►
From YouTube: AUG 25, 2021 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2021.
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=886964&GUID=A7F94481-009D-4E20-973B-2AC0BB44AD27
A
A
A
A
B
B
This
meeting
is
being
held
via
zoom
conference
call
due
to
the
coven
19
crisis.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
may
also
view
and
listen
to
the
meeting
on
live
stream,
cable,
tv,
granicus
and
youtube.
Follow
me
roll
call.
During
summary
of
hearing
procedure.
We
will
review
how
the
public
may
provide
comment
during
today's
session
roll
call
bonilla
here,
casey.
B
C
B
B
City
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identify
the
items
they
want
to
speak
on.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
hand,
feature
on
zoom
click,
star
nine
on
your
phone
or
you
may
call
408,
535-3505
or
email
planning,
support
staff
at
san
jose
ca.gov
and
identify
your
name
phone
number
and
what
items
you'd
like
to
speak
on,
as
your
name
is
called
city
staff
will
unmute
you
to
speak
after
we
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
B
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony
the
applicant
and
appellant
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Planning.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers
response
to
commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
meet
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
B
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
planning
commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
planning
commission
may
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public
testimony,
ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
If
you
challenge
these
land
use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised
at
this
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
at
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing.
B
The
planning
commission's
action
on
re-zonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.120.400
of
the
municipal
code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
to
the
city
council
on
rezonings
and
free
zonings.
D
Absolutely,
and
what
I
suggest
is
that
we
take
that
when
you
do
the
consent
calendar,
which
is
item
four,
what
you
do
is
you
just
take
out,
you
know
you,
you
take
you
pull
from
the
consent,
calendar
items
four
b,
three
excuse
me
4b,
3
and
4b6,
and
they
can
be
voted
on
separately
after
you
take
the
rest
of
the
consent.
Calendar.
B
Perfect,
so
we
will
now
move
to
item
5.,
public
hearing
item
5a,
sp,
20-005
and
t21-015
with
that
staff.
You
have
the
floor
for
your
presentation.
E
A
E
E
E
It's
this,
and
this
is
highway
280
and
a
freeway
280
and
a
highway
17.
E
E
E
E
The
application
was
submitted
in
january
to
2019
two
community
meetings
were
held
for
the
project.
The
first
one
is
a
joint
community
environmental
scoping
meeting
in
held
in
june
2019,
and
the
second
one
was
held
in
june
to
2021
almost
three
months
ago
and
to
provide
updates
to
the
community
members.
E
F
Good
evening,
commissioners,
so
based
on
community
outreach
and
the
scope
of
this
project
and
location
staff,
understand
that
one
major
concern
is
the
right
parent
setback.
Naturally,
therefore,
before
we
go
to
the
next
part
of
the
presentation,
we
would
like
to
provide
some
regulatory
contacts
for
the
commissioner
tonight
to
kind
of
guide
the
conversation
and
the
presentation
so
under
city
requirement
code,
the
project,
my
parent
impacts
or
affects,
are
review
under
three
separate,
but
overlapping
policies
and
laws.
F
Those
are
shown
on
the
slide.
The
first
one
is
the
riparian
corridor
protection
and
bird
safe
design
policy.
The
city
council
policies
6-34
that
was
adopted
in
august
2016.,
the
second
one
is
sequa,
the
california
environmental
quality
act
and
the
third
one
is
the
santa
clara
valley,
habitat
conservation
plan
adopted
in
2013..
F
So
the
first
one
is
the
city
policy
adopted
in
august
2016..
Please
note
that,
prior
to
this
policy,
there
is-
or
there
was,
a
1999
policy
study,
which
was
never
formally
adopted
as
a
policy
or
regulatory
framework,
but
did
serve
as
a
guidance
document
for
riparian
project,
a
review
prior
to
the
formal
adoption
of
the
2016
policy.
F
F
The
second
one
is
the
state
requirement
sequa,
which
contains
a
biological
resource
section
which
staff
is
required
and,
of
course,
with
the
help
of
our
environmental
consultants
and
technical
experts
who
are
here
tonight
as
well.
We
are
required
to
analyze
the
physical
impact
to
the
environment,
from
the
construction
and
operation
of
this
project,
and
the
third
is
the
santa
clara
habitat
plan
with
the
habitat
agency.
F
This
plan
was
adopted
in
2013
and
has
since
been
another
requirement
in
which
many
cities,
including
our
own
review
projects,
to
determine
consistency
too,
if
applicable,
if
they
are
considered
a
right
parent
project.
F
Therefore,
as
part
of
the
review
of
this
project
and
city
process
for
certain
riparian
projects,
city
staff
would
request
formal
consultation
with
habitat
agency
on
compliance
with
all
the
conditions
for
this
project,
in
particular,
condition
11,
which
is
also
a
repair
and
setback,
is
the
is
the
the
request
for
our
consultation
with
the
habitat
agency
during
the
review
of
this
project.
F
This
plan
does
overlap
with
the
analysis
of
our
sql
documents,
because
in
our
sql
biological
resource
checklist
it
did
have.
It
does
have
one
question
that
asks
if
the
project
is
in
compliance
with
a
regional
habitat
conservation
plan
and
cara
hawkins,
who
is
the
main
environmental
project
manager
on
this
project,
will
provide
a
summary
of
the
process
and
findings
under
both
sequa
and
the
habitat
plan
under
sql
as
well
in
the
following
slides.
F
So
now
I
will
send
back
the
give
back
the
presentation
to
angela
for
the
first
point,
which
is
the
right
6-34
policy.
E
Before
getting
into
the
details
of
the
policy
review,
I'd
like
to
briefly
describe
the
site
conditions
and
the
proposed
project
in
relation
to
the
riparian
corridor,
so,
as
you
can
see
from
from
the
plant,
so
the
site
is
very
long
and
narrowly
shaped
with
approximately
845
feet.
Stretch
of
the
guadalupe
river
riparian
corridor
along
the
western.
This
is
the
western
side,
the
western
edge.
So
the
narrowest
point
is
about
145
feet.
E
To
the
I
mean
the
property
line,
and
it's
about
133
feet
to
the
algebraic
period
and
also
the
the
guadalupe
trail
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
size.
This
segment
and
this
green
hatch
line
is
the
it's.
This
shows
the
riparian
corridor,
so
this
line
is
the
edge
of
the
rectangle,
and
this
blue
line
is
the
top
of
bank,
so
before
get
into
the
details
of
per
the
biological
resources
report
prepared
by
the
project
biologists.
E
So
the
riparian
corridor,
adjacent
from
project,
is
extremely
limiting
its
habitat
value
and
influence
and
for
the
proposed
project,
so
the
proposed
purchase
upper
floors
would
have
a
setback
ranging
from
almost
about
four
feet,
to
34
feet,
to
32.5
feet
to
the
edge
of
the
riparian,
so
the
cross.
This
is
the
upper
floor
line.
So,
as
you
can
see,
it's
it's
basically,
it's
this
person
it's
this
side,
so
the
closest
point
is
about
three
feet
and
11
inches
to
the
the
edge
of
the
riparian
foreign
door
and
the
underground
parking
is
this
line
here.
E
So
the
the
step
back
to
the
riparian
corridor
from
at
the
underground
is
the
minimum
is
1.5
feet
is
the
closest?
I
think
it's
these
it's
here.
It's
the
closest
point.
So
this
is
about
this
is
the
and
also
the
project,
the
the
above
ground
building.
So
this
person
is,
it
has
a
minimum
35
foot
setback
from
the
top
of
a
bank.
E
But
the
city's
riparian
policy
requires
a
minimum
100
foot
setback
from
a
riparian,
corridor's
turbo
bank
or
a
vegetative
edge,
whichever
is
closest
to
minimize
the
intrusion
into
the
riparian
corridor.
It
allows
considerations
of
reduced
setbacks
under
limited
circumstance,
so
the
project
meets
some
of
those
circumstances,
including
in
the
right
parent
policies
also
shown
on
this
slide.
E
So
due
to
the
time
limit,
I
will
just
briefly
talk
about
very,
very
briefly
talk
about
a
few
circumstances,
though
so
the
first
one
is.
The
development
is
in
downtown,
as
we
mentioned
before,
and
the
second
one
is
the
existence
of
legal
uses
within
the
minimum
setback.
So
the
existing
site
is
a
is
legally
used
as
a
parking
lot
and
the
third
one
is,
for
instance,
for
the
circumstance
which,
in
which
sites
with
unique
geometric
characteristics
or
disproportionately
long,
riparian
frontage
in
relation
to
the
width
of
the
minimum
minimum
riparian
corridor
setback.
E
So
I
mean
you
can
tell
from
the
project
I
mean
this
is
the
shape
of
the
project
site,
and
this
is
the
35
foot
setback
line,
and
this
is
the
attribute
riparian.
This
is
a
100
foot
setback
line.
So
almost
half
of
the
site
is
within
100
step
back
area
and
then
the
narrowest
point
is
here.
So
it's
about
133
feet
from
this
point
to
the
edge
of
the
back
area,
and
then
it
will
leaves
about
approximately
30
feet
off
the
development
area.
If
the
projects
due
respect
to
the
100
percent
back.
E
And
so,
oh
sorry,
so
the
first
one
listing
on
this
slide
is
for
sites
that
are
being
redeveloped
with
users.
They
are
similar
to
existing
uses
or
any
more
compatible
use
within
the
riparian
corridor
than
the
existing
use
and
where
the
intensity
of
the
new
development
will
have
significant
less
environmental
impacts
on
the
repairing
for
your
learning
existing
development.
E
So
the
proposed
high-rise
view
office
building
will
have
a
greater
impact
to
the
riparian
corridor
than
the
existing
parking
lot.
And,
however,
the
the
project
would
include
some
of
the
site.
Improvements
such
as
adding
more
purpose
curviest
areas,
including
native
vegetations,
along
the
western
edge
of
the
site,
and
avoid
vehicular
circulation
on
the
site
and
minimize
stormwater
runoff
and
also
so.
E
The
project
will
have
a
less
than
significant
project
level,
environmental
impact
from
individual
projects,
specific
level
and,
furthermore,
the
project
would
be
required
to
improve
the
mitigation
measures
that
would
reduce
impact
from
encouraging
riparian
birds
and
habitat.
That
would
not
result
in
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
any
riparian
habitat
or
other
sensitive
nature
of
natural
community.
E
And
for
these
circumstances
is
for
instances
where
implementation
of
the
project
includes
measures
that
can
protect
and
enhance
the
riparian
value
more
than
the
minimum
setback,
so
the
existing
site
is
a
page
parking
lot,
with
the
exception
of
a
very
it's
about
660
square
feet
of
the
landscaping
area
at
this
edge.
So
this
is
existing
and
the
project
would
have
approximately
13
thousands
will
be
of
landscape
area
on
own
grades,
including
approximately
17
foot,
wide
landscape
street
along
the
western
edge,
actually
there's
a
slight
short
venture.
Let's
go
back
so
this.
E
This
is
the
landscape
that
I
mentioned
about.
E
So
the
project
would
also
implement
mitigation
measures
to
restore
and
enhance
3.6
acres
of
the
riparian
land.
Due
to
the
100
1.8
acres
protein
into
the
35
foot
of
the
right
period,
setback
area
that'll
be
there
cara
will
talk
about
that
a
little
bit
more
soon
and.
E
So,
and
also
because
the
site
is
very
narrow,
so
yeah
and
also
the
half
of
this
site
is
within
the
100
foot
setback
area.
So
to
propose
a
project
have
having
a
100
setback
would
be
infeasible.
E
E
Conditions,
so
the
pressure
also
complies
with
city
council
policy,
62,
6-29
and
8-14
to
include
erosion,
control
measures
to
minimize
storm
water
runoff.
The
project
would
also
incorporate
burst
safe
design
measures
at
the
building's
north
west
and
south
facing
versailles
that
encroach
entirely
or
partially
within
the
100
foot.
Riparian
setback,
therefore,
based
on
the
biology
reports
and
steps
analysis
with
implementation
of
the
mitigation
measures
specified
in
the
mmrp,
the
compliance
with
other
city
council
policies
to
avoid
sawyer
erosion
and
minimize
runoff,
and
also
the
compliance
with
standard
permit
and
environmental
conditions.
E
G
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
cara
hawkins
and,
as
angela
said,
I
am
the
environmental
project
manager
for
the
project
to
comply
with
the
california
environmental
quality
act
square.
For
short,
a
supplemental
eir
to
the
downtown
strategy.
2040
final
environmental
impact
report
was
prepared
for
the
project.
G
The
scir
analyzed
a
slightly
higher
square
footage
of
office
demand
development,
approximately
1.7
million
square
feet
than
what
is
proposed
before
you
tonight,
approximately
1.4
million
square
feet
because
of
modifications
to
the
project
design
since
scir
circulation.
In
response
to
public
comments,
since
the
seir
evaluated
a
larger
project,
it
included
a
more
conservative
analysis
of
potential
impacts.
This
does
not
change
the
environmental
findings.
G
The
draft
scir
was
circulated
for
public
comment
between
july
31st
and
september
21st
in
2020.
We
received
12
letters
during
that
time.
The
comments
mostly
focused
on
traffic
impacts,
storm
drain
alignment,
riparian
setbacks
and
habitat
restoration,
riparian
and
public
park,
shading
bird
safety
and
the
santa
clara
valley,
habitat,
plane
requirements.
G
G
The
scir
found
that
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
would
result
from
the
project
mitigation
measures
are
still
required
for
all
of
these
impacts.
However,
they
are
not
able
to
reduce
them
to
a
level
that
is
considered
less
than
significant
under
sequa,
so
these
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
include
air
quality
for
construction
operation
and
cumulative
impacts,
cumulative
noise
and
vibration
during
construction
and
cumulative
biological
resources
impacts
to
the
riparian
corridor.
G
Additionally,
conformance
with
the
santa
clara
valley,
habitat
plan
is
also
an
important
component
of
the
sql
analysis
for
biological
resources,
condition,
11
stream
and
riparian
setbacks
of
the
habitat
plan
applies
to
all
covered
activities
that
may
impact
streams
in
order
for
a
project
to
be
considered
covered
by
the
habitat
plan.
It
must
impact
land
cover
of
some
type.
G
Therefore,
redevelopment
projects
which
are
located
entirely
within
an
existing
developed
footprint,
regardless
of
the
distance
from
a
stream
or
riparian
corridor,
are
not
subject
to
the
habitat
plan.
The
existing
project
site
is
developed
with
a
surface
parking
lot,
and
the
new
development
footprint
would
not
extend
beyond
the
existing
developed
area.
G
G
G
G
The
second
alternative,
which
is
the
reduced
development
alternative
one
option:
one
consists
of
a
35-foot
setback
from
the
property
line.
Under
this
alternative,
nine
out
of
the
ten
project
objectives
would
be
met.
However,
the
environmental
impacts
would
remain
the
same
for
all
resource
areas
such
as
air
quality,
biological
resources
hazards
and
noise.
G
G
G
G
G
If
the
towers
under
this
alternative
were
set
back
at
least
35
feet
from
the
riparian
quarter,
top
of
bank
or
edge
of
vegetation,
then
the
significant
and
avoidable
biological
resources
riparian
impact
would
be
avoided.
With
implementation
of
the
mitigation
measure,
bio
c-1.1,
however,
the
project
would
continue
to
have
significant
and
unavoidable
construction,
air
quality
impacts
and
may
even
result
in
increased
constriction
impacts
because
of
the
increased
height.
G
G
Another
letter,
in
particular,
is
a
joint
letter
from
three
different
environmental
groups:
the
sierra
club,
the
santa
clara
valley,
audubon
society
and
the
california
native
plant
society.
The
letter
indicates
the
staff's
project
documents
still
result
in
unanswered.
Questions
and
deferral
of
analysis
suggests
that
the
proposed
bird
safe
design
is
not
strong
enough,
acknowledge
changes.
The
applicant
has
made
throughout
the
project
time
frame
and
reiterate
their
opposition
for
the
overall
project.
G
There
were
no
more
details
in
the
letter
to
elaborate
on
what
information
is
missing,
deferred
or
unanswered.
Staff
maintains
that
questions
and
concerns
pertaining
to
sequa
and
environmental
impacts
under
sequa
are
addressed
in
the
first
amendment,
which
was
posted
online
and
notified
to
all
commenters
consistent
with
secret
guidelines.
Staff
is
available
for
any
more
questions,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
angela
for
the
remainder
of
the
staff
presentation.
E
So,
as
described
in
the
staff
report,
the
project
is
consistent
with
general
plan
and
its
policies
and
the
project
complies
with
the
zoning
code.
Development
standards
and
also
is
consistent
with
city
council
policies,
including
rare
career
policy,
as
a
motion
previously,
and
the
project
is
also
consistent
with
the
2004
downtown
design
guidelines.
E
B
Thank
you
for
that
very
thorough
report.
Clearly,
a
lot
of
information
for
us
to
take
in
so
with
that
is
the
applicant
ready
for
their
presentation.
B
A
H
Football
is
yours
great.
Thank
you
good
evening.
Commissioners,
thank
you
for
hearing
boston
properties,
almaden
project
tonight.
My
name
is
aaron
fenton
and
I'm
vice
president
of
development
for
boston
properties,
we're
a
large
investor
in
san
jose
with
two
other
big
commercial
projects,
one
in
north
san
jose
and
the
other
in
deardon
station.
We
are
extremely
excited
to
advance
our
downtown
almaden
project
and
add.
H
J
J
L
L
We
believe
it's
very
unique
in
that
it
does
a
lot
of
interesting
things
to
really
bring
the
community
together
to
bring
the
context
of
the
city
together
in
a
form
and
an
architecture
that
really
enjoys
the
public
realm.
L
With
that
the
composition
is
composed
of
two
bars,
one
there's
a
sinuous
curve
that
reflects
the
guadalupe
river
walk
and
the
river
itself
and
provides
a
backdrop
to
the
overall
park
and
the
children's
art
museum.
Children's
museum
in
the
foreground
and
the
city
in
the
back
is
reflected
in
the
more
linear
straight
bar
that
runs
along
almaden
boulevard
at
center
stage.
L
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
we'll
be
looking
at
the
south
elevation
and
one
of
the
things
that's
really
beautiful
about
the
south
elevation
is
that
it
engages
in
a
series
of
horizontal
sunscreens
that
reflect
the
environment
or
condition
the
building
continuing
the
idea
of
the
green
terraces.
To
this
facade,
you
see
at
the
second
level
course
the
lobbies
have
been
lifted
up
off
the
ground
and
one
of
the
things
that's
really
wonderful
about
that
is.
L
It
allows
the
ground
floor
to
be
completely
open
to
the
public
realm,
as
we
move
around
to
almaden
boulevard
in
the
next
image.
What
you'll
see
is
the
space
that's
created
underneath
the
building
a
long
view
from
almaden
boulevard
through
a
piazza
type
space,
all
the
way
to
the
river
riverwalk,
which
is
a
really
wonderful
element,
and
that
consists
of
a
number
of
passages
that
go
through
from
almaden
boulevard
to
the
riverwalk
filled
with
amenities
and
retail,
really
bringing
people
together.
L
L
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
you'll
see
the
the
facade
as
it
runs
along
the
guadalupe
river,
as
people
promenade
back
and
forth.
The
colonnade
allows
people
to
drift
into
the
space
underneath
the
building
provided
a
bit
of
shading
there
and
a
wonderful
attribute
to
the
city
and
connecting
elements
of
the
urban
infrastructure.
L
And
lastly,
if
we
go
to
a
very
important
aspect
and
the
inherent
in
design
is
the
sustainability,
we
have
been
absolutely
focused
on
reducing
parking,
reducing
energy,
reducing
carbon
footprint
working
through
the
water
management
program
for
the
whole
building,
and
really
believe
that
we're
presenting
to
you
today
a
state-of-the-art
piece
of
architecture.
B
Thank
you,
jennifer.
Do
we
know
how
many
public
comment
we
have
for
this
item.
G
Okay,
dave,
you
are
muted.
M
Good
evening,
I'm
david
pochell,
the
guadalupe
regional
group
conservation
chair
for
the
sierra
club,
loma
paraded
chapter
for
the
record.
Sierra
club
opposes
this
bxp
project.
M
The
project
needs
to
be
set
back
from
the
guadalupe
river,
permitting
this
project
to
move
forward
without
even
a
small,
but
meaningful
setback
would
be
a
breach
of
the
spirit
of
the
riparian
setback
protections
and
a
breach
of
common
sense.
The
arborist
recommendations
for
tree
protection
during
construction
of
the
site
states
all
existing
trees
shall
be
fenced
off
10
feet
beyond
the
outside
of
the
drip
line.
The
foliar
spread
of
the
tree,
the
proposed
underground
parking
for
this
project
is
so
close
to
the
top
of
the
bank
that
it
could
not
follow.
M
Even
this
recommendation
for
many
of
the
trees
in
the
stream
channel,
our
publicly
owned
trees
or
publicly
owned
existing
riparian
area
below
the
top
of
the
bank,
the
university
of
california,
a
peer-reviewed
article
living
among
the
oaks
states
that
the
most
vulnerable
part
of
a
mature
tree
is
the
root
system,
the
for
management
purposes.
Think
of
the
tree's
root
system
as
extending
at
least
one
third
farther
than
the
distance
to
the
drip
line.
M
This
means
no
grading
digging
trenching
using
a
fill
etc.
When
we
developed
the
cities
and
the
habitat
agencies
riparian
policies,
we
understood
that
hardscape
causes
water
runoff
quickly
during
storm
events
and
that
squeezing
the
channel
leaves
water
to
flood
the
built
environment,
and
we
understood
that
mistakes
had
already
been
made
with
many
developments.
So
there
is
a
goal
even
10
seconds.
A
M
A
A
Hi
good
evening,
chair
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
carlos
duran.
I
am
a
field
representative
for
the
carpenter's
local
405.
I
represent
over
40
000
members
in
northern
california.
A
That
same
apprenticeship
gave
me
the
opportunity
to
be
here
speaking
to
you
in
full
support
of
this
boston,
property's
development.
So
I
urge
you,
commissioners,
to
vote
yes
and
move
this
project
forward
and
build
opportunity
for
san
jose
residents.
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
the
opportunity
to
speak.
N
N
N
This
project
is
important
to
those
who
represent
working
families.
It's
important
because
boston
properties
and
web
core
are
part
of
the
high
road
development
and
construction
communities.
This
project
will
support
apprenticeships
that
lead
to
lifelong
family,
supporting
careers
and
the
construction
jobs
are
going
to
be
well
paying
ones
that
are
filled
by
many
local
residents.
N
We
also
support
this
project
because
it's
the
right
type
of
development
for
our
city.
This
project
takes
an
existing
and,
admittedly
underutilized,
surface
parking
lot
and,
and
it
transforms
it
into
a
modern
workplace.
This
is
going
to
provide
tax
revenue
and,
frankly,
it's
going
to
beautify
a
drab
and
lifeless
parcel.
N
O
N
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
nate
leblanc,
I'm
the
business
development
manager
of
the
san
jose
downtown
association.
Speaking
this
evening
on
behalf
of
the
association
we
are
here
tonight
to
support
the
project.
Our
downtown
design
committee
reviewed
this
project
in
2019.
At
the
time
it
was
presented
with
options
a
and
b
what
we
see
tonight,
I
guess
could
be
considered
as
c
slightly
different
from
those
options
presented,
but
a
significantly
improved
project,
and
we
liked
what
we
saw
in
2019.
N
Frankly,
we
recently
had
a
chance
to
sit
down
and
see
the
project
again
with
a
few
of
the
members
of
our
committee,
and
we
appreciate
the
improvements
that
have
been
made
to
the
ground
plane
to
make
it
more
pedestrian
friendly.
We
appreciate
them
scaling
back
the
maximum
square
footage
to
pay
deference
to
the
riparian
corridor
in
the
river,
and
we
appreciate
boston,
property's
willingness
to
seek
and
apply
community
feedback
throughout
this
process,
and
we
would
like
to
see
this
project
move
forward
through
the
permit
process
and
sent
to
city
council
for
approval.
K
K
Our
opposition
is
primarily
due
to
the
impacts
on
the
guadalupe
river,
which
are
not
mitigable,
we're
still
reading
through
the
documents
in
the
first
amendment
and
the
staff
report.
But
from
what
we
see,
we
disagree
with
stuff
interpretation
of
the
right
parent
corridor
policy
regulator.
K
Regulatory
framework,
the
lack
of
setbacks
from
their
appearing
edge,
is
a
huge
flaw.
Building
such
a
massive
development,
just
a
few
feet
from
the
creeks
or
apparent
corridor,
will
contribute
to
the
degradation
of
the
entire
river,
that's
an
important
natural
resource
in
downtown
and
beyond.
Furthermore,
as
we
see
in
devastating
and
tragic
events
throughout
the
globe,
building
this
close
to
the
river
is
certain
to
take
a
heavy
toll
in
the
future,
on
the
san
jose
community,
downtown
and
beyond,
on
the
environment
and
on
tax
fires
who
are
who
have
to
fix
the
mess.
K
The
storm
water
mitigation
that
the
city
requires
cannot
control
the
river
itself,
and
this
is
why
just
a
thousand
feet
downstream.
The
river
is
encased
in
concrete,
the
river,
the
children,
discovery,
museum,
discovery
meadows.
All
of
that
will
be
dwarfed
by
this
development,
regardless
of
the
legal
requirements
permitting
this
project
to
move
forward
without
a
meaning
or
male
setback
is
a
betrayal
of
the
commitment
to
protect
our
streams
that
city
leaders
made
to
residents
with
hard
work
over
over
decades
of
hard
work
and
this,
and
there
are
reasons
why
it
is.
K
This
work
adopted
a
hundred
feet
setback
as
a
minimum
setback.
It
is
meant
to
protect
both
people,
wildlife
and
the
environment.
So
ask
yourselves:
are
you
willing
to
recommend
to
council
to
allow
unavoidable,
unmitigable
impacts
today.
O
Hello,
my
name
is
juliana
pendleton
and
I
am
the
environmental
advocacy
assistant
for
the
santa
clara
valley,
audubon
society.
I
ask
you
to
recommend
denial
of
the
almaden
office
project,
as
proposed.
This
project
will
cause
irreversible
damage
to
the
guadalupe
river
and
roll
back.
The
riparian
setback
policy
that
activists
fought
for
for
years.
O
There
are
many
reasons
to
have:
building
setbacks
from
streams
things
that
wildlife
need
need
to
survive
like
the
trees,
shrubs
and
food
sources
for
wildlife.
They
also
need
space
to
be
sheltered
from
the
intrusion
of
human
activities
and
the
light
pollution
that
disrupts
their
behavior
and
weakens
the
links
holding
the
ecosystem
intact.
O
But
there
are
other
reasons
for
building
setbacks.
Things
like
minimizing
flash
runoff
and
protecting
structures
from
flood
and
erosion
fire
station
number
eight
had
to
be
relocated
from
its
building
on
east
santa
clara
street.
It
had
been
built
too
close
to
the
coyote
creek,
and
now
erosion
is
compromising
its
structural
integrity.
O
O
O
I'm
linda
ruthruff
from
the
california
native
plant
society,
santa
clara
valley
chapter.
There
is
this
fiction
out
there
that
the
environmental
community
is
opposed
to
the
development
of
downtown
san
jose.
That
is
completely
false.
We
lined
up
to
support
the
downtown
google
development,
so
why
do
we
oppose
this
project?
What's
the
difference?
O
O
O
O
O
We
can
have
construction
jobs,
we
can
have
development,
we
can
have
a
vibrant
city,
but
we
can
also
do
all
of
that,
while
protecting
our
riparian
corridor.
That
is
our
objection
to
this,
we're
all
for
jobs,
we're
all
for
education,
but
we
are
also
all
for
protecting
the
riparian
corridor
and
the
guadalupe
river.
Thank
you.
N
N
This
is
going
to
be
a
landmark
that
is
going
to
last
for
years
to
come,
and
it's
going
to
provide
a
lot
of
work.
We
provide
me
with
the
opportunity
to
further
my
career
and
continue
my
career
as
a
carpenter.
Working
towards
retirement
will
provide
me
with
benefits
and
income
that
provide
my
felt
myself
and
my
family
and
to
be
able
to
afford
and
live
in
the
city
of
san
jose.
A
N
B
P
B
Q
Q
We
believe
downtown's
time
has
come
caltrain
bart
housing,
restaurants,
amenities
make
it
a
great
option
for
large
tech
companies
to
thrive.
One
question:
why
aren't
they
here
already?
The
simple
answer
is
the
existing
building
supply
doesn't
work.
Current
buildings
are
one-off
multi-tenant,
with
traditional
25
000
square
foot
floor
plates
the
major
tech
users
don't
consider
as
viable
options.
They
are
too
small
inefficient
have
too
many
elevated
spares
that
disrupt
collaboration
and
culture.
Q
One
major
ceo
told
me
that
he
hates
elevators
and
stairs
because
they
stifle
conversation
and
he's
and
he's
right.
Tech
companies
have
specific
business
groups
that
are
large
hundreds
of
thousands
of
employees.
They
need
buildings
where
they
can
accommodate
these
groups
with
large
floor
plates
that
allow
for
collaboration,
efficiency
and
flexibility.
Q
They
need
campuses
where
they
can
grow
scale
and
inspire
their
employees.
The
ombud
end
project
as
designed,
provides
it
now.
Not
only
do
tenants
tell
us
this,
but
we
need
to
learn
from
what
companies
build
on
their
own.
Nvidia's
campus
in
santa
clara
is
made
up
of
250
000
square
foot
floor
plates
over
a
million
square
feet
within
san
jose
verizon,
at
least
coleman
highline,
with
80
000
square
foot
floor
plates
and
in
fact,
google
won't
look
at
buildings.
Q
Q
Making
almond
and
design
provides
this
now
I'll
end
with
a
cautionary
example
of
a
new
project
developed
a
few
years
ago
in
santa
clara,
with
25
thousands
of
floor
plates
during
the
strongest
time
for
large
requirements,
the
building
sat
vacant
for
two
years
and
it
was
rejected
by
multiple
multiple
times
by
all
tech
companies.
Ultimately,
ownership
had
to
change
strategies,
mold
attempted
building,
and
it
is
still
partially
vacant
today.
Let's
not
let
that
happen
here
in
downtown
san
jose.
A
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
michael,
I'm
a
field
representative
for
local
405..
I
would
like
to
throw
my
support
for
this
project.
The
opportunity
that's
gonna
be
available
for
apprentices
on
this
project
is
is
great.
I
don't
think
a
lot
of
people
realize
the
the
careers
that
start
with
being
a
carpenter
not
only
for
male
but
for
female.
A
A
Next
speaker,
please
sermon.
You
are
unmuted.
R
R
As
a
local
unit
carpenter,
it
is
imperative
that
developers
and
projects
continue
to
thrive
in
our
city
and
also
continue
to
create
jobs,
opportunities
for
carpenters.
Like
myself,
I've
gone
through
an
apprenticeship
program.
That's
given
me
the
training
and
skill
set
which
emphasizes
on
safety
and
quality
craftsmanship
as
a
union
worker.
R
P
Hi
hi
everyone,
my
name
is
kami,
I'm
a
level
two
apprentice
carpenter
living
here
in
downtown
san
jose,
I'm
a
member
of
the
local
405.
I
I
love
my
job.
I
I
love
learning
on
the
job
and
I
love
to
create,
create
a
part
of
my
community,
I'm
very
proud,
as
a
mother
of
two
to
to
be
able
to
work
on
school
buildings,
which
I
have
been
this
entire
summer.
P
You
know
something
that
is
so
local
to
where
I
live
really
offers
me
more
time
with
my
children
more
time
not
spend
on
the
road
time
to
take
care
of
what
I
need
to
take
care
of
we're
all
adults.
You
know
and
being
a
part
of
this,
this
type
of
career.
It
offers
me
more
than
just
a
job.
You
know
it
really
offers
me
benefits
it
offers
my
kids
benefit
again.
I
love
to
wake
up
in
the
morning
and
go
be
be
participant
within
my
community,
I'm
very
proud
again.
P
I
I
really
hope
this
project
gets
accepted
and
hopefully
maybe
I
even
get
to
work
on
it.
You
know
and
be
a
part
of
my
own
community.
It's
it's
literally
within
a
five
minute
drive
from
my
house
and
would
really
change
my
life.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
meow.
A
Hi,
william,
you
are
unmuted,
I
had
to
promote
youtube
panelists
do
we
would
speak.
A
A
B
H
H
Furthermore,
we
also
have
some
concerns
about
the
jobs
housing
imbalance
that
this
project
could
create.
There
is
1.5
square
million
feet
of
office
space,
and
this
could
draw
workers
to
commute
from
outside
of
the
city,
given
the
low-tech
job
unemployment
in
this
area,
this
could
lead
to
emissions
from
vnt
and
also
potentially,
emissions
from
the
construction
of
new
housing
units
and
cities
outside
of
san
jose,
which
are
not
as
fortunate
enough
to
have
an
all-electric
building
code.
H
H
Ultimately,
this
is
a
really
defining
point
in
the
city
and
for
the
guadalupe
river.
Do
we
want
to
protect
our
natural
resources?
Do
we
want
to
protect
our
river?
We
are
not
opposed
to
development
entirely.
There
are
examples
of
ways
that
this
development
could
work,
but
we
must.
We
absolutely
must
respect
the
river
for
generations
to
come.
Thank
you.
A
N
N
My
name
is
jason
sue
executive
director
of
the
guadalupe
river
park
conservancy.
We
are
the
city's
non-profit
partner,
promoting
the
active
use
and
development
of
the
guala
bay
river
park.
We
support
this
project
and
encourage
the
planning
commission
to
support
as
well.
The
project
has
the
potential
to
bring
new
visitors
to
the
park
and
trail
and
open
up
opportunities
for
future
activations
and
public
park
improvements.
N
N
A
Hello,
my
name
is
joel
segura
and
I'm
a
resident
nearby.
This
proposed
project,
pierce
avenue
and
generally
I'm
in
support
of
this
project,
with
what
the
property's
shown
at
least
that'll.
I
agree
with
activation
of
the
area.
Current.
That's
current
uses
not
just
as
a
parking
lot,
but
as
encampments
down
by
the
river
are
not
great
for
it
either.
A
So
I
would
hope
that
a
building
like
this
might
discourage
the
erosion,
the
human
erosion
and
carving
out
of
the
riverbanks
to
flatten
it
out,
and
I
believe
also
that
the
building
further
down
on
that
borders,
san
carlos,
is
just
as
close
to
the
river,
and
it
doesn't
anyway
appear
that
there's
a
lot
of
erosion
over
there
so
as
a
resident
anyway
that
they
have
my
support
for
the
building.
That's
into
my
comment.
T
Good
evening,
commissioners,
I'm
marilee
jennings
the
executive
director
of
children's
discovery,
museum
of
san
jose
and,
as
the
architects
slide
showed,
our
museum
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
guadalupe
river
trail
and
trail
and,
of
course,
cares
deeply
about
the
project
proposed
to
be
built
adjacent
to
us.
We
care
deeply
also
about
the
guadalupe
river,
which,
as
some
of
you
know,
we
use
as
a
living
classroom
to
teach
children
about
the
environment.
T
I
want
to
commend
boston
properties
and
say
that,
after
years
of
conversation
with
them,
our
board
is
in
favor
of
this
project.
For
for
several
reasons,
first
of
all,
boston
properties
has
been
in
contact
with
us
from
the
beginning
soliciting
our
feedback
addressing
concerns
asking
how
they
can
be
the
best
neighbor
possible
and
what
this
project
delivers
for
us
is
activation
of
of
an
unused
space.
It
will
bring
positive
public
use
of
an
area
that
now
is
suffering
tremendous
damage
from
unauthorized
use.
T
We're
excited
about
the
new
amenity
that
our
visitors
are
the
400
000
visitors.
We
bring
to
san
jose
every
year
what
they'll
be
able
to
do
in
san
jose,
and
we
are
very
excited
about
a
new
partner
coming
to
this
section
of
the
river
bringing
resources
and
commitments
to
caretake
for
that
valuable
space.
So
we
are
enthusiastic
about
the
benefits
of
the
almaden
office
project
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
G
B
B
The
reason
being,
I
want
to
ensure
that
if
the
rest
of
the
commission
has
any
questions
directly
of
the
applicant,
I
take
that
back.
You
actually
have
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
public
comment,
so
my
apologies
for
that
to
the
applicant.
You
have
five
minutes
to
respond
to
public
comment
or
anything
else.
You'd
like
to
add
to
this
conversation.
J
We've
owned
the
site
for
20
years
and
I've
walked
it
multiple
times.
These
pictures
are
from
last
week.
The
site
is
a
paved
surface
parking
lot.
The
current
condition
of
the
riparian
area
is
sadly,
an
environment,
full
of
trash
debris,
invasive
species
and
encampments,
because
the
parking
lot
is
paved
during
rain
events.
Water
carries
contaminants
from
the
lot,
including
oils,
heavy
metals,
exhaust
and
flows
to
the
river,
where
it
has
a
negative
effect
on
the
environment.
J
J
J
J
We
then
provided
a
14
foot
step
back
from
our
property
line,
which
is
the
design
that
was
studied
during
sqa
since
the
sql
process.
Our
team
has
made
additional
changes
to
respond
to
the
comments
that
were
received
and
reduce
the
footprint
of
our
building.
Yet
again,
our
above
grade
tower
is
now
17
feet
from
our
property
line
and
at
minimum
35
feet
from
the
top
of
the
bank.
J
At
the
community
hearing
there
were
concerns
about
the
garage
with
the
hypothesis
that
tree
roots
will
be
affected
under
the
drip
line.
The
city
square
consultant
does
not
believe
that
is
the
case,
as
the
lot
is
impervious
and
roots
go
towards
the
water
stream,
but
we
still
wanted
to
address
the
perceived
concern.
J
J
J
J
For
three
years
to
ensure
its
performance,
its
requirement,
finally,
our
ground
floor,
pedestrian,
realm,
revitalizes,
san
jose
by
reducing
vehicle
or
traffic
to
the
image
below
and
creating
this
to
become
a
pedestrian
realm,
cabonia
and
planning
commissioners.
The
final
project
design
is
truly
a
collaborative
effort
between
boston
properties,
the
city
and
community
partners.
Thank
you.
B
S
Thank
you
chair.
I
would
just
like
to
say
when
I
was
in
eighth
grade
in
san
jose
going
to
public
school,
the
redevelopment
agency
visited
our
school
and
brought
us
a
beautiful
large
three-dimensional
map
of
the
downtown,
and
this
area
had
been
even
since
then
planned
for
development
and
the
building
at
the
corner.
303
south
almaden
was
actually
a
building
that
was
subsidized
by
the
city.
S
Through
the
redevelopment
agency,
we
took
tax
dollars
to
actually
go
build
that
building
because
we
wanted
jobs
in
the
downtown
ever
since
then
I
knew
that
this
development
was
going
to
happen
on
top
of
that
building,
so
I've
been
waiting
personally,
you
know
30
years
to
see
something
happen
here
and
while
on
the
city
council,
we
had
numerous
discussions
of
riparian
corridor,
both
in
study
sessions,
ordinance
and
second
reading
of
the
ordinance
and
during
those
meetings
that
this
parcel
was
asked
at
the
public
hearing.
S
I
think
staff
has
done
a
great
job
on
this
and
I
really
don't
have
any
questions
rely
on
chair
because
I
feel
I've
lived
with
the
riparian
policy
and
the
development
of
downtown
for
a
good
chunk
of
my
life.
I
just
think
this
is
a
a
brilliant
architecture
and
I
certainly
would
like
to
just
simply
make
a
motion
to
support
the
staff
recommendation.
B
Commissioner
ovaria,
your
your
motion
is
accepted,
but
I
will
open
up
the
florida
commissioner.
Young
as
his
hand,
was
up,
but
there
is
a
motion
on
the
floor.
Commissioner,
young.
I
Thank
you,
chairman
yeah,
there's,
no
question
that
this
is
a
beautiful
project.
It's
also
a
very
important
project
for
the
city.
So
the
question
is
not.
Is
this
a
wonderful
project?
The
question
is:
is
the
size
of
the
project
appropriate,
particularly
in
regards
to
the
riparian
corridor,
and
I've
been
doing
a
lot
of
reading
of
the
staff
report
and
I'm
very
unclear
on
the
process,
and
so
I'd
like
to
ask
some
questions
to
the
staff
and
also
to
the
applicant
regarding
the
process
of
the
consideration
of
the
repairing
corridor?
I
G
I'll
just
go
ahead:
okay,
so
35
foot
35
feet
from
the
property
line
is
the
edge
of
where
that
development
is
legally
allowed
to
occur.
For
the
purposes
of
our
riparian
policy,
we
do
look
at
35
feet
from
the
riparian
corridor,
which
is
defined
as
either
the
top
of
the
bank
or
the
edge
of
the
riparian
vegetation,
whichever
one
is
more
conservative.
G
In
this
case,
the
edge
of
the
riparian
vegetation
does
extend
past
the
top
of
bank.
So
in
that
case,
for
the
purposes
of
these
policies,
we
would
be
using
the
35
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
the
riparian
vegetation,
not
the
top
of
bank.
A
F
I
would
also
like
to
commissioner
young:
this
is
tai
cha
lee
as
we're
talking
about
more
about
the
lines.
If
someone
could
put
up
the
exhibit
f,
which
shows
the
diagram
it
might
help
guide
the
conversation
as
well.
I
I
F
To
do
you
meet
the
right
parent
edge.
F
That
we
did
not
measure
the
line
for
the
alternatives
in
the
sql
analysis,
because
the
sql
analysis
looked
at.
What's
the
significant
impact
and
what
what
alternative
right
away
can
we
analyze?
That
would
reduce
those
impacts.
So
knowing
that
the
35
feet
from
extra
vegetation
was
a
concern
because
of
the
policy,
we
chose
to
look
at
a
more
conservative
effort
at
the
property
line
for
both
35
and
100..
F
Anyone
else
on
the
team
want
to
add
to
that.
So
to
answer
your
question,
we
do
not
have
delineation
for
the
alternative
to
the
edge
of
vegetation
for
the
alternative
within
the
sql
document.
I
Okay,
I'm
not
I'll
be
honest.
I'm
not
quite
sure.
I
understand
that
answer,
but
I'm
gonna
move
on
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
have
some
questions
for
mr
fenton
is
mr
fenton
still
here.
I
Here:
okay,
great,
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
thank
you
for
proposing
this
project.
It's,
as
I
said,
wonderful,
would
be
a
wonderful
addition
to
the
city.
I
Question
is
when
you
first
were
designing
this
project.
What
set
back
to
the
riparian
edge?
Were
you
using
in
your
original
designs.
H
I'd
yeah,
sorry,
I'm
gonna!
Let
christina
answer
this
she's
she's
been
running
the
project,
so
she'll
have
the
answers.
I
I
On
page
three,
he
said
the
submitted
revised
biological
resources
report,
and
this
is
the
consultant
h.d
harvey
determined
that
any
enroachment
with
a
100-foot
setback
would
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
adjacent
riparian
communities
along
the
guadalupe
river.
However,
a
35-foot
setback
would
be
acceptable
with
repairing
restoration
enhancement
and
a
bird
safe
design,
and
then
his
determination.
I
This
is
kim
rook.
Their
determination
was.
I
Therefore,
the
habitat
agency
recommends
the
city
not
approve
this
condition:
11
requests
for
a
zero
foot
setback,
so
the
city
formally
requested
a
ruling.
We
got
the
ruling
now
again.
I
think
the
process
is
important
here.
So
I
have
a
question
again
from
mr
fenton,
so
you
initially
propose
a
zero
setback.
I
I
So
that
I
guess
gets
into
my
question
for
staff,
I
I
requested
of
staff
what
what
was
the
process
of
because
essentially
what's
happened,
is
we've
gone
from
a
letter
that
said
35
feet
is
from
the
habitat
agency
very
well
thought
out
very
well
written
to
on
april
5th
of
this
year,
a
letter
which
essentially
doesn't
address
any
of
the
points
in
the
first
letter,
but
basically
says
because
of
a
legalistic
term
that
the
ground
has
already
been
disturbed.
I
The
habitat
plan
does
not
apply
which
that
that
might
meet
the
letter
of
their
policy,
but
I
don't
believe
it
meets
the
intent
to
to
be
able
to
say
that,
because
there's
a
parking
lot
there
now
you
know
this.
These
setback
requirements
should
not
apply,
does
not
make
sense
to
me.
So
my
my
question
to
staff
was:
how
did
this
reconsideration
happen?
And
you
know
the
boston
properties
apparently
did
not
request
it.
I
I
I
What
does
that
mean?
I
I
I
just
you
know.
Transparency
in
these
processes
is
really
important.
This
is
a
very,
very
major
project
and
I'm
having
a
difficult
time
understanding
when
the
city
requested
a
ruling
from
the
habitat
agency,
of
which
we
are
a
part
of
received
a
ruling
and
then
went
in
for
reconsideration,
apparently
not
even
from
a
request
of
the
developer.
F
R
Proper
planning-
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
it's
not
unusual
for
agencies,
including
the
city
to
reconsider
certain
determinations
as
and
when
new
information
becomes
available.
So
it's
not
unusual.
This
was
written
by
the
habitat
agency
and,
as
we
went
through
the
process,
they
changed
their
position.
So
it's
not
unusual.
F
F
F
We
will
review
it
and
we
will
submit
it
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
san
jose
and
get
the
fee
for
the
habitat
agency
for
certain
conditions,
like
condition
11,
where
we
know
design
at
the
planning
stage
makes
sense
to
look
at
it.
At
that
time,
we
set
up
a
process
with
the
agency
that
we
would
send
in
these
projects
to
them
early
on
during
the
planning
process
for
the
to
get
their
recommendation.
F
In
the
when
we
got
this
first
letter
like
you
said
they
said
that
they
would
not
recommend,
and
that
is
against
the
intent
of
the
or
the
letter
of
the
law
of
condition
11
in
their
plan.
We
raise
the
level
of
environmental
impact
in
our
environment
document
to
also
significant
unavoidable.
F
Under
that
one
question
in
the
secret
document,
as
we
were
working
with
the
agency
outside
of
this
project,
also,
because
knowing
that
we
were
reading
condition,
11
again
for
other
projects
as
well
during
the
grading
permit,
we
were
one
wanting
to
know
hey
what
fee
really
apply
here,
what
condition
really
apply
here?
We
raised
this
question
during
our
monthly
meeting
with
them,
as
well
with
other
lead
agency
and
other
co-permitees,
and
this
kind
of
trigger
revisit
you're
like
you're
right.
F
This
condition
11
said
35
feet,
but
from
what
this
condition
11
set
did
not
touch
or
have
any
language
pertaining
to
underground
or
above
ground.
So
all
those
conversation
kind
of
happened
organically
during
our
conversation
with
the
habitat
agency,
and
they,
when
I
say
regroup
in
my
email,
that's
what
triggered
it.
They
went
back
and
they
collaborated
with
the
us
wildlife
and
california
wildlife
agency
and
kind
of
looked
at
their
interpretation
and
their
wording
of
their
own
plan.
F
Furthermore,
there
is
a
link
on
the
habitat
agency
website
that,
since
the
adoption
in
2013,
they
have
come
out
with
multiple
interpretation
plans
and
memos
that
clarify
figures,
policies,
conditions
to
help
our
their
co-permittee
determine
if
a
project
is
a
cover
project
or
is
consistent
so
based
on
their
new
finding
in
the
this
year,
what
they
determined
that,
if
a
project
is
fully
developed
and
you're,
not
grading
or
impacting
new
undeveloped,
land
you're
not
considered
a
cover
project.
F
Therefore,
if
you're
not
a
con,
if
you're
not
a
cover
project,
you
don't
get
kicked
up
to
the
habitat
agency,
so
that
was
their
stand
and
that's
why
we
received
that
new
information.
The
new
letter-
and
we
added
to
the
first
amendment,
which
is
the
response
to
comments
knowing
that
the
everyone
was
also
a
little
bit
confused
and
concerned
about
the
difference
between
our
policy,
the
sql
policy
and
the
habitat
policy,
so
to
kind
of
wrap
that
up
is
it's
not
it's,
not
a
formal
ruling.
I
Yes,
I
have,
I
have
a
couple
more
and
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
Chair
is
there.
I
had
made
a
request
this
afternoon
to
have
a
representative
of
the
santa
clara
valley,
habitat
agency,
at
the
meeting,
so
that
I
could
ask
some
questions
is:
is
there
a
representative
here.
G
I
B
Sure
what
I
was
actually
going
to
do
is
there
is
a
motion
on
the
floor
and
I
was
actually
giving
you
the
space
to
speak
because
you
were
already
in
the
cube,
but
when
you
were
done,
I
actually
wanted
to
address
that
motion.
So
I
will
now
go
to
that
motion.
Since
there
is
a
motion
on
the
floor
by
commissioner
olivario.
Do
we
have
a
second
to
his
motion?
I.
C
Would
like
the
second
commissioner
of
oliverio's
motion
to
accept
staff
recommendation
and
approve
this
project.
B
D
I
Yeah,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
So
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
that
we
table
this
item
for
one
meeting.
I
think
there's
really
a
lot
of
unclarity
on
the
process.
I'd
like
to
have
somebody
from
the
habitat
agency
here.
I
don't
see
any
need
to
rush
this
item
through,
so
I
that
would
be
my
motion
to
table
to
the
next
meeting.
B
All
right,
so
we
have
commissioner
young
with
a
motion
to
table
and
we
have
commissioner
cantrell
seconding
that
motion
to
table.
D
B
Okay-
and
we
did
have
so
that
is
the
framework
we're
going
to
be
working
under
right
now.
We
do
have
commissioner
cantrell
and
commissioner
torrance
have
their
hands
up,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
go
with
commissioner
cantrell
I'll.
Take
my.
C
B
Commissioner
torrence
thank
you.
We
have
commissioners
montagness
and
then
commissioner
law,
one
thing
you
have
so.
C
All
right,
so
I
you
know,
thank
you
very
much,
commissioner
young,
because
I
had
a
lot
of
the
same
questions.
I'll
start
off
this
comment
just
by
saying
that
I'm
not
native
to
san
jose,
but
one
of
the
most
beautiful
things
that
I
find
about
san
jose
is
the
guadalupe
river
trail.
I
live
all
the
way
up
in
north
san
jose
and
if
I
want
to
go
on
a
bike
ride
and
do
a
20
mile
bike
ride,
I
head
down
south
and
so
protecting
the
river.
C
C
That
said
that
there
was
no
other
reasonable
alternative
that
avoid
or
reduce
the
encroachment
right,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
just
from
a
more
global
picture
did
did
we
did
the
planning
department
ever
just
stopped,
and
you
know-
and
I
know
that
this
has
to
be
something-
that's
discussed
with
the
developers
and
also
within
the
department,
and
it
also
has
to
come
to
us
that
almond
and
boulevard,
as
it
goes
down
south
towards
law's
way
the
use
of
that
street.
C
I'm
just
wondering
if
it
could
be
better
planned
and
if
there
could
be
a
compromise
that
instead
of
you,
know,
encroaching
on
the
riparian.
If
we
could
figure
if
our,
if
our
teams
could
figure
out
a
way
to
work
with
the
developer
to
instead
of
approaching
towards
the
river
cross,
encroaching
more
on
alameda
boulevard
and
redesigning
that
street
and
potentially
vacating
some
of
that
street
to
make
this
project
feasible.
So
they're
we're
not
impacting
our
natural
resources.
C
The
reason
that
I
do
want
to
support-
and
I
am
going
to
support
commissioners
young's
motion
is
because
I
don't
think
we
thought
maybe
it
has
been
thought
out
thoroughly,
but
I
didn't
see
that
presented
before
us
and
I
think
that
if
this
is
something
that
you
know
can
be
looked
at,
it
may
be
a
possibility
where
it's
a
win-win
for
our
natural
resources
and
then
a
win-win
for
the
for
this
development
project.
I
do
believe
it's
a
beautiful
project.
I
just
feel
that
you
know
where
we
we
need
to
protect
our
environment.
C
We
got
to
figure
out
a
better
way
to
do
it
than
just
you
know,
moving
moving
this
this
forward.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Those
are
my
comments.
A
H
R
Our
commissioner,
I
believe
there
is
a
law
that
requires
that
if
a
decision
is
not
made
within
60
days,
then
it
automatically
goes
to
city
council,
so
to
the
extent
that
any
decision
can
be
made
within
60
days.
That
is
fine,
but
I
would
also
like
to
indicate
that
the
eir
addresses
an
alternative
or
analyzes
an
alternative
that
addresses
this
concern.
So
the
commission
can
also
look
into
that
alternative
if
the
setback
is
the
most
important
concern,
so
that
a
recommendation
can
be
made
to
city
council
for
approval
of
that
particular
alternative.
D
Robert
and
staff,
I
don't
think
that
answered
the
question,
though,
because
the
motion
is
to
just
continue
the
meeting
for
one
planning
commission
meeting,
so
that
would
be
two
weeks
and
staff.
Have
your
public
notices
gone
out?
Would
that
affect
the
time
that
this
goes
to?
That
has
been
noticed
for
the
council
meeting.
N
N
I
also
wanted
to
make
note
that,
if
should
the
planning
commission
decide
to
defer
this
item
for
the
purposes
of
having
a
habitat
agency
representative
in
attendance,
we
can
certainly
extend
the
invitation
to
them
as
we
try
doing
this
evening,
but
at
the
same
time
we
can't
compel
them
to
attend
the
meeting.
Thank
you.
B
H
Suggestion
that
we
amend
the
motion
to
include
the
specific
concerns
that
commissioner
would
like
to
have
addressed
at
the
next
meeting.
C
Hi,
I
I
just
want
to
know,
there's
a
couple
questions.
So
does
the
project
meet
the
35
foot
setback?
C
E
E
So
the
upper
floor
is
the
the
closest
point
is
about
four
feet
to
the
edge
of
right
paracord.
Maybe
I
should
pull
up
the
the
map
to
show
that
diagram
just.
A
C
And
I'm
just
curious
on
some
of
the
other
buildings
along
the
guadalupe
river
there.
You
know
how
close
are
they
to
the
riparian
to
the
top
of
bank,
specifically.
C
You
know
I
mean
you
might
not
know
now,
but
that's
just
something
that
you
know
just
trying
to
kind
of
compare
other
structures
that
have
been
built.
You
know,
maybe
in
that
same
you
know
some
large
commercial
structures
that
have
gone
up
close
to
the
creek.
You
know
what
do
they
really
look?
Like
I
mean
I'm
a
mom,
I
do
take
my
children
to
the
children's
discovery
museum.
I
love
open
space.
I
you
know,
unfortunately,
sometimes
I'm
you
know
because
of
some
homeless,
encampments
and
trash
I
mean
even
just
to
park
around
there.
C
So
I'd
really
like
to
see
something
as
beautiful
as
this
could
go
up.
You
know,
but
I
also
you
know
would
like
to
see
you
know
some
protection
of
of
the
creek
there
and
and
see
you
know
how
we
could
find
some
middle
ground
here.
C
C
I'd
like
to
see,
you
know
more
lighting
and
maybe
not
towards
the
creek
but
lighting,
and
something
to
make
sure
that
it's
safe
for
people
walking
to
and
from
the
discovery
meadows
to
to
the
place-
and
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
I'd
like
to
to
see
from
the
developers
like
how
are
you
incorporating
public
art
in
into
the
design
and
how
you
incorporating
it
there?
So
those
are
just
some
of
the
things
you
know,
because
there's
the
children
discovery
there,
you
might
have
a
lot
of
families
going
over
there.
C
So
of
course,
I'd
like
to
see
playground
benches
for
adults
or
something
that
engages
something
that's
compatible
with
with
the
children's
discovery
museum.
Given
that
that's
right
next
door,
just
just
some
of
the
things
that
are
I'm
thinking
about.
J
Okay,
if
I
could
answer
and
respond
to
your
your
questions,
commissioner,
we
did
engage
with
our
biologists
consultant
to
study
the
setbacks
of
other
buildings
along
the
riparian
edge
adjacent
to
ours.
Our
building
stated
by
city
staff,
is
providing
a
35
foot
step
back
for
the
above
tower
from
the
top
of
bank.
The
adjacent
building
next
to
us,
303
ahmadine,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
on
the
plan,
actually
has
a
setback
of
40
feet
from
the
top
of
bank
and
other
buildings
in
the
area.
J
The
range
and
the
setback
is
between
40
to
46
feet
from
the
top
of
bank,
so
very
consistent
with
what
we're
providing
in
terms
of
public
art.
Yes,
we
are
excited
about
public
art.
It
is
one
percent
of
our
development
costs
and
we
are
excited
to
partner
with
potential
groups
such
as
the
children's
discovery
museum
to
provide
public
art
within
our
project
or
near
the
site,
and
we
want
to
work
with
the
community
to
develop
that
idea.
N
Thank
you
chairman,
so,
if
I,
if
I'm
reading
this
correctly,
my
interpretation
of
the
staff
report
is
that
the
habitat
agency
clarified
in
their
april
fifth
memo
that
there
is
no
setback
requirement
because
the
parcel
is
already
developed.
R
F
Habitat
that
is
part
of
the
habitat
plan,
but
we,
like
I
said
we
had
two
other
law
that
we
reviewed
the
project
under
and
those
are
also
the
finding
under
sql
is
such
and
the
finding
under
riparian
policy
is
as
such.
F
At
also
at
this
time,
staff
would
also
like
to
clarify
the
motion
on
the
table.
That's
under
discussion
regarding
potential
deferral
of
or
continuing
this
project
to
have
habitat
agency
representative
attending
next
meeting
staff
would
certainly
reach
out
and
ask,
and
also
staff
would
like
to
clarify
what
is
the
intent
of
having
habitat
staff
in
the
next
meeting.
So
we
can
also
get
provided
information
to
habitat
agency
staff.
I
So
why
not
go
with
what
we
have
now,
and
I
understand
that
argument,
but
it's
in
contradiction
to
what
the
original
planner
with
the
agency
said
and-
and
the
other
thing
I
would
just
say
turbine
is,
I
think,
there's
been
a
lot
of
good
questions
raised
by
the
commissioners,
so
my
intent
is
certainly
not
just
to
have
a
person
there
from
that
agency.
B
S
Good
evening,
thank
you,
chair
benia
and
commissioner
young,
so
david
keon
principal
planner,
on
the
city's
environmental
review
team.
I
just
want
to
briefly
take
a
step
back
and
clarify
the
position
of
the
habitat
agency
and
the
relationship
with
the
city
and
how
we
go
through
projects,
so
the
habitat
agency
you
know
is:
we
are
implementing
entity
of
the
habitat
plan.
We
are
the
ones
that
make
determinations
as
one
of
the
implementing
partner
agencies,
so
you
know
they
haven't.
S
When
a
project
comes
through
and
once
it's
approved
it
goes
through
the
grading
permit
stage
as
part
of
that
process.
They
also
submit
the
application
for
coverage
under
the
habitat
plan.
We
review
those
applications
package
that
up
we'll
consult
with
the
habitat
agency,
but
then
we
submit
that
package
to
the
habitat
agency
once
that
all
that
is
finalized
and
approved.
So
it's
essentially,
we
are
implementing
the
habitat
plan
as
a
partner
agency.
S
However,
the
habitat
agency
does
provide
guidance
on
how
to
interpret
the
habitat
plan
and
it's
as
tai
and
others
have
already
mentioned.
It's
a
back
and
forth
ongoing
as
we
determine
what
these
conditions
mean.
So
what
happened
with
this
project
was
the
city
wanted
to
get
clarification
from
the
habitat
agency
on
how
condition
11,
which
is
the
condition
of
the
habitat
plan
that
applies
to
riparian
quarter?
Setbacks
would
apply
to
this
type
this
project
and
we
went
back
and
forth
the
habitat
agency
through
our
discussions
also
had
to
go
through
their
own
agencies.
S
They
met
with
california,
department
of
fish
and
wildlife
through
the
technical
advisory
committee,
they've
gone
back
and
forth
with
other
experts
and
through
that
they
determined.
You
know
at
that.
The
original
clarification,
this
premature
clarification
that
was
premature
based
upon
additional
analysis
and
discussions,
determined
that
this
would
actually
not
this
project,
because
it's
already
disturbed
the
condition.
11
setbacks
would
not
apply
and
that's
where
we
got
this
clarification
memo,
so
this
is
essentially
coming
through
that
process.
That
also
involves
other
state
agencies.
S
D
If
I
can
provide
a
little
bit
of
clarity
too,
I
worked
on
the
habitat
plan
from
about
2004
onward
and
I
was
their
first
general
counsel
for
about
a
year
and
a
half.
So
we
set
up
the
agency
and
everything
else.
D
There
is
no
way
in
a
plan
that
large
that
you
can
actually
anticipate
every
question
that
may
come
up
in
that
document
and
how
to
implement
that
document,
and
that
was
something
as
as
the
city
is
a
co-permittee
with
the
habitat
agency,
with
the
cities
of
gilroy,
morgan
hill
vta,
the
water
district
on
on
in
the
county
of
santa
clara
on
this
plan,
and
we
all
received
federal
and
state
permits,
and
the
plan
was
approved
by
those
agencies
by
the
federal
and
state
wildlife
agencies.
D
And
so
what
we're
doing
is
we're
complying
with
permit
requirements
with
the
feds
in
the
state
and
in
in
doing
so
in
in
doing
these
interpretations,
which
is
what
you
saw,
which
is
what
these
letters
were
from
the
or
the
writings
were
from
the
habitat
agency.
Those
are
interpretive
guidelines
and
those
are
guidelines
that
they
have
been
doing
now,
since,
actually,
even
a
couple
of
months
before
the
plan
was
adopted,
they
started
doing
that
because
they
recognized
that
they
needed
to
interpret
certain
things
in
those
plans.
D
This
is
a
50-year
plan,
one
of
the
few
out
there
that's
that
long
and
it
is
for
the
preservation
of
habitat,
but
also
is
an
incidental
take
permit,
which
means
that
if
you
follow
the
plan
and
the
mitigation
measures
in
the
plan,
you
can
disrupt
some
species
and
disrupt
some
of
the
environment,
the
habitat
that
they
may
live
in.
D
This
is
for
plants
and
animals,
and
so
that
are
listed
in
the
plan,
and
so
we
are
a
co-permittee,
and
this
is
the
way
that
they
resolve
interpretive
issues,
and
I
have
to
tell
you
that,
just
in
my
experience
in
others,
working
with
other
cities
as
well,
determining
where
a
riparian
corridor
begins
is
one
of
the
most
contentious
and
difficult
things
for
any
agency
to
do
so.
I
would
completely
expect
an
agency,
like
the
habitat
agency,
to
have
to
interpret
that
later
on.
B
Vera,
thank
you
for
that
and
it's
chairman.
I
will
take
this
moment
to
also
weigh
in
and
actually
vera
your
your
synopsis.
There
is
perfect
segway.
B
You
know
in
my
experience,
particularly
working
with
the
city
at
one
point,
one
of
the
things
I
do
have
always
experienced
is
just
the
highest
level
of
concern
when
it
comes
to
environmental
issues
and
having
read
the
analysis
and
the
reports,
it
only
further
confirmed
that,
although
I
haven't
been
working
in
the
building
for
quite
some
time,
the
the
standards
and
the
commitment
to
the
environmental
concerns
continue
being
in
my,
in
my
mind,
elite
level.
So
after
that
analysis,
in
that
context,
I
feel
very
comfortable
with
the
environmental
issues
and
to
vera's
point.
B
This
is
an
ongoing
conversation
with
state
agencies
that
will
also
weigh
in
that
will
also
help
shape
this,
but
with
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
right
now,
I
respectfully
will
not
be
supporting
the
motion
because
in
my
mind
as
well,
something
that
I'm
not
hearing
that
is
of
critical
importance
to
me-
and
I
know
to
all
of
you
as
well-
is
the
council
member
to
commissioner
olivario's
point
earlier.
B
This
has
been
a
section
of
the
city
that,
for
decades,
has
needed
some
level
of
economic
boost.
San
jose
is
now
at
that
level.
Where
we
are
transitioning
into
the
world-class
city,
we
always
knew
we
were,
and
now
the
maturation
is
actually
happening.
You
know,
commissioner
schweiz
talked
about
safety.
B
I
myself
frequent
the
children's
discovery
museum
and
I
will
say
that
the
area
around
is
not
necessarily
the
one
that's
conducive
for
hanging
out
with
the
family
before
the
children's
discovery,
museum
or
even
after
it's
an
area
that
is
in
need
of
an
injection
of
energy
and
injection
of
people,
the
vibrancy
and
it's
an
area
of
the
city
that
is
ripe
for
that.
So,
in
my
mind,
a
lot
of
all
of
the
questions
are
legitimate
and
I
understand
that.
B
What
I,
what
I
don't
want
is
that
the
message
that's
being
sent
to
the
council
is
that
we
are
more
concerned
with
riparian
right,
it's
not
to
say
they're,
not
important
or
even
the
environmental
in
that
area
and
in
my
mind
there
already
are
environmental
hazards
in
that
area,
from
the
parking
from
some
of
the
things
that
are
not
as
pleasant
in
that
part
of
the
river.
B
So
what
I
don't
want
is
for
the
message
to
be
that
we're
more
concerned
with
that
than
we
are,
as
commissioners
tauren
said
earlier,
with
the
bigger
picture
with
the
bigger
strategy
and
the
bigger
vision
of
where
we
are
taking
this.
So
that
is
simply
my
opinion.
I
will
respectfully
not
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
just
saw
a
couple
hands
go
up,
you
know,
for
the
sake
of
brevity,
you
know,
commissioner
young
commissioner
kendra,
you
know
you've
already
weighed
in
what
I'm
going
to
do.
B
N
D
I'm
sorry
it
did
not
nullify
it.
It's
considered
a
substitute
motion
under
robert's
rules,
and
so
it's
taken
before
it's
voted
on
before
the
original
motion
and
there
are
don't
believe
I
would
have
to
look
it
up,
but
I
don't
believe
there
are
additional
substitute
motions
allowed,
particularly
if
they're
the
same
as
the
first
one.
B
A
B
O
B
C
D
B
A
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
A
C
S
D
You
do
that,
however,
the
commissioners
need
to
state
their
conflict
on
the
record,
and
I
know
they
did
that.
I
know
some
of
them
did
that
last
time,
not
sure
if
everybody
did
so.
If
we
could
do
that,
if
you
could
bring
him
back
jennifer
before
staff
before
we
vote
or
staff
gives
any
report,
then
they
need
to
state
their
conflicts
on
the
record.
C
All
right,
I'll
state
mine,
thank
you
chairmania,
so
I
do
own
apple
stock.
I
did
sell
it,
but
the
transaction
won't
go
through
until
tomorrow,
so
I'm
just
barely
over
the
amount
that
you
can
own
to
vote
on
this.
So
good
luck
on
the
vote,
everybody
thank.
B
A
J
B
B
A
C
Admit
the
other
commissioners
in
once
yeah
and
while,
if
you're
admitting
the
other
commissioners
I'd
like
to
state
my
conflict,
so
I
actually
have
the
least
interest
in
a
property
that
is
within
the
area
of
the
novelis
d.a.
B
B
B
B
With
the
motion,
lord
and
well
with
the
second
roll
call
vote
gonia,
I
casey
all
right
ken
trout,
garcia,
all
right.
B
B
B
B
Great
we'll
move
to
item
seven
good
and
welfare
st
item,
a
report
from
city
council
staff.
Is
there
a
report
from
city
council.
R
Yes,
there
is
on
august
17
city
council
approved
the
conforming
rezoning
and
site
development
permit
for
property
located
on
the
northeast
corner
of
australia,
story,
road
and
south
jackson
avenue.
That
item
did
not
come
to
a
planning
commission,
but
it's
a
cup
that
went
straight
to
city
council
and
it's
the
rotten
robbie
it
was
approved.
R
Yesterday,
the
marriott
hotel
on
san
carlos,
which
you
recommended
approval
to
city
council,
was
approved,
and
then
the
san
carlos
street
mixed
use
project
was
also
approved
of
particular
interest.
It's
also
the
dubi
brothers
project
building,
there's
a
historic,
landmark
designation
that
did
not
come
here,
but
it
was
referred
to
city
council
by
the
hlc
that
was
also
approved,
and
so
the
duby
brothers
properties
now
at
city
landmarks.
B
B
R
Yes
che:
we
can
have
that
discussion
briefly
now,
but
I'll
also
encourage
commissioners
to
send
their
topics
of
interest
to
jennifer.
B
Let
me
let
me
thank
you
for
that
robert.
Let
me
cut
you
out.
Let
me
recommend
to
my
colleagues
that
we
send
a
little
bit
of
thought
to
it,
give
ourselves
some
time
and
and
submit
our
ideas
to
jennifer
provador,
so
that
we
can
allow
for
the
team
to
develop
the
retreat.
Based
on
those
thoughts,
I
assume
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
overlap,
but
I
also
see
that
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
things
that
are
going
to
be
very
commissioner
specific.
B
B
Robert
that
worked
for
you
and
staff.
Yes,
it
does.
Thank
you
all
right,
colleagues,
no
later
than
cob
next
friday,
we'll
submit
our
ideas
to
jennifer
provodor
anything
after
that,
unfortunately,
we'll
not
make
it
so
just
we
have
plenty
of
time.
N
Hi,
thank
you
chair.
I
apologize
for
doing
this
because
I
missed
it
earlier
on
the
consent
calendar,
but
I
did
want
to
clarify
that
staff
would
recommend
dropping
item
4c
cp
21-006
for
the
purposes
of
restating
the
accurate
project
description
of
this
off
sale
of
alcohol
proposal
in
the
agenda.
We
noted
that
it
was
off
sale
of
beer
and
wine,
but
the
applicant
is
actually
proposing
to
off
sale
for
the
full
range
of
alcohol
and
therefore
we'll
drop
this
item
re-notice
it
for
a
future
planning
commission
hearing.
Thank
you.
D
Okay,
the
problem
with
that
is,
though,
that
there
has
already
been
a
motion
to
approve
it,
and
so
what
I
would
ask
is
that
someone
on
the
commission
make
a
motion
for
reconsideration
of
item
4c
and
at
that
point
you
just
move
to
continue
it
to
a
future
hearing.
Do
you
know
when
it's
going
to
come
back
sylvia.
N
So
if
we
were
to
re-notice,
I
would
say
probably
two
weeks
or
not
two
weeks,
two
hearings
from
now
so
late
to
september.
D
So
why
don't
we
just?
Why
don't
we
just
then
make
the
have
the
motion
be
motion
for
reconsideration,
and
that
would
be
to
drop
the
item
until
further
public
notice
is
given.
B
Torrance
torrance
you're
on
fire
tonight,
taurens
all
right,
all
right,
so
we've
got
bonilla
with
the
motion
torrens
with
the
second
roll
call
vote.
B
All
right,
we
will
now
go
to
item
7d,
the
public
record.
Does
anyone
have
anything
to
state
for
the
public
record
colleagues,
seeing
none,
I
will
say
something
for
the
public
record.
I
agree.
The
environment
must
always
be
protected
and
be
a
top
priority
when
it
comes
to
me
specifically,
it's
it's
my
respect
and
understanding
of
city
staff's
concern
for
the
environment,
but
I
agree:
the
environment
is
a
big
part
of
everything
we
do
so
do
appreciate
those
comments.
Commissioner,
young.
I
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
I'd,
just
like
to
clarify
that
my
questions
in
no
way
reflect
on
my
respect
for
city
staff.
I
I
have
a
huge
amount
of
respect
for
city
staff.
I
worked
in
local
government
for
30
years.
I
know
how
hard
you
all
work,
and
the
only
other
thing
I
would
say
is.
I
I
hope
that
the
approval
of
this
project
does
not
serve
as
a
precedent
for
other
projects
to
be
able
to
build
this
close
to
the
guadalupe
river,
especially
when,
from
what
my
understanding
is,
both
google
and
the
was
way
project
have
already
agreed
to
to
a
larger
setback.
So
that's
it.
Thank
you
chuck.
B
A
I
just
want
to
say
that
you
know
I
think
the
project
represents
beautiful
architecture,
certainly,
but
I
think
that
architecture
and
the
impact
that
it
has
on
the
given
environment
there
might
be
a
regret.
So
I
I
think
that
you
know
the
decision
has
been
made
here
and
I
certainly
respect
that.
I
respect
labor
and
their
their
right
to
work.