay
and
remain.
N
No,
they
they
need
to
stay
because
most
of
the
businesses
depend
on
the
alleys
and,
in
fact,
council
is
currently
considering
closing
off
the
Castro
to
cars,
which
adds
further
need
for
vehicle
access
to
these
buildings
via
the
alleys.
Okay,.
F
Great
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that,
because
in
the
updated
guidelines
that
we're
looking
at
very
often
it
says
if
alleys
are
available
and
I
don't
know
of
any
block
that
does
not
have
one
so
I
wasn't
sure
why
we
were
adding
that
do
you?
Is
there
a
reason.
N
So
there
may
be
cases
where,
certainly
in
in
area
G,
there
may
be
some
cases
where
there
is
not
an
alley
available
and
in
area
a
and
I'm
thinking,
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
think
back
to
the
standard
itself.
It
may
have
also
been
dependent
on
the
site
design
of
the
the
building
itself.
So
if
you're
there
may
be
some
aspect
of
the
use
that
may
not
be
able
to
utilize
the
alley
or
maybe
oriented
toward
the
alley,
even
even
if
there's
an
alley
there.
N
F
F
That
question
was
that
I
noted
that
we're
also
allowing
trash
and
services
to
be
as
long
as
it's
enclosed
within
the
property
to
be
on
the
other
streets
and
not
required
to
be
in
the
alley,
and
that
I
that
that
was
concerning
to
me
because
I
figured
the
alley
is
where
they
should
all
be,
so
that
we
don't
have
that
many
breaks
and
blank
walls
on
those
sort
of
very
public
walkable
streets.
Trying
to
maintain
the
walkability
of
as
much
as
we
can
here.
N
So
those
are,
those
are
two
separate
standards
and
we
would
interpret
those
two
separate
standards
as
both
being
required.
N
F
Oh
I,
just
I
just
noted
that
I
thought
given
the
way
it
was
worded
that
it
was
then
okay
if
a
new
development
were
to
happen
that
as
long
as
they
had
the
trash
screened
and
on
their
property,
that
potentially
trash
truck
could
just
go
down
one
of
the
sort
of
more
primary
streets
and
have
their
unloading,
and
you
know
pick
up
there
and
that
a
new,
a
new
building
would
then
just
have
their
like
sort
of
trash
loading
area
right
on
one
of
the
more
primary
streets.
F
Okay,
great
just
wanted
to
confirm
that.
Thank
you
all
right.
Let's
see
another
question
I
had
and
you
did
that
the
administrative
office
for
upper
floors,
potentially
in
the
future,
could
have
a
Lobby
on
Castro
and
I
was
curious
if
there
was
a
limitation
on
that
width
so
that
we're
not
getting
a
full
50
feet
of
Lobby
for
a
high-tech
office
very
fancy.
It
makes
me
very
pretty,
however,
totally
counter
to
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
maintaining
a
very
walkable,
very
retail
restaurant
oriented
three
blocks
that
we've
got.
N
So
no,
we
don't
have
a
specific
development
standard
there,
the
the
way
that
we
would
Implement.
That
is,
that
the
and
during
the
design
review
process
you
know
we
would
use
our
judgment
about
what
is
just
a
Lobby.
You
know
and
what
is
more
than
a
Lobby
right.
There's
always
some
amount
of
discretion
in
these
processes,
and
and
we
would,
we
would
apply
that
discretion
during
the
development
view
process.
F
Okay,
I
guess
so
all
right,
there's
discretion
there,
because
I
know
that
you
know
we.
We
do
have
one
office
building
that
has
an
entire
ground
floor
devoted
to
a
Lobby.
So
I
just
worry,
you
know
there
are
things
that
are
common
sense
to
walkability
to
me
or
someone
else.
But
you
know
regulations
are
there
to
ensure
that
the
worst
case
doesn't
happen
and
I
was
curious.
If
maybe
that
was
a
consideration
that
could
be
put
in.
N
So
we
we
looked
at
that
concept
briefly,
and
we
tried
a
couple
of
options
such
as
maximum
percentage
of
the
building
or
maximum
total
width,
and
in
many
of
those
cases
it
ended
up
being
having
kind
of
negative
circumstances,
depending
on
the
building
Dimension
that
you
were
looking
at
or
the
potential
location
that
you
might
be.
You
know
we
we
tested
all
of
that
in
in
different
scenarios
and
ultimately,
we
decided
to
not
have
a
standard
and
to
just
kind
of
use.
N
The
use,
the
the
kind
of
judgment
call
definition
of
a
Lobby
and
and
purpose
and
intent
of
the
precise
plan
to
to
guide
the
development
review
process.
F
Okay
and
I
think
so
sorry,
I,
don't
have
very
many
more
probably
just
one
or
two
I'll
just
go
with
the
more
important
one
which
is
sort
of
tagging.
On
to
that
question
with
whether
or
not
we
have
a
limitation
on
putting
those
lobbies
on
Corners
sense,
Corners,
I,
know
and
I
believe
Levy
can
corroborate,
are
critical
for
maintaining,
as
either
restaurant
or
retail
plus
as
anchors
to
the
survival
of
all
these
small
businesses
that
we
have.
N
F
H
Question
I
forgot
to
ask
earlier
in
the
rules
for
storefronts
I
noticed
there
was
no
discussion
of
lighting,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
have
noticed
is
sort
of
a
problem
with
Castro
Street,
particularly
when
we've
had
such
a
high
vacancy
rate
is.
There's
sections
of
the
street
that
were
up
until
recently,
actually
pretty
dark
at
night
at
night
is
when
we
want
a
lot
of
people
down
there.
H
Has
there
been
any?
Is
there
any
reason
that
we
do
not
address
Lighting
in
the
sort
of
front
of
the
store
regulations,
and
should
we
foreign.
N
Yeah,
so
it
hadn't
come
up
as
a
comment
previously,
and
so
it
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
S
No,
not
necessarily
came
up
but
I
know
not.
Olivia
did
highlight
it
in
in
her
kind
of
recommendations
to
to
Really
increase
the
lighting,
the
nighttime
lighting,
it's
I
know
it's
something
that
is
also
being
looked
at
by
the
outdoor
pedestrian
law
in
the
public
works
team
and
it's
my
understanding.
They've
already
initiated
some
of
the
lighting
and
play
some
lighting
out
there,
and
they
are
further
evaluated
that
as
they
would
be,
putting
the
lighting
down
public.
Rightfully.
H
It
is
getting
better
they've
been
hanging,
a
lot
of
lights
out.
There
all
still
got
a
little
bit
of
work
to
do,
but
to
the
extent
that
some
of
the
storefronts
are
actually
recessed
and
it
creates
it's
not
just
a
you
know:
it's
not
just
a
flat
wall
as
you
walk
down
the
street,
but
it's
actually
recessed.
There's
a
bunch
of
space
in
there
I
think
having
a
little
bit
of
lighting
for
this
bit,
because
those
spaces
can
be
kind
of
dark,
especially
if
it's
a
vacant
spot.
H
So
just
give
it
a
thought.
I
think
lighting
is
actually
one
of
the
one
of
the
ways
that
we
can
improve
things
down
there.
A
lot
and
I
think
not
only
Lighting
on
the
street,
but
sometimes
Lighting
on
the
storefront
as
well.
N
Oh
you're,
muted,
chair,
Cranston,
I
think
I
did
that
to
you
accidentally.
A
Okay,
so
follow
up
on
one
of
Vice
cherian's
questions
I
can
think
of
at
least
at
least
one,
maybe
two
units
where
there
is
no
access
to
a
an
alley,
so
they
would
still
be
allowed
to
have
a
trash
pickup
on
the
street.
Wouldn't
they
the
small
salon
on
Dana
Street,
just
east
of
West
of
Castro.
A
That
I
know
has
a
little
Alleyway
I
know
because
I've
tried
to
park
there,
it's
right
across
from
Grapevine,
and
it's
I
can't
park
in
front
of
it
because
that's
where
their
crash
goes
and
then
I
don't
think
Bloom's
giving
actually
has
a
back
door.
Do
they
so
I,
don't
I
mean
they're
just
a
couple.
So
if
they,
if
they're
trapped,
are
they
still
able
to
get
their
tests?
I'm
assuming
they're
still
going
to
be
able
to
have
the
trash
pickup
on
the
street
on
the
main
streets?
Yes,.
A
A
Have
where
is
that
today
that
we
have
so
if,
if
a
provisional
use,
you
know
as
somebody
you
know,
somebody
who's
using,
it
leaves
that
that's
automatically
reverted
to
the
to
the
to
the
other
standard
that
has,
they
have
to
start
over.
N
We
don't
we
only
have
not
if
not
if
a
tenant
leaves
right.
So
it's
not
just
changing
tenants,
so
you
can
always
pass
a
permit
from
tenant
to
tenant,
but
we
do
have
a
six-month
or
one
year,
vacancy
resets
for
allowed
uses
and
provisional
uses
that's
kind
of
the
standard
actually
for
most
of
the
other
zoning
districts.
So
if
a
non-conforming
use
is
if
that
site
is
vacant
for
a
year
or
more,
then
then
it
reverts
you,
you
can't
re-tenant
it
with
the
non-conforming
use.
N
N
Are
off
the
main
drag
so
maybe
at
the
corner
of
Dana
and
Bryant,
for
example,
many
of
the
buildings
are
not
kind
of
built
for
lots
of
transparency
and
kind
of
create.
You
know
with
the
interior
tenant
spaces
to
to
facilitate
retail,
and
so
it
would
be
a
costly
process
with
uncertainty
for
the
developer
that
there
would
actually
be
pedestrian
traffic
there
to
replace
with
those
to
require
replacement
with
those
uses
if
they
go
vacant.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Christopher
cartel
has
another
question.
G
Yes,
hey
I
have
a
quick
question
just
in
terms
of
process.
So
if
we
have
a
deadline
of
having
the
meeting
stop
at
10,
should
we
it's
ask
for
a
motion
to
extend
the
meeting
length
time
or
rule
here
too
or
not.
A
A
All
right,
then,
we
will
move
on
to
public
comments.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
provide
a
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button,
Zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
unmute
themselves
the
star
six.
The
EPC
clerk
will
start
the
timer.
Let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up
well.
I
hope
that
we
have
anyone
looking
to
speak.
B
Yes,
we
have
two
speakers
with
raised:
hands:
Celia
I'm,
going
to
allow
you
to
talk
so
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen.
First
to
share
the
timer,
then
go
ahead.
U
Hi
just
a
brief
comment.
As
a
representative
of
greenspace's
Mountain,
View
I
did
hear
that
comment
about
additional
lighting.
If
lighting
standards
are
introduced,
it
would
be
nice
if
they
were
dark
sky
initiative
compliant.
I
know
this
city
is
looking
at
having
a
dark
skies
ordinance,
so
it
would
be
nice
if
any
upcoming
things
also
fit
within
that,
as
that
is
in
the
pipeline.
Thank
you.
V
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
item
on
behalf
of
livable
Mountain
View.
Let
me
emphasize
that
prohibiting
ground
floor
Administrative
Office
is
essential
to
maintaining
a
vibrant,
interactive
people-oriented.
Streetscape
administrative
office
locations
are
dead
zones
which
Are
Walled
off
from
the
public
during
the
day
and
generally
completely
bake
it
at
night.
These
days,
it
is
even
rare
for
office
workers
to
venture
out
and
patronize
surrounding
food
establishments,
as
it
has
become
customary
for
many
employers
to
provide
food
for
employers
employees
on
site.
V
Furthermore,
as
staff
pointed
out,
an
earlier
study
session
for
the
Signum
offices
can
demand
a
higher
rent
and
if
they
are
permitted
on
the
ground
floor,
they
will
soon
obliterate
lower
rent
vibrant
uses
that
they
would
replace.
That
would
go
beyond
it
and
revoke
existing
conditional
use
permits
for
ground
floor
administ,
Administrative
Office.
Whenever
the
current
tenants
lease
expires
and
the
chat
chooses
no
longer
to
rent
the
property.
This
ensures
the
office.
Use
will
eventually
be
replaced
with
a
non-office
use.
V
Without
this,
a
landlord
will
never
have
the
incentive
to
rent
on
non
to
a
non-office
use.
We
should
not
wait
for
a
vacancy
to
force
a
change
and
I
will
say
that
I
do
know
of
places
on
Caster
street
that
have
ground
floor
administrative
office
now
that
they
got
through
a
commercial
conditional
use,
permit
they're,
not
just
on
the
side
streets
Commissioners.
Please
support
our
recommendation
and
don't
turn
are
out
downtown
into
an
office
Park.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
item
forward
and
thank
you
for
listening
to
our
point
of
view.
M
Thank
you
good
evening,
chair
and
Commissioners.
My
name
is
halal
shawani
I'm
a
long
time
resident
of
Mountain
View
I
would
like
to
support
staffs
recommendations
for
keeping
the
ground
floor
in
downtown,
specifically
in
the
historic
area
for
retail
and
other
services,
for
the
public
and
limited
for
office
use
or
hopefully,
turn
it
over
to
being
a
service
in
retail
space.
M
I
I'll
go
I
generally
think
this
is
a
the
the
vocabist
started
after
or
we
initiated
I
think
right
before
I
left,
Council
bulk
of
the
work
was
done
since,
and
I'm
I'm
impressed
by
the
the
balance.
That's
been
struck
here.
Overall,
I
I
support,
I
support
the
stock
recommendation
here
and
what's
been
developed,
I
think
it
strikes
the
right
balance.
I
I
probably
would
have
been
slightly
more
permissive
on
the
on
the
side
streets.
I
I
I
really
I
would
much
rather
have
a
space
utilized,
even
if
it
isn't
my
ideal
tenant
than
to
have
a
vacant
space,
but
the
council
will
fined
on
that,
and-
and
so
that's
not
a
reason
for
me
to
to
vote
against
that
or
to
try
and
change
that
just
my
comments
on
a
few
other
things
that
have
come
up:
I
I
I
I,
like
the
balance
that
staff
has
struck
here
with
having
these
run
with
the
land
and
eventually
turn
over
the
way
that
it's
been
structured,
doing
something
more
Draconian
like
taking
away
a
a
conditional
use
when
a
tenantly
used
is
is
quite
that
would
be
a
very
big
deal
and
I
think
you
would
have
a
lot
more
comments
from
the
downtown
committee
and
maybe
some
business
owners
if
that
were
truly
on
the
table
here.
I
I
Think
the
I
think
the
balance
that's
been
struck
here
is
the
right
balance
and
I've
seen
some
of
those
more
Draconian
measures,
especially
in
San
Francisco
backfire,
where
you
you
end
up
with
vacant
spaces,
because
no
one
wants
to
spend
the
money
to
fix
it
up
and
because
they've
lost
the
the
use
that
the
current
building
structurally
is
sort
of
set
up
to
handle,
as
Jeff
mentioned
at
Dana,
Bryant
and
so
I
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
going
that
far
in
terms
of
imposing
our
will
on
on
those
on
those
business
owners.
I
So
that's
a
long
way
of
saying
I
think
the
right
balance
here
has
been
struck.
I
know
there
were
other
comments
about
you
know,
lobbies
and
Corner
uses
and
which
I
I
generally
agree
with
I.
Just
think
that
if
they're
actually
going
to
be
regulations,
we
need
to
be
very
specific.
We
need
to
be
able
to
come
up
with
very
specific.
You
know,
percentages
or
Square,
footages
and
I.
I
Think,
as
staff
had
mentioned,
that's
very
difficult
to
come
up
with
and
in
those
cases,
I've
just
learned
over
the
years
that
we
have
an
amazing
staff
who
I
think
generally
understands
over
time.
The
uses
that
the
council
is
most
comfortable
with,
even
though
that
sometimes
evolves
and
I've
just
learned
to
trust
their
judgment
on
those
things
and
I
haven't
seen
anything
too
awful
come
out
of
that,
at
least
at
least
in
the
recent
past.
I
So
overall
I'm
supportive
of
the
of
the
precise
point
of
moments
as
drafted
and
and
well
I'll.
Let
someone
else
make
an
admission
back,
because
since
I
spoke.
C
Yeah,
so
I
am
also
very
supportive
of
you
know
the
recommendation
I'm
very
happy
that
we
are
having
a
I
think
long
overdue
discussion
around
the
the
kind
of
downtown
that
long
term
we
want
it
feels
nice
to
see
that
this
discussion
is,
is
moving
towards
a
preference
towards
active
walkable.
C
Commissioner
Dempsey
I
loved
your
commentary
on
the
lighting
I
think
that's
a
critical
piece
of
activation,
I
I
I!
That's
what
I
want
to
see.
You
know
that's
what
I
want
to
grow
up
in
I'm
already
grown
up
there
you
go
I'm
still
growing
guys,
but
I
I
do
definitely
you
know
in
terms
of
balance.
C
The
commissioner
Clark
I,
appreciate
your
commentary
on
balance
too,
like
I,
think
that
you
know
it
it's
one
of
the
powers
that
people
have
and
don't
realize
they
have
oftentimes
is
like
starting
history
at
convenient
points
and
I.
Think
that,
in
terms
of
balance,
like,
let's
think
about
how
far
how
many
years
our
city
has
had
in
terms
of
developing
or
having
a
downtown
that
has
skewed
the
balance
heavily
towards
Administrative
Office
I
mean
like
just
recently
right.
I
think
you
probably
saw
the
voice
article
around
that
sombrado
project.
C
There's
a
clear
preference,
a
clear
Consciousness
around
hey.
You
know
we
we
probably
want
to
start
correcting
that
balance
right,
there's
a
reason
why
this
is
a
conversation
that
we're
having
and
so
I
very
much
would
be
comfortable
and,
in
fact,
I
would
actually
Advocate
that
not
only
do
we
support
the
recommendation,
but
I
think
that
that
there's
no
harm
like
if
we
have
three
other
Commissioners.
That
also
agree.
C
You
know
I
I,
think
there's
no
harm
in
you
know
sending
commentary
to
council
saying
that
you
know
there
is
General
support
for
the
exploration
of
what
a
conditional
use
permit.
C
You
know
what
that
might
look
like,
essentially,
and
so
I
I
am
supportive
of
you
know.
Taking
this
a
little
bit
further
or
suggesting
to
council
that
you
know,
we
explore
greater
options
for
limiting
administrative
office.
C
I
think
the
balance
is
way
out
of
whack
and
the
favor
administrative
office,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
yeah.
This
is
a
great
conversation
to
have
around
the
kind
of
City
the
kind
of
downtown
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
have
moving
forward.
So
yeah
Notch
me
in
on
that
side
of
definitely
supportive
of
exploring
greater
restrictions
on
administrative
office
in
the
downtown.
D
F
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
first
speak
to
what
commissioner
Nunes
had
said.
I
think
I
would
be
in
favor
of
investigating
what
legal
and
recourse
is
there,
especially
along
Castro,
especially
since
it
is
so
skewed.
I
understand
that
the
conditional
use
permit
was
given
at
one
point
and
it
you
know,
there's
It's
tricky
to
remove
it.
F
However,
if
the
you
know
it's
just
a
matter
of
parody
and
fairness
to
everyone
else
on
Castro
as
well
or
you
know
the
area
that
we're
looking
at
so
if
there's
a
way
to
phase
it
over
time
or
if
whatever
it
is,
I'm
open
to
that
as
well.
To
looking
at
that,
I
I
generally
am
not
a
fan
of
over
regulating
either.
F
F
However,
given
what
what
I've
seen
sometimes
again,
I'll
reiterate
what
I
feel
like
is
common
sense
to
retain
a
walkable
historic,
very
vibrant
area
is
not
as
common
as
I
would
like
and
very
easily
looking
at
the
guidelines,
there's
room
for
harm
and
I,
just
I
don't
want
to
over
regulate,
but
I
also
want
to
minimize
the
absolute
worst.
F
So
there
are
just
a
couple
of
things
that
I'll
just
bring
up.
I
brought
up
a
couple
already,
one
I
believe
for
the
building
height
in
area
H
there
for
the
100
200
block,
there's
an
additional
five
foot
allowed,
and
that
was
proposed
in
order
to
allow
for
the
ground
floor
retail,
to
have
some
more
space
to
attract
new
tenants
and
I.
I
completely
think
that's
a
great
idea,
however.
F
I
would
frame
it
so
that
the
plus
five
feet
is
not
for
the
total
height
that
it
is
specifically
for
the
ground
floor
so
that
we're
not
trying
to
you
know
we
get
an
extra
five
feet.
Maybe
that
gets
you
another
story,
but
the
ground
floor
is
still
squatty
and
short,
and
then
someone
says,
oh
sorry,
we
can't
lease
this
out.
F
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
allowing
more
height
and
not
gaining
what
we
want.
So
it's
important
to
word.
It
right
I
was
glad
to
hear
Ali's
our
city
property
and
that
we'll
be
retaining
that
great
back
to
the
corners
again
everywhere.
Everything
I
know
and
everywhere.
I've
read:
you've
got
cities
across
the
United
States
trying
to
bring
back
their
Main
Street,
and
what
I've
heard
from
retail
Specialists
is
that
those
Corners
are
so
important.
F
If
we
allow
Administrative
Office
lobbies
to
take
those,
we
are
pretty
much
just
slashing
away
Our
intention
of
what
we
want
so
I
think,
first
and
foremost,
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
what
our
philosophy
is,
what
it
is
it
that
we
are
trying
to
gain
by
doing
these
regulations
and
follow
forth
on
that,
so
I
am
advocating
for
administrative
lobbies
to
not
be
on
the
corners
I
understand.
There
is
difficulty
in
limiting
the
proportion,
the
dimension
of
administrative
lobbies
along
Castro,
but
I
feel
like
it
is
important
enough
to
do
something.
F
I,
don't
know
what
that
is.
So
I
am
looking
to
staff
for
recommendations
there,
because
you
know
God
love
developers.
You
know
a
lot
of
them
are
with
the
community,
want
what
the
community
wants,
but
there
are
a
lot
that
you
know
they
don't
have
an
economic
incentive
to
to
do
what
the
city
wants.
What
the
community
wants.
It's
just
not
their
business
model,
necessarily
there's
can
be
overlap,
but
we
find
that
that's
not
necessarily
100
overlap.
F
So
I
would
hope
with
these
the
revisions
that
we're
we're
going
to
try
to
diminish
the
most
harm,
because
the
death
by
a
Thousand
Cuts
and
our
little
three
blocks,
which
is
already
you
know,
some
places,
are
a
little
bit
struggling
still
doing
well
for
a
great
chunk
of
them,
but
I
would
like
to
see
that
it
has
helped
through
grants
and
other
things
like
that.
F
F
H
I
think
Vice
chair
again
hit
it,
and
you
know
said
it
perfectly.
I
mean
this.
This
is
a
small
part
of
a
much
much
larger
project
for
Mountain
View
and
a
really
important
one
I
mean
I'm
absolutely
going
to
support
staff
recommendation
today.
I
support,
you
know,
prohibiting
administrative
offices
at
Grand
level
and
I
understand
the
reason
for
it.
You
know
we
want
to
make
it
walkable
and
active
and
fun
and
have
a
whole
bunch
of
folks
down
there.
H
I
really
want
to
see
that
and
so
I'm
I
I've
always
struggled
a
little
bit
with
the
idea
of
kind
of
narrowing.
The
range
of
tenants
that
you
could
have
downtown,
because
right
now
I
mean
our
vacancy
rate's,
like
15
20
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
it
is,
but
it's
bad
right.
So
the
idea
of.
W
H
You
know
we
we
there's
people
we
want
out
of
here,
I
struggle
with
that,
because
I
feel
like
we
got
to
get
some
people
out
there,
and
so
but
anyway,
what
the
staff
recommendation
is
is
great,
totally
supported,
but
I
guess
I
would
just
say
as
part
of
this
larger
project
for
Mountain
View,
they're,
I'm
really
excited,
but
there's
a
lot.
We
got
to
do,
there's
a
lot
we
got
to
do.
H
H
It's
like
anything,
goes,
and
we
got
to
get
our
arms
around
that,
and
this
is
not
the
place
to
do
it.
I'm
just
really
hopeful
that
as
we
Revitalize
the
downtown,
we
definitely
can
and
should
be
more
picky
about
who
gets
a
space
down.
There.
I
think
that
that
is
entirely
appropriate.
A
G
Okay,
yeah
I'll
be
I'll,
be
quick
now
I'm
in
support
of
the
recommendation
and
I
hope
it
just
promotes
better
communication
between
the
business
community
and
Mountain
View
in
general,
because,
though
we
don't
regulate
or
enforce
or
create
policy
here,
just
to
know
when
I
spoke
into
some
restaurant
owners
because
of
covid
in
that
situation
and
having
to
adjust
on
the
file
was
tough
for
them
and
the
city's
done
everything
it
could
to
help
them
in
certain
ways.
I
know:
there's
it's
been
a
bit
more
of
a
chore.
G
Having
owners
spend
their
own
money
to
buy
their
own
awnings
and
then
be
told
you
can't
use
those
anymore
do
something
else
according
to
the
city.
Well,
that's
not
so
helpful
right
so
having
these
standards
ahead
of
time
would
really
help
out
hoping
that
with
because
of
this
covet
situation
that
we
went
through
that
that
example
doesn't
happen
again
and
outside
of
that
I'm.
G
Looking
forward
to
seeing
what
other
ideas
we
can
generate
and
help
so
that
downtown
becomes
more
of
a
Vibrant
Community
that
it
can
be
and
that
we
give
them
as
much
support
that
we
can,
because
these
three
four
blocks
right
now
still
I
find
on
Mountain
View
right
now
you
go
out
there
on
the
weekends,
and
you
can
see
the
life.
G
You
hope
that
you're
still
part
of
a
community
that
hasn't
lost
touch
in
terms
of
what
human
interaction
is
all
about
and
what
a
downtown
can
bring
to
life
in
that
respect
to
how
we
look
at
one
another
as
human
beings.
So,
having
said
that,
thank
you
for
the
recommendation
and
I'll
be
in
support
of
that.
Thanks.
E
Thank
you,
I
think
I
will
be
supportive
of
the
staff
recommendation
and
I
think
One
Challenge
and,
as
commissioner
Hemsley
alluded
to
like
it
makes
me
uneasy.
I
understand
that
the
balance
right
now
feels
skewed,
but
it
makes
me
uneasy
if,
if
we're
confronting
vacancies
and
the
possibility
of
another
use,
it
is
no
secret.
E
The
economic
Vitality
really
reach
out
to
I
mean
Danish
Street
roasting
is
celebrating
20
years
in
this
community,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
they
are
really
hurting,
and
so
it's
the
businesses
on
and
off
Caster
that
really
need
that
economic
Vitality
strategy
and
I'm
excited
that
that's
moving
forward,
because
people
care
a
lot
about
downtown
but
I.
Think
there's
always
this
tendency
to
say
you
know.
Let's,
let's
focus
on
you
know
what
we
can
do
to
retain
things
and
and
I.
E
C
Yeah
so
I
just
wanted
to
even
I
guess,
like
I,
don't
know
like
not
the
word
second,
but
also
raise
my
hand
and
say
I'm
strongly
supportive
of
commissioner
Ian's
last
comments
around
the
corner,
opposite
or
Corner
spaces.
C
Personally
I
think
regulation
is
great.
I
agree
with
like
the
possibility
of
overregulating
but
I
think
again,
I
think
having
the
vision
laying
out
that's
very
critical.
I
also
want
to
say
that
you
know
in
terms
of
what
experience
I
had
I've
actually
had
an
opportunity
to
do
a
business
deal
with
a
very
prominent
company
on
our
downtown
within
this
historic
core
about
three
to
five
hundred
employees.
C
Work
in
this
office
space,
and
they
invited
me
over
and
that
first
floor
was
a
ginormous
cafeteria
and
almost
all
of
the
people
that
work
there
just
go
down
and
they
go
to
their
cafeteria.
They
eat
their
lunch
and
they
go
back
to
their
desk.
C
I
mean
we're
talking
about
vacancy,
like
what,
if
those
three
to
five
hundred
people
had
to
step
outside
for
once
so
yeah
without
you
know,
I'm
aware
of
like
causation,
and
you
know
correlation
and
such
like
fallacies.
What
have
you
but
like
I
I,
know
personally
I've
experienced
that
you
know
kind
of
inward
looking
like
sinkhole,
if
you
will
around
that
first
floor,
administrative
presence,
so
I
want
to
also
support.
If
there's
a
way,
you
know
if
anyone
else
supports
that
as
well.
You
know
I
would
love
to
get
behind.
C
Commissioner
unions
recommendation
on
the
corner
spots
again
within
whatever
legal
and
Etc
mechanisms
we're
able
to
convey
and
communicate.
C
You
know
also
that
conditioner
use
permit
and
then
also
share
that
anecdote
around
you
know.
If
we
have
vacancies,
maybe
we
ought
to
have
people
step
outside
a
little
bit
more.
A
Eric
or
Edgar,
can
you
pull
up
the
chart
that
showed
the
where
the
the
new
provisional
units
permits
would
be
required
for
office
or
administrator?
Yes,.
A
S
That
that
is
correct,
so
the
areas
in
red
which
income
is
Castro's
or
area
age,
the
frontage
on
casserole
and
one
block,
so
the
finger
streets
of
Castro,
and
it
would
only
be
on
the
ground
floor.
So
we
would
continue
to
allow
it
provisionally
on
Floors
above.
D
A
I
guess
I'm
I'm
kind
of
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
ground
floor,
administrative
but
and
I
I
understand
Christopher
Clark's
feedback
and
feedback
from
the
public.
I
guess
I
would
be
we're
not
talking
about
a
lot
of
Corners
here.
A
I
would
love
to
see
that
to
be
you
know
these
are?
They
are
kind
of
key
places?
A
Those
are
the
places
that
I
see
most.
You
know
that
corner
of
villa
and
Castro
and
Dana
and
Castro
and
California
and
Castro
and
and
then
I
guess,
I'm
I,
I'm,
respectful
of
the
you
know,
trying
to
do
not
do
too
much
of
you
know
with
with
existing
uses
things
like
says
right.
There,
law,
firms
and
Architects
are
not
considered
administrative,
and
we
do
have
some
of
those
on
the
street.
There's
real
estate
on
the
street,
but
I
I
would
be
I
would
be
supportive
of
commissioning
his
recommendation.
A
The
very
least
I
think
the
the
stuff
that
correction
in
linear
has
talked
about
is
actually
right
now,
not
even
included
in
the
red
areas,
a
large
extent
they're
actually
in
the
blue.
So
those
would
still
be
permitted
under
their
professionally
provisional
use,
so
I
would
be.
It
sounds
like
there's
three
people
in
support
of
of
the
of
the
corners
I.
A
Don't
know
if
there's
if
anyone
else
has
any
other
thoughts
on
it,
but
if
they
missed
that
enough
to
to
encourage
you
to
to
vote
for
a
change
at
this
point,
but
at
the
corners
at
the
very
least,
I
think
doing
something
more
to
strengthen.
You
know
the
administrative
entrances
try
to
move
them
away
from
the
corner
as
much
as
possible
that
it's
a
door
get
upstairs
as
opposed
to
a
Lobby
or
something
like
that.
So.
I
Yeah,
maybe
I
can,
if
I
can
just
ask
staff,
because
this
is
versus
Senator
come
into
this
in
a
while,
so
I
mean
are
there
things
that
we
can
do
I
still
think
it's
just
very
difficult
to
come
up
with.
I
You
know
if
you're
going
to
create
regulations,
you
know
you
need
to
be
very
concrete
about
what
those
are,
but
are
there
things
in
the
guidelines
where
you
know
based
on
the
comments
tonight
where
you
know
I,
certainly
care
about
the
corners
too
I
just
I'm,
not
smart
enough
to
come
up
with
what
the
right
regulatory
framework
would
be
to
guarantee
an
outcome,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
there
are
things
that
we
can
do
in
terms
of
maybe
not
necessarily
the
ordinance,
but
the
implementation
and
the
guidelines
around
the
the
concerns
that
you
heard
tonight
around
you
know
corners
or
the
size
of
lobbies.
I
N
Well,
I
think
you
have
a
couple
of
options
as
a
body.
One
is
to
certainly
we
we
don't
need
you
to
you,
know
draft.
You
know
a
standard
here
tonight.
I
think
you
know
the
the
vicerian's
direction
to
to
staff,
to
you
know
craft
a
standard
and
present
it
to
council
that
addresses
this
concern
for
not
having
lobbies
at
Corners
I
think
would
be
Direction
enough
for
us
to
kind
of
think
about
over
the
next
month.
N
You
know
how
could
that
be
crafted
in
a
way
that
is,
you
know,
feasible
under
a
range
of
different
scenarios
and
achieves
the
outcome
that
the
EPC
requests,
but
your
question
you
know
is
is
a
another
option,
is
to
think
about
so
we're
a
little
Limited
in
how
we
can
modify
the
area
H
guidelines,
as
I
said
before
you
know
this
this.
These
amendments
are
really
focused
on
areas,
a
g
and
H,
but
the
area
age
guidelines
are
actually
referenced
in
other
sub
areas.
N
N
But,
as
you
said,
maybe
there's
some
additional
research.
We
could
look
at
for
other
implementation
tools
and
present
those
to
council,
although
in
effect
the
standards
are
the
implementation
Tool,
so
I'm
I'm
I
can't
quite
think
of
anything
else,
I'm
going
to
throw
this
to
richira
who's,
our
architecture
consultant
to
see
who,
if
she
has
any
ideas
for
how
to
thread
this.
Needle
of
of
the
the
corner.
Lobbies.
X
Thank
you,
Eric
and
good
evening,
Commissioners,
a
percentage.
We
do
have
a
few
options
on
how
we
can
address
the
corner,
Lobby
issues
and
generally
we
do
not
prefer
to
go
by
a
percentage
of
the
site.
Facade
because
say
if
you
have
a
50
foot,
wide
side
front
edge
and
you
we
wanted
to
limit
it
to
like
five
percent
that
just
amounts
to
like
2.5
feet,
which
is
not
even
enough
for
a
door.
So
we
would
look
at
different
options
on
like
how
wide
the
lobbies
could
be.
X
But
if
there
is
a
concern
about
Corner
size
specifically,
then
we
can
try
to
add
something
to
the
effect
of
that
and
also
to
try
and
limit
it
to
a
certain
distance
from
the
corner
like
the
entrances
or
the
lobbies
should
not
be
say,
10
feet
from
the
corner
and
I'm
just
throwing
out
a
number
right
now,
but
we
can
definitely
come
up
with
some
kind
of
a
standard
specifically
for
Corner
sites.
Only
though.
I
Yeah
I
think
the
the
concern
I'm
hearing
is
is
more,
like
you
know,
Corner
sites
for
administrative
lobbies
along
Castro,
Street
right
in
that
area,
age,
that
key
area,
but
you
know
I'm,
I'm,
personally,
comfortable
being
with
those
being
addressed
in
in
the
guidelines
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
but
I
also
completely
understand
my
my
colleagues.
I
I
You
know,
there's
a
threshold
at
which
a
use
is
a
conservative
abandon
after
you
know,
two
years
of
vacancy
or
something
like
that,
which
you
know
obviously,
exceptions
were
made
during
covet
or
during
significant
recessions,
but
you
know
is:
is
that
something
that
that
was
looked
at?
As
maybe
a
you
know,
a
compromise
on
with
you
know
an
administrative
office
permit
in
in
these
areas.
You
know
if
it's
abandoned
for
and
vacant
for
for
some
period
of
time.
I
You
know
like
two
plus
years
that
that
then
they
have
to
go
back
and
get
another
permit
and
obviously
they
wouldn't
be
Administrative
Office
wouldn't
be
granted
at
that
point.
N
So
that
yeah,
so
that's
our
typical
way
of
doing
non-conforming,
although
it's
a
much
shorter
time
period,
I
think
it
depends
on
the
permit.
But
it's
either
six
months
or
one
year.
I
Yeah
I
think
in
this
case,
I'd
lean
toward
something
a
little
bit
longer,
just
given
the
everything
that
everyone
has
just
been
through
and
what
will
likely
be
another?
Well
I.
Won't
everyone
predict
the
the
economic
Cycles,
but
it's
not
looking
great
right
now,
based
on
interest
rates
and
we're
interested
so
anyway,
I'll
stop
talking
I
I
still
I
generally
support
the
staff
recommendation.
I
If
there's,
if
there's
some
way
to
like
weave
in
some
additional
research
around
how
we
might
handle
you
know,
Corner
Lobby
entrances
for
administrative
offices
along
Caster
Street,
specifically
in
area
H
I'd,
like
certainly
be
open
to
that
and
I'd
I'd,
be
open
to
you
know
a
threshold
for
for
an
abandoned
use,
downtown
that
is,
that
is
somewhat
reasonable
and
doesn't
result
in
someone
tomorrow
losing
losing
the
the
permit
that
they
they've
gained.
I
So
it
would
be
something
that
you
know
the
clock
would
start
after
you
know
this
new
package
of
amendments
comes
into
effect
and
that
sort
of
things
that
everyone
has
plenty
of
time
to
adapt.
F
I
It
was
specifically
for
that,
so
if
they,
if
an
administrative
office
use,
was
abandoned
for
you
choose
your
threshold,
I
would
I
would
be
a
little
liberal
on
that,
just
given
everything
that
everyone's
been
through,
but
but
then
they
would
have
to
go,
seek
another
permit
and
obviously
they
would
get
administrator
office
at
that
point
after
it's
been
abandoned,.
F
I
understand,
thank
you.
I
was
going
to
also
put
out
if
anyone
wanted
to
include
the
extra
five
feet
if
the
purpose
was
for
extra
five
feet
to
be
for
the
ground
floor,
use
to
get
better
retail
that
the
five
feet
be
for
ground
floor,
not
for
the
total
height.
A
I
I
I'm,
generally
more
liberal
when
it
comes
to
height
generally
so
I,
don't
I,
think
the
the
intent
here
was
when
something's
redeveloped
and
if
providing
an
extra
pip
in
other
spaces
allows
for
something
to
be
to
be
redeveloped
in
a
more
flexible
way
that
meets
the
intention
of
the
downtown
precise
upon
that
I'm
generally,
okay
with
it
so
I
wouldn't
be
I,
wouldn't
be
that
restricted.
But
that's
just.
D
H
A
Sounds
like
where
there's
not
consensus
on
that,
but
it
sounds
like
there
may
be
consensus
around.
Essentially,
if
I
heard
a
motion,
that's
something
effective
for
staff
recommendation,
with
guidance
to
staff
to
bring
the
council
recommendation,
potentially
additional
recommendations
on
corners
and
how
to
do
and
abandonment
of
units
after
abandonment
of
administrative
uses.
A
Reverting
to
that
the
commission
of
use
permit
goes
away
after
a
period
of
when,
at
the
time
to
be
recommended
by
staff
that
sound
like
something
that
we
could
get
emotion
in.
Something
like
that.
I
I
I
I
will
I
will
move
that
as
long
as
stuff
feels
like
they
have
enough
information
there
and
feels
comfortable
with
it,
and
it's
not
too
nebulous.
Can.
O
P
I
Can
try
and
then
Vice
chair,
I,
see
you
come
here
end
up
too
so,
but
actually
I'll,
let
you
sure
go
first
to.
F
I
I
think
they'd
be
allowed
as
long
as
they
aren't
the
as
long
as
they
don't
exceed
certain
parameters.
F
Oh,
no
I
was
saying
that
they
should
not
be
allowed
on
the
corners,
given
that
the
corners
are
crucial
for
retail,
to
draw
a
person
walking
down
from
one
block
to
another
they're,
mainly
focusing
on
what
the
corner
is
and
if
the
corner
doesn't
draw
them,
sometimes
like
50
feet
before
you
get
to
the
next
retail,
they
won't
cross
the
street
and
maybe
Libby
can
jump
in
there.
I
don't
want
you
guys
to
just
take
my
word
for
how
important
Corners
are
so.
I
F
Yes,
yes,
if
it's
retail
as
well
and
their
Lobby
elevator
just
happens
to
be
in
the
middle
of
a
store
or
to
the
back
of
the
store
that
seems
reasonable,
I'm.
Just
looking
at
the
the
design
guideline,
recommendations
that
say
that
the
corners
need
to
be
highly
active,
most
active,
and
since
we
are
not
trying
to
do
administrative
office
on
the
ground
floor,
it
seems
counter
to
allow
administrative
Lobby
on
the
corners
that
are
crucial
to
retail.
If
we're
trying
to
maintain
retail
plus
and
this
vibrant,
downtown
walkable
downtown.
F
P
I
It
is
helpful,
I
I'm,
just
I'm,
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
think
of
a
I'm
trying
to
think
of
a
scenario
where
you
have
a
building
that
happens
to
be
at
the
corner,
your
upper
levels
or
Administrative
Office
your
ground
floor
is
your
only
way
in
that
has
to
be
your
lobby,
and
perhaps
there's
a
retail
component
that
is
I
can
think
of
a
specific
instance
of
this.
That
is
like
a
coffee
shop,
but
it's
sort
of
Walled
off.
You
know
to
the
side
of
the
entry.
I
I
don't
know
I.
This
is
this
is
why
I
generally
treat
this.
F
N
I'll
just
jump
in
here
and
and
try
to
you
know,
answer
commissioner
Clark's
question,
which
is
you
know
that
we
do
have
a
bunch
of
examples.
You
know
the
basically
all
three
of
the
four
corners
of
California
and
Castro
are
multi-story
office
buildings
that
have
retail
you
know,
space
is
oriented
towards
the
corner
right.
N
The
access
to
the
upper
floors
is
mid
block
on
on
one
of
the
side
streets,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
the
scenario
that
Vice
chair
yen
is
is
talking
about
and
just
in
terms
of
trying
to
kind
of
clarify
what
I'm
hearing
from
a
lot
of
folks
is
trying
to
come
up
with
language
that
takes
that
guideline
and
promotes
it
to
a
standard
but
looks
at
all.
N
The
different
kind
of
permutations
of
you
know
lot
size
and
figuration,
and
things
like
that
for
what
a
reasonable
quantitative
standard
might
be
for
for
keeping
those
lobbies
away
from
the
actual
corner.
N
I'll
also
well,
I
forgot
what
I
was
going
to
say,
but
I'll
leave
it
there.
F
N
Oh
sorry,
the
other
thing
I
just
remembered
I
apologize
for
jumping
in
I
did
hear
some
people
wanting
to
focus
those
standard
specifically
to
Castro,
Street
and
I.
Just
wanted
to
get
clarify.
Clarity.
K
N
E
I
It
was
just
a
restate
the
motion
for
everyone,
so
the
so
it's
the
staff
recommendation
with
the
what's,
as
Eric
mentioned,
elevating
the
the
the
guidelines
around
Corner
lobbies,
along
Castle
Street
in
area
H
from
the
guideline
to
to
the
standard
as
as
Vice
Cherian
talked
about,
and
then
the
piece
that
I
don't
know
if
there
are
there
are
three
more
or
more
Commissioners
interested
in
is
whether
or
not
to
ask
staff
to
look
at
abandon
use
thresholds
for
administrative
offices
in
the
in
the
areas
identified.
I
It
was
part
of
this
package
of
amendments,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
the
threshold
should
be
and
I
think
there
should
be
obviously
some
ability
to
provide
relief
during
something
like
a
pandemic,
where
there's
really
no
way
not
to
have
an
abandoned
use,
but
but
I
I
do
think
that
I've
seen
some
success
with
that
in
other
places
that
are
trying
to
ensure
that
something
isn't
grandfathered
forever
and
you
know
having
a
having
a
vacant
space
for
more
than
a
year
or
two
I
think
is
a
good
way
of
doing
that.
D
A
You
I
had
nice
cheering
in
probably
on
that
area.
Maybe
commissioner
ninjas
and
myself
there's
probably
at
least
four
Christopher
hameyers
nodding
her
head
as
well,
so
I
think
that's
I,
think
that
can
be
part
of
the
motion.
I
N
N
You
know
kind
of
what
typical
vacancy
periods
are
looking
at
possibilities
for
kind
of
looking
at
at
broader
economic
Trends
and
basing
it
on
that
or
there's
also
just
kind
of
keeping
it
simple
and
consistent
with
other
standards
in
the
city.
It's
kind
of
another
policy
direction
to
go.
So
you
know
I,
don't
know
if
there's
any
further
guidance
that
EPC
wants
to
give
on
that
timeline.
I
I'm
in
line
with
consistency,
yeah
I'm,
fine
with
consistency.
My
my
issue
here
is
that
I'm
I'm
not
sure
it
was
a
handful
of
I'm,
not
sure
this
has
been
put
forward
as
a
suggestion
in
a
public
meeting
before
with
the
relevant
landowners
or
or
business
owners,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
spring
that
on
them,
if
they've
had
a
vacant
site
for
six
months
already,
so
certainly
the
timeline
if
we
do
establish
one,
certainly
the
timeline
wouldn't
start
until
you
know
these.
I
These
updates
take
effect,
and
maybe
there's
a
grace
period
or
something
like
that,
and
maybe
it's
already
getting
more
complicated
than
it's
worth
for
a
handful
of
sites
that
we're
talking
about
so
I'm.
Starting
to
second
guess,
myself,.
A
I
guess
in
my
mind
you
know
we
I
think
we
have
people
like
Libby
and
Russia.
Who
can
look
at
this
and
say
what
are
you
see
in
other
places
and
come
back
with
a
recommendation,
something
that
says?
Okay,
initially,
it's
you
know,
there's
a
Grace
like
I
said,
there's
a
grace
period
and
then
it
works
its
way
down
to
something
consistent.
A
We
would
certainly
make
sense,
and
the
council
has
suspended
other
things
during
covet.
I.
Don't
know
why
this
wouldn't
be.
If
there's
something
dramatic
like
covet
happened
again.
This
couldn't
be
something
that
was,
you
know,
spend
enforcement
for
a
period
of
time,
hopefully
we'll
never
see
it
covered
again
and
it'll
never
be
a
problem.
We
have
to
deal
with.
O
What
can
I
what
I'm
hearing,
though,
is
that
there's
a
request
for
staff
to
look
into
options
for
the
elimination
of
an
administrative
office
use
on
the
ground
floor
after
a
period
of
vacancy
and
I
guess.
I
would
say
that,
depending
on
what
the
options
are
since,
if
it
hasn't
been
surfaced
and
outraged
to
date
that
you
know
one
of
the
conclusions
could
be,
we
need
to
do
more
Outreach
on
this
with
the
affected
businesses.
O
So
you
know
it's
something
that
I
think
staff
can
look
into,
but
at
the
end
result
will
obviously
be
unclear
and
will
depend
on
what
the
options
are.
Ultimately.
I
I
I
think
that's
fine,
I,
think
if
it,
if
it's
something
that's
transmitted
to
council,
is
an
idea
that
was
raised
at
UPC
that
had
a
generally
a
majority
of
interest
in
and
if
the
and
at
the
end
of
what
staff
says
to
council
as
part
of
that,
and
so
like.
This
is
a
big
enough
change
that
it
would.
If
you
want
to
do
it,
it
would
require
additional
Outreach
than
I'm
fine
with
that
I.
Just
as
long
as
it's
raised,
I
think
there
was
sufficient
interest
on
PPC
and
finding
some
way
to.
N
Yeah
for
sure
I,
you
know
it's
a
staff
recommendation
promoting
the
guideline
number
three
in
area
H
about
Corners
to
a
standard
at
Four
Corners
along
Castro,
Street
and
looking
into
ways
to
quantify
that
standard
among
a
range
of
different
parameters
and
then
looking
at
timelines
for
offices
to
be
required
to
administrative
offices
to
be
required
to
convert
to
an
allowed
use.
After
a
vacancy
with
some
discussion,
some
staff
review
of
whether
additional
Outreach
is
needed
or
other
kind
of
parameters
that
would
make
sense.
Presenting
that
analysis
to
council.
A
Q
D
A
Yeah,
so
we
will
move
on
to
reports.
Any
fits
Eric
noticed
that
in
the
agenda
that
you
list,
the
next
meeting
is
the
19th.
So
apparently,
there's
no
meeting.
N
A
N
We
don't
we,
we
don't
have
an
item
for
October,
fourth
or
fifth
or
whatever.
The
next
meeting
standard
meeting
gate
was
so
that
that
meeting's
canceled
we
do
have
tentatively
scheduled
the
Google
Middlefield
Park
project
for
the
meeting
after
that,
in
October.
N
I
want
to
remind
the
EPC
that
we
have
the
upcoming
celebration
of
service
for
all
of
your
hard
work
on
October
10th
also
want
to
talk
about
historic
ordinance,
Outreach
meeting
that
we
held
earlier
in
the
month
and
that
we
have
surveys
underway
through
October
31st.
You
can
access
those
surveys
through
mountainview.gov
historic.
N
N
And
then,
of
course,
we
have
the
virtual
Workshop
still
going
on
for
R3
through
the
end
of
the
month,
so
weighing
in
on
each
of
the.
How
R3
is
affected
in
each
of
the
different
neighborhoods
that
a
virtual
Workshop
is
still
going
on.
So
people
should
continue
to
log
into
that.
Those
are
my
announcements,
foreign.
G
If
I
met
with
developers
or
what
I've
done
representing
the
EPC
or
I
just
played
that
yeah,
okay,
okay,
sorry,
my
video
is
a
little
choppy
right
now
too,
so
bear
with
me.
So
today,
I
was
invited
to
attend
the
community
service
agency's
Hometown
Heroes
luncheon,
and
the
invitation
was
extended
to
me
by
Greystar
via
km
typical
Consulting
LLC.
Unfortunately,
I
had
a
family
emergency,
so
I
wasn't
able
to
to
attend,
but
full
transparency.
That's
the
invite
I
had
and
I
wanted
to
share
that
with
everyone
in
general.
Thank
you.
D
A
E
Just
one
upcoming
event,
especially
if
we're
not
meeting
on
the
6th
and
I
have
been
working
through
Stanford
with
a
group
called
Thrive.
The
alliance
for
non-profits
in
San
Mateo
County,
along
with
moisture
Casa
climate
resilient
communities
and
Rise
South
City,
there's
going
to
be
a
summit,
a
virtual
Summit
on
October
3rd
and
I'm
happy
to
get
the
link
to
Eric.
But
it's
really
about
hearing
the
climate
change
impacts
by
Frontline
communities
in
San,
Mateo
County,
and
getting
folks
to
hear
how.
How
is
that?
E
Community
thinking
about
preparing
for
sea
level
rise
a
lot
of
it's
related
to
land
use
and
virtual
session.
There's
going
to
be
some
really
I
think
pertinent,
takeaways
to
what's
happening
in
Santa,
Clara
County,
so
just
want
to
flag
that
I
think
it's
the
first
of
its
kind,
where
we're
really
hearing
from
Community
Voices
with
policy
makers,
funders,
academics,
we're
really
trying
to
have
our
cross-sector
representation,
so
I'll
send
it
around
on
Monday
October
3rd.
If
anyone
can
join
virtually
okay.
A
Interest
more
just
news:
maybe
some
of
you
have
already
heard
that
the
Council
approved
funding
the
tarabella.
A
You
know
development,
that's
100
below
market
rate,
so
that's
I
thought
that
was
great
news
and
then,
since
it's
more,
whether
it's
of
Interest
I
had
a
chance
to
listen
to
it
in
and
Eric
and
probably
circulated
as
to
which
one
it
was
one
of
the
items
that
was
part
of
the
big
part
of
the
housing
element
review
was
looking
at
things
like
sources
of
funding
and
council
did
a
recent
study
session
on
that
and
the
the
work
that
Wayne
and
those
guys
did
on
it.
I
thought
it
was
just.
A
It
was
kind
of
amazing,
and
so
it's
a
it
was
if
you're
interested
in
what
the
city's
doing
and
and
how
it's
going
to
secure
funding
going
forward
and
hope
to
do
more
on
Bloom
worker
and
housing.
It's
worth
at
least
getting
the
staff
report
and
reading
through
that,
and
if
you
have
time
to
to
listen
to
the
to
the
council
session,
it
was,
it
was
I
thought
it
was
great,
and
if
that's
it
then
we
will
adjourn
the
meeting
at
10.
46
pm
and
see
you
again
on
October
19th
2022.