way. I don't think that's that's helpful right as opposed to a photograph of an actual project where you can show okay this building is doing this. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Yeah, I mean, I have a lot of comments. I think some of our few participants tonight have been very spot on in some of the observations. Right. I think the corridor plan has been brought up by by several of the members as this feeling like that process. I think the reality is is we have to face these hard issues. And if we put it off before it hasn't gone away. Right. We've got to figure out a way to address it. And I do think we have to be extremely focused on how we're going to achieve more affordable housing in this community. And if there are, you know, that that should be the lens that we're approaching some of these decisions. I questioned some of the topics that were brought up right if we're potentially limiting development how do we reconcile that concept of more housing, more units. If it on the face of it, it appears that we're decreasing potential density and unit counts. I don't know the answers. I'm just I'm just throwing that out there as a as a comment. So, I think this information takes three, four readings, understandings to get through it. Again, even for myself who have been through this information, probably three times fully in the past week and listening to your presentation again tonight, it's it's it's big stuff. And it's it's on some level it's very hard to be asked to make a critique on specifics when, you know, the big picture still seems like it's in its forming stages. And that's that's all I have to say. So, if I could go, you know, I, I want to agree with much of, I think, right, what, where I think commission is coming from about understanding your comments correctly. As a staff has said, the state has focused on housing production, but there are other concerns as well. And, you know, my goal is to try to find a meaningful balance between the variety of the range of concerns that exists for making a community desirable community for everyone who lives here. And, you know, I just want to make a couple of comments about some of the things that we said in the staff report. Racism has certainly been a reality, but it is intimately connected to housing affordability. Housing affordability is really the key. And it disproportionately falls on the problem disproportionately tends to fall on various ethnic groups, given the demographics in our culture. And I think it's ironic, given the relationship between race, ethnicity and income, that the state is focusing so much more on market rate housing, which is boiling from people of cannot are unable to afford rather than requiring statewide a greater level of affordability. So we're now ending up with projects that have less than what is traditionally been since the passage of measure a the city standard of 15% of the housing larger projects be affordable. With density bonuses, we're getting less than that. I think that is a very unfortunate. From my perspective, simply approving objective standards with site design and building design. Well, I agree with many of them. I think it's insufficient, especially since state going now so for severely damaged local discretion over housing development. I think that my own feeling is that the course itself complicated because it's so such a significant issue. I think we should take more time on it. I understand the staff wants to move it forward. And I think that one of the concerns here is that there are two processes that are going on at the same time. Once is the one is the contract with the consultant, which is really focused on building design and site design and that's understandable. But the other thing that's going on is that this is our opportunity to really consider those kinds of standards that are necessary to be able to have some assurance that the new development is not going to overwhelm overwhelm the community. I think there are things that we can do in terms of affordable housing. I think there are things that can be done in terms of quality of life and in terms of environmental sustainability. I submitted a list of potential potential suggested additional standards in these three categories. I submitted them to staff. I can't submit them to the public correspondence because I've been told by the city attorney that that's a violation of the Brown act. I didn't submit them earlier to either the commission or the public, but I did ask the staff to have them ready to be put up because I think this is our opportunity to need to look at objective potential objective standards in a much broader with a much broader lens than what we have before us. For instance, I looked at in a general plan, there are all sorts of policies about a conservation policy. Not one of them would be considered an objective standard. It's to minimize land movement. I can't remember them all off hand, but what I tried to do in coming up with some additional suggestions, which I'm not, these are things that I think need a review to see whether other people agree with them, whether they really are objective standards and whether they're, you know, they move in a direction where I think a number of people have said we'd like to move, including staff, that there are other concerns that need to be brought into the picture, whether they're traffic transportation concerns, and whether they're environmental concerns, or whether they're affordable housing concerns. And, you know, I think it is important also to keep in mind that all of this is in the context of identity bonus law, which, from my perspective, in many ways, makes the mockery of objective standards, because the identity bonus law allows for waiver or concession to eliminate every objective standard. So we're going to go through an exercise, which I think we should, to recognize what the values are of our community and come up with some standards to fulfill those priorities, but recognize that we have very limited ability to enforce them due to the, due to the density bonus law. I would like to say, since a number of people have brought up the corridor's plan, that it might be helpful to remind the commission of a council action that accompanies a direction to terminate the corridor's plan. And the objectives of what staff was to do was to reconcile the zoning code in the general plan, and to do two things, preserve and protect residential areas and existing city businesses as the city's highest level policy priority, and through a current appropriate new residential and mixed-use development specifically, including enhanced affordable housing and appropriate locations along the city's main transportation corridors. And I think what we've presented to us tonight is a good step in that direction. I, could I, I sent my proposals to Matt. Is it possible to put them up? Matt, just share the screen so that... Sure, I can pull them up here. Yeah, that's her. Okay. Thank you. Can everyone see that? Is it big enough? And so I divided the standards into three categories. Affordability, quality of life, and then at the bottom of the page is environmental sustainability.  And I made some suggestions about since the law prevents applying inclusionary requirements to total price to density bonus units and only to base density, I think. And as if projects are going to go for, if we're going to get large projects, and if we're going to, you know, these density bonus continue to be used, the affordability requirements should increase. I have a, you know, I tried to come up with a standard solar access. I know that Steph talked about their struggling with shading. And, you know, I think it's worth looking at what, you know, how to protect adjacent residents solar access. Find the limit structures, you know, the ones that are here are related to the trying to have some recognition of what's, what's going on around the project. Having some noise level, noise standards, having some PDM requirements for increased fees for very large projects that are going to generate additional traffic. Requiring more usable bicycles for a large project. And then, you know, requiring certain kinds of community gathering places for 50 plus units. You know, these I think should be at least considered in the mix. And then why the sidewalks. I'm collector and studio streets and then what I try to do with environmental, the environmental sustainability is suggest standards that were related to the climate action plan that, you know, requires that documentation that the stone water drainage and air quality standards will be met. I just at the discretionary or ministerial approval stage, so that the project doesn't get approved before it's clear that those standards are going to try to have to really push for climate action with requiring meeting building standards, although I'm not sure how much that changes what the current requirements are. The next ones are all kind of trying to convert the general plans conservation standards into objective standards, because they're now all considered and they are discretionary standards. So, I would ask that the, you know, the commission agreed to refer these to staff for consideration. I also want to add that Rick Hyman, Mr. Highland submitted a long letter with a number of also proposing a number of objective standards. And I think they should be responded to maybe they'll work. Maybe they're contrary to state law, maybe the ones that I'm asking for contrary, or suggesting contrary. But I think they do represent a more more comprehensive approach to dealing with what seems to be under the housing. The housing crisis act, the only area where the city and have any kind of discretion over what kind of development comes into the city. Let me take one final thing to respond to the step quest for input in terms of what should be the, what should be the process for looking at, at these projects, whether we should really try to, you know, minimize, make the moment. Serial minimize the public hearings. I think the 831 water street project is a is a really good example of why we should do that. Objective, there are different ways to interpret whether objective standards have been met or not. And the staff can have one opinion about whether objective standards are met. And in the case of a 31 water street, the council had another opinion about whether the city's objective standards have been met. And to sort of take out the public rule, take out the role of the elected officials, I think it's a mistake. I would not support. So thank you for, let me submit my hope for considering the, the additional projected proposed objective standards. And those are my comments. Any about any commissioners want to respond or the staff want to respond. I've buried my soul here. So now it's your turn to tell me what to say. I can just give some high level responses. So, you know, we can definitely take these, you know, and integrate them into the feedback we've received and take a look at, you know, which of these maybe we can implement under the state law. Several of these are things that are already accomplished in the zoning ordinance. So, you know, we'll double check and make sure that they're fully objective that as they're currently written, but we do, you know, we have a whole slope ordinance and grading and geologic hazards regulation. So, you know, I do think a lot of that is accomplished already in the zoning ordinance, but, you know, we can certainly take these under advisement and look and, you know, see which, which one's possible to integrate. There's certainly a lot of really good ideas here. Thank you. And with that included, Mr. Hyman's suggestions as well. Yeah, I actually, I've emailed with Rick a little bit about those. And, you know, one of the things one of the things that he's really focused on is transitions between intense uses and adjacent single family homes. And that's going to be like a significant component of the engagement that we are doing around all of these objective standards is that we want more feedback from folks about how do we manage that transition. Rick has been really explicit and clear about how he, you know, wants it to go and thinks it ought to go. And there's certainly very well thought out ideas. And so we've created a question to actually ask the broader community about that. Like, are we, you know, what's the best way to handle this setback? We need to, we'll need to do based on that feedback we get from the public. We'll need to do some allowance analysis and make sure that we're balancing, you know, the FAR with the height with the sort of setback or like daylighting plane or step back increases that folks are most interested in seeing to sort of address those transitions. Because we do want to make sure that we aren't reducing housing capacity. You know, that is like a primary goal of this project. That's a requirement under the state law is that we are achieving that 2.75 that they are in such a way that housing can be built and developed. So, yes, we are taking all of that feedback in. You're not going to see all of it word for word, you know, show up in the standards. And, you know, I'm happy to talk with individuals or, you know, I can email with Rick again about some more of those standards. And the same, you know, we heard some comments about from the save our big trees and I just want to point out, you know, all of those standards aren't reflected in the standards here. And what we did do is that we did what the crux of what that was was about preserving heritage trees. And one of the best ways we can do that is by allowing more flexibility in terms of how a site can be constructed so that you can like push a building around an existing tree and maintain it in place. And so what we did is that we have a standard for when you're counting the open space, any area that's under the canopy of the tree counts double. So that there's an incentive to keep that space that's under the tree as part of your landscaping. We also kind of looked into, you know, there were some just some suggestions in those standards about requiring that trees be relocated. And we talked to our urban forester and discuss the feasibility of that and the sort of consensus around that in the arborist community is that it's not usually very successful with mature trees. And so, you know, some of that didn't end up being incorporated, but this long story long, we have gotten a lot of really good suggestions from folks. We are definitely analyzing them and taking them into account and incorporating them where we where we can.  You know, we're going to like making our archaeology archaeology art studies, like you have to comply with the findings of the art study so we have an objective standard that you have to do one but currently the standard that requires that you incorporate those mitigations into the project is not objective so we're going to fix that. And I think there's going to be, I think some of these things that are in the list here from chair Schifrin are in kind of that category so they exist in other places in the zoning code and we'll be taking a closer look to make sure that that language is really tightened up. Thank you. Are there comments from other commissioners? Commissioner Stelman and Commissioner Nielsen and Commissioner Greenberg. Yeah, mine is brief just on that point. I mean, I, you know, I appreciate the effort to put the paper, you know, some of your thoughts around where some of these objective standards should be focused. And Mr. Hyman as well, but I would also say, I think we're in the discovery phase still, I mean, I think those are opinions and those are our thoughts, right, but I don't think they should dictate, you know, code at this point, I think we need to where is our collective voice and how are we going to get there I think is is important here. I agree that not their suggestions for consideration. Commissioner Nielsen. I would agree with that. Definitely. I think one other thing that I just wanted to talk about was this idea of, you know, maybe doing administrative approval or, you know, I think one of the, one of the things about this is that it's not just about, you know, obviously we're trying to get to a place where things are more objective than, and as, you know, as Chair Schifrin said, I mean, even, even objective standards can be interpreted different ways. And that's true. I mean, they can be and but the more that we can get to a place where there's their, you know, live more solidified and that and objective, I think is the right move and more. I think the reason why I feel that way is from a developer side. They're really they they it's important for them to have predictability in the process. Because if it's not predictable, then it just it ends up being more costly and to be able to actually produce the housing that we're trying to get. And we saw it. We saw this in our last meeting. I mean, we're with with the with the Center Street project where the developer just wanted to know that there was not going to be a an appeal.  But that was their objective because they want predictability. And so, so I think this process needs to take that into account as well where where it is. And maybe it's, I guess what I'm getting at is I think there I think there has to be a place for administrative review in some cases and maybe the 831 Water Street project would not is not a good example for that because maybe the size of that project, but maybe maybe has to do with, you know, different sizes could be possible for them to be able to go through administratively if they meet the objective standard. And so I just wanted to, you know, bring, you know, kind of from them, I guess, from the point of view of the developer that that the predictability is really important. Yeah, thank you so much to Sarah and to the staff for this incredible work on this and the months and months of of it and really appreciate the presentation and the comments of my fellow commissioners and the public on commissioner Nielsen's point, I would agree in and thinking about 130 center and the kind of the question around it. Ministerial review and the idea that an incentive is significant, you know, for developers to be able to expedite the approval process. And I think that planner noisy, there's point about how that is one, you know, one way we can think about the potential for affordability that is that accompanies these objective standards. I found that to be a compelling point and I bring that up to say that I also find compelling points from the public and share shift from around, you know, what is the affordability bonus. Of going in this direction. I know we can talk about, you know, approval processes and predictability. We can talk about, you know, the idea of affordability by design and that, you know, that there's conceiving if we can build more multifamily housing and more density. There's the potential for more affordability. And I think that there are certainly arguments along those lines at the same time. You know, Sarah brought up in the beginning the notion of the three P's and that simply adding supply simply adding focusing on production does not ensure that affordability is going to be accompanying that if in fact you're operating in an environment in which there's very limited costs and protections and so forth. So, similarly, if we were operating in a production environment where we're so enormously dependent upon the private sector to provide the housing. If we were operating in an environment in which we had much more state and federal funding for affordable housing and larger trust fund affordable housing trust fund. It's more conceivable that we would have more dense affordable development. Unfortunately, we're operating in this environment. As we know, and we're all hoping for the best out of the build back better plan in which there's very limited state and federal funding. And so we're dependent upon the private sector. So in that sense. You know, just given the kind of realities of our current moment and trying to think about. The impetus behind so much of this and the presentations that we're done about exclusionary zoning that we're done about the history of red lining in our community, the history of the intersections of race. And income and exclusion around housing. Significance of the public feedback and the priority that was placed on affordability and the hopes. The hopes for more inclusivity, more equity by doing this. I do think if there was any way, and given that we're operating in this kind of private market driven housing development reality. If there was any way of including objective standards. In addition to expediting the process and so forth that that emphasize affordability. Would be, I think, really compelling. For a lot of folks for the in the public who, you know, put that as one of their top priorities and so forth. And I know that. And I guess a question I have really. I'm really, I'm really intrigued by the suggestions of chair Schifrin on the affordability front. Around whether projects with the base density of 50 or more units shall have a 25% inclusionary requirement. For instance, those kinds of ideas. Is that even something we can talk about? Is that something that is, you know, we, you know, you've mentioned that the suggestions around quality of life. The suggestions around sustainability are things we can talk about are things we can add. And are they objective standards around affordability that stipulate, you know, for instance, expanding the inclusionary requirement and beyond simply affordability by design or through or procedural. Procedural means, i.e. expediting approvals. Are there other forms of regulation around affordability that can be considered objective standards? And that might allay concerns that in fact we're going to be. And we're going to be adding a lot of supply, but doing it in a way that is not necessarily affordable. I think that that is a question that I have and maybe I don't know if this is a moment in which there can be any response to that. I'm just wondering what your reaction might be to those ideas. I'm happy to respond to that. Yeah, so as we have mentioned previously, revisiting the inclusionary ordinance isn't so to be part of this process. We don't have the right staff or the right team involved to really do that study because it is something that involves a specialized kind of analysis to really take a look at. And I certainly hear and understand that, you know, that's the most direct route to creating affordability. Right. It's to just increase that inclusionary percentage. But unfortunately, it's not always necessarily tied to the number of units that doesn't necessarily adjust that like yield on cost that a developer is trying to like pencil out projects with more units. Involve elevators, they involve a lot more grading like they're just their economies of scale and the way that, you know, development. Kind of pushes and pulls on itself when you like add more units and then you have to add an elevator and then suddenly you need like a lot more units to make that work. It's not a straight line. And so, you know, the way that our inclusionary ordinance is currently set at 20% is, you know, we're pretty sure that that can work well. We actually haven't studied that our last last study that we did indicated that 15% was a more feasible option in order to make sure that development could continue to happen. And I, you know, I hear that this is a concern. And I also want to just be clear that, you know, part of what got us into this challenge that we are in with housing is a failure to build multifamily housing. So by zoning so much of the city so much of California and the nation for single family homes and excluding the type of housing that is called for in our general plan that is called for by the state law that is more likely to be affordable to lower income household, not guaranteed, but more likely in denser multifamily properties. It hasn't been created. And so we're taking a stab at rectifying that and you're right that it doesn't guarantee affordability, but it starts to make it possible. And so, you know, at this point with this project, that's what we're able to do. I mean, you can always discuss changing the inclusionary requirement, but that would require a different kind of study and a nexus to be created. Right. Thank you, Sarah. So I just wanted to respond to, you know, comments from the public and so forth that are concerned with that and the suggestion from chair shift from. And so it sounds like, and I guess it's another corollary would be, if we know of any other communities in the state who are also in the process of creating objective standards that have included. Are there other means of producing affordability vis-a-vis objective standards that we haven't considered? And I don't know. I mean, I'm really curious to know if there are other creative ways of considering that with as an objective standard. But I do see, yeah, there is a reality of affordability by design. I've said this in the past in this space of, you know, I think density is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to increase density. We need to meet the capacities of these areas. We need it for affordability. We need it for sustainability. We need to create, you know, the capacity for the mass transit to be able to move along places that have enough ridership and so forth along corridors. So, I think there's so many benefits to infill housing development. And I'm a huge, huge supporter of it at the same time. I don't think it's a panacea. And I think that, you know, that we, that we need to, if we're going to be going in this direction. We need to be exceedingly and increasingly vigilant about finding other means to enable us to accompany this potential for development with affordability. And that might include means of increasing our own affordable housing trust fund so that we can pitch in more as a city. It may mean, you know, other forms of, of regulation around rents and so forth to really be creative and thinking about how we can balance the three P's in this, in this moment. I'm just going to chime in here for a minute. I'm Dean and Belzer, and I'm with strategic economics. You all might have met my colleagues suggested to justice. And Sujata has moved over to work for a nonprofit. So I'm here tonight. And I just want to say that there is a lot of evidence academic evidence. Somebody cited Karen chapel from UC Berkeley recently Karen has moved on now to the University of Toronto, but she's continues to work in this field. And some of her work shows that by continuing to produce housing, particularly at the high end, what happens is the people who can afford it move into those units. And they often create that filtering process. So I think that there's a lot of indirect affordability that create gets created across a spectrum. So it's not an either or density or affordability. I think we should be really careful about not again, assuming that this is kind of an all or nothing. And that production also contributes to preservation. So I just want to make that. Yeah. And I, you know, that's, I mean, I didn't want to get into the weeds of that. I mean, I think that, you know, there is a report by Karen Karen chapel and Miriam Duke in response to an L a report on the concept of filtering that is actually quite critical of the concept of filtering. Right. It was, it was, it was critical of the methodology, but there's more recent. So anyway, so there again, I think the most important thing is that anything we do to cut off supply. Even at the high end, we're actually exacerbating the problem of affordability. Well, I think there are certainly arguments for that. There are also cases where the gentrifying effects might mean that we're going to change the nature of the, you know, the AMI of the community. And I think she also found that, but she found that in. To these transit or into development, but did not include affordability. It actually had this contradictory effect of driving out low income people. Outlying areas where they were more likely to drive cars while attracting high income people who are more likely to drive cars into the, into the center of the city, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions for the region. So I think that she somebody who I have worked with and really agree with in linking the importance of ideas of affordability and density. And so, at the same time, there are market dynamics that certainly, you know, supply matters. I totally agree with that. I think, and I just, I don't want to be a broken record here, but that we, if we're going to go in this really pro density direction in this town statewide. We have to find additional means statewide, not just at the city level, but statewide and federally, obviously as well to increase equity and affordability alongside of that. I agree with that. So I thank you. Are there other commissioners who would like to weigh in here? Any comments? Yes. Yeah, thank you. And again, I really want to thank the staff and the consultants. I think that this is an amazing piece of work. And it's been said by many people, but the fact that we actually understand who's participating in our community feedback is, it just can't be overstated how important that is. And thank you for the passion that you brought to, and the commitment to making that bring us forward in that it's about time. I also want to thank you for prioritizing the importance of making rental housing feasible. And especially making small rental projects feasible. And I think it's a point that can get varied in the very large amount scope that's happening here. But what I appreciate about that is that it's recognizing what our actual land use patterns are. And establishing some policies that say that rental housing is important to us. And you did it in a way that incentivizes, and I think that this can help a little bit with some of the angst for feeling about the density bonus. And some of the way state law is handled. But if we can find ways to incentivize. Just following the rules as we want them as a community without, you know, going to density bonus and sort of the state imposed rules. I feel like that's a pretty big win. And again, I think that in the context of what actually happens in our land use patterns that makes it really important. So, let's see, this is a big project. I hear a lot of us saying that it's not as big as we can imagine it being. And as maybe we've even tried to bite off. Before we know we need to create this tool. It's a really important tool for our community. Creating objective standards is going to help us going forward. Even if it and as far as I'm concerned, we can't do it fast enough. So, keeping this process moving. You've done some really important work here. I think we've also identified that there's a lot of important conversations that we want to have happen going forward. The staff report also raised some really specific questions that I don't know that we've wrestled with. Maybe this isn't the time to start raising them, but I think that they were some important questions to have in.  Is it going to be in the code? Is it going to be a separate document that we can maybe manage differently? And there's, I think that's, I think that's a really useful question. Our conversation tonight has gone in a different direction. So, I'm not going to start digging through those now. But thank you for identifying them. I know that they're going to continue to come up in the future conversations around completing this project. I also think that we've what we brought up tonight are raising some future work. But I also want to thank the members of the public that participated, you know, all of them, the ones that I really hardly agree with and the ones not so much because I know we all love our community, right? But all of everything that we're doing, these are policy choices and they've resulted in the community we have and we know it can be better. We know we love our community and we know we can do it better within by addressing a lot of things and a lot of policies. So, I think always being aware of that is important. And this project does this both in the way that you've approached it and the many of the questions that you raised. And again, I really want to thank all of you, including my fellow commissioners on your thoughts on this in reading this voluminous material and great presentation. Thank you. Anyone else before we close. Okay. I just want to say one last thing that that just listening to everyone's thoughts on this just kind of brought it to life for me. And maybe this was kind of touched on earlier, but these are what we're talking about our objective standards and in a way when I when I look at that or think about that it's kind of it's a way of regulating. And what and so what I had in my mind is what if we flipped that what if we were to flip and this is this is kind of revolving around the the affordable housing piece. But what if we flipped it around and we were we were to think about objective incentives, rather than maybe objective standards. Is there is there so and I admit this may not be initially within the scope of this process and with these consultants but something to think about like because because we we're all trying to get something and in order to get it we may need to give some things up and and I don't know what that is but it but it would be but but to what what Sarah was was expressing earlier about the tree when she was talking about the heritage trees, the idea of being able to give double the outdoor space for for that for you know underneath an existing tree that to me that's moving in that direction of like incentivizing keeping the tree rather than saying you have to keep the tree for these reasons but like incentivizing those things. So I think that that would be I think that's a really good example of kind of this idea of incentivizing so that was just a follow my head. Thank you. The commissioners. Yes, commissioner Greenberg. That's a really interesting idea, Commissioner Nielsen and I'm just wondering if did you have ideas along those lines for incentivizing affordability or I don't know if you had any or have heard a little bit I mean I did Yeah, as it relates to objective standards I my thought was okay well for talking about wanting to make things predictable for developer like being like maybe there is some incentive to, you know, if you provide a certain amount of affordability you can go straight through without public hearing maybe there is some sort of way to do that. Or maybe there's other things that can be reduced out of the out of what the of what the zoning is like parking for example I mean maybe that's another one I mean we know that parking is very expensive right you know for in development and if you know if if more affordability was what's provided maybe the parking can be reduced or you know things have on those lines if that's an option. That's a great question is that I think along the lines of creative thinking around affordability and that's an interesting one. I don't know if that's something that communities have used as an objective standard those kinds of incentives. Well, so those incentives are already built into the state density bonus. So you hit a certain level of affordability in the state density bonus you don't have to provide any parking at all in many locations. So like that when we talk about incentives around affordability, all of that is going to intertwine with what's already built into the state density bonus and I'm hearing a lot of concern about the state density bonus. So, you know, we want to we just need to like think through all of those factors, you know, like if we if we automatically require a 30% inclusionary requirement for certain projects, every all of them are now density bonus project at a very high level. Right. So that's all of these things relate and kind of come back to each other and that state density bonus law is like it is it's so what I'm looking for. It incentivizes so much that that trying to think about ways to like get out of affordability that don't trigger it. I think it's really challenging. I mean, I am absolutely open to suggestions. I know that this is a concern from the community. And and also I know that the state law is really clear, but I see Kristin just jumped in like she maybe had something to ask. I was just going to say, I think in a lot of ways that's what the concessions and waivers about is about letting individual developers. Sort of tell you what they need in order to make a project work. I think I mean, I don't know how often you guys have seen Santa Cruz, but we're hearing this all over that a lot of times they're using the density bonus without even actually going for the density just so they can get the streamlining process. And so to your point about the ability, you know, this suite of laws has kind of enabled developers to identify the things that they would need in order to incentivize them to build projects. And I understand that it makes it definitely a different process for review. But I think that in a lot of ways is kind of the intent that allows them to select the incentive concessions and streamlining that would be helpful for them to be able to get the projects through. And I'll just add that this is something we talked a lot about as we were developing these standards, you know, how does it, how would these work if there was a density bonus on top of this? Or what are the things that people might ask for concessions and waivers from? Should we try to make it so that we have, we're making the most feasible possible development so that people don't need to ask for a lot of concessions and waivers? But what are the places where we're hearing it is really important for the community to have certain features retained like the architectural detailing is a place where it was pretty clear. It's not just in the survey, but also in the focus group from the various conversations we have. That's a place where people do want to make sure we hold on to a few things. So it's just kind of careful. I have no sound. I think the sound just cut because it's cut when the one lady was talking. I think they can all hear each other, but I can't hear anybody. It's zoom related because I can get sound and not from them. I can put sound over the air, but it's not there. So it's from the zoom. You might want to text them or something or just interrupt them and tell them you're having sound problems. Coming up with policies that maximize the amount of affordable housing that we can get, but at least optimizing it. And as we see with entity bonuses that are essentially getting to what currently now can be set back on by 50%. I think it makes sense to be considering increases to the density bonus requirements. And we can do it now. It's a political decision. If we ask consultants who always say you can't do it, they'll say we can't do it, but we have done it. And it's, I think it's working. So I think we need to consider continuing to do it even more. Okay, so that's my final fire speech. So there's no action that we need to take. Let's move on to the next item. I want to thank the consultants for all their work on it. But one thing I learned tonight of nothing else is that it really was a human job to get all this information before us. I wondered why it was taking so long. It was supposed to come in August. I now understand that such a delay was not unreasonable. So let's move on to item number four, which is to consider proposed changes to the planning commission bylaws. We've all received the proposed changes. They're pretty minor. Sarah, are you going to do the staff report? It'll take less than a minute, Chair, if you all need it. You have it pretty plainly there to request from Bonnie to update the terms for efficiency, consistency, and clarity in her office, as well as making the language gender neutral. So pretty straightforward. Happy to be here if you do have any questions. I only actually have one question. The language in section two, the membership year was a little confusing. It says the membership year should be from the first month of the first commission meeting after the February 1st to January 31st of each year. But that doesn't make any sense because February 1st comes January. In other words, if it starts on January 1st, January 31st is the next year. So I think Bonnie's providing time for it to go to council to make sure it's appointed. I don't have any problem with the process. It's just that the wording seems weird. The wording seems to be that it's going to be from February 1st to January 31st of each year. But it's not. It's from February 1st to January 31st of the following year. Yeah, we can update that to make that clear. That was the only thing that sort of threw me from. Do any other commissioners have any comments on this item? Is there any member of the public who wants to speak to this item? So would somebody like to make a motion to approve the recommendation with that one minor change to the section two? I'll move to do that. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Okay, let's have a roll call, both please. Mayor Conway. Hi, Dawson. That is unanimously. We'll now move on to item, the potential pursuit of a new commercial linkage of portable housing impact fee. I put that on the agenda. And I really want to apologize to commissioner Greenberg. We worked together on this. And I did a draft. He approved it. And the probably should have been from both of us. So I never, it didn't occur to me out until after it was on the agenda. So this is commendation that the commission recommend to the city council as they initiate. Process to adopt a commercial linkage fee to fund affordable housing. And direct the chairperson to write a letter to the mayor requesting consideration of this recommendation. About the meeting. This is, you know, this is something that somehow I think just got overlooked. At least it appears to me that the council, the county of Santa Cruz has had a commercial linkage fee for, which I think it's called a non residential affordable housing fee. Or I think Commissioner Conway was involved in the adoption of that requirement. And the city of Watsonville has it. It certainly seems a reasonable thing to ask. I don't think it should apply to very small commercial development, but larger commercial developments that are providing. A significant number of jobs should be helping to provide some affordable housing because many of those jobs for. Our income employees. So. Did you want to anything? I'm not going to go through the letter, given the latest of the hour and wanting to get to commission discussion. Yeah, no, I'm really glad. This seems to be a very. Common and popular policy that is increasingly, if it doesn't already exist in many cases is being upgraded or is being added. In jurisdictions throughout our region, including most of the jurisdictions in the Bay Area Silicon Valley have been adding these. These ordinances and particularly in a situation in which we're seeing additional commercial development. And that commercial development is geared towards providing jobs. You know, one of the reasons we want commercial development. And so it's in many ways considered. Kind of a smart growth policy. It's it's kind of a win win in the sense that the commercial entities that employers want to know that their employees are going to have a place to live. Obviously, we want to know that we're not going to have increasing commuting to get into, you know, people aren't going to be displaced to outlying regions. As we were saying before, and people can live close to their jobs. So it's, you know, it's an environmental policy. It's an economic development policy and it's a policy oriented towards equity in our community. As we were saying, there's so few means of funding besides the private sector and hoping developers will do the right thing. We have so little often on the city side to add to our affordable housing trust fund. And this is another means of doing that. So it seems like a hard way to go. Okay, let's start with questions. Every comment from commissioners and they see if anybody in the public wants to speak to this and then we can have consideration by the commission. How did you want to comment? Do you have a question? I'll comment later. Thank you. Okay. Are there any questions on the proposed action? Why don't we see if there's any? Is there anybody in the public? Yes. Rathford is selling cells.  You have three minutes. I just wanted to generally support this idea. I think it's a pretty common sense thing for our community to create more opportunities for affordable housing. I do hope that it's looked at to make sure that it's not like a detriment to the commercial development in the sense that, you know, we do want to be adding more jobs in our community along with more affordable housing. And I would hope that, you know, we don't set up a fee that's too high that kills that possibility for more jobs. So, you know, the next study that goes along with this linkage fee is going to be really important. That's really all I had to say. Otherwise, I think it's a smart move. Thank you. Vera, you're up. I just want to say I have a huge amount of support for this potential. I want to thank Commissioner Greenberg and everyone else who supports this and agree with Rafa. I think it's really important that we increase affordable housing coming from the commercial sector makes a lot of sense. But we do need to balance it because we know that part of our long term sustainability does also involve the commercial sector and making sure that it's not burdensome for them. So, creating the right amount for sustainability for our overall future is really crucial. Thank you so much. Thank you. I don't see any other hands. I'm going to bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Conway. Yeah, thank you for bringing this up. First of all, and I, I agree with what Rafa said, this will need to be supported by a next study. The crux of the whole matter really is nexus and proportionality. And I appreciate that you attached the study. The next study from the county from 2014. That was also a lot of work and went through a lot of process. I'm sure everyone had time to read it. And realize that what it's found is that all development creates a need for housing for people with lower incomes. And I'm wondering if and I don't, I don't in any way mean to make this more complicated. I feel like it's fairly straightforward. But it will require a next study. One of the things that the county found is that a substantial driver of the need for affordable housing is the development of market rate housing. So, in other words, people who live in market rate housing rely on people in service field construction education and many of which are lower income. I'm wondering if you would consider including an examination of the housing impact fee for single family development on a per square foot basis. Meaning that smaller houses will pay a low cost per square foot because we don't want to make it harder to build, but that larger houses will pay a higher cost per square foot. And I do think that in a meaningful way, this could incentivize the construction of smaller homes. And it also would create would add to affordable housing funds. Taking a quick look at what happened with the county's housing impact fees. They've collected more money through their graduated residential impact fee than through the commercial impact fee. So, again, I don't want to make it more complicated. If it's more straightforward to go ahead with simply a commercial language fee. I'd be supportive of that, but I wonder if we should think about it if we're opening up that next. If I could respond, I think it's a really good idea. I'm wondering whether it would be better to keep this kind of simple and maybe refer that idea to the housing subcommittee and have it come back to the commission as sort of a sort of a thought through proposal that then could be moved up to the council because I think it's, I think it is a really good suggestion. But my sense is it will just create. If we tried to add it to this. That would be what I would suggest. Is it any other discussion by members of the commission? Would somebody like to make a motion? I would just like to go ahead and make a motion that we, the commission recommend to the city council that they initiate the process. Mercial linkage fee to fund affordable housing and direct chair person of the planning commission to write a letter to the mayor requesting consideration of this recommendation at the next city council meeting. Is there a second? I'll second that discussion. What I would just add, I really appreciate commissioner Conway's point. And that's really interesting and good to know. And, you know, I, and in so far as we're going to be recreating this affordable housing subcommittee, maybe that's the way to go. But I think that we should really explore that in our region and elsewhere. I mean, I think that. That there, you know, there may be feelings about the fees that residential developers are already facing and so forth. And it might affect the, you know, how people feel about commercial linkage and residential development linkage fee. But, but I would support that, you know, if that's feasible and if that's something that people can support. I think the next study idea is makes a lot of sense. I know that in the Bay Area, they actually fundraise through the community foundation to do a. A next study because I know it can sometimes be expensive and time consuming and cumbersome and look hard for the county. And so it's conceivable we, there could also be fundraising to support and fund a next study that might not only be for our community, but be for other communities in our region, like the other 4 cities, for instance, in the county. I know that Watsonville already has has this underway has already done this, but for other for other places to join in and do an economy of scale around a next study. So that's just an idea, but certainly, and that could be a part of this. There's no further discussion. Could we have a local vote on the motion. Commissioner Conway. Hi. Awesome. This is unanimously on to item number 6 establishment of an ad hoc. Subcommittee to review a proposed flexible density unit ordinance. This came out of our discussion. Let last meeting of the flexible density unit and small unit proposals. And so what I would recommend is that we just reestablish the if the members is still willing to be on that reestablish the committee, the subcommittee that existed. But I don't think met more than once over the last 6 months or so, because staff was so involved in other things. So. Committee was commissioner Greenberg commissioner Conway and myself. Are the 2 of you still willing to be on the subcommittee. I think I'm going to decline at this time here. I just, I don't think that I have the capacity to do it. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for all the work you've done on it. Commissioner Greenberg. You want to be on it. I'm happy to if others want to, I'm also happy to, you know, I don't know if we want to have a discussion about others who might want to be on it, but I would be willing to be on it. Well, there's 1. They can, they can see. Is there either other commissioners who would like to be on the housing side to me. I would like to throw my hat in the rain consideration. Not seeing anybody else volunteering. So, the housing subcommittee will be commissioner Greenberg. And I think is it. Maybe we can have a get a meeting set up and not just in future, so we could get a report on the. Have a discussion on the sexual density. But I would also say, I'd also like to add the Congress notion of a graduated. Housing affordable housing fee for smaller units. Somebody wanted. Yes. Larger unit, larger unit. Yeah, I just have a general comment. I mean. Do you have a sense for what the actual scope is for the committee? I mean, the proposal was for flexible density unit. That thing, let's call it that proposal. I would hope that maybe you would come back to the. Commission with some sense of what you think the scope of work would be for, for what you guys are going to do. Sure. But the first thing we're definitely going to do is to work on what was on our last agenda because we continued it in order to have that kind of discussion. So hopefully that will get back to the commission soon. Thanks. Mr. Marlowe, I see your face. Did you want to say something on this item or are you gearing up for the next one? No, I just wanted to remind commissioners that ad hoc committees are typically supposed to be single purpose committees. So. With, you know, no more than six months in duration. So I'd recommend that, you know, perhaps you start work on the. The FDU ordinance. Conclude that word report back to the commission so that we can keep that moving along and then perhaps reestablish. You know, committee for another single purpose, which would be commissioner conways. Suggested ordinance. Well. Certainly not philosophically opposed to that, but I remember when the housing, when I first got on that commission, I think in the housing subcommittee was first set up and had about six or seven things that it was considering. So we'll take it a step at a time. I think the high priority now is the is the flexible density unit ordinance. And then maybe when we come back with that, we'll propose a work program along the line to spell man has talked about, if necessary, reestablish the committee to carry out that work over. Okay, any problem with that. Any commissioners, I'll say then hopefully we'll meet soon. Can I ask a question? Chair, just don't sure. So, um, I believe that this will fall within the noticed item on the agenda, but just since we didn't get a chance to discuss it at all last time. Um, could you just sort of, from the commission, from the subcommittee members, I just be interested in hearing like, what are the topics about us to use that you're going to want to discuss so we can have a productive first meeting. We do want to kind of get that rolling as quickly as possible. So any. Any issues or challenges or questions that you could kind of preview for us right now, we can start working on that so that our first meeting can really be a working meeting. Well, the one thing that I remember that I had a real concern about was what I understood to be the proposal to eliminate any density limits on bedroom units. That's what stays in my mind. The rest of it is a blur, especially after all it's objective standard stuff. I mean, I'll try to get it all mixed up if I try to come up with something else. Does any other commissioner have an issue around them that they want to sort of highlight around the flexible density unit? Okay. Does that give you a little something? It's a start. We'll work on, we'll be in touch with schedule a meeting. Okay. Very important question. I just want to say why, why we have a committee to study this. Is a member of the public that had their hand raised to address the commission on the side. Oh, okay. So we're still on the housing subcommittee. Go ahead. Given the lateness of the hour, you have two minutes. Thank you very much. I hope this won't take too much. I just wanted to propose, you know, while you are thinking about this flexible density unit thing, you know, at the last meeting, we talked about looking closely at the parking requirement changes. And, you know, to the extent that there are other things that you're studying within the context of this. You know, you could be looking at creating a ministerial approval process for flexible density units. You could be looking at zoning reform for flexible density units. Creating new transit quarters via up zoning along the rail trail perhaps. You could be looking at eliminating, eliminating parking requirements within a half mile of transit. You could be looking at requiring unbundling parking. You could be looking at, you know, a number of things. And I just want to make sure that that, you know, in the context of this ordinance that you are open to the possibilities of what you could do to produce more affordable housing. Thank you very much. I just wanted to, to appreciate that comments. There's, those are all great ideas. And I, I think that those are things that I'm glad it's recorded and these are all those are all things we can discuss. Thank you. Okay, so let's, if we can move on to item number seven, the status of various projects. And we do have a written staff report.  So we get the staff report. I'll then allow for commission questions and then open it up to the public. Sure. I'll, there was a number of items that you had requested follow up on. So I'm going to talk to you about meeting format and the downtown hotel. And then I'll turn it over to Sam to talk about the 100 Laurel and 324 Pennsylvania projects and then Matt Van while we'll conclude with the update on the UCSC LRDP process. First, though, I wanted to mention as part of the updates. It was mentioned earlier that the 130 Center Street project was appealed to city council that that in fact is true and we're targeting the December 14th city council agenda to hear that so just a little update on that project. As far as the meeting format issue goes at your last meeting, you had some questions around whether the commission actually has the authority to decide meeting format or if it needs council approval. I'll start by noting that as part of the city manager's report at last week's city council meeting. There was a presentation on the move to hybrid meetings at the city council level. That's expected to begin on November 23rd. If you haven't watched it, I'd recommend that you do so. It's both a technological as well as a labor intensive effort. The expectation is that in the city council chambers, there'll be staff posted at each of the two entrances to check temperatures, look at proof of vaccination, perhaps a third staff member from the fire department monitoring occupancy and social distancing. And then for those meetings where there's items of significant interest, there's a plan to use the Tony Hill room and the civic for overflow, which also requires staffing to perform those very same functions. So, you know, ultimately it's going to be a council decision as to, you know, whether this staff intensive operation will be extended to advisory bodies as there are budget implications to that and the expectation is that all of the advisory bodies will be treated similarly. So, you know, if you have hybrid meetings and so will the parks commission, public works commission, et cetera. Council decision, definitely. I also want to note that recently adopted AB 361 requires that in order to hold or to continue to hold these virtual meetings during the state of emergency, the council must make findings every 30 days. That there they've reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and that it continues to directly impact the ability of members to safely meet in person. So this applies to hybrid meetings also as well as advisory bodies. So my point is that the council is going to be revisiting this every month. In fact, at next week's council meeting, there's a resolution to that effect to have 30 days of hybrid meetings. So that's the report on the meeting format for the downtown hotel. There was a memo in your packet that describes the project, the status, as well as the entitlement process. And then it also speaks a little bit to this general plan consistency determination that's associated with the sale of two city owned properties that are part of the project site. This proposal, which was submitted last April is to construct a six story hotel with 232 rooms of 50 foot wide the sale that connects front street to the levy and then other amenities. There's a note in the memo that we have created a website that has the plans included in them. So you're interested in looking at the details. It's all there. That application has a number of entitlements that will ultimately require city council approval. It's currently incomplete, but we're getting pretty close to a completeness determination. We're expecting that a community meeting will occur later this month. And then hearings before the downtown commission and the planning commission can begin as early as December. And then with respect to the sale of city property, there, there is a provision in the government code that requires a planning agency to make a determination of general plan consistency generally within 40 days of a referral by the city council, which, which hasn't yet occurred. You'll recall at your last meeting you received correspondence from the building community, not hotels organization suggesting that you direct staff to agendize this determination. We've also included this correspondence in the packet and the memo that's included your packet concludes that based on an analysis of the government code definition of planning agency. The municipal code definitions or provisions that govern your body and then your bylaws that it's really the staff's role in making this consistent consistency determination and less it's referred to you from the city council. But just recently, we came across a provision in the general plan that confirms that the city council has assigned the function of planning agency to the planning commission. I knew it was somewhere. I was not find it, but I had read it somewhere. Well, we found it before you did. I even look at the general plan. It's on page 10 if you want to, if you want to check it out. So, um. So, um, we're expecting that this item is going to be before the city council later in the year. So at that point in time, um, we're just going to inform the council. Um, that this consistency determination is going to be included on your agenda. Um, and it will, you know, we'll be making a recommendation on it. Of course. Um, it could come independently of the project. I mean, ideally the timeline will work out so that we can have both the entitlement package as well as this consistency determination on the same agenda. But it really depends on, you know, timing of completeness, whether or not the applicants want to make any changes based on community input, et cetera. So, um. So that's, that's what's happening there. I'll turn it over to Sam to talk to you about Laurel and Pennsylvania. Thank you. Good evening. I have a really quick update on, um, I'll start with Pennsylvania. So for 18 Pennsylvania, this was a project that was approved by the city council on appeal in February of this year. And it included the demolition of an existing detached studio and the construction of three, three bedroom townhouses and that's on a site with an existing two bedroom. Single family dwelling that was remaining. So, four units total was the result and the project wasn't subject to any inclusionary requirement, but there were specific conditions of approval on the project for replacement housing requirements. And the way the income verification worked out, the developer was required to provide. One unit at 50% AMI in perpetuity. So, um, when the applicant submitted their building plans, they requested that they construct an ADU in one of the garages. And, um, as you probably know, the ADU ordinance change dramatically of the last two years, you can build ADUs on multi-family properties now or convert space with a ministerial permit only. So, in reviewing that plan, we did receive comments from Mr. Spidell. Um, and I apologize if that's not how you pronounce the same regarding the feasibility of the ADU being the affordable replacement unit. Um, but at this time, the property owner has decided to not construct the ADU. And so they've decided to be restrict the front two bedroom unit instead. Um, the affordable housing agreement will identify that front unit as the specific affordable unit and the agreement is going to be required to be finalized prior to building permit issuance. Um, we have been in contact and in communication with Mr. Spidell and he's asked for us to provide him with updates and we will do so. Um, and I just want to reiterate that the applicant's decision to not build an ADU at this time does not preclude them from building an ADU in the future. Um, a multi-family site is eligible to construct two new construction and a conversion ADU up to 25% of the existing dwelling units so they can provide one in this case. And are there any, I don't know if there's any questions on that? Why don't we get through the whole staff report and then ask questions on all of the projects? Okay. Chair, we need a motion to extend to extend to adjourn to a time certain because it's 11 o'clock. So I like to make a motion to go to 1130. I make a motion to go to 1115. Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor? Well, I guess do we need a roll call vote or can we just do that? If there's anybody opposed? Why don't we do it by consensus? Okay, so we have a very quick 100 Laurel Street. That's the specific front Laurel project. Your question was that you had heard that they had come into contact with groundwater. Yeah. There's no below grade parking at that site. The parking is all at grade and on the second level. They did hit some groundwater in the basement of the Salvation Army building. But that has been filled at this time under the supervision of a soils engineer. They are working on their drill displacement columns right now. And that's all also under the supervision of the soils engineer. And the building department says that the soil engineers on site at all times that they're drilling and that they have to reach a certain level of pressure and resistance before they can stop drilling. So that level is varying between about 18 and 20 feet. And if they hit water, then the water isn't providing that amount of resistance that they need. So they would need to drill down further. So. So no underground parking there and all of the columns and work are being done under this direction of the soils engineer. Okay, thank you. Matt, did you want to say something very quickly about UCFC? Yeah, this is just a brief update, chair. Thank you. So in late September, the region's approved the LRDP and adopted the final EIR sequel document. And the city had provided comments on some potential issues that they found with that sequel determination. So since that approval, the city has entered into a three way tolling agreement between the university, the county and the city. And those issues noted by the city should be resolved by the end of January, because with the tolling agreement, the city has the ability to file a lawsuit by that date. And as I understand now, the city, county, and university are just beginning the process of those negotiations. That's the update for the item at this time. Thank you very much. Okay, let's have questions from commissioners on any of these items. Commissioner Nielsen, I think I saw you first. Yeah, I had a question on the Pennsylvania project. So, and we got it, I think we saw a letter from the public on this too. I understand what the code or what the law is for ADUs, but I guess my question is around existing, converting existing space. So, and so I would just wonder, can you just explain kind of what the city stands on that? Well, my understanding is that there's no direction from the state regarding the timing of a conversion ADU. So it's sort of unclear whether, you know, what level of construction you need to get to before you can do an actual conversion of space into an ADU. I mean, in this case, the concern was around the ADU being designated as the affordable unit. And so the, I think the most effective way to get to that would be for your commission or the city council to be very specific about their preferences in the conditions of approval. If the preference was to have a three bedroom unit, B is the deed restricted unit, then we could specify that in the condition. Okay. Yeah, I wanted to follow up on that too. I mean, I think this has a lot broader implications as far as ADUs being allowed on new proposed projects, let's call it, right? I mean, as an example, you're building a small apartment project. It has parking. Why couldn't that project design in the ADUs and be approved as opposed to waiting for construction? In fact, I've been told that by planning staff in the not too distant past that that wasn't allowed, but now it sounds like the interpretation is leaning towards entitlement, meaning you could have a design permit approval. And then between design permit and building permit, you could actually include the ADU and eliminate parking to do so. Is that, is that, am I reading that right? Well, Eric, you can jump in on this if you like. Our thought process around it was that, yeah, so why would we require someone to do a two step process for an ADU that, you know, required to be a ministerial review. And I think we probably need to put more thought into it and just make sure that our interpretation is accurate and see if we get any more direction from the state on that as well. Okay, yeah, I mean, I think it's the right way to go. I think it's silly to, you know, build a new project knowing that you're going to convert it the minute it's done. I mean, that just makes no sense, right? And if we're going to get to new small units because of it, we should be encouraging that development as opposed to restricting it. Yeah, I think, you know, we think it makes sense from a, you know, a green building standpoint, a staff efficiency standpoint, you know, why should we go through two different plan checks? There's all kinds of good, I mean, it's consistent with the state's goal of creating ADUs. But absent any, you know, state guidance on this, I mean, we think it's probably a good idea that we should maybe come through with some clarification in our code. So as part of our annual code update that we do where we do some cleanups, you know, if not before, we're likely to, you know, include this as a code amendment just so that everybody, so it's crystal clear and not, you know, just some staff interpretation. Sure. Okay. Yes. I just, I mean, not opposed to the idea of what you where you guys have landed necessarily, but I was kind of thinking about this in our last planning commission meeting when we were when 130 Center Street was was brought to us. And I don't remember exactly how many units that that was, but let's say was 100. Let's just say it was under units. That means that 133 that means that they could. Okay, so, so, so a quarter of that is, you know, 50, 50 units, 50 plus units could be, you know, they could basically have wiped out the entire parking level, the first, the first level of parking kept maybe the ground floor. I mean, the underground parking and converted all of that to 80 years. So it's just something to think about because in and because there is no within the within the law, there's it's 25%. I mean, of converting of it was called existing space in the law. So just something to think about. I mean, I'm not not saying I'm against it. It's just, I think it needs to be thought about in terms of how impactful that could be because it's it's going to, it's, I mean, it's, it's going to add, you know, all the data use, which is great. And it's, it's, but it, but what it does is it reduce it removes all that parking and brings in more housing with, with less parking. You know, so it's just amazing about Okay, let's hear from the public. I see two hands up. I'm giving the fact that we're 1110 was supposed to end 1115. I'm going to give each speaker one minute. Micah poster you're about a minute. Can hear you. You're speaking. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Sorry, took a bit there. Well, I was going to go on and asking about why you are the planning agency, but it looks like staff found that in the charter so that's great. I'll skip all those comments. I'll just speak more generally about the fact that are my request that you really have a robust public process about the hotel. You know, make sure the public knows weeks in advance and not four days in advance. I want to point out that this project has been planned and supported by senior staff and at least one council member for more than two years before talking to the public in any way shape or form. The videos made a consideration that there's these two parcels, which could obviously be used for housing or deemed as affordable surplus, which goes against the spirit. It's not the letter of the affordable. Of the surplus land back in California. So this, this project really needs some democracy or really need some, some openness to the public. And I don't think the public wants a huge hotel there. So I'm just asking you guys as, as people that help the public understand planning and projects to, to make sure there's a robust process and that people know about it. So thanks for that. Thank you. One, two, six, three, five, seven, please introduce yourself in your one minute. Thank you. And it's very late. I'll just make this very short. I'm glad that the two commissioners. I'm all the same discrepancy that I'm seeing here. And that the plans that the city council and the planning commission look at with the public and debate about and finally approve or disapprove. Suddenly morph into something completely different when it gets to the very end of the planning process. When the garages disappear and all of a sudden we have a to use. And so what will we talking about in the first place back in the commission hearing. It's just troubling. It's not very transparent. And I can't really believe it's what the state intended. Thank you. And good night, people. Thank you. You have one minute. Thank you. My comment also had to do with the proposed surplus parking lot.  And so far, the direction of staff was just to conduct, you know, the usability or whatever sort of process that had to go along with that. So I hope that there is more opportunity for for the public to and for the city to put conditions or or review that process before it before it is finalized. Thank you. We've got 2 minutes. I do commissioners have any responses to the staff report. I have a quick question. Mr. Marlatt based on his what he led with. I was curious. If what if you knew what the grounds were for the appeal of 130 center street. I didn't look at it in any great detail. I know that there were some. Some claims that it was inconsistent with certain general plan policies. There were also some concerns. Regarding the amount of traffic that the project would generate Sam, did you have anything to add on that? Yeah, I think it was mostly based on traffic and I think that there. There might have been a claim that it was inconsistent with the secret exemption as well. Thank you. I have 2 comments. I'd like to make one having to do with the hotel. I think it would be really desirable to have the consistency comment the same time as the project. Rather than go through 2 separate processes at the commission for a project that's going to be very controversial. If we only have if we can hear it once, I think that would really be desirable. So if there's any way to make that happen, I would really like to advocate for that. Thank you. My second thing point has to do with the 418 Pennsylvania. My concern with that, particularly I understand and appreciate the other points. I don't think ADU should be allowed as affordable units. I mean, the whole rationale behind ADU is that they're supposed to be more affordable. And therefore, I think we need to think about whether it should be made clear that the inclusionary requirements are met by project units, not by ADU. And I appreciate staff's suggestion that the inclusionary units be identified in the conditions. But it's not always possible to do that, particularly for larger projects. So I think we need to, I would hope we would think about whether we would want to get some provision in the inclusionary ordinance. At least I would support a provision that would not, not use ADUs to meet inclusionary requirements. It's a contradiction. So if there are no other comments, we've exceeded our time by a minute. I would just be careful there. I think it's worth further study with potentially an ADU is going to be much larger than typical units in a project. Well, that's true too. Okay, but I'm raising a general concern. I think if we get into it, we should talk about those. Any other comments on information items? Are there any items to be referred to future agendas? Let's do any final comments. I want to thank everybody for hanging in there. We got to our agenda and we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you for your line.


There it is that delicious cake-ness Can I call in supplies? I don't think I can Wait, what it are my keys messed up because I don't have I don't have shortcuts for all the abilities I think my keys are messed up because I did them for BR Gadget slide. Oh, okay Fixed it the fort is falling. We'll see about that lady What is this made out of? Adamantium is that legendary gas? What is this on the ground a floor fleece or a floor freeze trap chat? I'm gonna help watch How do I trap? Let's see V V. Okay. I Don't know how to V will in there a wheel you can do. Oh you use the mouse wheel never mind watch this chat Watch my contribution. You're ready I'm gonna country could contribute. You're ready huh lights chat lights And then I'm put some metal on the ground and I'm be like V V how about How I change V traps? T there we go. There we go put a My own floor freeze trap Wait, I don't remember having this You because I can radio active spider-man. What's the escalation point? I Must know your secrets.  So what's seven do? Whoo Yeah Yeah It's gone. Is this the full version. Oh, yeah, this is save the world. Yeah, I kind of I should have got a founder's pack When I had chance What is that you have up here zappers? Zapper. Yeah, let's do some zappers. Hold on. Oh that thought. Let me do some zappers. Okay I have a zapper here Crap that where where where where where where where where I can't find you. I'm left. I'm die of death. Oh Over here. Okay See Right-click There we go. There we go. There we go. Okay, and craft another one. Oh, I got three Okay, I think I did that, right Yes zap them La dee dee la dee dee What I do would chat Right Yeah, I remember me arguing at people for doing that so I don't want to be that guy Is it the green bar? Why don't I see that? Recommend build them. Is that the top left? Oh, it's a number. It's not a bar. Okay. Okay. I got you. I Understand I got you. I understand. I Want to do a gas trap now? I have one So no wrong gun. All right stop stop nuking people So far no more not not a lot of screen shake That's good. I don't feel sick Radioactive spider man. We lost some pads over here some of these up floor things Did you give me free straps? I don't know where I got them from Why can't I put it down like if I hit V for my traps? I don't know how to switch traps T that's right. Dang it. I said that before Okay, I got it. I got it. I got it. I remember my stuff.    Okay. We're good. See we did it Yeah, we won. I got so many drinks on my desk. I don't want to spill them continue Wanna base? Whoa the daily bonus Please tell me I gotta open the whole thing There we go. What now I have been gifted an XP boost. Is that active? Oh, I see it now. It looks like I failed I didn't I didn't fully complete a blue glow siphon in a successful mission a blue glow siphon What is that? What is the blue siphon? Okay, so we're repeat this again. I kind of want to do the event I don't think I can handle it, but I want to do it anyway. I have to build a base Yeah, all I have is a stormwood and plankton quest Spider-man It says I have to unlock the skill node For the challenge. I did it. Okay. That's all I have to do. I have two I'm looking at it. Oh, yeah, 12 purchase What do I see my points? I thought that was a lot. Okay So I have 12 tier 1 points and 8 tier 2 points. Okay. I can read now. I Am good at weeding What is all this metal I Don't know any of this means yet So I'm just gonna Do stuff Okay strap Metal wait staging area would what's the difference between a horde combat wood and staging area would all right? Oh, I did a bunch of stuff for tier 1. Let's do tier 2 now wood wood metal metal Trap all right. I spent them all the horde. Oh, there's a base for this one too. Are you in my group still?  Yeah, okay All right, uh, oh I'm trying. Remember how the yeah, they did on my other base. I think Like this or is it smaller do this Okay one But I've tried to put it back to normal. There we go Trying to get all right four. Why is it? It's not saving my build there he goes now it's saving it.  So Like that. I'm gonna copy yours I'm gonna plagiarize Yep, I'm gonna put a fireplace in the middle Because that's what you did now. I'm gonna put some walls around it. Got it gg plagiarisms I wanted that to be metal man. I'm kind of mad at myself All right I gotta do what Why? Oh, will you leave it does that? Oh, I I oh, okay. I was like what happened. I thought I already did that. Okay, so um Put all my wet all this stuff. What about it? Oh upgrade them. Okay um I forgot how to do that. I think I remapped my key Let me look to see what upgrade is Because right now f is set to use You know what I'm gonna do this hold on F1 f2 f3 can I just do default reset? Yes reset Yeah reset All right way it didn't reset. Oh what? I think I didn't click apply reset Did it do it it didn't do it It didn't reset All right, so f1 f2 f3 f5 Use It's probably e spot target target I'm looking for upgrade Taco harvesting tool huh Repair upgrade there we go thumb house too.   Yeah, let's do it. If you think I'm ready Okay, so what do I got to do? leave Just leave mission so that's that's what's called the staging area right Okay, all right guys, let me take this is a good time for me to take a break. I'm gonna take like a 10 minute break I'll be back and then we're gonna do this.   I'm gonna put up a I'm gonna run an ad for three minutes The brb will be up for three minutes, but then it's gonna it's probably gonna go away after that But uh, yeah, I'll be back and uh, if you are a twitch prime user, please Please a humbly ask that you disable adblock Even though you don't see ads I will get credit. All right guys, I'll be back


He kind of gives Hal Steinbrunner some cover because We did a Twitter poll the other day about 5,000 people voted 51% of Yankee fans said don't sign him 49% said sign him so it's almost right down the middle, but you know the the comments to Rosenthal are Agitating the Yankee fans so by saying this he does give the Yankees some cover if in fact they they want to sign him and I Don't know if you believe this but I truly believe the Yankees are very in on this And I believe that they there's a good chance they would sign him I think that's where he goes personally I said it before the before the season before the off-season. I think this is the guy You know everybody was talking about Harper Harper Harper for years But the last couple years Machado is the guy who I thought really had a better chance to be Be a Yankee. I think you know the the the infield was a bigger need obviously the DBS You know injury certainly made it a different situation As well as Andrew Hart's emergence this year, but that said he is a free agent next year You can always try to move into hard of first base or trade them I mean even after next season that guy's gonna have four years of control left and be very valuable to a lot of teams Assuming he has another good year So there is a lot of flexibility both roster wise and now financially with them getting under the luxury tax threshold That you know, they're the Yankees they they go out after stars. That's what they do You know Michael you're not calling games of triple-a guys on yes You're calling games with Aaron judge and John Carlos Stanton and big stars many which I would fit that mold very well So, you know, I think I think the Yankees this reminds me a lot of 2008 But the way that we're hearing this this off-season go where it's you know, every time you hear cash talk It's pitching pitching pitching and they made the Paxton trade and they brought CC back And now they're talking about a Corbin or a Hap and they're gonna do all the pitching that they want Just like they did with the Bathia and Burnett in 08 and then all of a sudden a week later It was oh by the way, we're signing mark to share also So even if they signed Patrick Corbin or Hap or out of you know, or whoever else it may be It wouldn't surprise me if the cherry on top, you know, sometime in December was Machado I guess what's interesting to me is in 2009 they were coming off a year in which they had missed the playoffs for the First time in forever. They won a hundred games last year mark And I think that if DD and judge stay healthy all year, they probably would have won more So how odd is it to make these vast amount of changes and these big splashes for a team that was Outstanding and really only was dwarfed by the fact that the Red Sox had this historic season that they're probably not going to be able to Duplicate you're right But when you you know think about the fact of the Red Sox, you know One eat more games in them and won the World Series that whether they want to admit or not that puts some pressure on them It has to right so you know that and then Brian Cash was always looking at his team and saying where can it get better? No matter how good it was. I mean I'm sure after the 98th season. He looked at his roster and said where can we get better? Because you know guys leave you have guys move on And I just you know you look at it. I mean if they bring back half. Well, that's a guy who was there last year So even though that's gonna cost them a lot of money It's it's what they had last year.  That's not that's not how they roll typically You know, maybe for a guy with a long-term deal I mean when Alex had his hip surgery in 2009 and they went with Cody ransom Alex said nine years left on his contract So you weren't gonna go out and sign a big big free agent to play third base But you know by the time DD comes back He's gonna have three months left on his contract and you know Who knows sort of how he comes back and is he the same hitter and does it take him some time to get back and you know Who knows and the Yankees are not a team that just sits around and goes well We'll see and we'll hope for the best that's not their way