I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you testing testing hello, hello. you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm sorry. you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you you Okay. Oh good evening. I'm going to go to the meeting. Good evening, today, March 24th, we're going to open up our East Palo Alto planning commission, a regular regular session. We start with the roll call. Nice, Church of I'm here. Vice chair Sherard. Vice chair Sherard and for me that he had an emergency wouldn't be here. I understand. Chair Meshak. Present. Brown Austin is absent. Commissioner Monet. President. Commissioner Hernandez. Here. Commissioner Mendes is absent. Commissioner Smith. President. Thank you for the roll call. Sounds like we do have a quorum. What I'd like to do is to promote Commissioner Smith to the commission. I would like to do as to promote commissioners Smith to voting members of commission. Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. So moved. Second. Second. Second. All in favor. Motion carried. The approval of the consent calendar, which is the March 10th Planning Commission meeting. Motion to approve. Probably moved in a second, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carried. Next item on the agenda is public comment. I don't have any hands in the gallery, but I do have ones to be Christmas. For our Mando Maria 16. So this public comment is for anything that's not on the agenda. I think you should have clarified that. So public comment is for anything that's not on the agenda. I think I should have clarified that so public comment is for any item that is not agindized. Thank you very much. I guess we don't have any public comment. Okay. We'll move right on to the next item. Uh informational reports, staff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have two announcements today. The first announcement is there's going to be a Planner Commissioner's training workshop on the 29th of April at the some material library and so we are inviting Planner Commissioners to attend if you can make it. We would be sending the fly to you sometime after this meeting. The second announcement is on the development code update, which came before you on October 28 last year, and then it came back on January 13 this year to include the minor temporary use permits. So the development code update first went to the city council after your recommendation on the year 18th of February and the city council approved it subsequently it went back on the 18th of March for adoption so it will take effect on the 30th day after the March 18 adoption date. This concludes staff report. Thank you for that report, Sal. We're going to continue moving. We're checking right along here. Item number six on the agenda special presentations. I'm gonna pass it back to staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So today we have two items. Basically, there are two items. One is a mixed use project, and the other one is townhouse project. And Chris Dachamos is here. He's a consultant senior planner with us, and he's gonna make the presentation on the mixed use project. And then, Eliana is an associate also with Good City Company, and she will present to us townhouses. Chris. Thank you, Sal. I love the presentation here. Shows up on, does the presentation be show? Great, thank you. Good evening, Chair Meshak, honorable commission members. Thank you for attending this evening and then also folks in the audience and that are watching online. Tonight we're going to receive a special presentation on the preliminary application for University and Bay at four corners at the address side of 1675 Bay Road or across from City Hall. So right next door. So I'll be covering the mixed use project. My colleague, Ariano O'Connell, will be covering the townhouse project after this topic. So for this evening, for my presentation, we'll cover the recommended action. The city's preliminary application process, for anyone who's not familiar with it. Some of the regulatory requirements, such as 330 that, you know, the applicant is seeking to utilize for their projects. In order to view the site and propose projects, then the applicant will have a chance to present. And then there will be an opportunity for commissioners to ask questions and also provide feedback. So the recommended action is to review of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city. So, the city of the city of the city of the city. So, the city of the city of the city. So, the city of the city of the city. So, the city of the city of the city. So, the city of the city. of the commission this evening. And so for those of you who are at home that may be watching the preliminary application process is the city of these Palo Alto's own process in order to have development projects engage with community and provide feedback and learn of any of any projects that are coming through the process also provides an opportunity to the applicants to understand that the city's approval process allows staff to identify any potential issues and like I noted earlier facilitate its community outreach. As part of the process applicants are required to do at least one event with the community to propose their project and share updates on it and receive feedback additional leads to that. They also have to notice the surrounding neighborhood. Which this applicant did. And then participate in at least one planning commission meeting and potentially a city council meeting if so requested by city council member. So as noted earlier, since this is a preliminary application, it's not a comprehensive review of the project. The submitted material is conceptual in nature, just in order to provide the community a chance to look at what's being proposed. Again, tonight, it's not resulting in any approvals and it's not appealable. So as I mentioned, there's going to be two projects that the commission will be receiving a presentation on this evening. The one that I'll be presenting on is the one to the left, which is the Twitter rental apartment unit, including 20% affordable below market rate units. And then Arianaanna will be presenting later on the town home project, which is a 95 town homes that are for sale. Additionally, as part of this preliminary application, outreach process, the outreach event that the applicant held was February 27th at the YMCA Family Center in East Pau Alto. There's approximately 30 attendees who attended that night in terms of feedback that I was able to listen in on a lot of applicants expressed interest in the projects. I think one of the concerns was around parking, given that for the mix use project since it's proposing 200 units. There also had questions with regards to the affordability makeup and then also what kind of amenities would be available for future residents. So I'm just going to go over the state regulations and this project. Since this project specifically is seeking to utilize SB 330. And so the goals of SB 330 are the Housing Crisis Act as legislated by the state legislature and signed into law about the governor. The goal is to facilitate housing and an expedite permit processing. Specifically for this project, they're seeking to vest the development centers in place at the time that their preliminary application was submitted to the city and found to be complete. And so the date in which that happened was December 2nd, 2025. And since that application was received, I'm sorry, December 2nd, 2024. Thank you. Thank you for the nods. December 2nd, 2024. So that applicant has 180 days to submit a formal application. And also SB 330 prohibits finding a project inconsistent with applicable plans and standards and poses or enforces a prohibit the imposing or enforcing of subjective design standards and limits public hearings to five. And as there's no decision being made tonight, this special presentation, this study session, would not be counted towards that. Additionally, the applicant is also providing below-markerate units on-house to utilize the density bonus. And through that process, they're seeking to utilize and request concessions or waivers. However, since this is just a preliminary application, there's no determination of what mix of waivers or concessions would be allowed for the site. But we anticipate being able to work through that once they submit a formal application and then also submit a housing plan. And lastly, the Housing Accountability Act, that's going to play into one of the slides down the line in regards to density and what's used for density in terms of the general plan or zoning. But essentially the housing accountability act says that an applicant can utilize either and determine which standard should be in place in order to facilitate as much housing as possible. So as noted earlier, the project location is at 1675 Bay Road. It's bounded by University Avenue to the west and Bay Road to the south. It's surrounded by the University Village to the north and to the east. And there's residential parcels surrounding it. Additionally, this site historically was the University Village Shopping Center. And after that, Nairobi Village, which, you know, is significant for the community. And then since 1989, the site has been vacant. Right now, as it exists, the parcel is 6.03 acres. However, the applicant's proposing to subdivide the parcel in order to pursue the two separate projects. And so what you're seeing here is the existing parcel, the top left corner, and the proposed project area in pink. The general plan land use designation is mixed use high and the zoning is four corners gateway. So there would be two buildings primarily, building A which is the market rate component of the project. That's where 160 units would be there There's no retail, there's no retail proposed in building A. There is retail proposed for building B and we'll identify that area with a layer of slide. Building B would be the affordable housing component of the project. And so which the city council would have to approve an alternative compliance path in order for that to occur since ideally through the inclusionary housing ordinance that the city adopted it should be provided within the same building. So circulation wise. residents to the building or visitors to the retail component would be able to access the site through Bay Road and University Avenue is shown here. So the area that's kind of shaded and blue. That's going to be the area of the town home project, which will'll receive a presentation on later this evening. There's one entrance right now into the garage, and that's the garage is centered in the middle of building A and is wrapped around with the residential units. Here's where it says, entry on the left-hand side of Building B, that's one of the areas of where retail square footage would be provided. The other area of retail footage would be Alon Bay Road. And so that's where the 2400 square feet of retail would be. So the project, proposed would be six stores which is allowed in the 2013 RBD specific plan and as noted earlier since the applicant submitted an SB 330 application that vests the standards in place at the time the application was submitted and so that app so the standards that were in place at that time was the 2013 RBD specific plan. That also vests, impact the rates that were in place at the time that the project was submitted and found to be complete. The proposed that they are is 2.5, which is in conformance, and then the proposed density 101 units per acre. This is where that Housing Accountability Act comes into play. So the RBD specific plan, the 2013 edition has a lower at about 60 units per acre. The general plan has it at 86 units per acre, but with the, with the addition of the density bonus that bumps up the allowable density at that site to 103 units per acre. So some of the concessions incentives and or waivers that the applicant is seeking is a reduction in the ground floor retail requirement. So they're proposing 6% and all, and all, and that would be located in building B. And for context, the four corners gateway, as identified in the RBD specific plan, that's identified to be the downtown and the heart of the city. So that's kind of the context of why 35% was included in those development standards. Another is the 40 foot ground floor depth requirement. And so they're proposing 36 feet. Part of that is to allow that amount of parking in order to support the project. Also, 36 feet depth is what they're proposing for the residential units. Then, a smaller rear setback. That rear setback can be between the 200 unit mixed use development and the town home development. So for building an A that's at 15 feet as minimum setback and building B is 10 foot. As this is not a project under SIKWA, this presentation tonight and the project before us is exempt. So with that, I'll turn it over to the applicant and follow in the applicant's presentation. We'll receive questions and comments from the Pine Commission. So I'm gonna plug in. Thanks, Chris. You're welcome. Okay, great. Thank you. I can't actually see the screen. So occasionally, I'm kind of gl over there. My apologies. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Mike Kramer from Sandhill Property Company. Thank you for your time tonight. I'll be discussing our two pre-applications for the four corners site at University in Bay, starting with the mixed use pre-application. But before I get into each pre-apps details, I'll give some context about our company and our history with four corners. Sandhill Property Company is a local family owned business founded over 30 years ago. We're based down the street in Palo Alto with local offices here in EPA. We're focused on serving local communities in the peninsula and we have a long-term approach. Our work in EPA began almost 10 years ago when we bought the Woodland Park Apartments on the West Side. We've continued to invest in EPA since then. Our approach has been very focused on community engagement and getting residents input. During this past decade, we've learned a lot about EPA and we love being a part of this community. Several years ago, we consistently heard people ask, what's the deal with the big empty lot across from City Hall? When is anything going to be built there? We heard a frustration that it sat empty for over 30 years and we want to do something about it. So we bought the property in 2019 and we started talking to folks about what to do here. During in 2020, we held an extensive community engagement process starting with in-person meetings and moving to virtual meetings due to COVID. We learned about the history of the site, the desires of the community and our neighbors, and potential concerns about development. That year we proposed a mixed-use project with a variety of uses based on the input we heard. Shortly after proposing that project and over our objections, the city launched the RBD-4 Corner specific plan update, freezing our application in place for years. The four corners site has been studied extensively in city-driven planning processes, including the 2013 Ravenswood four corner specific plan, the 2016 general plan, and the 2020 through 2024 RBD four corner specific plan update. The four-year specific plan update process did not allow us to advance our 2020 application and the final result changed development standards and down-zone the site to be incompatible with our proposal essentially rejecting the project. We heard a lot of feedback during the specific plan update process that has informed the new pre-applications we're discussing tonight. We heard a desire for a greater number of housing units than we originally proposed, with a greater variety of housing types. And we heard a desire for less height and overall density than what was allowed in the previous specific plan and general plan zoning. So we came up with two new proposals to address this feedback and incorporate community input. Both of these pre-applications, along with the provisions of the state density bonus, are compliant with all three of the previous planning documents, including both the old and the new specific plans. Even with all the feedback from the specific plan update process, we wanted to get input on the new pre-applications, and we held a community meeting in February at the East Palo Alto YMCA. We mailed notices to every household within 600 feet of the four corner site, and we had a good turnout. I'd also like to thank the planning consultants for joining. It was good to have city representation there as well. We shared information about the design, layout, uses, and experience, and got overall positive feedback. Our neighbors shared that they liked the look and feel the design and are excited to finally have something built at the long vacant site. The project is split into two pre-applications because they're very different product types. They have two different architects and we expect that they'll have different financing. Given the difficulty of building in these Palo Alto, we also wanted to make sure that either one can proceed even if the other encounters challenges. Now I'll get into the details of the mix use proposal and we'll later discuss the town homes in a later presentation. The mix use building occupies the southwest corner of the site and we're proposing 200 mixed-income rental apartments with ground floor amenities along with 2400 square feet of neighborhood serving ground floor retail or restaurant space. The building has a unit mix ranging from studios to three bedroom apartments. We're proposing a compliant inclusionary housing plan with 20% of units as below market rate affordable housing or a city council approved alternative compliance option. Here you can see a pedestrian level perspective of the building from Bay Road. This view is roughly from the old post office site. The ground floor will be activated retail or restaurant space and apartment amenities such as fitness and leasing. This is a perspective from University Avenue, roughly from the McDonald's parking lot. Our goal is to create an attractive and vibrant streetscape on both University Avenue and Bay Road. This building was designed by David Baker Architects, who have done several projects in East Palo Alto, including the Woodland Park Euclid Improvements and Calibri Commons at 965 Week Street. This slide shows the materials being considered for the building. This will be a high quality building with attractive materials that will reflect well on this prominent location. We're considering a range of potential tenants for the ground floor retail and restaurant spaces. Based on the location and size and what we heard in the community input, we think it could be a good location for a cafe, small restaurant, small market, or bank branch. I'm happy to take your questions and I'll go into depth on the town homes in a later presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Um, prisoners. Questions for. Yes, one I'm disappointed that you withdrew the office. I have a feature I was very. Design mainly because of my employment background in the past. What is the timeline that this might proceed beyond tonight? So our goal is to conclude the pre-application process in the spring and submit full applications for each of these sites in May. We are hoping that it will have a relatively abbreviated SEQUA process because this site has already been studied extensively, both for our previous application and the specific plan update process. And so we would like to move as quickly as possible through the approval process and hope to begin construction, or at least begin permitting and then construction shortly thereafter. The economics of the projects are such that the town homes present a more feasible project currently. So we believe that is most likely to start first, but a lot of that, the timing depends on the approval timing and kind of some of the things that are yet to be determined about infrastructure costs and other city requirements. Michael, would you say that there is a glut of office slash lab space on the peninsula? Generally, yes. I would say that it's very different than in 2020 when we had proposed the Life Science Project. And so, unfortunately, it's not as feasible as it was then to propose those kinds of projects today. In addition, the project that we had proposed is no longer allowed under the new specific plan. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Commissioner Manette? Yes, I am looking at the amount of retail space that was designated. I'm trying to understand how we went from 35 to 6% and what do you feel what... How does that justify as a mix of use still? So how do we get from 35 to 6? So it contains a mix of uses, but the primary use is housing. The reason is that retail in this location is generally infeasible and must be subsidized by the other use. And housing is also economically challenging. So having 35% of the ground floor would not be possible to build, which is why we have determined the amount that is proposed. We recognize that retail is highly desirable, and that's something that we've heard in the community and put process. I think many builders in the area would propose a project in most locations with no ground floor retail, and we recognize that that is not what the community desires, but we're trying to balance that with the ability to get the project financed and built. Mr. Hernandez? Sure. So to be frank, when I first looked at this, I've just kind of found it almost borderline offensive. I mean, I take big issue with the segregation that's really counter to the inclusionary housing ordinance. I mean, what is the purpose of separating the market rate and the affordable units into two separate buildings? What is the purpose of that? Affordable housing is generally financed through tax credits and other incentives provided by the county and the state. To do so, they usually need to be on a separate parcel that is financeable separate from market rate housing. And if it's integrated within a market rate housing project, it's not able to receive the incentives that's required to subsidize the extremely low income levels that are required in East Palo Alto. And so that's the rationale for separating it. I'll note that all of the affordable housing to my knowledge in East Palo Alto is currently delivered in this manner, primarily for the receipt of tax credits. And so I would be open to an alternative compliance option that has a different approach that is feasible with a different subsidy approach and would then consider whether there's a way to do it in an inclusionary manner that's fully integrated. Then in terms of the way that this impacts the design, it looks like the parking is located in building A. So anybody that's in the affordable housing units would have to walk significantly farther to access your vehicles, correct? They would have to walk across a courtyard. I don't think it's a significant distance, but it is a walk from a garage to a building. We think that we're considering different approaches to each of the buildings to make that as attractive as possible. And we've considered that approach in other areas also for market rate housing. It's possible that it may be logical for that to be a senior housing project, which has different parking needs and demands. And we're studying that possibility. But currently, it's not feasible to build two separate garages on that site at that scale. But obviously we want to make it as pleasant as an experience to connect those residents with their parking. Sure. I think in addition to sort of the minimal amount of retail space offered there, folks would not have access to a grocery store. So anybody that does live in the affordable housing building would have to drive to get their groceries and then park farther and then walk all of their stuff. So that just leads to a lower quality of life compared to the folks in the market rate housing. I think that's something that needs to be considered in addition. As was mentioned during the staff presentation, the spirit of that parcel is to be our downtown. And with six percent of it being really accessible to the public for economic purposes, I just do not see how that, that what message does that send about our downtown that shows that we view Eastpalt as simply, what just housing, just a place for people to live, live close to the bridge so they can, you know, go across to their jobs. No, we want a place where we can spend money in our communities. I would really, really urge you to look into increasing the amount of retail space here. Mm-hmm. Understood. You know, we, we did look at it extensively. Our previous application had significantly more retail, which was subsidized by the economic drivers that were also proposed at that site. But unfortunately, that proposal was rejected by the city. And the feedback we received was that it was too dense, that the economic, you know, kind of the job providing uses were not appropriate for the city. And so, and frankly, we heard the desire for more housing. And so this proposal, these two proposals reflect the feedback that we've received. But I acknowledge that we've also heard a desire for retail as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. To keep it short. Sorry, to keep it short. I can curve with my fellow commissioners that it was kind of weird to see the difference. We're supposed to be including everybody and making our city easy. And that's first thing I thought was where is the parking and how is it that we continue to segregate and separate when the money is there regardless to where you get their tax credits or whatever is gonna happen and who's gonna pay and all that stuff. Stan Hill has enough money to do what it needs to do. So continuing to keep us separate and making sure that projects are still creative for the low income, it is offensive. Thank you, Lord. Commission Monet. No, go forward. There is. Would this be a good opportunity for that to open it up to the community to speak. He wants to address the town homes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other commissioners have a comment? Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Back to staff. Amy can once to speak. Good evening planning. Good evening. Good evening planning commission. This is the image and director of community and I can have a development. Sorry, inter-object. I just wanted to make a quick point of clarification regarding RVD-specific plan that was approved late last year. The planning team is in the process of opening up the capacity and the ability for projects to submit their applications under expanded on square footage that the RVD specific plan update provided. And so just so that the planning commission has the full context, commercial applications, mixed use applications could be submitting their projects to our planning team for consideration. And we certainly understand the market economics and the changes that the applicant has gone through to redesign this project to be focused on residential but I just wanted to make sure to provide that context that applicants are not precluded from submitting their commercial projects for consideration and we will have more from the planning team at future planning commission meetings with the details about the RBD specific plan. Thank you thank you thank you Amy for providing that the context. Staff I think it's time to present on this townhouse. Right. Thank you commissioners. So with that, I'll kick it over to my colleague, Ariana, who will present on the town on project. Thanks, Chris. Don't go too far. We might ask them more questions for you. Thank you, Chris. Okay. Good evening, Chair Mayechak, Planning Commissioners, staff and members of the public in the audience tonight. Tonight I am presenting the preliminary application for the University and Bay at Four Corners Town Home Project. The goals of tonight's presentation are to provide an overview of the proposed project. Sorry. Have the applicant present on the project, provide the community an additional opportunity to comment on the preliminary application, and receive questions and feedback from the Planning Commission. Little background on the project, the city's municipal code requires applicants with major projects to participate in the city's preliminary application process. The proposed project meets the definition of a major project as it contains 20 or more units. As part of the process, the applicant is also required to host one community meeting at a minimum and receive feedback from the Planning Commission during a study session, which is why we're all here tonight. The applicant, Sand Property Company held a community meeting on February 27th, 2025 at the Lewis & Joan Platt Palo Alto YMCA in the city room. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 community members and a Spanish interpreter was present. The applicant provided an overview of the proposed project and project objectives and was followed by an open house format where attendees could review boards displaying project information. Questions and comments from the community on the townhomes projects were centered around a couple specific topics, one of which was the affordability of the townhomes, additionally request for ample setbacks from the street to provide the town homes with a greater sense of privacy from the street. Access to open spaces and amenities in the mixed use buildings. Questions about the size of units and a request for assurance that there would be enough parking for both residents and visitors. I'll now move on to the project description. As mentioned in my call for the public, I will I'll now move on to the project description. As mentioned in my colleagues presentation, further requirements of SB 330, the applicants may utilize the zoning standards that were in effect on the date a complete preliminary application was submitted. For this project, that date is November 22, 2024. Since a complete application was submitted prior to the city's adoption of the RBD four-corner specific plan update, the zoning designation for the site is four corners, and a general plan land use designation of mixed use high is the projects. The project site is located within the Ravenswood Business District at 1675 Bay Road and has frontage along University Avenue and Bay Road. The project is also bounded by the University Village neighborhood to the east and north. The existing Assisters parcel number for the site is 063 1111230. The size of the existing parcel is 6.03 acres and as my colleague Chris mentioned, it is currently vacant. The applicant is seeking to subdivide the parcel to pursue two separate projects, one for the subject townhome project and another for the 200 unit mixed use project. The division would result in a project site of approximately four acres. Moving on to the proposed project and site plan, the proposed project consists of 95 townhomes with units consisting of two to four bedrooms and areas ranging in size from 1200 to 1900 square feet. The applicant is proposing that this project would provide 76 market rate, 10 low income, and nine moderate income units for sale for a total of 20% of their units being classified as affordable. In order for this project to have met the 20% baseline requirement under the city's inclusionary housing ordinance, the project will need to build inclusionary and market rate units concurrently, distribute inclusionary units evenly throughout the project site, and have the same finishes and access to amenities. The project would include 201 parking spaces, 190 of which would be in private garages, with an additional 19 service spaces for visitors and guests. Each unit includes an attached one-to-two car garage and private bicycle parking. Moving on to a bit of a graphic which showcases the site plan in more detail. Based on the applicant site plan, we believe that access to the site would be provided through five entry points, which you can see in the yellow arrows. Access could be found on University in Michigan avenues. So University is at the left-hand corner, Michigan at the top, and then two different access points on Fordham Street and an additional access point on Bay Road. Garage is connected to internal roadways while pedestrians can access the shared open space between buildings, which provides a sense of connection throughout the site. The layout balances vehicular and pedestrian needs with landscaped walkways connecting the buildings to common spaces, enhancing community interaction. A proposed 19 foot setback along Bay Road would create additional open space while buffering the units from the street traffic. This integrated approach to site planning and multimodal access could support urban density and live ability goals and the four corners area. The applicant has submitted preliminary architectural drawings detailing three distinct building configurations, which I've noted in different colors on this figure here. So building A includes 111plex building which is shown in red. Building B, there are six 12plexes shown in orange at the center of the site. And then building C, which includes two sixplexes shown in blue. All town home units would be three stories tall with living areas spanning three floors and a ground level garage. The maximum building height would be approximately 38 feet and 10.5 inches. The architectural design for the Four Corners Town Homes project at 1675 Bay Road incorporates a contemporary aesthetic with a combination of Stucco, Bordenbattsighting, and adhered brick finnier. Completed, complemented with asphalt shingle roofing and corrugated metal accents. The project's material and neutral color palette are intended to create visual interest while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Moving on to initial staff analysis, because the applicant submitted a preliminary application under SB 330, the project is reviewed under the 2013 Ravenswood Business District specific plan, rather than any later zoning changes. Under the 2013 RBD specific plan, the site falls within the four-quarter zoning district, is intended to support a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use environment with specific height and density limits. The project complies with these regulations as follows. Under building height, the zoning allows for a maximum of 100 feet or six stories, whichever is higher. The proposed project is only three stories, reaching height of 38 feet and 10 and a half inches as previously mentioned. Keeping this well within the allowed height and ensuring compatibility with the surrounding built environment. The floor area ratio for this site under zoning permits a maximum FAR of 2.5. The proposed project has an FAR of 1.13, which is below the limit, demonstrating that the project is designed within a reasonable density, density parameters while making efficient use of the site. As stated previously, the site intends to utilize the California density bonus law, which grants additional housing density and zoning flexibility in exchange for affordable housing. By designating 20% of the units as affordable housing, the applicant may qualify for concessions and waivers, intended to modify affordability-related unit size and bedroom mix requirements, increase the setback along Bay Road, adjust the ground floor height so that the ground floor height is suitable to residential use rather than, say, retail, and also allow for ground floor residential units, which it's currently not allowed. An affordable housing compliance plan would need to be submitted to housing staff for the housing proposal to be considered and determined if it meets the city's inclusionary housing ordinance requirements. If the applicant is proposing an alternative compliance option, including not meeting all the requirements of the IHO, such as concentrating the affordable units into one building or on one side of the project site. This project and the Affordable Housing Compliance Plan would need to be brought forward to the City Council for consideration before the project can move forward with entitlement hearings. As previously mentioned by my colleague Chris, the project is in the preliminary stages and has not submitted a formal application. So it is therefore not considered a project under CEQA and is thus exempt from CEQA guidelines. We will now move to our recommended action, which is that the Planning Commission review the preliminary application for Project 24-003 for the 1675 Bay Road Town Homes Project proposed by four corners, property owner LLC, and provide feedback to the applicant and city staff. Thank you. Thank you very much for the report, Ariana. I'm going to give it back to the applicant. Should be up Mike. Great. Thank you. Hello again. Thank you for your time tonight. I'll now discuss our four corners townhomes. We've proposed 95 four-sale townhomes, which are similar to attached single-family homes with ground floor garages and individual front doors. Each unit has two garage parking spaces and they range from two to four bedrooms in a variety of sizes. We're proposing a compliant inclusionary housing plan with 20% of units as below market rate affordable housing or a city council approved alternative compliance option. This is a rendering of the pedestrian level perspective from Bay Road at the project entrance. We're including pedestrian friendly street frontage with individual entries along Bay Road and also in the interior of the site. The project was designed by the Dolling Group which specializes in similar housing. I'll note that we have representatives from both architecture firms on the Zoom tonight if you have specific questions that they're better suited to answer than I am. This slide shows the open space plan and pedestrian circulation. Generally the town homes are clustered around landscaped garden courts to provide common open space, and there are also landscaped urban yards near University Avenue and facing Bay Road. Here's a conceptual elevation of a town home building. You can see that the units of balconies and private open space, as well as separate garage and ground floor entries for each town home. These perspectives show a broader view of what the overall project will look like from Bay Road and from University Avenue. The buildings are only three stories tall and the community feedback we received is that they fit in well to the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. One of the primary pieces of feedback we received on our previous application is that the building were too tall and did not fit into the local context. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to take additional questions. Thank you Michael. I'm going to start from the left side this time. Questions, comments? I just want some figures on what counts as affordable. So moderate income and medium income. what are those income levels? Currently based on AMI. Moderate is 80, right? Low is 80 and third is 120. So percent of AMI, what is AMI, what does those percent translate to? Is it like $200,000 per year, 160? I'm not too sure about that director Amy is online and she might be able to help us with that. But 80% is median and 120% is moderate. Right. So that's based on the medium income for San Mateo County, correct, which is obviously much higher than the medium income in East Paul. So I don't know how that counts as affordable. I know, you know, legally that's affordable. But in my opinion, I would probably guess most, you know, the opinion of most people in this community, that is not affordable. That is the plan that was approved by city council. So that's the current inclusionary housing ordinance. Okay. Well, all right. Okay. the plan that was approved by City Council. So that's the current inclusionary housing ordinance. Okay, so for next time, if we could have those figures available, just so that we can get that context. I'll note just for context, so that average summer 120, summer 80% of AMI, so at the average of 100% of AMI, that's a four sale home at roughly a price of $500,000, which is approximately half of the average home price in East Palo Alto. Right, that's a single family resident versus a town home, which doesn't have a yard and, you know. Okay. Yeah, it would be nice to have data just for next time. Yeah. Commissioner Hernandez, we hear your comment. I think that's a really good point. We'll be prepared with a table showing not only the income levels, but also what that equates to for sale homes. Yeah, I think that context is very important if we're, you know, saying that what like 9% of these would be more than the AMI for San Mateo County, which is already more than the AMI for For East Palo toe. We have some information for you for a household of three people. 80% of AMI would be 140,000 and then 120% of EMI would be 200,000. Okay. So we're looking at these homes being affordable to families that are making 200,000. So just important to keep that in mind within the context of East Ballton, how many families here make 200,000 dollars. And you know, who will be actually buying these homes that are located very close to, you known-Barton Bridge. Who are these actually being built for? I think that's important. That's a very good point. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hernandez. Commissioner Moonet. And again, I just want to acknowledge that you're taking a large portion of the available real estate that we need as our revenue developing for East Valato and putting in town homes, which are less likely to be converted at any point in the future. So now we are essentially taking that off the market. Yes, we get property tax income, but based off of that and the potential for sales tax revenue over the long haul. Not seeing the true benefit. Now, I appreciate the way you laid out the space. I think there is you did some nice things with tucking back in there, but I think we're missing the mark on what I feel the city really needs in the long run. Just putting that out there. I think you've lost some opportunities to do housing above retail. I know you're saying, but this portion has no retail whatsoever. So you're in our mixed use high with no mixed use. And I'm sorry, but 24 hundred square feet of retail is a combination of what you can call mixed use. That's maybe a Starbucks, maybe a jam but juice. Like I don't see where we're thinking we're getting any mixed use benefit from it. So I wouldn't even call it mixed use at this point. You're just in a mixed-used area building residents. Thank you for your comment, Commissioner Monat. Commissioner Hernandez, can you come out? I'm tested Hernandez. I'm sorry, Mendez. I'll go. Your turn, sir. On retail, there is a retail operation across the street. There's a little shopping center there, Pal Market, associated businesses. So there is already retail in the area. My question is going to be more. What facilities are you providing in the garage? Will there be EVR charging stations? Is that in your plan or considering it? What about solar panels on the roofs? There's a lot of a lot of sun in that area. Any consideration on that coming down the pike when you're ready to submit plans? Yeah, absolutely. Generally the buildings that we provide meet stringent sustainability goals and many of them are built to lead compliance or above. We expect these will have many of those sustainability features, including EV charging and solar panels. Generally, in many respects, that's almost a prerequisite to meet the modern California building code. green,, we go to CalGreen standards. And so we expect these buildings to be very sustainable relative to the current building stock. Are you considering precluding testless from the garage just kidding. Thank you for you coming. Are there you have a question? I'll come and go for it. Yeah, just just a thought. Since San Hill knows our community and has been here for quite a long time and has purchased what is one of the hearts other than whiskey coach of our community and we're expecting you guys to do so much with it. Why isn't it that you don't give us what we need versus was economically set for San Hill? Just something to think about. I'm Mr. Ritoral a question. Thank you. Thank you. I will say in response that we did our best to propose a very responsive project in 2020, which included a new public library, a significant amount of ground floor retail, including a local small business incubator, and unfortunately this was tied up in a process that we didn't really want to occur. And then that process essentially rejected the project that we had proposed. And I'm also very disappointed at how that all worked out. The feedback that we heard was for smaller, lower density, more housing, and fits better into the context of the neighborhood. And so we've attempted to be responsive to that feedback in this proposal. But I do understand that frustration. And frankly, I wish that the economic conditions were, as they were, when we purchased this site in 2019, which would have greater enabled us to provide some of those amenities in a mix of uses as previously proposed. Thank you, Mike. I appreciate it. Go ahead. Commissioner, has there been any thoughts to doing smaller scale kind of and watch how it develops? So let's say we only, right now this looks like a gut reaction to like, okay, our model was rejected. Now we need to fill the space to be honest. That's what it just feels like. We need to fill the space to generate some income for for having this property As there have been any consideration to doing a smaller developing, let it be kind of mature into something else rather than trying to do everything at once. So maybe we'd stage retail towards the back end or towards the front end. It does need to be a full build out of the entire space, but looking at it from a kind of modular or expanding project rather than all at once. Has that been looked at? It's something, so I would say that the current proposal considers this approach to some extent. You know, we have two separate applications, partially so that they could be acted upon with different timing and they will require different financing. You know, we recognize that the corner of Bay Road and University Avenue is more prominent portion of the site, which is why we created a larger building and a broader mix of uses, although I recognize the concern that is still primarily housing. I will say that it's definitely something that we could consider. But that being said, you know, this is not a kind of a rushed project in that, you know, we're very proud of this project. We're excited to build it. We think we'll be very high quality and be a great addition to East Palo Alto. And generally, six years is a very long time to own a vacant site for any owner. And there are a lot of costs associated with that. But this is not something that is being rushed. I expect this planning process to probably take a year, permitting takes a year, construction takes two to three years. So, you know, even in the fastest timeline, it will probably be 10 years of ownership before we have an occupiable building. And so I would consider this not to be kind of a rushed process in any means. Thank you Commissioner Monette. Do we have any? I'm going to open it to the public. Great. Thank you. You might have some questions. Okay. Way. Are there any slips or hands in the in the gallery? There are no hands, but I do have one speaker slip Armando, Maria. Well, we can you. Thank you. Thank you. Alto by providing much needed housing to a rapidly growing community, constructing a new aesthetically pleasing development, and by providing jobs to the men and women who will build this project. We would like to see the workers on this project be taken care of properly and not be exploited for their skills and labor. To make sure that the workers are protected on this project means that it needs to be built by a responsible contractor. What we mean by a responsible contractor is one that is selected that pays area standard wages, provides health care benefits for its workers, promotes state-approved apprenticeship programs, and supports a local hiring practice. The men and women who will build this project should be paid a livable wage in order to take care of themselves, their families, and be able to afford to live in our community. With inflation always on the rise, housing prices don't look like they're ever going down at any time soon. The men and women work in one of the most dangerous industries in our country and need health care for themselves and their families so that they can remain productive and not become dependent on county assistance health programs where a lot of our tax dollars are paid into. So in closing let's advocate for a responsible contractor who will do the right thing for our construction workers. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Unless they're making $200,000 a year, then I can be able afford it anyway. Any any any of the comments before I. Yeah, to the chair. I wanted to ask the last speaker is he supporting the project? The housing project he did he just wants equity Is that is that what I hear? That's what I thought I Thank you I've got a couple of questions if I may a reanna that was There was a page Shhh. Did you? Oh, I want to talk to Mike Mike. Sequencing up the projects, you mentioned that they would not necessarily be built at the same time, but I noticed that they share basically the same kind of easements of same. So how's that that gonna work? I think the given just the kind of the sequel, ideally we would build both of them at the same time. If the financing works out and the approvals work out, I would love to start them both at the same time. I think that the town homes are, if they are not started at the same time, the town homes are more likely to be first and much of the shared vehicular infrastructure is on the town home site. That being said, if the mixed use site is developed first, we could also develop some of the infrastructure on the town home site that would accommodate that. Essentially, you know, some of the roots that would carry the passengers to the garage. So I think it could be done either way, but ideally, we would just do them both at the same time. All right. Thank you. I have another question regarding the, there was a slide that you had Ariana. The slide had minimum ground, something or another, and then I just wrote quick notes because we were trying to pay attention. But it said something about a law for ground floor or not allowing for ground floor residents. I just wanted to get a little bit of a clarification on that one. There it is. That's the one. The last two bullets. Help me understand what was meant by that. Sure. So I'll provide a little bit more context. So currently,'s essentially a ground floor height that really works well for residential uses but not as well for if you're doing ground floor residential. So let me figure out the exact numbers. Yeah, that's what caught me right there. Yeah. Yeah, you you just said something and I didn't it didn't stick Yeah, so So right now the the minimum ground floor height is 16 feet. Yes And so because the applicant is trying to build residential uses They would like to make that more an alignment with with, um, with residential use. So let me pull the numbers for you one second. One moment. Actually, Mike, if you have the numbers, you're welcome to speak on my behalf. Oh, nine feet. Sorry, nine feet floor to floor. Yes, generally, and you can think of the homes that you've been in, a 16 foot first story of a home is extraordinarily grand even in some of the largest homes in this region. It's not really compatible with the design that we have and particularly particularly, most of the ground floor spaces garage. So usually a garage is only so tall. So this is just to kind of allow for the kind of standard housing use versus what had been originally considered. It would be, wouldn't it? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the 16 feet was there because it was anticipated that the mix use was going to have retail on the first floor or ground floor. Those normally required taller heights. Yes. In terms of residential, it's normally 9 to 10. I understand that. And since they want to do residential on the first floor, the proposal to use a waiver or concession to reduce that's 16 foot height to the president. Something more appropriate for residential. Yes. Thank you for the explanations. The bullets and the words kind of got me mixed, but I appreciate you all clarifying that for me. I do have a couple more for me. So the parking and the amenities parking is peculiar to the residents of these, of both of the townhouse makes use. Amenities are they also peculiar to the residents and of these two projects? Generally, the interior amenities are reserved for the use of the residents, particularly in the apartment building. However, there's a lot of outdoor amenities that are planned for the mixed use site. So the portion of space that is between the apartment building and then the mixed use affordable house. The apartment you're talking about town homes. Sorry, no. On just the new site. Oh, the view site. Yeah. Right. So there's the two buildings, one of which is apartments and amenities and parking. And the other is affordable housing and ground floor retail. And there's a pretty substantial courtyard in between. And we're looking at ways that we could even enlarge that a little bit to create public open space that is available to everyone. And we actually think that could be a really nice space for the public and in particular create kind of an expansion of the retail envelope so that there's outdoor dining and also just a place to hang out even if you're not, you know, shopping or buying something at the retail space. 2200 square. And then the other piece is that there isn't a Jason 10,000 square foot lot that the city owns. Which, you know, we can't dictate what the city should do with that site, but it would be pretty logical to combine to create some sort of open space amenity alongside the other publicly available open space. Thanks. Thanks for that answer, Michael. I've got one of the comments. I have no other questions, and I'll pass it on, but I think what you heard the last time, what you always here and I know you've heard it today. We're looking for community accessibility, community inclusion, and community, that spot is a downtown community center. And I don't hear that from this particular proposal. I'm done. You've put it that sums it up. I mean, even with the courtyard, I get the ambition and the intent behind it. But even on your plan, you show the retail space opposite from the courtyard. So it's like you're saying one thing, but your plans are showing another. If the retail generally, many retailers like high visibility location and so that's why we have focused that kind of as close to university avenue and bay road as possible. But we do think it can be kind of accessible through that that kind of courtyard area. But I'll take that feedback feedback and we're still refining the design. And overall, I hear your concerns for more public amenities, more retail, which is itself a different kind of public amenity. Accessibility and inclusion, Yes, which is from what I can tell, and my many years here, a bedrock principle in East Palo Alto. And it probably is frustrating for you to hear as it is for me to say, the economics of these projects make it difficult, you know, even in the condition that you may feel is compromised is difficult to make a feasible project. But, you know, I would be very open to figure out what compromises and trade-offs can be made to adjust it. But likely that usually means trading one thing for another. And, you know, I'm very happy to have that conversation and think about what that trade-off can be. This is a pre-application. It's very early. We are here to get your feedback. So, and we'll get more community feedback as well and have more community meetings about this. And I would say along with the townhouse being that there is no mix uses a part of that there definitely should be some more emphasis on public parks or areas spaces right now that's a gated community that's what it's going to come off as and be used so you can find ways of incorporating more open spaces even from university if I was standing on university looking into it. it doesn't tell me that I can come in and be a part of that, unless I own a space in there. So, I mean, if you're going to push forward with the town homes, I suggest you look at how do you make it look like it is a part of the community and it is welcome to receive more of the community, whether it's like from the university, I can see it. And there's a center green space with some parts or basketball courts, something that just says come come in is right now it's that's gated. Yeah. Yeah, sort of designed like a fortress. Just one of those already. Yeah, I have a quick comment. And necessarily, if the design or the spaces in the lab, for what my colleague here mentioned, I think there's an opportunity to create community. As of right now, as it's strong enough, it looks like there's townhouses, but there's nothing really in the middle to build community, even within that sector. I know it's still early, but maybe in area for for barbecue, a small park, there's going to be children living there, children living at these buildings most likely. And so really finding a way to activate the space, not necessarily, I mean, it would be great for the open, the broader community, but even the community that's going to be building, that's going to build within those homes. So I think there's opportunity for that and it's not shown in the drawings. But that's it. One other thing just to note that we have thought about is that there are some, so I will take that feedback and see where we can have more publicly accessible open space that is inclusive of the community. There are also some high quality existing community assets near the site and in particular Jack Farrell Park is just kind of a short walk. And this project will generate substantial development impact fees that are earmarked towards parks and recreation that can be used to strengthen some of the existing sites that already serve all of these Palo Alto. So that is something that we think about in addition to what we can do on the site. So, I'm going to go ahead and This this questions kind of cared towards staff. So would that first floor height requirement So, I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go like buildings eight nine that are long Bay Road had 16-foot tall retail then would they still need a waiver for the rest of buildings or how does that work? I think if if the plan was to include the retail they would maintain the 16-foot height. The weaver is being applied to areas where they are going to do residential on the first floor. Right. So I think they have however many buildings here, but if some of the buildings had, you know, 16 foot tall ground floor retail, then would the whole project still lead a waiver? No, no, no, no, just put the rest in a special file. Right, okay. Got it. Okay, that's it. I think the messages we still want to see what opportunities we have for retail, especially on the facing streets of Bay Road and the University of Avenue. And I'd go to Mountain View and Redwood City all the time and they don't seem to have a problem with putting retail on Main Street. So I think we can figure out how you got to comment. I will know, I understand that statement, but I will note that both with Mountain View and Redwood City have significantly lower inclusionary affordable housing requirements that drive much lower costs of housing. In addition to other requirements, for example, there's a rental tax on housing in East Palo Alto. It doesn't exist in other jurisdictions. And so the combination of these things is what creates these challenges. But as I mentioned, I would be very eager to have a conversation about how to figure out the balance of these things that could create more retail. Any other comments? I think everybody for the input, thank you, Ariana and Kurt. Chris, Chris, thank you for your reports. Commitments, thank you all for your input. Really good meeting. I think if there are no public hearings and I don't believe there are, we'll go. Yes, just a quick question. There's no more community outreach meetings. Or there will be right? Yes, absolutely. Perfect. Just want to make sure. But let me know. No, no, no, no. There will be a second for us to make any decisions or anything. Thank you, Commissioner, for that question. So in addition to this plan and commission meeting, this item would also go before City Council on April 1st. So there's another opportunity for the public to come out and speak and it's here about the project. Appreciate you bringing that up. And also, yeah, I'm going to have to do a format application for this data view as well as the tentative maps. And this is not one of the five. No, right. Okay. I just wanted to repeat that for him. Thank you. All right. Thank you all all hearts and minds of clarity 18 We're gonna adjourn this meeting. Thank you all.