The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/25/2018 Item 1, Cooper (3) Goodwin, Heather From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:12 PM To:Goodwin, Heather Subject:FW: 790 Foothill Boulevard Attachments:107_25_18...pcmeetingnotes .pdf From: Allan Cooper < Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:58 PM To: advisotybodies@slocity.org Cc: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org> Subject: 790 Foothill Boulevard To: SLO Planning Commission Re: 790 Foothill Blvd. From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: July 26, 2018 Dear Planning Commissioners - There were three demonstrably false statements made last night regarding 790 Foothill Blvd. that were misleading both to the Commission and to the public. First that the project site is located in a Special Focus Area. The site could be in a special focus area pending extension to one or two properties west of Chorro but who did this and shouldn't the Council have first made this decision? Second that only State scenic highways are protected by CEQA. The City's scenic highways, according to our Circulation Element are protected by CEQA. Third, that the City is required to act on the incentives and that the burden falls on the City to prove feasibility. I put together a rough transcript (see attachment below) last night to help you recall what was said. Loren Reihl stated last night: "Map shows it to be in special focus area" (but what about the General Plan verbiage?). 1 Is the zoning map binding or is the General Plan verbiage binding? They contradict one another (see below). In a court of law, written documentation overrides graphic documentation. It is not clear why the City’s online Zoning Map shows this area as C-C-SF (Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay) when the General Plan (see LUE below) defines the Foothill Special Focus Area to be limited to “…land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa…” (see below). The following statement by staff is false: “The proposed project is located in the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area…which includes property on both sides of Foothill Boulevard approximately between Broad Street and Santa Rosa Street…” The word “approximately” does not appear in the General Plan. 8.2 Special Planning Areas "The policies under Section 8.2 provide site specific guidance on the development / redevelopment of sites in the city. For sites that have existing development, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building facades is encouraged. The City shall require property owners to prepare area plans with land uses consistent with this section, as well as multi-modal circulation and infrastructure facilities as appropriate, design guidelines and implementation programs. The City may consider implementation incentives for redevelopment areas, such as variations from development standards and/or participation in the installation or financing of infrastructure. 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners’ request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill may be extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall work with property owners / developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations." Loren Riehl stated last night: "I've been sued on CEQA issues before. This is not a state scenic highway." This statement is patently false. See below: 15.1. Policies 15.1.1. Scenic Routes The route segments shown on Figure 3 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element – Scenic Roadways Map --are designated as scenic roadways. 15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. 2 A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and require architectural review. B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact. D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views. E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns. F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Michael Codron stated last night: “The City is required to act on the incentives”. Please refer to the following excerpt from the Density Bonus Law: 18.165.080 Development standards modified as incentive or concession for housing developments. (b) Developers may seek a waiver or modification of any development standard that will physically preclude the construction of a housing development meeting the criteria of Section 18.165.030(a) through (d) at the density or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the development standards that are requested to be waived will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives. Division 7. Density Bonuses and Concessions 16.13.318 Development Concessions “An applicant may request, and the City must allow, development concessions for a project that meets the criteria for a density bonus. The following requirements apply:  The City will approve one or more concessions or incentives for a proposed project if the applicant provides substantial evidence that the waiver or modification is required to make the housing units economically feasible.” The City may deny one or more requested concessions or incentives if, based on substantial evidence, the City makes either of the following findings: Therefore, the developer’s “stated purpose” is not credible unless he provides a pro forma financial statement documenting that the only way he can attain a 35% density bonus is through receiving these concessions. The developer has not performed a cost/benefit comparison between a 3-story building with 75% lot coverage and a 4-story building with a 90% lot coverage where both projects benefit from a 35% density bonus. The former would necessarily involve reduction of unit size and/or placing both parking levels underground, etc. 3 -- Allan Cooper, Secretary - Save Our Downtown, San Luis Obispo, CA Website: www.SaveOurDowntownSLO.com 4 790 Foothill Boulevard July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Notes (parentheses are my comments) A. Cooper M. Codron The City is required to act on the incentives (the City is NOT required to act). Privacy screens in the bedrooms are not “walls” and do not increase the allowable occupancy which is governed by the ﬁre code. Dual occupancy is allowed under the ﬁre code. A special focus area was applied to the property (but who applied it?). R. Cohen There are 78 units & 155 car parking spaces provided with an excess of nine. Very low income means 1 person per household = $29,250 per year w/ rent of $728/month. The agency must bear the proof of adverse impact to health or safety (but why can’t we expect the agency to do this?). Density Bonus Law: Mandates a density bonus, relaxed development standards and incentives(“mandates”?). Traffic Impact Study’s cumulative analysis determined no signiﬁcant impact on queuing. Scenic Roadway: The LUCE EIR studied the views available here and determined them to be Class 3, “less than signiﬁcant impacts”. Inﬁll projects are categorically exempt from CEQA. C. Stevenson The Traffic Study states that this project will generate 4.4 trips per apartment = 346 daily trips. Isn’t this number too low? J. Rice (transportation planner engineer) Trip generation is based on the number of units. He referred to a manual using a weighted average. High-density and low-density is averaged. H. Dandekar How is the scenic corridor deﬁned? Are there parameters or guidelines? Answer: No. R. Jorgensen Can parking be unbundled by offering incentives not to own a car (no additional costs for parking). Staff said this can be a condition of approval. J. Hudson (transportation) Free on-street parking does not allow unbundling because unbundling will drive more tenants onto the streets. L. Reihl (developer) Map shows it to be in special focus area (but what about the General Plan verbiage?). He learned a lesson from 22 Chorro. Public said it should be on the north side of the street where the McDonald’s site is located (the public was not that speciﬁc). The public thought that regarding 22 Chorro there were way too many concessions for parking. He did not ask for parking concessions for 790 Foothill so he provided 9 extra spaces. There are limitations to occupancy: 2 bedroom = 5 people maximum. Regarding the CEQA exemption. With regards to the Conservation Open Space Element: multiple conﬂicts can exist within the General Plan. He argued that he avoided blocking views by concentrating the project into a smaller area. Public Comments: 25 opposed, 1 for Marianne Seaborn Live north of Foothill. Should conduct traffic and safety tests when 22 Chorro is inhabited and students are back. Students may use neighborhoods to park because they may not want to wait for the lifts. Larry Neil The traffic study was done before 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro were completed. What happens if there is a beak down in the car lifts? All students could qualify for affordable housing. Each student will have a car. Commercial parking will be usurped when students can’t ﬁnd a parking space. Keith Gurnee This project is under parked. The City needs a better parking analysis. The Anholm parking district is being set up as the only protection from overﬂow parking. This isn’t town planning but town cramming. Crissa Hewitt Anger is intense. We don’t think anyone is listening. Take stock of all the commercial areas with empty spaces. We don’t want out-of-town developers Dave Hannings This is awful. This is luxury student housing. 22 Chorro is renting for $1,350 per bed and this will drive up overall rents. No improved intersection is recommended. This intersection is not safe for bikes. Staff provides a version on the traffic study every time they appear before a new advisory body. 2 bedrooms with 8 students will generate more trips per day. Jamie Lopes Distributed a letter from Brett Topham, retired transportation planner. Views of the peaks are fantastic and staff has not addressed this non-conformity. The code requires view analysis simulations. Recommends reducing the size of units and lowering the building by one ﬂoor. There is discretion for reducing density if the same number of affordable units is provided. Odile Aryal This is deﬁnitely student housing and is glad the City admits to this. A ﬁnancial report should have been provided to prove that the concessions are required to build the 12 low income units. The traffic study was done when both commercial developments were under construction. Foothill Plaza was opened in 2017 after the traffic study was done. The population in 790 Foothill will be twice as large as 22 Chorro. The City must do a new traffic study. Cheryl McLean My speech. Julie Frankel Adverse traffic impacts are not generated by 78 units, they are generated by 294 new residents. The one lone driveway with 140 cars located opposite Broad Street will result in queuing. The unintended consequence of raising rents to $5,160 for a 1,000 square feet apartment will raise rents throughout the city. These are predatory rents leading to a tighter housing market for families Kelly Brooks She has two young children she encourages her children to walk and bike ride. She is concerned that the proposed commercial development within 22 Chorro will now only be amenities for the occupants. Bob Shanbrom He’s given up on the civic process. But he is supporting Keith Gurnee and Sarah Flickenger. He wanted ex parte meetings with the commissioners (John Fowler) but was turned away. Rather the Commissioners have ex party meetings with the developers. The Commissioners complain: “We keep hearing from the same 8-10 people” but there are 75 people in this room tonight. Genevieve Czech Codron attended a town & gown conference in Pittsburg, PA. The developer is based in Pittsburg, PA. This type of housing might ﬁt into Pittsburg but Pittsburg is a much larger city. Riehl dismissed Mr. Tom Brown, the tenant, as being insigniﬁcant. This is an off-campus dorm. We only have so many square feet for new development within the Cty and we shouldn’t give this up to student dorms. Staff says that the "privacy doors will be enforced” in a city where enforcement scarcely exists. Alexa Mourenza She’s worried about new parking districts. She has to walk her son to school because there is no place to park. Doesn’t want her son to walk to school. Brett Cross “Change is inevitable, unfortunately progress is not.” Need to look at variable bedroom concept and its impact on parking. Very few cars will ﬁt into the car lifts. Low income units should be comparable to the other units. But these studio units are not family friendly. This project is not consistent with the scenic roadway This is a dormitory. Ann Hodges How does one get a dump truck into the parking structure? How does one get delivery trucks into the parking garage? Semi’s are already double parking on Foothill to make deliveries. Delivery trucks for this project will be blocking three intersections with semi’s to service the “faux” commercial units. Tenants won’t want to put a car in the parking lifts because of the 20 minute wait. Neighborhoods are at risk. The PC should not blow us off. Larry Shields Tremendous bias exhibited by the City. Doug Davidson gave the ARC “out of purview” counseling. This is not low-income housing. Why is all low-income housing in studios? Everyone saw 22 Chorro Street coming. Can’t the ﬂoor-to-ﬂoor plate height be reduced? The City does not have to grant all of these concessions. There will be 300 more cyclists? We will have the highest cycling mortality rates in the country. Lydia Mourenza Staff puts on the screen new resolution provisions without giving the advisory bodies or the public time to read them. We are encouraging a student ghetto on Foothill. We shouldn’t separate out age groups. The affordable studios will be near market rate and the developer is not going to lose money on these. The extended C-C-SF zone should not have included the parcel with the two residences. Richard Blydell Unresolved circulation problems are creating a warlike mentality within the community. The Pacheco school is now surrounded by a parking district. Students drive into town, park their car and ride their bikes to school. Will cars/delivery trucks circle the neighborhood waiting for a parking space? There are not enough parking spaces for the students commuting to campus. There is a vacancy in the Foothill Center. We haven’t accounted for this future business in the traffic counts. Carol Hall She lived next door to a 4 bedroom house with 11 people in them. The students were on drugs and there were near fatal overdoses. These 4-student apartments will have visitors. How do we accommodate them? Her neighborhood is impacted by Bishop Peak hikers taking up parking spaces and walking down the middle of the streets. This problem is combined with Bishop Peak School drop offs creating impossible congestion. Jamba Juice causes cars to queue up and to park partially in the road. Kathy Borland The view shed protection should override the categorical exemption. CEQA 15300.2: “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity that will have adverse impacts.” We’re losing our City. There will be a huge outcry if these projects are approved. Planning Commissioner Scott Mann was asked to leave for asking questions. Does this mean that the remaining commissioners are puppets? Sara Flickenger The sheer volume of south facing hard surfaces contributes to heat islands. This is related to the 90% lot coverage. There is no drop off space for Uber. This intersection is not pleasant for bicyclists. This intersection is going to be worse with decreased visibility. Why is the traffic study based on a programmatic level (LUCE) evaluation? Noise and air quality can have signiﬁcant health impacts. Grant Robins Identiﬁes himself as the contractor building 22 Chorro. Developers are given a rule book and they follow it. He commends staff. In Santa Barbara he provided 78 car lift parking spaces and there has only been one incident. These lifts don’t take long to operate. People tend to leave their cars longer in a lift parking space garage We need housing for low income students. Sandra Rowley She supports comments related to the need for updated studies and protection of the view shed. It’s often stated that building student housing complexes will draw students out of the neighborhoods. She disagrees with this. There will simply be fewer students occupying the same number of single family residences. Once students were housed in motel rooms and parents were furious about this. Cal Poly is doubling the number of rooms for freshmen but this does not accommodate the recent enrollment increases. Building student housing in the City alleviates pressure on Cal Poly to reduce enrollments and accommodate more housing on campus. Mark Brazil What kind of vehicles can park in the lift? Students drive a lot of oversized cars. He bemoaned the fact that we are building more housing on the backs of existing residents and degrading our quality of life. Camille Small The mother company for these developments is one huge corporation. This is not the housing that we need in San Luis Obispo. We should make appeals to the State. She has sent a letter to Senator Wiener. Perhaps Sacramento wants developers to make more money but she hopes not. Ted Foster It is within the Commission’s purview to unbundle parking. What if the kids paid an arm and a leg to pay for the lift system? End of public comments Loren Riehl (gets 4 more minutes) He’s been sued on CEQA issues before. This is not a state scenic highway. Unusual circumstances do not apply here. Projects elsewhere will have similar traffic conditions and this project resembles other projects in town. Nearly all cars, except for trucks. will ﬁt on the lift system. The project will have overﬂow parking should the lift system fail. The City has a land use policy that looks forward not backwards. There is a large loading area on Foothill. More housing supply will lead to higher prices? No. This project will be paying for school fees and for infrastructure. Mike Codron Students do not qualify for affordable housing. They have to earn income sufficient to afford the rent and their income cannot exceed the limit. If the student were ﬁnancially independent then he would qualify (but aren’t many of them ﬁnancially independent?). Affordable units should be similar to the other units. The City is getting 12 very low income rather than 1 moderate income unit. These could not be Air B&B’s because they are not going to be owner occupied. Jennifer Rice (transportation consultant) The traffic study used 2016 as the baseline. The cumulative impacts included 100% occupancy of the shopping centers, more projected growth (up through 2035), 71 Palomar, 22 Chorro and 790 Foothill Blvd. They did spot studies to determine if they were consistent with their averages. The high peak hours were the focus of the study. They followed the accepted method for trip generation. Changes to the intersection include: 1) Original site design had multiple driveways. Now it is one signalized driveway and much improved, 2) High visibility stripes for pedestrian crosswalks; 3) Larger signal lights; 4) Flashing lights and 5) Improved left turning lanes. All conditions must be met prior to occupancy Jon Ansolabehere The State laws (i.e. HAA and DBL) are well understood and there is no need for further elaboration. Doug Davidson This is not a State scenic highway. Loading areas are provided. Some have said that part of the special planning area is zoned residential but the entire parcel is zoned commercial. R. Cohen She shows loading zones on the overhead projector. Contrary to public testimony, there is still one commercial space in 22 Chorro. The project reduced its plate heights. Parking lifts include the longest length (19 feet) and widest width but not including some trucks. Commissioner Comments Mike Wulkan Parking standards are set by State law and local regulations. Doesn’t the City require guest parking and 1-1/2 parking spaces for a 1 bedroom unit? Answer: Affordability housing parking requirements have been incorporated into the General Plan so that City and State laws are consistent. Can we not change that standard? Can we make a condition for additional parking? The answer was “yes” if it does not reduce density or result in denial. It is difficult to set a parking requirement set on actual intended occupancy. The City can’t regulate occupancy. Wulkan stated that the end result will be a doubling of the number of bedrooms. Can’t we limit the demising walls? The answer was “yes”. The traffic study is not taking into effect the actual intended occupancy and the traffic study should take this into account. Hours of operation for the commercial space has a condition on page 17, i.e., limiting the hours of operation between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. However, ﬁnding #9 must be in conformance with noise thresholds, meaning that the commercial space should close at 10:00 P.M. not 11:00 P.M. The Fire Marshall is okay with only one emergency access. Did the Commission establish common open space standards? M.Codron: They’re in the subdivision regulations. Most units do not appear to have private open space. The Conservation Open Space Element states that Foothill has moderate scenic value. However, in order for the City to deny a project under the Density Bonus Law there must be a speciﬁc adverse impact. Is view shed protection objective in nature? Codron thinks not. This is consistent with the General Plan. This project is overbuilt. The FAR is 1.7 (below the maximum fo 2.0). This project is under parked. The City should discourage double occupancy by limiting the ability to include the privacy screens. People searching for parking spaces could be a public health and safety issue. Would like to reduce the hours of operation of the commercial space. We should condition this project so that the bedrooms shall not be divided by walls or privacy screens. C. Stevenson thinks that this may not be enforceable. Would the applicant voluntarily restrict leases to limit the number of cars per one bedroom? L. Riehl said this limitation is a function of the number of parking spaces on site. M. Codron The International Occupancy Code prescribes the maximum occupancy based on room size. Codron does not want to reduce amenities (such as the privacy screens) to discourage the number of occupants. The proposed R-1 height limit in the new Zoning Reg Update has been reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet. The rezone, or extending this Special Focus Area to this site, gives this project additional building height (but who did this rezone?). R.. Cohen The LUCE EIR noted view degradation but it was considered less than signiﬁcant. C. Stevensen There is uncertainty about the validity of the traffic study because of the date it was done and because both shopping centers were under construction at that time. If the trips per day were doubled, would this affect the traffic study? Speciﬁc adverse impact can not be based on General Plan inconsistency. The Housing Accountability Act was passed because there was too much restriction on housing. Now discretion is being taken away (why no mention of feasibility?). Stevenson at ﬁrst thought a new traffic study would come up with some new ﬁndings but he has been persuaded otherwise. He thinks the project is overbuilt. He would like to reduce the impact of this project. 90% site coverage is way too much. We could require a condition to discourage car ownership. M. Codron: Thinks that this condition could be placed on this project. It is assumed that students will not be driving to campus. The car trips will not be concentrated at peak hours. C. Stevensen: Lets be realistic. I think this project will add an additional 312 cars to the neighborhood. This number of cars is huge. He wants a monitoring program to determine the number of cars that will be added to this part of town after the project is complete. He said we don’t have parking standards for dormitory type residences. Jake Hudson The cumulative impact is based on the worst case scenario of the 2035 “build out”. Most of the trips at this intersection will be generated by overall growth, not by this project. The relationship between the housing and the commercial development in this neighborhood is built into the trip generation statistics. Apartments generally don’t generate trips around the time of 8:00 A.M. This intersection will be improved before this project is occupied. There were traffic collisions caused by the multiple driveways present on this site. Now there is only one driveway. H. Dandekar Are the number of units on this site consistent with the land use plan? M. Codron: It all balances out. Why is there only one place of access? What about queuing? J. Hudson: The increased queuing projected as a result of this project is no more than the length of one car. Why isn’t there more back-up along Foothill if the one driveway is located on Foothill? J. Hudson: The signal will be synchronized with the other signals and this will help. Dandekar was on the LUCE committee. She thought, while on this committee, that any future high density project would be on the other side (the east side) of Chorro. This is a good location for students. There should be courtyards to compensate for the high % of lot coverage. This project is inwardly oriented and has courtyards. The circulation impacts seem to be unresolved. She thinks there should be more than one exit from the garage. This project now seems to be landlocked. This is the best location for “urbanity”. The residential zones lining Foothill will still preserve some views of Bishop Peak. If the developer is agreeable to a 10:00 P.M. curfew we should make this a part of the motion. She wants buy in from other commissioners that only one egress will work. Robert Jorgensen Feels this is the kind of housing that is needed in this area as it caters to students. San Luis Ranch will provide workforce housing. He made a separate recommendation: The City, in partnership with Cal Poly, ought to do another traffic study after occupancy of this project. He is concerned about the long term storage of cars students will need just to visit family, etc. Remote parking needs to be provided. He would like a shuttle along Foothill. It’s a 21 minute walk from this site to the CPSU Library. A transit fee for every new unit should be assessed by the City. Wants to know more about the noise ordinance. The single family residences wouldn’t be affected by the commercial space’s late hour operation. He was surprised by only one egress. He’s hoping all of this is going to sort itself out. Doesn’t know if it is an evacuation issue even though the Fire Marshall approved this. John Fowler Spent a lot of time on this LUCE update. This site makes sense from a density point of view. It was an overlay zone that provided more ﬂexibility, not less. He doesn’t blame the HAA. He has a problem with the single access to the garage and possible queuing. If another traffic report were done, the results might be the same. Is this project consistent with the General Plan? Fowler doesn’t know how to monitor car ownership. He’s not convinced about eliminating the privacy walls. The City has approved them in the past. Privacy walls could discourage placing 4 beds in a 2 bedroom unit. L. Riehl He separated out the price of parking from the price of the units. Part of the pricing is about location. His units will be less appealing if the tenants want more parking spaces. The screen would prevent 5 beds per bedroom. However, he would not mind a limit on 4 beds per bedroom. John McKenzie He suggested retaining a number of on-site cars for the tenants’ use. The project could utilize one or two parking spaces for that purpose. C. Stevenson The revised Resolution includes updating the parking calculations for the commercial space once the project is occupied. Could this not be a condition for the residential part as well? After one year, staff will look at the adequacy of the parking for the residential component. M. Codron: What can we do about this? We can ask the developer to monitor the parking demand and this would be valuable information for the City. We could also monitor car ownership and how the lift is used. We could add to this the requirement for a traffic study a year down the line. Add a trip demand program. M. Codron thought unbundling the parking could be explored in the future. M. Codron: Cal Poly prevented students from bringing cars onto campus but this resulted in many 72-hour violations. When there is no available parking on the street (as a result of parking districts all over the City) then “unbundling” can work. Stevenson: Why can’t there be a binding agreement relative to car ownership and if this is violated the tenancy agreement could be revoked? This has to be enforced by the landlord. J. Hudson: A property manager could enforce this as part of the trip reduction program. L. Riehl: Doesn’t think it would be enforceable and what would happen if Riehl fails to enforce this? He doesn’t know what a “trip reduction plan” is. J. Ansolabehere: This trip reduction plan is worked out between the City and the developer. J. Hudson: A trip reduction plan is a toolbox of options for larger projects to reduce trips. The city and the applicant work with the active transportation manager to iron out the details of this plan. Fowler moves and Wulkan seconds: D. Davidson: States the conditions: 2.Limit closing time to 10:00 P.M. 6. Property owner will develop a trip reduction plan with a goal of reducing trips. A new condition was proposed: Limit the maximum number of tenants to 4. J. Ansolabehere: this may not be legal. H. Dandekar is thinking it is not implementable. M. Codron: Likes this condition if only it could discourage future modiﬁcations made later that could increase the number of occupants. However, “we don’t do stake outs”. Motion passes 4 to 1 (Stevenson votes no)