►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - 06/08/2022
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - 06/08/2022
YouTube:
https://www.slc.gov
A
A
A
A
A
C
D
A
E
F
D
G
H
I'm
gonna
try
to
speak
directly
into
the
microphone,
so
I
don't
get
scalded
this
time
anyway,
scolded
just
real
quick.
Last
night,
the
city
council
made
a
decision
on
an
item
that
came
before
the
planning
commission.
Several
months
ago,
the
proposed
rezoning
of
the
western
garden
site
on
600
east
by
trolley
square.
They
did
approve
that
last
night
with
subject
to
a
development
agreement
that
applied
a
rear
yard
setback
next
to
some
of
the
homes
on
the
small
inner
court
street
and
also
with
some
parking
requirements
that.
C
H
I
also
want
to
let
you
know
that
if,
as
you
have
seen
at
several
of
the
recent
meetings,
we
have
additional
new
employees,
so
you'll
start
seeing
more
new
faces
and
we,
if
it
hasn't,
occurred
to
people
the
one
thing
that
you're
going
to
see
is
that
we've
had
we.
We
have
a
lot
of.
I
don't
know
the
right
way
to
say
this,
but
because
younger
is
the
wrong
word,
but
we've
we
have
a
lot
of
planners
who
have
less
experience
than
what
maybe
we've
been
used
to,
and
so
we're
going
through.
H
A
number
of
salt
lake
city,
specific
training
opportunities
with
those
employees.
Whether
we're
talking
about
subdivisions
conditional
uses,
are
processes,
and
things
like
that.
So
we
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
planning
commission
knows
that
we're
doing
everything
we
can
to
ensure
that
those
employees
are
successful
and
that
they're
providing
not
just
the
planning
commission
but
the
community
with
the
resources
that
everybody
deserves.
H
So
along
those
lines.
Yesterday
we
had
a
division-wide
presentation,
training,
so
you'll
probably
start
seeing
us
make
slightly
different
types
of
presentations
to
the
commission,
different
roles
for
staff
versus
applicants,
hopefully
to
kind
of
streamline
that
process
a
little
bit
and
we'll
start
having
discussions
with
the
commission
about
maybe
some
other
ways
that
we
can
help
shorten
that
amount
of
time
that
we're
taking
in
presentations
and
q
and
a's,
and
things
like
that.
H
We
don't
want
to
lose
the
important
things,
but
we
also
want
to
give
the
commission
in
the
audience
the
right
information
that
they
need
to
know
and
then,
with
the
details,
give
relay
have
questions
asked
of
us
instead
of
trying
to
assume
what
all
the
information
that
needs
to
be
presented.
So
you'll
see
some
of
that
as
well,
and
I
think
with
that
that
was
all
I
had.
A
Okay,
I
will
just
interject
there
that
when
I
first
started
getting
involved,
I
don't
even
remember
how,
many
years
ago,
12
13
14
15.
the
the
notice.
I
would
get
that
postcard,
because
I
wasn't
involved
in
the
community
council
that
postcard
was
the
first
time
I
would
ever
get
a
notice
of
what
something
was
happening
so
coming
to
the
planning
commission
was
my
very
first
opportunity
to
get
that
information.
A
So
once
you
got
involved
with
the
community
council,
then
obviously
you
dialed
in
way
ahead
of
time,
but
it
so
that's
a
really
difficult
challenge
for
you.
Yeah,
because
this
assumption
that
you
know
you
have
you're
going
to
have
people
in
the
audience
who
that
is
their
first
time
really
getting
this
information
and
we
can't
leave
them
out.
H
Yeah
one
of
the
so
just
so
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
has
been
a
a
relatively
recent
change
that
we're
doing,
even
though
our
code
doesn't
require
it.
So,
as
many
of
you
know,
our
code
requires
a
45-day
early
engagement
period,
but
the
only
required
notice
for
that
is
to
the
community
councils.
H
A
H
To
make
people
aware,
because
that's
where
they
can
weigh
in
and
and
let
us
know
what
the
issues
are,
and
so
that's
a
big
change.
We
actually
have
have
a
pending
code
change
regarding
public
engagement.
That
includes
that
as
a
requirement
and
some
other
things
to
help,
I
guess
set
more
clear
expectations
for
why
we
do
engagement
and
what
that
is.
It's
been
pending
in
front
of
the
city
council
that
this
body
reviewed,
I
think
in
2017..
H
So
it's
been,
it's
been
there
for
a
while,
so
just
to
let
you
know
we
we
are
going
above
and
beyond
what
our
code
requires
for
that
and
in
many
cases,
because
we
can't
charge
an
applicant
for
that.
We
we've
been
absorbing
that
through
our
budget,
which
we
we're
draining
our
noticing
budget
quite
a
bit,
but
we're
still
going
to
do
it
and
we'll
find
ways
to
deal
with
the
other
stuff
later.
A
That
may
not
be
the
things
you
hear
from
people,
but
I
know
you
do
and
I
know
you
want
to
hear
from
people,
so
it's
just
a
matter
of
when
when
those
notices
were
going
out
and
and
the
opportunities
to
get
involved,
so
I
just
think
so
as
it
relates
to
then
has
streamlining
the
presentations,
that's
where
it
gets
difficult
to
parse
out
who's
in
the
audience
and
who's
here
and
like
we're
all
coming
at
it
from
different
levels
of
information.
We
have
so
that
we
don't
leave
those
guys
out
all
right.
A
Well
then,
let's
move
on
to
the
planning
commission
discussion,
which
is
our
new
item
on
our
agendas.
This
is
our
opportunity
for
commissioners
to
bring
up
questions
or
ideas
or
whatnot
for
the
director,
and
we
can
start
these
conversations.
We
don't
have.
We
haven't
settled
for
10
minutes.
So
let's
see
how
that
goes.
Since
this
is
our
first
one,
but
go
ahead.
Andrew.
C
A
H
So
those
it's
in
our
code,
the
city
bodies
that
can
do
that
are
the
mayor,
the
city,
council
and
the
planning
commission.
Nobody
else
can
so
I
can't
initiate
that
another
department
head
can't
initiate
that
it's
only
those
three
entities
and
so
that
the
the
process
for
doing
that
is.
We
would
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
discussion
with
the
commission
as
to
whether
or
not
there's
support
to
start
the
process.
That
doesn't
mean
that's
a
discussion.
That's
not
a
discussion
about
whether
you
support
removing
or
changing
that
use
it's.
H
H
B
I
in
past
two
or
three
years,
we've
passed
some
very
important
recommendations
on
to
city
council
that
have
to
do
with
parking
that
have
to
do
with
affordable
housing,
not
affordable,
but
single
room,
occupancy,
housing
and
other
and
other
important
things
which
it
would
seem
to
me
should
be
a
priority
and
they
have
gone
nowhere.
So
can
you
tell
us
why
that
process
seems
to
be
stuck.
H
I
wish
I
I
wish
I
could
from
the
administration
standpoint,
we
have
given
several
briefings
to
the
city
council
about
how
all
of
those
proposals
work
together,
how
they
align
with
the
city's
current
growing
slc,
which
is
our
housing
plan
and
from
what
we
understand
the
last
one
was,
I
think,
in
april,
beginning
of
april,
we've
done
it
now
twice
over
the
past
18
months
with
the
parking
proposal.
Specifically
the
last
time
the
planning
commission
talk
or
the
city
council
talked
about.
H
So
we
did
the
research
we
met
with
them
in
small
groups
to
kind
of
go
over
what
we
were
finding
and
then
we
sent
them
a
follow-up
transmittal
about
what
their
requested
that
requested
research
says
and
what
the
recommendations
are.
One
of
the
big
sticky
points
is
that
they
wanted
to
eliminate
right
now
in
that
proposal.
There's
a
there's,
a
statement
in
there
that
in
non-residential
zoning
districts
and
for
non-residential
uses
if
a
lot
is
under
5
000
square
feet,
there's
no
minimum
parking
requirement.
H
The
council
asked
us
what
the
impacts
would
be
if
they
raised
that
to
10
000
square
feet,
and
we
tried
to
do
some
all
kinds
of
research
on
it
and
there's
so
many
variables
that
we
couldn't
tell
them
what
to
expect
that.
You
just
couldn't
do
it,
and
so
that
is
what
we
spent
most
of
the
time
we
spent
probably
two
months
researching
other
city
codes
and
trying
to
find
examples
and
trying
to
create
some
some
fitting
examples
and
parcels
in
the
city
and
find
other
other
existing
developments.
H
So
we
could
analyze
those
and
figure
out
what
the
impacts
are,
and
we
just
couldn't
find
anything
that
gave
us
any
indication,
so
that
has
been
sent
back
to
the
council
from
what
we've
been
told,
that
they
will
start
scheduling
those
some
for
for
follow-up
in
the
next
coming
months.
Right
now,
they're
obviously
focused
on
the
budget.
H
Were
adopted,
they
were
yeah,
the
other
one
was
associated
with
the
fleet
block
and
if
you
remember,
we
proposed
a
new
zone
that
for
the
fleet
block
that
could
replace
some
of
the
cg
zoning
in
that
area,
and
so
those
seem
to
be
at
least
there's
some
acknowledgement
that
the
council
wants
to
move
forward
with
those.
What
they've
told
us
is
that
they
want
to
have
all
of
those
done
before
the
end
of
next
budget
year.
Keep
in
mind
that's
june
2023,
so
hopefully
those
all
start,
and
that's
sooner
rather
than
later.
I
I
Of
this
is
kind
of
a
question
about
public
comments
like
if,
when
when
somebody
emails
the
planner
and
says
this
is
what
I
think
about
this
and
there's
kind
of
information
in
it.
That's
not
right
or
something
like
that.
Like
could
your
planner
respond
and
say
you
can
read
the
staff
report
here.
You
know
what
I
mean
like
to
to
kind
of
like
set
them
straight,
so
they
don't
come
to
a
meeting
mad.
I
I
H
Sometimes
when
we
get
public
input
it
comes
hours
before
the
meeting
starts.
We
don't
necessarily
have
time
to
to
relay
back
any
sort
of
misinformation,
but
our
staff
does
respond
to
people
when
they
say.
Oh,
I
think
I
think
the
zoning
amendment
should
be
denied
when
it's
a
conditional
use
or
something
and
we'll
we'll
correct
them
about
those
kinds
of
things.
We're
like
you
know
this
really
actually
isn't
a
zoning
amendment.
It's
conditional
use.
H
H
H
You
know
that
we
have
responded,
but
one
of
the
we
probably
want
to
do
that
as
a
separate
type
of
email,
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
keeping
like
the
the
record
clean
and
something's,
not
confused
as
being
part
of
the
record
after
you
make
a
decision,
but
we
certainly
can
update
you
on
when
we
get
those
types
of
comments
say:
yeah
we've
responded,
we've.
Let
them
know
that
the
decisions
been
made
and
that,
if,
if
they
want
that,
here's
the
appeal
process.
A
A
I
think
that
lets
you
know
that
we
definitely
needed
something
like
this,
because
we
have
a
bunch
of
questions
all
right.
Moving
on
to
the
public
hearings
portion
of
our
agenda
is
the
kozo
house
design
review
modifications
at
approximately
633
west
200
north.
This
is
case
number
pln,
pcm,
2020-00258
and
amy
thompson
is
the
planner
tonight.
Oh
one
caveat
for
the
record.
I
just
needed
to
note
that
levi
has
is
in
attendance.
Now:
okay,
sorry,
amy
go
ahead.
J
Okay
good
evening,
commission
again,
this
is
a
request
for
modifications
to
a
design
review
approval
for
development,
known
as
the
kozo
house
at
approximately
165
north
six
west.
The
development
site
is
outlined
in
orange
on
the
map
for
commissioners
that
have
been
here
for
a
few
years.
You
may
remember
this
project
was
previously
handled
by
caitlin
in
our
office.
She
has
moved
on
to
park
city,
so
I'm
taking
it
forward
for
her.
J
J
J
J
Originally,
the
approval
just
included
micro
units
319
micro
units,
so
the
reduction
in
units
is
because
of
the
change
in
the
mix
of
the
unit
type.
Additionally,
the
commercial
space
has
been
reduced.
The
applicants
maintained
approximately
2
730
square
feet
of
retail
and
approximately
2100
square
feet
of
office
and
leasing
space
in
terms
of
parking
increase.
The
commission
approved
141
parking
stalls
as
part
of
the
original
design,
and
the
revised
number
is
190
spaces.
J
J
It
also
maintains
the
sunken
and
living
room
area
which
is
located
to
the
far
left
of
the
elevation
on
the
screen,
and
it's
on
the
corner
of
2nd
north
and
6th
west.
The
ground
for
glass
has
shifted
slightly
and
also
been
reduced
in
some
areas,
but
again
it
does
still
meet
the
ground
floor,
glass
requirements.
J
J
There
was
a
condition
of
approval
on
the
previous
approval
that
the
applicant
engaged
in
a
traffic
study,
and
they
are
currently
doing
that,
despite
removing
that
other
parking
entrance
on
200
north
on
the
east
elevation
or
excuse
me,
this
is
the
south
elevation.
This
elevation
has
not
changed
much
screened.
Openings
have
been
added
to
the
ground
floor
to
allow
for
ventilation
into
the
parking
garage.
The
size
of
some
of
the
openings
in
the
upper
stories
has
also
been
revised
and
same
with
the
west
elevation
again
screened.
J
The
last
thing
that
I
want
to
talk
about
is
not
necessarily
a
modification
per
se
from
the
previous
approval,
but
the
design
standards
in
the
tsa
zone
require
active
ground
floor
usage
along
200,
north
and
600
west,
and
indicate
that
it
needs
to
be
for
80
percent,
with
a
depth
of
25
feet
and
they're
providing
the
80.
However,
the
depth
is
along
200
north
is
only
21
feet
wide
or
sorry
deep
again.
This
is
not
a
deviation
from
the
previous
approval,
but
it
wasn't
called
out
as
a
modification.
J
So
I
just
wanted
the
commission
to
be
aware
that
the
depth
of
those
spaces
along
200
north
is
21
feet
approximately.
Instead
of
the
25,
the
spaces
along
600
west
are
deeper
than
required.
They're
approximately
29
feet.
Deep
staff
has
reviewed
the
proposed
modifications
for
compliance
with
the
standards
for
design
review
and
finds
that
the
revised
design
is
substantially
similar
to
the
original
approval.
J
Again,
we're
recommending
approval
on
the
proposed
modifications
in
terms
of
public
process
for
the
modifications
notice
of
public
hearing
was
mailed
out
sign
posted
on
site.
I
understand
the
previous
approval
had
a
number
of
public
comments.
We
have
not
received
any
public
comments
as
of
today
on
the
proposed
modifications.
A
A
G
G
So
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
to
present
and
really
all
we're
here
is
to
thank
a
lot
in
the
process.
We
got
involved
in
this
project
a
little
over
a
year
ago
after
the
previous
approvals,
and
so
there
had
been
a
lot
of
staff
or
there
were
conditions
of
approval,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
comment
about
the
project
and
so,
as
we
met
with
the
the
owner,
which
the
underlying
owner
has
not
changed.
As
the
developer
has
so
we've
we've
been
replaced.
G
We've
replaced
the
previous
developer,
but
we
we
started
a
process
and
knew
that
as
we
as
we
looked
at
the
community
as
we
looked
at
the
building,
as
we
looked
at
the
input
that
we
were
receiving,
that
there
were
some
changes
that
that
were
beneficial
part
addressed
the
comments
that
weren't
part
of
the
approved
plan.
So
during
the
last
public
hearing
when
the
pd
was
presented,
there
were
comments
that
were
never
fully
addressed
in
the
plan,
but
it
was
approved
like
the
access
off
at
200.
G
North
200
north
is
a
dead-end
road
that
from
600
west
to
the
west
goes
into
I-15,
so
it
dead
ends
and
half
of
the
parking
for
the
project
was
being
loaded
onto
that
street.
To
then
hit
a
roundabout,
we
internalized
that
parking
and
used
ramping
inside
the
building
to
have
the
one
access
point.
So
it
has
the
same,
has
more
parking
under
that
design,
but
has
a
single
access
point
to
600
west,
so
we
avoid
the
roundabout
and
any
further
traffic
heading
from
the
north.
G
We
are
engaging
a
traffic
study
based
on
this
plan,
whether
it's
approved
or
not,
we're
paying
for
that.
So
it's
it's
underway
right
now.
I
don't
have.
I
don't
have
that
copy
as
we
looked
at
the
submittal
process
and
going
through
we've
got
a
lot
of
people
to
thank
one
is
ava
lopez
from
the
mayor's
office.
She
helped
in
community
outreach
and
engagement.
G
We've
met
with
members
of
the
rose
park.
Brown
berets
we've
met
with
maria
garcia's
from
neighborworks
as
an
actual
item
that
came
out
of
that
community
meeting.
They
were
looking
at
whether
we
could
sell
this
property
for
a
for
sale
to
maria,
and
so
we
had
a
conversation
with
her.
So
we've
been
following
up
on
a
lot
of
the
input
that
we've
received
from
the
neighborhood
to
try
to
get
to
and
arrive
where
we
are
today.
So
I,
while
there's
not
much
on
a
minor
modification
of
the
exterior,
we
kept
the
same
percentages
of
materials.
G
We
met
the
code.
It
feels
like
there
hasn't
been
a
whole
lot
done
in
a
year,
but
there's
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
work.
That's
been
done
to
present
this
plan,
which
we
think
better
represents
what
should
be
here
as
opposed
to
319
micro
units,
which
is
approved
so
we're
here
to
address
any
questions
or
comments
you
may
have,
but
certainly
have
enjoyed
engaging
in
the
process
early
to
make
sure
that
we
get
to
this
point.
A
Thank
you,
mr
baker.
I
was
one
who
was
very
vocal
about
that
dead,
end
thing
on
200
north.
So
I
appreciate
that
you
took
a
look
at
that.
As
with
most
things
I
was
outvoted.
So
that's
why
it
wasn't
filled
up
on,
but
that's
fine,
but
I
appreciate
you
looking
at
that
are
commissioners,
any
questions
for
the
applicant
at
this
time.
B
G
Retail
space
to
the
south
of
the
sunken
living
room
hasn't
been
changed,
so
that
continues
to
be
there
along
600
west.
So
the
the
eastern
facade
of
the
building
that
runs
along
600
west
continues
to
have
the
retail
the
sunken
living
room
is
in
the
corner,
and
so
there's
ramping
and
accessibility
through
doors
to
that
sunken
living
room
and
then
around
the
corner.
G
B
G
B
A
B
B
G
The
amenity
floor,
that
is
so
it's
actually
the
level
three
of
the
building.
We
have
a
subterranean,
a
level
one
and
a
level
two,
and
so
that
key
hole
that
existed
previously
is
the
same
height
in
the
same
location
and
functions
the
same
way
from
the
ability
to
get
from
the
street
directly
up
onto
the
third
level
amenity
deck.
Okay,
that's
that
that
answers.
G
That's
the
amenity
deck
space
for
the
building,
so
that
includes
business
center
business
lounge
get
a
flex
office,
we
don't
use
co-working
anymore,
we
use
flex
office
space
and
then
some
residential
units.
So
I
think
what
a
commissioner
you
may
be
looking
at
is
the
opening
the
the
tree,
if
I
can
call
it
out
on
this
plan.
This
tree
has
moved
from
the
north
side
to
the
south
side
of
the
building
in
the
plans,
but
the
the
use
and
the
function
is
still
there.
B
Yeah,
but
it's
a
definitely
a
different
kind
of
expression,
so
that
you
have
a
a
very
distinguished
top
on
this
building
on
the
previous
building,
whereas
when
you
have
now
is
kind
of
maybe
there's
a
tiny
bit
of
top
on
the
one
end,
but
otherwise
it's
very
much
like
the
facade.
For
example,
the
window
articulation
is
exactly
the
same
on
the
top
floor
as
it
is
on
the
lower
floors,
which
is
not
the
case
in
the
sec.
In
the
previous
version,
I'm
just
asking
for
clarification.
B
B
B
G
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised.
Kelsey
did
we
have
any
emails,
nope,
okay,
seeing
none?
I
will
close
the
public
comment
period
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission
for
a
discussion.
If
you
have
any
comments
at
this
time,
then
you
we
can
direct
those
to
staff
or
the
applicant
or
discuss
amongst
ourselves.
I
will
say
brenda.
I
totally
understood
what
you
were
saying.
B
B
B
There's
really,
especially
a
lot
of
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
this
is
a
new
practically
an
entirely
new
project.
I
mean
it's
got
a
completely
different
parking
ratio,
a
completely
different
unit
mix,
a
completely
different
design.
I
mean
it's
really
not
a
revision.
It's
a
whole.
I
don't
know
why
you
wouldn't
just
call
this
a
whole
new
project.
A
B
G
B
G
Using
the
glass
as
the
void
instead
of
the
balcony,
there
is
no
balcony
to
that
unit.
It's
the
top
of
that
that
part
of
the
building,
but
that
deck
that
that
is
there,
continues
and
wraps
the
the
east
side
to
the
south
of
the
building.
Then
around
the
south
side
of
the
building.
So
the
location
of
the
balcony
has
changed
as
part
of.
A
F
I
think
this
elevation
doesn't
do
it
justice,
the
2d
version
versus
the
3d,
because
I
would
agree
that
the
2d
elevations
look
really
flat
and
make
it
really
difficult
to
kind
of
judge.
But
once
you
look
at
that,
look
at
it
in
3d,
I
think
it's
a
different
project,
I'm
typically
against
kind
of
the
big
hat
on
top
of
buildings
where
they
have
these
terminuses
that
are
just
kind
of
old-fashioned
in
the
way
that
we
design.
F
F
B
C
Yeah,
I
guess
I
I
don't
have
a
good
eye
for
aesthetics
in
general
and
maybe
especially
not
with
buildings,
but
I
I
do
feel
that
from
reading
through
the
staff
report,
it
met
the
standards
and
so
from
a
kind
of.
If,
if
aesthetics
are
not
part
of
the
standards,
I
don't
think
we
should
be
voting
based
on
aesthetics
as
much
as
you
know,
it
may
be
aesthetically
unpleasing
in
practice,
it's
hard
for
me
to
see
the
rendering,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
should
be
something
we're
voting
on.
If
it
really
is
just
aesthetics.
B
B
Design
is
part
of
what
we
do
part
of
what
we
think
about
when
we
look
at
these
projects
entirely.
You
know
we're
talking
about
materials
and
window
openings
and
the
length
of
the
building
and
opening
onto
the
sidewalk
and
those
are
all
design,
aesthetic
issues
if
you
wish.
So
I
think
I'm
not
going
to
go
to
the
mat
on
this
one
for
sure,
but
I
think
it's
certainly
certainly
something
that
we
have
to
consider
and
have
a
right
to
consider
too.
C
A
F
H
A
H
C
A
A
I
look
forward
to
seeing
it
actually
finally
built
so.
Thank
you
all
right.
That
concludes
the
public
hearing
portion
of
our
agenda
this
evening.
We're
going
to
be
moving
into
a
work
session
work
sessions
are
entirely
just
commission
driven.
So
there's
no
public
comment
portion
to
them.
We
have
our
first
two
items
and
they're,
not
we're
not
action
items
so
we're
not
voting
on
anything
but
we're
going
to
be
giving
feedback
and
direction
on
both
of
these
items.
So
the
first
step
is
ballpark
station
area
plan.
A
D
D
The
stationary
plan
is
intended
to
capitalize
on
community
assets
and
guide
future
development
in
in
the
community,
the
small
area
plan
and
I'll
use
stationary
plan
and
small
area
plan
interchangeably
in
this
presentation.
The
boundaries
are
within
both
the
central
community
master
plan
and
the
downtown
master
plan.
D
D
D
D
As
far
as
transportation
goes,
it
is
addressed
in
the
plan
in
multiple
diff
in
many
different
areas
of
the
plan,
which
includes
pages
14
through
16
and
pages
and
page
20..
The
recommendations
include
widening
sidewalk
widths,
priority
prioritizing
heavily
used
corridors
within
the
ballpark
neighborhood.
D
The
plan
also
recommends
bike
routes
on
major
streets
which
include
300,
west
in
main
street
and
east
and
west
routes
to
the
north
and
south
of
the
ballpark
station,
which
would
include
paxton
avenues,
kensington
and
andro
avenues
easier.
Access
to
it
also
recommends
easier
access
to
transit,
the
transit
station
with
a
pedestrian
connection
at
lucie
avenue
to
the
north
and
then
finally,
the
last
major
item
is
the
creation
of
a
festival
street.
D
So,
as
far
as
next
steps
after
this
briefing
staff
will
make
final
recommendations
based
on
the
comments
received
here
to
the
ballpark
plan
before
it
will
return
to
the
planning
commission
at
a
later
date
for
a
potential
recommendation
to
city
council.
The
anticipated
timeline
is
for
the
plan
to
return
to
planning
commission
this
summer
for
a
possible
recommendation
to
council.
D
So
this
is
the
time
for
the
commission
to
discuss
or
to
give
staff
any
feedback
that
you
may
have
for
us
for
the
draft
plan
on
specific
issues
or
just
general
comments
and
I've
included
three
questions.
Well,
four
questions
in
the
memo
that
was
forwarded
to
the
planning
commission,
since
these
were
the
items
that
received
the
most
public
comments.
A
Okay,
thank
you
nan
first,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
a
great
report
and
that
is
probably
the
best
future
land
use
map.
I've
seen
a
lot
of
times
they
just
bring
in
what
the
existing
zoning
is
and
doesn't
give
us
a
good
vision.
So
I
was
really
pleased
to
see
that
so
commissioners,
any
thoughts
on
this
go
ahead.
Andra.
C
C
I
guess
I
live
not
that
far
from
there
and
I'd
really
like
to
be
able
to
bike.
I
live
on
the
east
side
and
1300.
South
is
already
a
bike
corridor,
basically
up
to
state
street,
and
so
for
me
to
get
to
a
lot
of
the
retail
on
the
west
side,
there,
like
there's
a
lowe's,
there's
the
front
climbing
gym
which
gives
a
discount
if
you
bike
there.
I
can't
I
still
can't
get
there
under
this
this
map,
because
there's
not
bike
lanes
on
1300
south.
So
I
see
what
you're
saying
is.
C
A
So
now
one
of
my
comments
was
on
one
of
the
action
items,
which
was
to
specifically
call
out
doing
raise
pedestrian
crosswalks
on
busy
streets.
He
used
a
different
term,
but
I
can't
remember
what
you
said
and
I
feel
like
that.
Action
item
is
a
little
misguided
because
rays,
pedestrian
crosswalks
are
the
solutions.
Sometimes
it's
that
would
not
be
a
good
solution
on
main
street.
F
No,
I
mean
I
would
agree
with
the
pedestrian
issues,
like
I
drive
that
street
every
single
day
and
between
lowe's
and
the
ballpark
it's
incredibly
dangerous.
People
are
just
constantly
running
across
the
street,
and
I've
noticed
that
the
train
crossing
doesn't
have
an
ada
access
at
all
and
so
for
somebody
to
cross.
You
actually
have
to
cross
on
the
track
to
get
across
the
street.
So
I
think
it's
incredibly
important
to
really
study
and
solve
that
issue.
C
B
A
Drive
around
there
too
for
donkey
daycare,
and
it's
just
it
is
you
there
is
nowhere
direction
for
them
to
cross,
and
so
people
are
just
going
willy-nilly.
That
needs
to
have
some
serious
enhancement,
but
that
was
just.
That
would
just
be
an
example
of
like
saying
we
want
to
raise
crosstalk.
That
may
not
actually
be
the
best
approach
it
may
be.
A
I
don't
know,
but
I
know
that
oftentimes,
those
are
not
what's
going
to
achieve
the
result
that
we
want,
but
people
will
don't
know
all
the
possibilities,
but
that's
where
transportation
comes
in
and
giving
them
that
opportunity
to
weigh
in
on
those
best
things,
but
it's
not
even
to
say
that
needs
to
be
improved.
It
needs
to
actually
be
like
exist.
It
doesn't
exist
now
it's
bad
there
and
I
think
it
needs
multiple
crosswalks
so
by
the
indian
walking
center
to
lucky
13.
F
I
guess
it's
a
question
of:
do
you
repeat,
what's
happening
on
a
900
where
we
have
the
street
trees
in
a
spot
where
you
can
kind
of
stop
in
the
middle
as
you're
crossing
to
slow
down
traffic?
And
then
you
get
across
the
street
because
there's
so
many
people
trying
to
cross
at
different
places
yeah?
Would
it
be
beneficial
to
have
kind
of
a
safety
spot
in
the
middle
where
people
can
actually.
A
Yeah
and
that's
where
I
think
transportation
should
be
piping
in
a
little
bit
more
about
what
is
for
the
whatever
road
you're
talking
about
whether
it's
main
street
or
13,
south
or
whatever,
that
transportation
comes
in
like
these
are
the
best
possible
methods
for
us
to
achieve
that
safety.
But
I
think
those
little
islands
in
the
middle
are,
I
remember
when
I
was
in
europe
and
I
first
came
across
those,
and
I
thought
that
was
the
best
thing
I've
ever
seen
because
it
didn't
exist
here
so
yeah.
A
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
possibilities
and
that
is
called
out
in
the
plan,
those
little
islands,
but
I
think,
depending
on
the
street,
that
that
will
dictate
what
methods
might
be
better
or
most
appropriate
to
achieve
the
goals
which
I
think
are
they're.
I
don't
even
know
how
to
say,
like
they're
totally
necessary,
because
it
is
a
mess
right
there
for
pedestrians
and
if
you
were
going
to
try
to
bicycle
further
down
like
andrew.
Does
it's
the
same?
It's
just
a
mess.
A
So
it
seems
like
that
is
an
appropriate
street.
If
the
community
wants
to
have
a
festival
street,
that
would
be
the
place
to
do
it,
and
then
you
wanted
some
comments
on
the
draft
future
land
use
map.
Is
it
sufficient?
I
already
gave
you
my
thoughts.
Anyone
else
to
guide
is
that
land
use
map
sufficient
to
guide
development
and
redevelopment.
A
A
Those
dividing
lines
do
those
feel
appropriate
because
certainly
people
that
own
properly
outside
of
that
would
like
to
be
included.
But
then
there
are
people
who,
like
own
property
but
live
there
and
aren't
looking
to
redevelop
that
most
likely
didn't
want
to
be
included
in
that.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
opportunity
for
you
all
to
weigh
in
if
you
felt
like
those
particular
zones
were
appropriate
for
this
community.
D
H
I
don't
know
that
I
was
part
of
that
discussion,
but
I
I
do
think
that
part
of
it
is
that
the
the
east
side
of
state
street
is,
for
the
most
part
along
that
corridor
fairly
different
than
the
west
side
in
terms
of
the
interface
with
smaller
scale
development.
Mostly,
there
are
some
mixed
housing
along
that
those
side
streets,
but
I
think
that's
the
primary
reason.
The
other
thing,
too,
is
that
we
have
another
project
that
we're
going
to
be
restarting.
F
I
think
the
only
consideration
I
would
I
would
have,
because
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
over
there
would
be
that
there's
a
lot
of
residential
on
that
side
of
the
street
and
it's
really
small
scale
residential.
But
there
are
a
lot
of
businesses
on
that
street
as
well,
and
I
think
trying
to
find
something
that
incentivizes
that
to
develop
alongside
the
same
as
across
the
street,
might
not
be
a
bad
idea
to
at
least
pick
the
first
lot
on
that
side
of
the
street
or
find
a
way
to
kind
of
include
that.
A
A
D
A
Because
I
feel
like
I
don't
know
how
much
it's
hard
to
tell
with
the
overlay
of
like
what
the
aerial
is
looking
like,
but
I
just
was
wondering
like
to
create
that
little
special
pocket
because
it
seems
like
on
the
aerial,
there's
a
little
mix
of
some
larger
buildings.
But
I
don't
it's
hard
to
tell
with
this
shading.
D
Yeah
initially
that
section
that
was
one
section
that
we
modified
on
the
future
land
use
map.
Initially
it
was
like
a
medium
density
residential
and
we
modified
it
to
the
jefferson
park
mixed
use
area
for
the
same
reasons
that
commission
member
barry
had
mentioned
that
there
is
like
a
mix
of
land
uses
and
building
scale
in
that
area.
A
That
would,
I
guess,
be
a
question
for
us:
do
we
feel,
like
I
mean
we
already
kind
of
commented
a
little
bit
on
that?
I
think
that's
one
of
the
most
important
components
actually
to
this
malaria
plan
is
that
connectivity
and
the
priorities
that
you
set,
I
feel
like
you've
captured
most
of
it.
What
do
other
commissioners
think.
A
No,
absolutely,
I
always
preferred
those
that's
why
I
loved
the
greenway
on
the
s
line.
When
that
I
mean
I'll
go
out
of
my
way
for
that
thing,
but
because,
but
because
I
can
safely
cross
seventh
east
and
stay
straight
on
the
greenway
right.
So
mike's
point
is
that
if
we
don't
have
ways
for
bicyclists
to
safely
get
to
that
area
and
we're
creating
them
zigzagging,
especially
on
busy
streets
like
states
right,
it's
not
going
to
happen,
but
you
provide
a
nice
line
for
them
where
they
can
safely
cross
and
they'll
they'll.
C
H
F
A
E
A
G
A
A
I
know
this
isn't
related
to
this,
but
when
we've
talked
about
this
area
in
the
past
and
we've
talked
about
or
I've
brought
up
that
the
lack
of
plan
for
this
area
but
south
of
17th
from
along
third
west,
all
the
stuff
we're
seeing
come
in
there
and
we
have
no
pedestrian
plan.
No
anything
like
that.
Do
you
have
an
idea
of
when
we
might
be
looking
at
that
area,
because
we
talked
the
last
time
this
came
up.
You
know,
there's
that
right
right
past
the
freeway
along
the
abandoned
track
sign.
H
A
I
A
I
Great
well
we'll
we'll
go
ahead
and
dive
in,
and
just
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
tonight.
We're
really
excited
to
talk
with
you
about
the
draft
proposed
changes
for
the
downtown
building
heights
and
pedestrian
spaces.
We
do
have
about
a
30-minute
presentation
because
we
want
to
walk
through
the
changes
they're
pretty
extensive.
I
We
will
try
to
go
as
quickly
as
possible,
but
we
did
want
to
cover
some
key
areas
related
to
community
engagement.
In
addition
to
some
of
these
code
changes
all
right
so
to
start
again
we're
here
with
design
workshop,
I'm
jessica,
garo
been
the
principal
in
charge,
cali
cali's
with
me.
We've
also
had
our
team
members
mariana
stuke
and
ashley
mcknight,
and
we've
really
enjoyed
working
with
the
city
and
the
wfrc
team
as
part
of
this
process.
I
I
Second,
we
focused
on
reinforcing
human
scale
in
design,
and
this
is
really
addressed
on
how
buildings
are
placed
on
the
site
and
how
they
interact
to
the
street
and
to
the
pedestrian
areas.
So
we've
included
standards
that
require
things
like
material
variation
activation
on
the
first
floor
and
some
facade
transparency
and
then,
finally,
the
code
work
does
focus
on
building
heights.
I
Building
heights
are
generally
proposed
to
increase
throughout
the
study
area,
while
seeking
to
preserve
some
of
the
character
of
different
areas
of
downtown,
and
I
would
say
it's
definitely
not
a
one-size-fits-all
fits-all
approach,
it's
very
different
for
each
zone
district.
So
now
I
will
turn
it
over
to
cali
to
run
through
our
overview
of
our
process.
E
E
We
had
a
couple
of
different
ways
to
get
community
input
and
then
we
that
resulted
in
code
drafting,
so
the
plans
that
we
reviewed
were
the
2016
downtown
plan
that
sort
of
set
the
goals
for
urban
design
and
the
overall
vision
for
downtown
the
mid-block
walkway.
That
has
implications
for
mobility
and
connectivity
for
breaking
up
block
the
large
block
sizes
and
then
the
for
urban
forestry
plan
that
guided
some
of
the
vegetation
standards
that
are
specifically
found
in
the
design
standards.
E
E
We
did
an
existing
code
analysis
of
of
the
code
language
as
it
is
today
and
sort
of
highlighted
areas
that
might
be
improved
through
this
process
and
then
a
case
study
review,
which
looked
at
both
recent
developments
and
then
comparable
communities.
For
example,
we
looked
at
phoenix
and
las
vegas
for
how
they
treat
glare
and
shade
three
different
communities
in
canada,
ontario,
toronto
and
vancouver
for
how
they
mitigate
wind
and
then
transitions.
E
Our
community
engagement
methods
involved
stakeholder
meetings.
We
had
four
different
groups
of
individuals
and
then
a
visual
preference
survey
that
was
more
broad
and
released
publicly
or
to
the
general
public.
So
we
started
with
the
stakeholder
meetings
that
sort
of
set
the
our
basis
of
understanding
for
some
opportunities
and
challenges
with
the
project
we
met
with
the
development
community,
including
architects
and
developers.
E
E
E
How
could
how
might
they
be
improved
and
then
some
more
detailed
questions
about
challenges
with
the
existing
municipal
code
with
the
development
community
as
they
relate
to
building
heights
and
pedestrian
space
and
where
some
of
those
challenges
might
be
resolved,
and
then
the
visual
preference
survey
built
on
that
initial
outreach
and
we
developed
three
different
height
alternatives
that
we
that
proposed
increasing
heights
in
three
different
areas.
We
asked
concerns
about
changing
building
heights.
E
E
So
these
next
slides
provide
some
results
from
those
surveys.
So
these
on
the
right.
You
can
see
the
three
different
alternatives
that
were
proposed:
the
first
in
the
granary,
the
second
in
the
depot
district
and
the
third
in
the
central
business
district,
and
then
the
bar
graph
on
the
left
shows
which
alternatives
were
supported.
So
the
bottom
bar.
If
you
can't
read
that
it
says
I
support
so
more
than
half
of
respondents,
the
66
of
respondents
were
in
support
of
the
three
alternatives
with
the
alternative
one
in
the
central
business
district.
E
So
just
to
kind
of
summarize
getting
around
downtown
is
difficult
with
those
with
a
visual
or
mobile
impairment.
People
said
that
things
that
obstruct
their
path
can
be
difficult
to
get
through
if,
if
they
have
vision,
impairment
or
are
in
a
wheelchair,
so
we
required
requirements
for
clear
passage
within
public
spaces,
including
sidewalks.
E
Large
block
sizes
can
be
uncomfortable
for
pedestrians.
So
we
encourage
pedestrian
oriented
elements
and
design
features
as
well
as
breaking
up
massing
and
through
facade
breaks
and
adding
transparency
I'll
kind
of
skip
through
these,
because
you
can
read
them
but
general
concern
over
impact
of
glare.
So
we
decrease
the
percentage
of
reflective
glass
that's
allowed
in
upper
floors.
E
The
wind
tunneling
effect
can
be
an
issue
with
taller
buildings.
So
you'll
note
that
we
required
a
wind
tunnel
analysis
for
buildings
of
a
certain
height
and
jessica
is
going
to
go
over
very
specific
details
about
where
these
changes
are
found
in
the
code
section.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
her.
I
I
The
proposed
code
language
implements
really
six
main
themes
that
we
wanted
to
to
cover.
We
sought
to
clarify
code
language
whenever
possible,
so
you'll
see
there
are
a
number
of
red
lines
where
things
are
are
deleted
and
that's
because
they're
redundant
with
things
that
are
in
the
design,
standards
or
elsewhere
within
the
zone
district.
So
we
really
tried
to
clarify
and
simplify
the
language
as
much
as
possible.
I
The
proposed
requirements
will
create
a
more
urban
feel
through
things
like
decreased
setbacks
and
some
new
requirements
for
parking
lots
so
making
sure
that
those
are
tucked
behind
buildings
as
opposed
to
right
along
the
street
edge.
We're
also
trying
to
incentivize
public
benefits
when
additional
height
is
sought,
and
so
that's
something
that's
been
embedded
into.
The
different
zone.
Districts
standards
emphasize
walkability
human
skill,
development
and
pedestrian
interest,
so
real
focus
on
that
pedestrian
realm
and
then
finally,
we
sought
to
increase
overall
compatibility
and
just
design
and
massing
all
right.
I
I
The
setback
must
be
designed
with
usability
as
a
main
consideration,
as
opposed
to
just
having
maybe
a
landscape
strip.
There
needs
to
be
thought
about.
Why
is
there
a
setback
for
this
building
in
the
downtown?
How
is
it
going
to
be
used,
so
it
needs
to
have
landscaping
benches
awnings,
seating
things
that
are
going
to
kind
of
activate
that
space
and
make
sure
that
it's
being
used,
as
I
mentioned,
for
surface
level,
parking
lots.
I
Those
must
be
located
behind
a
primary
structure
and
we've
added
some
requirements
to
really
just
kind
of
minimize
the
the
impact
there.
We
have
included
language
in
all
the
the
districts
that
mid-block
walkways
are
required
if
that's
been
adopted
as
part
of
the
downtown
plan
or
the
midwalk
walkway
plan.
These
are
required
to
be
at
least
15
feet
in
width
so
that
they
can
be
really
used
and
they
have
to
have
a
six
foot
unobstructed
path
to
enable
clear
access
again
for
anyone
who
is
on
foot
or
in
a
wheelchair,
pushing
a
stroller.
I
We
have
some
design
elements
that
are
required
things
like
screening
of
service
areas,
location
of
parking
structures,
that
kind
of
thing,
and
then
finally,
there
have
been
some
open
space
requirements
that
have
been
added,
so
any
open
space.
That's
greater
than
500
square
feet
has
to
have
a
bench,
a
table,
walking
path,
trees
or
some
kind
of
water
feature
again
trying
to
make
sure
that
those
spaces
are
really
being
utilized
in
the
design
standards
chapter.
I
If
a
neighbor
who's
been
noticed
can
demonstrate
that
there's
a
negative
impact
to
their
property
as
part
of
a
modification
that
was
presented
and
if
a
request
was
denied
by
the
director,
the
applicant
could
request
that
that
come
to
the
planning
commission
for
review.
So
that
was
something
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
we
highlighted
for
you
tonight,
because
that
is
a
change
to
the
design
standards.
I
We've
added
some
additional
requirements
specific
to
streetscape,
so
there's
canopy
coverage,
requirements
of
40
and
some
minimum
caliper
sizes
for
trees
and
some
spacing
requirements
so
again
trying
to
really
dictate
and
make
sure
that
that
the
streetscape
is
is
lively
and
is
able
to
be
used.
Well,
we're
also
limiting
the
number
of
curb
cuts
that
can
exist
to
minimize
those
negative
impacts
on
the
pedestrian.
I
I
I
Currently,
in
the
code,
there
are
two
ways
that
you
can
meet:
requirements
related
to
ground,
floor,
use
and
visual
interest,
and
we
have
updated
those
and
again,
those
are
really
focused
on
having
spaces
that
are
on
the
ground
floor
that
add
interest
to
the
street.
So
one
option
is
that
the
spaces
cannot
be
things
that
discourage
walk-in
use.
So
if
you
had
a
residential
development,
it
wouldn't
be
the
mail
room
on
the
ground
floor.
I
It
might
be
their
gym,
for
instance,
and
really
trying
to
focus
on
things
that
have
a
little
bit
more
visual
interest,
also
requiring
things
like
material
changes,
facade
changes,
adding
art
and
color.
A
second
option
is
really
creating
a
clear
visual
relationship
between
the
building
and
the
adjacent
public
realm
using
different
architectural
elements.
I
I
I
We've
also
added
a
requirement
that
sidewalks
have
a
clear
path
of
10
feet,
so
those
sidewalk
standards
are
getting
getting
larger
within
d1.
We
have
made
the
requirements
for
corners
and
mid
block
the
same
so
right
now
there
are
some
different
height
allowances
if
you're
on
the
corner
versus
a
mid
block.
So
those
are
now
the
same.
I
We've
also
allowed
some
additional
step
back
setbacks
for
those
yards
to
encourage
pedestrian
use
of
the
space
on
the
height
piece
height
allowances
have
been
adjusted
to
allow
375
feet
without
triggering
an
additional
review
and
beyond
that
it
would
be
a
design
review.
That
planning
commission
would
review
we're,
also
requiring
that
a
wind
study
on
anything
that
is
150
feet
or
taller.
I
For
d2,
we've
made
some
adjustments
to
yards
and
setback
requirements,
with
a
focus
on
having
larger
setbacks
in
residential
areas
that
have
lower
height
and
having
again
some
some
transition
spaces.
There
also
we've
added
some
new
requirements
here:
specific
to
vehicle
sales
and
lease
lots
really
trying
to
add
some
visual
interest
to
those
spaces
so
that
they're
not
just
kind
of
vacant
vacant
lands.
I
For
d3,
similarly,
we've
adjusted
some
of
our
height
and
yard
requirements.
There's
no
yard
requirement
unless
there's
a
residential
use
in
that
zone
district
and
then
for
height.
The
base
height
of
75
feet
remains,
but
the
height
can
now
go
up
to
180
feet
with
a
design
review.
Currently
the
code
says
you
can
go
up
to
90
feet
with
a
design
review.
So
that's
a
difference
on
the
d4
zone
district.
I
As
part
of
the
public
comment
period,
staff
has
had
some
conversations
with
members
of
the
japanese
community.
Who've
expressed
some
concern
about
that
ability
to
go
up
to
that
higher
height,
particularly
around
the
japanese
community
center,
and
so
this
is
an
area
that
I
think
our
team
and
staff
is
going
to
be
taking
a
look
at
and
potentially
we
pull
back
on
those
height
adjustments
in
d4
and
in
areas
where
it
makes
sense,
maybe
rezoning
some
of
those
areas
that
are
south
of
of
200
south
to
maybe
the
d1
zone
district.
I
So
that's
something
that
I
think
we'll
be
working
through
as
we
move
through
the
adoption
process
and
I'm
almost
done.
I
know
it's
a
lot
for
gmu
the
minimum
heights
increased
from
45
feet
to
75
feet,
so
that's
kind
of
what
it
is
today
and
now
it's
going
to
be
75
to
180
feet
with
some
additions
of
some
step
backs.
I
For
general
commercial,
the
maximum
height
is
proposed
to
increase
from
60
feet
to
75,
but
buildings
that
fall
within
the
depot
district,
that
height
maximum
will
be
150
feet.
So
there's
a
difference
here
in
in
this
zone
district
based
off
of
the
geography
that
you're
in
also
some
updated
standards
related
to
those
usable
outdoor
spaces.
A
H
H
C
I
The
last
set
of
zone
districts
is
the
form-based
zone
district.
So
in
in
these
areas,
some
maximum
setback
requirements
have
been
added
and
ability
to
have
rooftop
top
gardens
are
included
in
some
detail
here,
and
so
with
that
again
I
know
that
was
a
lot
to
to
get
through,
but
we
wanted
to
cover
some
of
those
highlights
from
the
code
language.
B
A
A
Otherwise,
what's
the
point,
I
don't
care
if
I
don't
want
to
look
at
people
working
out
in
the
gym,
no
matter
what,
if
I'm
walking
by
so
that,
doesn't
really
activate
it
for
the
pedestrian,
and
so
I
would
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
limit
the
ability
for
a
residential
development
to
utilize
amenities
for
their
tenants,
as
that
commercial
activation
whole
scale.
Actually,
I
think
that
that's
a
bad
approach.
We
shouldn't
really
those
aren't
like
to
like
items
the
the
second
one
I
have
so
many
notes
here.
A
D
B
B
A
But
if
we're
looking
at
d1-
so
maybe
I
can
see
your
point,
brenda
of
it
being
in
in
some
of
these
outliers
or
not.
But
I
think
what
happens
what
I
want
to
try
to
address
in
this
is-
and
maybe
that's
not
the
best
way
to
address
it,
but
we
have
so
many
residential
developments
that
come
through
and
it
does
require.
You
know
ground
floor
activation
and
there
are
always
amenities
and
so
we're
getting
all
of
these
developments
and
all
these
people,
but
we're
not
really
activating
the
street
level.
B
C
So
so
I
guess
the
question
is:
is:
could
you
be
asking
them
a
little
bit
to
take
a
bit
of
a
loss
on
the
commercial
space
which
I'm
actually
comfortable
doing
to
try
to
get
more
people
staying
in
that
area
and
living
and
doing
maybe
going
to
a
restaurant?
Or
even
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
shocks
me
about
some
of
these
big
developments?
C
I
don't
know
why
they
don't
put
in
like
little
bodegas
like
even
if
they're
residents,
you
know
you
know,
I
don't
know,
I
guess
I'm
not
I'm
not
I'm
not
having
to
sit
empty
until
you
get
someone.
So
if
you're
saying
they're
gonna,
take
a
loss,
they'll
take
a
loss
and
they'll
just
lock
the
door
and
leave
it
if
it's
space
anyway,
you
know
they're
willing,
you
know
the
marginal
cost
to
them
of
having
a
tenant
that
is
paying
slightly
lower
rents
than
they
might
get.
C
About
developers
and
their
projects,
I
think
what
we
should
be
focusing
on
is
if,
if
pedestrian
activation
is
the
issue,
what
are
the
design
tools
we
could
put
in
the
code
to
ensure
that,
regardless
of
the
use,
whether
it's
a
gym,
whether
it's
an
amenity
space,
whether
it's
a
coffee
shop,
because
we
can't
decide
who's
who's
going
to
be
the
tenant?
That's
not
our
role.
B
I
mean,
I
think
the
the
one
thing
andre
did
say
that
I
think
is
really
important
is
that
in
some
places
these
things
are
a
coffee
shop
is
considered
an
amenity
and
the
developer
pays
for
it
to
go
in
there.
So
it's
not
out
of
the
question
that
one
consider
that
an
actual
amenity
versus
you
know
so
so,
instead
of
or
in
addition
to
having
you
know
your
workout
space,
you
also
have
a
coffee
bar.
You
know
as
an
amenity,
it's,
but
but
that's
getting
into
a
whole
different
level
of
regulation
that
we
don't
have.
A
I
A
That
makes
me
feel
better,
actually,
okay,
so
one
of
the
other
questions
you
ask
is,
I
think,
in
your
question
was
200
feet
height,
a
good
bar
for
a
design
review
and
I'll
just
pipe
in
and
then
hopefully
other
commissioners
will
give
their.
I,
when
I
look
at
design
review,
it's
not
always
the
hype
that
is
triggering
it.
A
C
I
F
B
B
But
it
would
be
much
easier
for
all
of
us
to
review
this
if
we
knew
sort
of
okay.
Today
the
height
limit
is
75
and
95
with
design
review,
and
tomorrow
it
will
be
150
with
200.
I
mean
we
need
to
have
a
sense
of
what
kind
of
change.
This
is
okay,
how
intense
this
change
is
in
terms
of
build.
If,
if
it's
about
building
height,
we
really
need
to
there's
a
simple
way
of
sort
of
producing
that
information.
B
I
think
that
we
don't
have
it's
buried
it's
there,
but
it's
buried
in
excuse
me
what
145
pages
of
stuff?
So
forgive
me
if
I
can't
remember,
as
the
chairman
was
actually
trying
to
try
and
just
write
it
down,
because
we
don't
have
it
okay,
so
that
would
be
one
thing
I
would
would
add
to
the
yeah
to
the
way
we
are
presenting
this
information
going
forward.
A
A
The
table
the
chart
that
you
might
provide
so
that,
because
I
also
feel
like
this
is
kind
of
a
significant
expansion
of
our
view
of
downtown.
I
guess
organically.
I
consider
it
six
south
and
we're
moving
into
night
cell.
So
in
my
mind,
I
really
want
to
pay
attention
to
what
what's?
What
are
those
zones
going
on
and
is
the
proposed
changes?
Do
I
feel,
like
that's
compatible
with
that
expansion?
Southward?
A
A
A
H
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
C
A
I
think
this
is
a
good
thing
for
us
to
remember
the
connections
here
so
when
the
affordable
housing
overlay
zone
comes
back,
that
you
know
what
we
end
up
recommending
to
the
city
council
on
that
is
going
to
inform
what
could
go
higher
than
200
feet
as
one
of
the
possibilities.
There
are
other
possibilities,
so
you
know
keeping
that
in
mind
that
you
know
those
are
they're
very
related.
They.
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
But
the
one
thing
that
does
speak
to
that
is
the
the
glass
of
materials,
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
concerned
about
that,
because
what
we're
getting
now
is
a
real
conglomerate
of
this.
That
and
the
other
thing,
and
I'm
not
talking
about
styles-
I'm
really
talking
about
material
and
massing
window,
openings,
street
level,
openings
and
so
forth.
B
C
Yeah,
I
actually
want
to
piggyback
a
bit
on
that.
So
my
first
reaction,
this
plan
is
it
looks
good
to
me
because,
there's
more
by
right,
construction
and
we're
allowing
a
bit
more
density.
It
is
really
hard
for
me
to
take
pedestrian-ness
all
that
seriously
in
downtown
right
now.
No
I'm
totally
serious,
like
we
have
big
buttons
right
outside
city
hall
on
all
four
corners
like
it's
just
so
I
don't
know
whether
they're
planning
on
fixing
the
streets,
I've
kind
of
just
given
up
on
downtown
until
they
fix
the
streets,
and
I
realized
this.
C
Maybe
I
don't
know
whether
this
was
part
of
her
purview
to
fix
the
streets
so
that
they
have
some.
You
can
get
across
the
street
before
the
light
changes
and
not
get
hit
or
like
I
don't
know,
I'm
sorry
and
I'm
just
I
know
I
don't
know
if
this
is
part
of
your
purview,
but
I
would
like
to
see
how
we're
also
going
to
kind
of
integrate
streets
to
be
a
little
more
human
scale.
B
B
We
have
very
wide
streets
almost
everywhere,
and
then
we
don't
in
some
some
are
very
for
fairly
narrow
alleyways
that
were
created
over
a
long
period
of
time,
the
the
mid-block
walkways,
which
are
also
mid-block
streets,
which
are
also
just
smaller
streets
throughout,
and
I
think
in
creating
mid-block
walkways.
For
example,
we
ought
to
take
into
consideration
the
buildings
on
either
side
in
terms
of
the
width
of
the
street
block
with
the
mid
block
walkway.
B
So
if
you're
building
a
new
mid-block
walkway,
you
know
it
can't
be
15
feet
if
the
buildings
on
either
side
are
250
feet,
because
then
it's
just
a
wind
tunnel
right.
On
the
other
hand,
why
not
wait
make
a
big
wider
one?
I
mean,
I
think
we
have
a
good
example
of
that
going
up
on
state
street
right
now,
where
there's
a
pretty
large
open
space
being
created
between
two,
it's
really
nicely
scaled
in
terms
of
the
height
versus
the
width
of
the
of
the
mid-block
sort
of
entertainment
zone.
B
I
guess
you
might
call
it
there.
So
that's
something
to
consider
in
the
design
guidelines.
Is
this
idea
that
there's
a
sense
of
enclosure
that's
created
by
you
know,
and
it's
not
too
much,
and
it's
not
too
big
too,
so
that
that
that
that
gets
into
things
like
sidewalk
widths,
but
mostly
mid-block
walkways
and
street
trees,
which
I'm
really
happy
about
the
street
trees
and
the
landscaping
things
that
you've
got
in
there.
I
think
that
is
all
really
super
important.
It's
one
of
the
most
important
things
we
have
for
urban
design.
B
So
that's
that's
critical,
but
you
know
having
the
street
trees
that
then
reduce
create
a
sense
of
enclosure
themselves
as
well.
So
that's
something
else.
Okay,
we
talked
about
the
incentives
already
where
I
don't.
You
know
no
bike
racks,
one
of
the
things
which
has
bugged
me
for
a
very
long
time
about
the
current
design
guidelines.
B
Is
this
whole
issue
of
vertical
and
horizontal
design,
changes
which
I
think
has
made
some
really
terrible
buildings
in
this
city,
because
people
come
in
there
and
go
and
change
materials
about
every
two
feet
or
ten
feet,
and
I
think
that
might
be
because
of
our
designed
lines.
It
might
be
because
of
individual
people
reviewing
the
designs
it
might
be
because
that's
a
style
lately,
although
I
do
not
see
it
in
other
cities,
so
I'm
having
to
think
that
it
might
be
something
to
do
with
the
way
we're
reviewing
projects.
B
B
H
Our
our
code
does
in
many
instances,
actually
require
mid-block
walkways,
and
that
is
an
exaction
of
a
private
property
right
and
when
we're
doing
that,
we
have
to
create
make
sure
that
we're
passing
a
couple
of
legal
tests
and
so
the
wider.
Basically,
we
have
to
that
extraction
has
to
be
the
minimum
necessary
to
address
the
impact
of
that
development
and
and
there's
there's
some
very
well-defined
court
cases
that
the
in
the
u.s
supreme
court
that
established
that,
including
one
that,
I
think,
is
one
of
the
key
ones.
F
B
Yeah,
I
think
it
would
vary
with
the,
of
course,
with
the
height
of
the
buildings,
but
here's
the
other
thing
you
could.
You
know,
I
think
it's
part
of
this,
that
if,
if
a
developer
has
to
give
part
of
his
property
for
mid-block
walkway,
then
that
area,
you
know
footprint
area,
although
it
can
be
added
to
the
height
of
the
building.
Isn't
that
correct.
B
F
And
I
have
some
comments
about
the
mid-block
walkways
because
we
get
excited
at
my
office
when
we
were
talking
about
mid-block
walkways
and
the
potential
that
they
have,
because
they
do
create
another
space
and
a
potential
for
engagement,
especially
with
pedestrians.
But
I
think
what
happens
above
the
mid
buck.
F
Mid-Block
walkways
are
kind
of
neglected,
and
I
think
that
that's
an
opportunity,
that's
being
missed,
where
you
can
add
balconies
that
maybe
encroach
and
overhang
the
mid-block
walkways.
You
can
create
pass-throughs
and
and
connect
buildings
with
pedestrian
bridges.
You
can
do
a
lot
of
things
that
create
engagement
where
you
have
eyes
down
onto
the
block
the
walkways,
because
when
I
hear
mid
block
walk
away
immediately,
I
think
I'm
in
chicago
I'm
looking
at
a
dumpster
alley,
and
I
don't
want
that
to
be
our
mid-block
walkways.
I
don't
want
them
to
be
utilitarian.
F
F
I
also
like
the
other
thing
I
was
going
to
bring
up
was
the
arcade
idea
where
we
can
push
buildings
out
further
closer
to
the
street,
because
we
have
such
wide
streets.
Why
aren't
we
taking
up
the
sidewalk
with
the
building,
creating
some
protection
for
pedestrians
protection
for
the
sidewalks?
I
did
a
lot
of
work
in
in
the
middle
east
for
a
while,
and
the
sun
is
so
overbearing
that
arcades
are
almost
a
requirement,
because
it's
so
hot
and
we
have
a
similar
situation
in
the
summer.
F
It
gets
really
hot
and
then
winter
it
snows,
and
then
you
have
to
like
move
all
the
snow.
Around
arcades
are
just
a
great
way
to
to
deal
with
that
and
create
more
density
on
some
lots,
so
I
think
getting
creative
with
our
standards.
Might
I
know
that
it
complicates
things,
but
I
think
it
also
incentivizes
people
to
do
better
projects
instead
of,
I
think,
the
the
regulations
that
I
get
a
little
bit
to
second
kind
of
what
we
were
talking
about
with
the
changes
of
materials.
F
Those
are
the
things
that
I
think
create
some
of
these
designs,
we're
seeing
where
you
have
in-plane
material
changes.
You
have
corners
where
you
have
brick
that
goes
to
the
corner,
and
then
it
stops
because
they're
trying
to
emulate
something
that
doesn't
exist
anymore.
You
know
brick
construction,
so
I
think
you
know
using
the
overall
form
as
a
basis
and
trying
to
push
that
forward
over
materiality,
and
I
think
that's
where
the
mid
block
walkway
comes
in
the
sidewalk
engagement,
the
setbacks,
that's
where
we
can
kind
of
create
those
dialogues
of
architecture.
D
F
B
G
I
just
want
to
echo
that
what's
just
been
said
that
my
my
concern
is
less
about.
What's
going
on
up
100
feet
above
me
than
it
is
the
the
pedestrian
realm,
and
that's
where
I
really
want
to
see
see
that
we
make
sure
that
we're
making
a
quality
environment-
and
my
one
of
my
big
concerns
in
the
downtown
is
that
we
do
have
lots
of
first
floor
business
space,
that
is,
offices
or
banks.
That
also
is
not
very
active
even
during
regular
business
hours,
and
it's
definitely
not
active
in
the
evenings.
B
A
B
A
A
C
Well,
so
I
do
want
to
make
it
clear:
they.
The
public
still
has
opportunities
to
give
feedback
to
planning
staff.
So
it's
not
that
the
public
doesn't
have
feedback
again.
I
guess
I
just
I.
I
like
the
idea
of
my
right
construction
and
many
times
I
don't
you
know
I
there's
a
lot
to
do
for
the
planning
commission.
We
spend
a
lot
of
time
sitting
here
and
it's
interesting,
but
I
trust
the
staff
anyway.
So
I'm
good
on
that.
A
So
I
think,
if
we
really
address
all
those
components
that
we're
concerned
about
where
I
find
sometimes
things
that
are
delegated
to
staff,
that
is,
that
they're,
like
oh
yeah.
Well
it
met
this
standard,
but
it's,
but
if
it
came
to
us
we
would
not.
It
would
not
fly
right.
So
if
we
really
address
all
those
things,
we've
been
talking
about
and
make
sure
those
are
articulated.
Well,
then,
then,
when
staff
and
the
director
review
it
they've
got
what
is
there
and
right
now?
I
don't
think
they
have
that
that
they
just
don't
think.
B
Is
that
a
lot
of
things
are
very
judgmental,
you
know
it's
the
problem
with
aesthetics
in
general?
Actually,
it's
it's
a
judgment,
call
in
lots
of
ways,
and
so,
if
I
feel
like
the
staff
has
expertise
in
this,
I
would
feel
more
comfortable.
So
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
if
there
were
this
created
a
position
in
the
staff
that
was
actually
an
actual
architect
who
is
looking
at
some
of
these
things
well
see.
A
A
B
B
B
E
F
Add
to
the
confusion,
because
my
concern
is
over
regulating
design
because
I
think
that's
where
we
run
into
issues
where
people
just
prescriptively
on
a
facade.
That
is
what
the
regulation
says
and
then
they
they
get
through
and
they're
they're
fine.
They
build
their
building,
but
it
really
has
no
feeling
no
heart.
They
haven't
thought
about
the
city
at
all.
They
just
thought
about
this
piece
of
paper.
F
A
I
think
that's
where
we
differ
is
how
do
we
achieve
those
outcomes?
Yeah
right,
so
you
have
different
ideas
of
what
then
I
would
so.
I
think
again,
those
are
still
always
very
subjective,
so
I
wasn't
going
back
in
my
head
of
like
well.
I
guess
the
outcome
equals
intent
for
me
same
thing:
how
to
just
articulate
that
sufficiently
for
staff
so
that
you
know
you
have
enough
information
to
to
move
forward
to
get
an
outcome.
I
don't
know
the
answer.
These
are
just.
A
I
think,
because
we
do
these
redo.
These
zones
we're
obviously
keenly
interested
in
those
outcomes.
Because
of
what
we've
seen
how
the
city
is
developing,
I
think
it's
a
lot
of
ugly
buildings,
some
people
like
them,
but
how
do
we
achieve
better
outcomes
to
get
to
us
to
the
next
level
of
being
a
city.
C
The
box,
but
you
know
when
I
worked
in
baltimore
teen
million
years
ago,
we
had
a
design
advisory
panel
and
it
was
architects
and
for
significant
keystone
projects.
They
provided
this
kind
of
advice
earlier
in
a
development
process
to
get
that
feedback
by
people
who
know
what
they're
talking
about
not
me
or-
and
we
can
talk
about
other
things,
but
just
not
that
so
you
know-
and
I've
said
this
before,
but
I'll
say
it
again.
I
think
there's
value
to
having
that
kind
of
advisory
board.
That's
also
citizen.
B
C
C
Increases
the
cost
of
a
project
and
effort.
Another
concern
is
affordable,
housing
and
trying
to
get
more
affordable
housing
in
a
place
like
downtown.
Adding
another
planning.
Commission
review
doesn't
help
get
us
there
and
if,
by
some
estimates,
it's
like
half
the
cost
of
buildings
right
now
is
is
is
discretionary
review
depending
on
the
estimate
and
that's
the
consensus
is
that
is
a
huge
part
of
what
has
gone
on
with
affordability
in
the
last
40
years.
C
Specifically
it
coming
to
discretionary
each
panel,
each
level
of
discretionary
approval
adds
a
developer's
cost
in
a
way
that
staff
staff
adds
to
some
time,
but
not
in
nearly
the
same
way
as
every
time.
There's
a
hearing,
because
again,
every
time
you
send
it
back.
Oh,
let's
just
make
some
few
changes.
You'll
come
back
in
like
three
months.
It's
really
adds
up
in
costs.
B
A
C
A
A
Okay,
okay,
the
matrix
you
can
do
that,
so
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
the
next
one
for
us
to
really
then
kind
of
hone.
In
on
on
the
answer
to
that
question,
okay,
I
think
we
hit
most
everything
the
wind
tunnels.
Honestly,
I
don't
know,
does
anybody
know
about?
If
I
mean
I
think,
that's
where
I
would
defer
to
well
when.
B
A
I
don't
think
we
can
answer
if
the
other
height
increases
are
appropriate
until
we
really
see
that
overlay
of
where
that
will
be
effective
or
where
that
will
be
implemented,
and
then
I
think
we've
we've
discussed
the
rest
pretty
clearly.
I
think
we
just
need
a
little
bit
more
information
to
relate
what
these
proposed
changes
are
to
the
specific
zones
and
where
they
relate
to
that
neighborhood
map.
I.
C
A
Oh
yeah,
because
when
I
mentioned
that
I
feel
like
this
is
a
pretty
significant
expansion
of
downtown.
So
I
don't
know
I
want
to
see
really
what
are
the
proposed
heights
to
the
zone
for
like
the
granary
and
central
ninth
and
and
do
I
feel
like
those
new
heights
are
appropriate
for
because
that's
that's
to
me
expanding
southward.
A
Really,
personally,
I
can't
really
say
like
oh
yeah.
These
are
appropriate
because
I
still
don't
really
quite
visually,
see
where
they'll
lay
out
in
the
more
of
the
periphery.
Okay,
I
think
the
depot
is
great
go
for
it
there's
nothing
there,
but
we
could
have
height
there.
There
are
certainly
places
where
we
could
be
doing
more
height,
yeah.
C
A
B
I
mean
what
we're
seeing
right
now
is
a
build
out
of
our
downtown,
so
we're
getting
a
lot
more
areas
that
we
can
start
to
call
urban.
You
know
where
things
are
getting
denser
and
that's
a
good
thing.
We
all
agree
on
that,
but
if
we
start
allowing
extra
height
everywhere,
which
it
seems
like
we're
doing
or
this
proposal
does,
that
concentrates
the
ex
that
could
concentrate
the
extra
height
in
several
buildings
instead
of
spreading
it
out
across
the
entire
area.
B
It's
sort
of
the
washington
dc
effect
versus
which
is
it
has
a
height
limit
period.
That's
it
or
you
know
the
the
the
sort
of
new
york
skyline,
where
there's
everything
here
and
then
there's
everything
here
in
midtown,
and
so
you
know
in
instead
of
in
in
we're
kind
of
we
might
be
actually
taking
the
potential
density.
We
have
to
infill
all
of
these
little
things
where
and
make
our
place
more
urban
and
putting
it
into
taller
buildings.
B
Is
that
does
everybody
understand
what
I'm
saying
yeah,
so
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
height
increasing
the
height
without
being
sure
that
we're
going
to
have
continuous
demand,
so
we'll
just
have
one
big
building
here
and
another
one
big
building
there
so
especially,
for
example,
in
the
cg
zone.
You
know
we
haven't
even
demonstrated
really
that
there's
a
demand
for
even
90
foot
buildings
there.
Now
so
I
mean
there's
one:
maybe
there.
C
C
B
C
B
F
F
And
I
think
our
developers
are
going
to
dictate
some
of
that,
because
they're
obviously
not
going
to
have
money
to
spend
on
one
giant
building
when
they're
probably
going
to
have
to
piggyback
off
one
of
their
other
developments.
So
right
now,
most
of
our
developers
don't
go
above
75
feet,
mostly
because
of
code
reasons.
Fire
code
changes
drastically
at
75
feet.
F
So
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
was
hurting
us,
the
most
was
not
allowing
the
extra
height
because
the
building's
not
feasible
just
over
75
feet,
because
all
the
extra
requirements
that
are
that
are
required
for
that
building
to
be
safe,
don't
pencil.
Unless
you
go
to
100
or
above
then
it
does.
So.
F
I
think
this
really
opens
up
the
ability
for
us
to
actually
have
taller
buildings
and
promote
more
development
and
they're
still
going
to
be
the
smaller
developers,
developing
the
infill
lots
and
filling
in
that
lower
level
and
they're
not
going
to
go
all
the
way
up
because
they
can't
afford
it.
So
I
think
there's
still
going
to
be
diversity
and
it
just
creates
more
diversity
in
our
city.
I
A
A
H
A
H
One
of
them
was
about
consent,
agendas
and,
as
we
were
looking
at
it
and
talking
through
that
and
reviewing
it
and
trying
to
figure
it
out,
the
one
thing
we
went
back
and
we
looked
and
and
the
one
thing
that
we
noticed
is
that
any
time
that
we
had
a
land
use
application
on
the
consent
agenda
for
the
first
approval.
First
time
approval
it
was
pulled
off,
and
so
what
we
realized
is
like
we're
not
actually
using
the
consent.
H
Agenda
for
land
use,
applications
we're
using
it
for
other
commission
business,
and
so
what
we
did
is
that
we
pulled
out
from
the
policies
and
procedures
the
discussion
about
how
to
deal
with
land
use
applications
on
that
consent
agenda,
and
so
we
simplified
that
quite
a
bit.
But
we
wanted
to
collect
we
wanted.
We
wanted
everyone
to
know
that
that
is
kind
of
where
we
landed,
as
we
reviewed
that
and
it
simplified
that
section.
Quite
a
bit
the
other
section.
H
The
other
change
was
the
quorum
and
particularly
for
hybrid
meetings,
because
we
want
to
be
able
to
have
that
option
and
the
state
legislature
passed
a
bill
this
last
year.
That
said,
cities
can
or
commissions
can
do
that
public
bodies
can
do
that,
provided
they've
established
rules
for
how
to
how
to
determine
attendance
and
voting,
and
things
like
that,
and
so
that's
the
the
other
significant
piece
of
this
and
then
at
the
last
meeting
there
was
a
question
about
a
abstaining
and
what
that
meant
for
quorums
and
recuse.
H
And
but
as
we
looked
at
it,
I
don't
think
that
we
made
any
changes,
because
we
we
thought
that
it
was
the
whole
idea
behind.
That
was
to
create
an
avenue
for
the
commission
to
have
some
discretion
on
why
somebody
may
be
abstaining
or
why
somebody
may
want
to
recuse
themselves
and
if
what
happens,
if
that
puts
us
below
a
quorum,
and
so
that
that
was
really
the
intent
there
is,
is
to
address
that
so
that
if
by
chance
I
mean
fortunately
right
now,
we
have
a.
H
I
think
we
have
a
fully
appointed
commission,
but
we
know
that
that's
not
always
going
to
be
the
case,
and
so
sometimes
when
we
only
have
like
six
people
here
and
somebody
has
and
that's
the
quorum
and
somebody
has
to
recuse
themselves
for
something,
then
suddenly
we
don't
have
a
quorum.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
could
find
ways
to
address
that,
and
so
we
we
included
some
changes
and
some
clarification
there.
A
So
nick,
I
still
think
we
may
have
a
conflict
between
b12
and
b18,
and
that
is
where
you
added
that
in
b18
you
added.
Let
me
scroll
down
there
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
quorum
is
present.
All
members
present
shall
be
counted,
but
then
in
b12
we
state,
if
you're,
if
you're
recusing
yourself,
that
we
still
have
this
special
and
unusual
circumstance
that
then
the
commission
can
decide
for
you
to
come
back.
A
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
don't
think
we
actually
have
a
real
direct
conflict
between
those
two
provisions
and
here's
why
the
state
law
doesn't
say
that
if
you
have
a
true
conflict,
where
you
have
to
recuse
yourself
that
you
have
to
leave
the
room,
your
rules
create
a
presumption
that
you
should
leave
the
room,
but
a
special
circumstance
would
be
if
we're
going
to
lose
a
quorum
because
of
that
you're
allowed
to
stay
in
the
room.
So
you
would
be
considered
present
under
the
quorum
rules
and
we
would
maintain
that
quorum.
A
So
in
b18,
though
we
say
in
determining
whether
a
quorum
is
present,
all
members
present
shall
be
counted,
including
members
who
abstain
from
a
particular
vote.
A
particular
member
is
considered
present
when
they
are
physically
present
at
the
place
in
paragraph
14
or
otherwise
connected
to
the
median
via
electronic.
So
even
if
they
leave
the
room
they're
still
in
the
place,
that's
identified
as
our
meeting
place,
because
we
don't
identify
this
specific
room.
C
Okay,
maybe
the
place
held
in
a
room,
so
we
don't
specify
which
room,
but
it
is
a
room.
So
I
guess
I
when
I
reviewed
this-
was
thinking
of
the
physical
location
being
the
room,
and
so
what
we've
traditionally
seen
is,
if
there's
a
conflict
of
interest,
the
individual
steps
out
of
the
room
right
right,
that
wouldn't
that
individual
wouldn't
count
for
purposes
of
maintaining
your
quorum
if
they
step
out,
but.
A
Yeah,
so
I'm
just
just
curious
that
those
are
like
in
the
event
this
happens.
I
feel
like
there's
two
ways
to
view
this
quorum
issue.
I
mean
I
don't
think
this
is
going
to
come
up
very
often
it
never
has
in
my
four
years,
but
as
I
read
that
I
just
thought
we
had
two
different
directions
happening
either.
I
have
a
quorum
because
they're
physically
in
the
building
but
they're
recusing
themselves,
but
they're
in
the
place.
C
A
But
I
guess
just
then
under
b12.
I
don't
want
to
beat
this
horse
to
death,
but
is
just
you
know
what
would
can
what
would
be
considered
special
or
use
unusual
circumstance
if
you're,
if
you're,
just
next
door,
you're
still
like
you're
in
the
meeting,
but
you
had
to
leave
to
recuse
yourself.
Wouldn't
you
your
presence
and
still
be
considered
a
quorum,
whether
you're
sitting
in
your
chair
or
if
you're
next.
C
Well,
that's
what
we
were
trying
to
fix,
I
think,
was
to
say
that
that
is
a
special
or
unusual
circumstance,
if
someone
other
who
otherwise
would
recuse
themselves
and
then
leave
the
room
and
therefore
would
not
be
counted
for
quorum
purposes.
In
that
moment,
that
that
is
a
special
and
unusual
circumstance
by
which
the
commission
could
agree
to
let
that
person
who
otherwise
has
a
conflict
remain
because
state
law
doesn't
say
that
that
person
has
to
leave
it's
just.
They
can't
participate
in
the
conversation
and
they
can't
vote
right.
A
A
F
A
B
G
F
A
H
Was
just
going
to
add
so
our
next
meeting
is
very
likely
going
to
be
a
hybrid
meeting.
We
have
one
agenda
item,
but
we
anticipate
a
very
large
crowd
so
just
to
give
you
a
heads
up,
we
chose
to
try
to
make
that
a
hybrid
meeting
so
that
we
could
hopefully
alleviate
the
number
of
people
in
the
room
and
give
people
options.
So
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that.