►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 012121
Description
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 012121
A
A
E
A
A
F
Yes,
sir,
thank
you
and
just
an
opportunity
to
remind
everyone
that
if
you
are
not
speaking
to
mute,
your
mics,
it
really
helps
preserve
the
audio
quality.
Even
if
you
can't
hear
it
on
your
end,
it
helps
for
the
public
and
for
the
recording,
also,
while
over
here
I'll
say,
a
little
more
in
director's
comment
and
let
her
introduce
herself.
But
we
have
a.
F
F
A
A
A
A
Lewd
trees
will
satisfy
50
of
the
total
planting
requirement
to
provide
that
funds
received,
may
be
used
for
the
purpose
of
purchasing
and
installing
landscaping
and
at
the
planting
of
eligible
trees
in
or
near
city
parks
or
public
right-of-ways,
and
to
provide
that
the
cost
per
tree
shall
be
determined
by
the
parks
and
recreation
board
that
this
ordinance
shall
be
cumulative
giving
and
severity
clause
providing
for
publication
and
declaring
an
effective
date.
All
right,
kirby
who's,
going
to
make
this
presentation.
F
Arturo
garcia,
our
billing
director,
will
before
he
goes
into
it.
I
just
wanted
to
remind
the
planning,
commission
and
the
public
that
our
our
charter
requires
that
any
ordinance
change
which
has
an
impact
to
development
must
first
come
to
the
planning
commission
for
a
recommendation
to
city
council,
and
that
is
why
he's
here
today,
arturo.
H
Good
evening,
mr
chairman
and
and
and
commissioner
arturo
here
with
your
building
department,
yes,
council
directed
us
to
bring
an
item
related
to
section
24.83,
which
is
trees
and
shrubs
of
the
under
the
existing
land
development
code.
What
council
is
asking
us
to
look
at
was
to
look
at
increasing
the
in
lieu
of
a
percentage
from
30
percent,
which
is
the
current
allowed
amount
of,
or
of
our
code
to
50
now.
The
purpose
of
this
is
just
to
obviously
increase
the
availability.
H
This
is
obviously
optional
and
voluntary.
This
is
not
a
mandate
for
the
construction
industry
or
for
the
development
industry
in
industrial
areas.
It's
just
a
providing
for
the
opportunity
for
it
to
be
expanded
so
that
they
want
to
choose
to
to
do
that
option,
and
they
can
do
so.
Obviously,
we
hadn't
had
a
fee
established
for
this.
As
far
as
I've
known
from
what
I've
asked
previous
building
officials
there
are,
there
has.
F
H
H
Okay,
well,
basically,
what's
to
sum
it
up:
it's
just
we're
just
increasing
them
from
30
to
50
percent.
It's
optional,
involuntary
it's
money
in
lieu
of
trees.
The
parks
board
actually
met
yesterday
and
they
established
a
500
fee
for
it.
They
also
recommended
a
strong
recommendation
that
it
just
be
allowed
in
industrial
areas
and
and
and
and
and
that's
their
their
recommendation
to
council
the
the
fighter
dollar
fee
by
ordinance.
A
H
Yes,
by
by
the
land
development
code,
the
body
that
establishes
the
fee
for
the
in
lieu
of
or
for
the
lua
fee
is
the
tree
board.
But
since
the
tree
board
was
decommissioned,
that
those
duties
fell
to
the
parts
board,
so
they
actually
met
yesterday
on
the
same
subject.
So
we
could
have
a
fee
established
and
they
decided
on
500.
H
Actually,
in
my
opinion,
sir,
to
be
honest
with
you,
it's
a
strong
savings,
because
you
have
not
only
the
the
tree
itself,
the
labor
to
be
planted
and
the
maintenance
costs
associated
to
to
them
and
also
the
area
that
it's
utilizing
in
terms
of
the
area,
especially
if
it's
an
industrial
area
where
you're
gonna
have
like
electricity
trucks
or-
and
you
might
not
need
the
landscaping,
so
it
actually
is
a
benefit.
So
the
500,
in
my
opinion,
is
actually
okay.
It's
not
that
bad.
A
A
You
know
500
per
tree.
I
I
just
I
don't
know
I
I
think
a
real
beautification,
because
I
don't
know
what
you're
trying
to
do
here.
It
makes
sense
to
me.
Obviously
you
go
to
other
cities.
You'll
see
these
real
nice
industrial
parks.
You
know
beautifully
landscaped
and
everything
else.
I
agree
with
that.
A
I
just
I
don't
know.
I
don't
have
a
really
good
stance
and
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
to
the
commission.
I
know
we
have
some
people
that
have
developed
like
george
larry.
There
are
some
guys
that
know
a
little
bit
about
this
stuff
and
I'm
going
to
ask
them
to
kind
of
like
give
us
some
input
on
what
they
feel
about
that
fee.
F
Commissioner,
if
I
can
add
just
a
little
bit
of
additional
information,
other
cities
that
have
this
fee,
the
fee
ranges
500,
is
on
the
low
end.
It
ranges
from
a
couple
thousand
down
to
about
500
when
you
consider
the
cost
of
not
only
the
tree
itself
of
a
200
caliper
tree,
but
also
the
cost
of
the
irrigation.
The
cost
of
you
know
the
curb
the
curbing
typically
around
an
area.
That's
you're,
making
in
the
asphalt
all
those
things
considered.
F
A
You're
talking
about
adding
a
you're
talking
about
adding
an
irrigation
system
to
the
whole
thing
here.
Okay,
is
that
what
you're
talking
about
irrigation
you
see?
A
lot
of
that
stuff
is
not
spelled
out
anywhere.
I
mean
you
know.
I
looked
at
this
thing
and
I'm
going
to
post
a
500
for
a
tree,
but
now
when
you're
talking
is
okay,
but
the
planting
of
the
tree
requires
that
you
know
you
have
an
irrigation
system
to
them,
because
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
so
it
won't
dry
out
on
you.
A
H
H
Words
when,
when
they
come
in
with
a
set
of
plans,
obviously
we're
going
to
tell
them
your
your
amount
of
trees
associated
with
your
parking
spaces
x
amount
of
trees.
The
ordinance
allows
them
to
make
that
financial
or
business
decision.
Now
it
it
kind
of
exists.
So
it's
it's,
not
something
that's
non-existent.
H
There
are
currently
allowed
thirty
percent
in
lieu
of
we
don't
have
an
established
fee.
Up
to
this
point
that
was
yesterday
and-
and
all
that
the
council
is
asking
to
do-
is
to
expand
that
from
thirty
percent
to
fifty
percent.
They
can
still
choose
to
use
up
to
30
percent
or
or
20
whatever
they
decide
to
business
wise,
but
that's
a
business
decision
for
the
person
or
the
the
business.
That's
actually
doing
this
construction
or
development.
H
A
A
F
A
H
H
H
A
I
We
have
had
a
lot
of
increases
on
our
cause
for
development,
not
only
on
the
on
the
on
the
infrastructure,
but
also
on
the
cost
of
labor
and
materials,
and
adding
to
the
preparation
of
the
of
the
other
plans
and
the
cost
of
paving
now
bringing
the
the
fear
of
a
hundred
dollars,
and
I
understand
arturo.
I
know
exactly
what
you're
saying
and
saying.
Well:
look
you
still
have
to
plan,
but
if
you
don't
want
to
plant
them,
you
pay
500
portions
of
the
trees.
I
We
already
have
that
ordinance
and
increasing
the
30
to
fifty
percent.
That
already
creates
a
burden
on
the
developer.
I
feel
that
this
is
not
the
right
time
for
us
to
to
send
a
a
recommendation
to
city
council.
I
think
that
we
need
to
get
together
with
the
developers
and
try
to
get
an
input
from
the
from
the
building
area.
Mr
chairman,
creating
this
right
now
and
I've
not
been
able
to
bring
them
face
to
face
to
try
to
get
their
import
input.
I
I
That's
the
reason
that
we
have
different
areas
of
the
society
being
integration,
but
also
we
need
to
bring
people
from
from
the
building
industry
and
the
industrial
industry
that
can
put
an
input
there
that
they
can
actually
tell
if,
if
approving
500
dollars
or
increasing
the
30
to
50
is
appropriate
right
now,
we're
we're
kind
of
limited,
mr
sherman,
because
we
don't
have
any
access.
Actually,
we
can't
really
meet
with
anybody.
I
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
then
it
might
be
so
it's
an
option
only
it's
some.
You
know
a
new
option
that
they
want
to
come
up
with,
and
it's
up
to
the
developer
to
say
I'm
going
to
use
the
same,
existing
system
that
we
have
right
now
or
I'm
going
to
use
this
new
system
it's
up
to
the
developer.
So
it's
an
option
only!
That's
all
it
is
at
this
point.
Okay,.
H
It's
a
business
decision
to
offer
you
that
option
it
already
exists.
You
have
a
choice:
to
pay
the
fee
of
30
to
the
city,
to
use
for
parks
for
for
planting
trees.
So
you
would
plant
three.
You
would
pay
three
trees
to
500
each,
so
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
buying
of
the
tree,
the
maintenance
of
the
tree,
the
installation
of
the
tree,
the
irrigation
for
the
tree.
H
So
whatever
that
savings
is
for
you
or
that
cost
benefit
to
save
that
area
in
your
parking
lot
or
your
construction
site,
that's
a
cost
benefit
decision
for
you
to
make
whether
you
want
that
and
all
the
council
wants
to
do
is
offer
for
that
increase
that
so
you
don't
have
to
plant
that
many
trees.
If
you
don't
want
to
make.
H
H
D
It
doesn't
make
this
part
clear:
is
that
the
500
bucks
that's
how
much
it's
going
to
cost
period,
and
so
what
you're
doing
is
actually
giving
the
developer
a
break
from
the
500
bucks,
because,
instead
of
them
only
getting
30
credit
with
a
cash
in
new
of
trees,
you're
giving
them
a
50
credit?
So
it's
actually
a
savings
for
developers,
not
an
increase
in
tax.
Now,
if
they
don't
like
the
500
bucks
per
tree,
they
got
to
go
deal
with
the
tree
board
or
whomever
is
handling
it.
Now,.
F
F
F
D
H
Think
it's
not
necessarily
credit,
it's
just.
It
allows
you
to
to
to
to
use
more
of
the
fee
more
like
like.
Could
we
just
mention
30
trees?
You
go
from
33
to
50
trees,
so
I
mean
it's
area,
it's
cost.
It's
landscaping.
I
mean
it's
a
business
decision
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Somebody
balancing
out
do
I
want
to
plant
extra
trees
or
do
I
just
want
to.
I
got
this
opportunity
in
this
option
to
to
save
money
potentially
and
save
area
of
my
project
site
to
not
have
trees
and
landscaping.
F
F
The
biggest
reason
they'd
want
to
do
this
is
this
is
a
tree
requirement
for
their
parking
lot
and
if
they
don't
have
to
plant
trees,
they
can
have
more
parking
and
the
value
of
the
parking
is
worth
more
to
them
than
maybe
a
couple
hundred
bucks
they
might
save
in
the
long-term
maintenance
of
not
having
that
tree
there.
It's
really
about
okay,
they
can
get
10
more
parking
spots
if
they
didn't
have
to
plant
all
those
trees
and
in
an
industrial
area
I
mean
that's
really
important
to
them.
F
So
they'd
rather
have
the
parking
spots
and
we're
giving
that
option,
and
then
we
can
put
the
trees
somewhere
where
they
actually
get
utilized
like
a
park,
because
maybe
you
don't
need
the
trees
in
the
national
park.
Nobody
cares
about
the
shade
there.
So
that's
the
biggest
thing:
it's
not
really
a
money
city
it's
about.
They
can
get
more
parking
spots
in
their
parking
lot.
Otherwise,
like
all
of
our
parking
lots
in
the
city,
there
is
a
requirement
to
have
landscaping
in
the
parking
lot.
F
The
short
answer
is
no
not
tree
for
tree,
but
the
dollars
will
be
accounted
for.
The
public,
public
works
or
parks
may
be
able
to
plant
two
trees
instead
of
one
because
their
costs
might
be
different.
So
it's
not
about
tree
for
tree.
It's
about
the
amount
of
money
they're
going
to
spend
will
be
accounted
for
in
terms
of
this
money
that
was
saved,
went
here
to
this
park
and
was
used
for
for
landscaping
and
trees
in
the
park
in
that
park.
We'll
be
able
to
account
for
the
money.
I
The
idea
is
not
to
have
areas
with
a
bunch
of
parking,
but
rather
you
have
areas
with
parking,
the
green
spaces
and
and
this
if
it's
the
purpose,
because
you're
giving
the
developers
the
you're
actually
forcing
them
to
not
to
put
trees
and
and
that
that
doesn't
sound
right
to
me
now
before
the
500
dollars
start.
Those
500,
they're,
they're
actually
being
brought
to
to
to
the
city
council,
were
approval
together
with
this,
or
is
that
already
approved.
I
We're
giving
that
option
when
you,
when
you
buy
a
tree,
you
can
get
a
tree
for
130,
150,
200,
see
and
and
by
forcing
the
developer
to
to
comply
with
the
amount
of
trees
in
the
parking
because
of
the
every
10
parking
that
gives
us
more
trees,
more
green
areas.
We
probably
have
a
lower
cost
for
the
developer,
so
I
do
it
and
it's
going
to
be
cheaper
than
paying
the
500.,
even
though
you
tell
me
it's
optional.
So
why
are
we
going
to
give
him
an
option?
I
K
K
Some
kind
of
you
know
way
of
determining
whether
or
not
the
money
is
actually
being
used
to
purchase
those
additional
trees
so
that
you
can
keep
track
of
the
number
of
trees
that
that
the
developers
didn't
plant
versus
a
number
of
trees
that
were
planted
because
with
the
money
paid
in
lieu
of
I
mean
if
the
purpose
of
this
policy
is
to
make
sure
that
the
trees
are
planted,
then
I
would
think
there
should
be
some
kind
of
accountability
to
show
that
it's
actually
being
done.
But
I
mean
that's
just
my
thought.
D
No,
but
I
think
mr
commissioner
flores
brings
up
a
good
point,
because
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
things
that
we
have
later
on
in
the
agenda,
we
have
some.
We
have
several
items
showing
commercial
properties
where
you
have
zero
trees,
and
this
section
of
the
land
development
code
is
supposedly
been
on
the
books
for
a
while.
D
But
you
can
even
look
at
item
the
very
first
item
on
rosson
lane
that
you
don't
see
any
trees
anywhere
and,
and
so
we
do
need
some
trees.
But
if
we're
going
to
have
this
on,
the
books
might
as
well
have
some
sort
of
enforcement
on
it
and-
and
I'm
fine
with
not
forcing
people
to
have
that
many
in
the
parking
lot,
because
they
end
up
dying.
They
don't
end
up.
D
A
Well,
I
think
what
their
intent
is
like
cartoons
said
to
create
a
fun
to
have
monies
to
plant
trees,
whether
it's
in
a
park
or
in
a
public
right-of-way.
I
think
at
this
point
you
know.
The
key
thing
to
this
whole
thing
is:
establishing
a
fund
is
a
good
thing,
but
the
planting
of
the
tree
has
got
to
be
close
to
an
area
that
has
a
an
irrigation
system
for
it.
To
put
you
know,.
A
Like
you
know,
you
say
here
public
right-of-ways
and
I
think
that's
fine,
but
again,
if
we're
going
to
put
things
in
the
public
right
away,
you
know
it.
It's
got
to
be
close
to
a
park
because
it's
got
or
are
close
to
a
facility
where
the
city
has
a
water
meter
to
be
able
to
water.
These
things
the
way
I
see
this
right
now
is
you
know
it's
up
to
somebody's
discretion
to
say:
well,
I
want
trees
on
xyz
area,
but
there's
no
way
to
get
access
to
water.
A
H
That
would
be
parked,
sir,
that
would
be
parks
the
parks
board
or
the
park,
I'm
not
a
parks
department.
Sorry,
I
imagine,
like
anything
else
like
this.
This
hasn't
been
used
at
all
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
but
if
we
ever
do,
the
building
department
would
collect
it
as
a
fee.
Obviously
we
put
it
into
the
particular
fund
that
would
be
established
and
then
obviously
that
that
fund
source
would
would
fund
whatever
activities
parks
is
doing
for
the
trees
or
that
tree
fund.
A
K
A
You
this,
and
I
think,
that's
where
the
I
know,
commissioner,
diaz
and
flores
their
concern
is
okay.
If
xyz
developer
gives
you
x
number
of
dollars,
where's
the
accountability
where
that
money
is
going
to
be
utilized
or
you
or
got
utilized,
I
think
that's
what
everybody's
alluding
to
and
how
is
that
going
to
be
handled
yeah?
Mr.
K
Howard,
sir,
I'm
sorry
go
ahead,
carlos
yeah
yeah.
I
guess
that
would
be
my
point
right.
The
point
is
like
you
can
get
the
money
in
lieu
of
the
tree.
There's
no
tree
now.
Now
we've
got
the
money.
Is
that
money
going
to
be
spent
on
a
tree
or
is
that
money
going
to
be
spent
to
help
the
parks
department,
pay
for
staff
and
things
like
that
and
not
actually
result
in
a
trade?
K
H
That
would
be
something
managed
by
park,
sir.
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
tell
you
what
it
is
or
not.
This
commission
can
provide
a
recommendation
that
you
know
it'd
just
be
for
trees.
As
an
example,
I
understand
that
they
wanted
to
use
it
to
possibly
use
for
any
expense
related
to
the
planting
for
the
planting
of
the
tree.
I
I
If
you
were
to
get
the
money
and
also
planted,
even
though
we
can
have
those
type
of
trees
that
that
can
be
used
without
water
like
the
and
the
stick
and
olive
an
example,
those
can
be
planted
on
right
away
and
we
don't
have
to
worry
too
much
about
water,
but
there's
no
there's
no
mechanics
here
as
to
to
create
the
responsibility
with
the
city
to
provide
tree
for
a
tree.
So
that
was
a
good
point.
God
was
joey.
That
was
a
good
point.
I
will
not.
I
will.
I
A
You
know
I
mean
you
make
sense
here,
because
I
mean
the
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
on
planting
a
tree
in
parking.
Lots
was
specifically
to
ensure
that
we
had
a
canopy
of
some
kind
in
each
instead
of
just
blacktop.
You
know
we
had
a
landscaping
in
a
parking
lot
and
not
just
asphalt
or
concrete
or
whatever.
A
That's
the
intense
ordinance.
What
this
ordinance
is
being
proposed
is
telling
us
what
they
want
to
do
is
well.
You
know,
I
need
more
parking
and
I
want
to
do
less
trees,
but
in
reality
we
need
trees.
You
know
we
really
need
trees
to
create
the
oxygen
that
we
need
in
in
the
atmosphere
and
to
delay
the
planting
of
those
trees.
A
A
I
I
don't
think
this
ordinance
is
ready
to
go
forth
in
my
opinion
at
this
point,
there's
a
lot
of
questions
from
the
commission
right
now
as
to
accountability,
there's
no
time
frame
for
the
planting
of
trees
somewhere
else,
and
I
think
that
those
are
some
things
in
my
opinion
that
we
should
sort
of
nail
down
a
little
bit
better.
I
mean
it's
kind
of
open-ended
with
with
no
real
accountability.
A
You
know,
you
know
some
kind
of
accountability
to
that
money,
because
I
know
money
can
sit
in
funds
for
a
long
time
and
and
that
the
money
be
used
specifically
for
the
purchasing
of
a
tree.
Okay.
If
the
parks
department
is
going
to
plant
them,
then
the
money
should
be
utilized
strictly
for
the
planting
of
that
tree,
whether
that
tree
needs,
like
you,
said,
additional
soil
fertilizer,
whatever
it
needs,
but
I
think
that
also
needs
to
be
put
in
there.
In
my
opinion,
yeah.
E
E
For
the
purposes
of
planning
the
trees
and
as
far
as
the
fee
established
by
the
free
board,
the
tree
board
doesn't
have
the
authority
under
charter
to
establish
any
fee
in
the
city.
The
fees
are
established
by
the
city
council.
They
can
make
a
recommendation
of
what
fee
they
want
to
charge,
but
they
can't
set
the
fee
by
themselves
because
fees
are
set
up
by
ordinances.
A
Yeah,
I
think
you
know
right
now.
What
I'm
seeing
here
are
is
this
this
particular
ordinance
that
is
being
proposed.
I
think
we're
kind
of
put
in
the
cart
before
the
horse,
because
the
500
recommendation
of
fever
per
tree
has
not
been
approved
by
council.
At
this
point-
and
I
think,
like
commissioner
just
stated,
we
need
to
have
that
established
by
council
first
and
then
we
do
need
to
work
on
this
particular
wording
a
little
bit
more
after
the
fees.
L
I
don't
know
where
my
money
is
going
to
go,
so
I
don't
really
think
if
we
give
a
negative
recommendation.
It's
gonna
solve
that
issue,
and
even
if
we
give
a
positive
recommendation,
it's
gonna
solve
that
issue.
Either
the
issue
exists
and,
unfortunately,
the
the
system
that's
in
play
as
we
speak
right
now.
A
A
L
Well,
one
of
my
biggest
inputs
that
that
I
I
like
the
idea
of
the
of
really
increasing
it
to
50
percent,
because
I
think
building
and
developing
has
to
be
done
in
an
efficient
way.
I
think
certain
parts
of
the
city
has
better
soil
than
others,
and
maybe
it's
not
in
the
best
interest
to
force
certain
trees
to
thrive
in
improvement.
It's
just
it's
not
going
to
survive
and
it's
going
to
use
up
a
lot
of
water
versus
other
parts
of
the
city
that
are
a
lot
easier,
but
the
the
accountability.
L
L
L
Trees
for
the
price
of
you
know
four
trees
and
we
can
get
a
10
year
old,
15
year
old
tree,
but
let's
do
that
instead,
because
now
they
can,
they
can
benefit
from
a
bigger
tree
and
better
shade
versus
having
to
risk
a
two
inch
tree
actually
surviving
to
it.
You
know
to
become
what
it's
going
to
become.
So
that's
just
my
my
only
suggestion.
H
I
Mr
chairman,
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
table
this
item.
I
think
the
the
item
needs
a
lot
of
work
and
I
would
recommend
that
a
committee
from
from
us,
the
commissioners
being
contact
with
electoral,
so
we
can
clear
things
up
and,
and
we
can
speed
it
up-
I
mean
the
idea
is
not
to
delay
it,
but
actually
to
bring
something
that
is
appropriate
not
only
for
the
city
but
also
for
the
developers
in
the
public
in
general.
So
I
thought
I
would
make
a
motion
to
table
it.
F
Just
a
reminder
on
the
on
the
process:
here
it
it
will
still
go
to
city
council,
whether
you
want
to
have
continued
discussion
on
it,
the
the
it's
it's
met
its
requirement
by
coming
to
the
planning
commission.
If
you
want
to
provide
this
advice
that
you're
providing,
then
it
would
be
the
city
council
who
who
would
decide,
hey,
yeah
these
issues,
they're
right,
these
issues
need
to
be
addressed.
Let's
not
move
forward
with
the
world,
let's
not
change
the
ordinance,
so
that
feedback
is
helpful.
F
A
F
D
I
guess
if,
if,
mr,
if
commissioner
dominguez,
would
want
to
change
his
motion
to
give
a
negative
recommendation
because
it's
incomplete
needs
a
lot
of
work
and
he
can
stress
all
the
specific
items
that
he
thinks
it's
lacking.
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
second
his
motion
in
giving
a
negative
recommendation
that
it's
an
incomplete
proposed
amendment
to
the
city
ordinance.
Yes,.
I
A
All
right,
we
have
a
promotion,
we
have
a
second,
yes,
sir,
stay
a
second
commissioner.
All
right,
all
those
who
are
in
favor
of
this
motion
signify
by
saying
aye,
hi,
hi,
hi
hi,
all
right
is
there.
Anybody
who
is
against
this
particular
motion
with
none
heard
the
motion
carries
a
recommendation
to
counsel
is
a
negative
one.
A
F
And
and
more
in
depth
than
that,
I'm
going
to
ask
the
building
director
and
and
help
them
with
it
that
actually
the
feedback
you
provided
about.
The
issues
that
you
brought
up
also
be
brought
to
the
city
council,
and
I
think
those
are
all
good
issues
that
you
brought
up
and
those
those
do
need
to
be
addressed.
A
Very
good
moving
right
along
then
we're
going
to
go
back
to
item
5a,
which
is
defending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
city
of
laredo
by
rezoning
lot.
14
block
2.
jacqueline
road
unit.
6
professional
park
is
located
at
7126
rawson
lane
from
b4
to
b3
all
right,
kirby
who's
going
to
make
this
presentation.
I
will
sir
all
right.
The.
F
Applicant
is
arena
arena
apartments,
llc,
property
owner
is
irene
apartments
and
joe
emma
sherffy
is
the
engineer
who
is
representative.
You
describe
the
the
property
location
and
the
zone
change.
Just
to
repeat,
it
is
from
b4,
which
is
our
highway.
Commercial
district
to
b3,
which
is
community
business
district,
and
the
proposed
use
is
multi-family
and
they're
down
zoning
from
b4
to
b3
so
that
they
can
do
they
can
have
the
legal,
conforming
use
of
the
departments
there.
We
sent
out
11
letters
to
the
surrounding
neighbors.
F
Here's
a
view
of
the
apartment
structure,
arena
apartments,
and
this
is
a
view
of
the
current
zoning.
You
can
see
it's
all
before
in
that
area,
except
for
a
b3
across
the
street
kitty
corner-
and
here
is
the
future
land
use
maps
designating
this
area's
mixed
use
staff
supports
the
recommendation.
It's
in
conformance
with
the
future
land
use
map
it
complies
with
the
b3
requirements,
proposed
use
is
compatible
and
the
zone
change
won't
adversely
impact
conditions.
It's
a.
F
B
F
A
G
A
F
A
A
With
none
heard
motion
carries
thank
you
next
item
public
hearing
amending
the
zoning
in
ordinance
and
city
loretta
by
rezoning
approximately
two
point:
five:
seven
acre
track
of
land
being
out
of
the
proportion.
Thirty
seven-
and
this
is
located
south
of
sierra
vista
east
of
vegeta
avenue
from
r3
to
r1mh
all
right,
kirby,
yeah,.
F
Look
at
his
vimosa
texgen:
he
was
the
owner
applicant
horse
stance,
engineering's
representative,
you
describe
the
property
and
location
again.
This
is
a
r3s
they're
requesting
to
go
from
r3
to
r1mh
single-family
manufactured
housing.
District.
The
proposed
use
is
manufactured
housing.
We
milled
out
16
letters.
We
received
zero,
four
and
zero
against
it's
located
in
the
southern
part
of
the
city.
F
M
F
Land
use
map
showing
this
area
as
a
mix
of
neighborhood
mixed
use,
but
also
including
the
high
density
residential
to
the
west,
which
is
the
yellow
staff,
supports
the
proposed
zone,
change
it's
in
conformance
with
the
future
land
use
map
it.
It
complies
with
the
requirements
of
the
r1mh
zone
and
it's
compatible
with
the
surrounding
uses.
That's
a
typo,
it
says
industrial,
but
it's
it's
compatible
with
the
surrounding
uses
and
we
don't
think
the
zone
change
will
adversely
impact
the
neighborhood.
F
A
B
J
A
C
F
Yes,
the
applicant
is
shashi,
baswani
arms,
limited
who's,
the
property
owner
and
the
representative
is
surfing
engineering.
You
describe
the
property,
location
and
description
again.
It's
they're
going
from
requesting
to
go
from
r2,
which
is
multi-family
to
r1b,
which
is
single
family
high
density.
F
F
F
A
A
B
Mr
vidalia,
mr
chairman,
the
record
requirement
overview.
The
applicant
is
dnj
investments.
Llc
engineer
of
record
is
premier
civil
engineering
800,
approximately
898
acres
located
south
of
del
mar
and
northwest
of
casa
del
road.
The
zoning
of
this
1474
lot
development
is
r1,
r2,
b2
and
b3.
The
proposed
use
is
residential
and
commercial
general
location.
B
F
M
J
J
N
O
O
O
J
O
F
So,
just
just
for
the
record,
these
comments
are
published
and
provided
and
sent
out
to
all
the
engineers.
So
so
the
engineer
on
this
received
these
comments
last
friday,
when
we
put
them
out
that
danny's
right
that
would
have
been
good
to
contact
if
he
saw
these
comments
from
traffic
didn't
agree
with
them,
contacted
the
traffic
and
say
hey,
I
don't
I
don't
agree
with
this.
We
try
to
do
the
same
as
well
when
we,
when
we're
you
know,
we
make
sure
we
get
these
comments
on.
F
F
M
F
F
F
O
F
J
O
F
O
J
O
E
F
Comment
on
that
process
so
that
everybody
can
feel
at
ease
the
preliminary
process.
This
is
more
like
a.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
everyone
to
know
where
we're
at.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
the
engineer
to
know
where
the
city
is
coming
from
for
the
city
to
know
where
the
engineer's
coming
from
the
real
approving
authority
is
when
it
goes
to
final,
and
the
engineer
has
to
get
a
letter
from
the
traffic
engine
from
the
traffic
department
director
who
says.
Yes,
you
can
proceed
with
this
plan,
and
so
it's
final,
that's
the
real.
F
B
A
Very
good:
do
we
have
a
motion
to
table?
Can
we
have
a
motion?
I'm
certain
not
advice,
advice.
Second,
second,
by
lugo,
all
those
who
are
not
in
favor
of
the
motion
signified
by
saint
eye
motion,
carries
stabled
all
right
next
item
review
and
consider
and
review
and
reconsideration
of
san
ysidro
southwest
antler
crossing
master
planning,
presidential
and
commercial.
A
B
The
applicant
is
san,
diego
southwest
limited
engineer,
record
highly
engineering
surveying
approximately
124
acres
located
south
of
72,
parkway
and
west
of
springfield
road.
The
zoning
for
this
development
is
b4
r1a
and
r1b.
The
proposed
uses
residential
commercial
and
the
proposed
number
of
lots
is
approximately
530.
B
Absolutely
off
to
the
to
the
north,
which
would
make
it
to
the
to
the
right
of
the
drawing
you
see
this
new
phase
five.
This
was
originally
one
large
platinum,
platted
lot.
So
now
he's
gonna
bring
in
this
phase.
Five,
which
he's
gonna
they're
gonna,
do
as
commercial
lots,
the
smaller
ones
on
along
springfield
and
the
larger
ones,
alongside
cedar,
parkway.
N
B
J
Hello,
mr
chairman,
this
is
wayne
with
quarters
engineering.
We
agree
with
all
the
comments
except
for
traffic
item
number
one.
They
you
just
can't
combine
it
with
that.
The
geometry
of
the
adjacent
unit
that's
already
built-
doesn't
allow
for,
for
that
kind
of
a
minimum
straight
selection
on
a
few
of
those
streets,
we're
complying
with
the
approved
master
plan,
we're
just
basically
putting
back
what's
in
the
master
plan,
so
we
just
can't.
We
can't
give
you
that
traffic
number
one
and
we're
asking
that
you
stricken.
F
F
A
J
J
You
know
I'm
sure
that
he's
not
going
to
be
prepared
to
move
on
something
like
this.
I
just
needed
for
the
record
and
we
just
can't
not
comply
with
that
item
it
just
it
doesn't
work
and
so
we'll
work
with
him
at
the
one.
Stop
talk.
If
that's
fine
with
you
guys.
I
just
please
note
that
on
the
on
the
media
minute,
because.
F
F
F
J
Separation
yeah,
I
don't
know
yes,
I
can
tell
you
what
they're
looking
for
is
very
long
tangents
before
the
intersection.
This
is
not
the
ordinance,
though.
I
want
to
point
that
out.
We
sent
you
harvey
a
checklist
of
things
that
just
you
know
that
that
we
have
agreements
with
constantly,
and
this
is
one
that
it
really
needs
to
be
quantified,
because
it's
just
supposed
to
be
arbitrarily
applied.
It
doesn't
have
an
ordinance
behind
it.
J
Geometrically,
it's
just
not
there
and
the
subdivision
to
the
south
of
that
is
already
built
and
we're.
Basically,
this
was
an
approved
master
plan.
You
know-
and
so
you
know
those
choices
were
made
a
long
time
ago
and
I'm
just
being
asked
to
comply
with
something
I
just
can't.
I
can't
give
it
to
you
it
just
geometrically
is
not
terror.
O
O
O
No,
no
I'm
saying,
but
I'm
talking
about
committee
intentions
he's
talking
about
that,
but
it's
it's
it's
folly
to
keep
following
practices
that
have
gotten
us
in
trouble.
I
mean
the
the
statistics
speak
for
themselves,
the
accidents,
the
complaints
and
the
same
thing
same
comment.
I
had
with
the
previous
engineer:
if
he
knew
he
had
these
comments
coming
to
pnc,
what
didn't
we're
getting
out
economy
and
trying
to
work
these
out?
Why
does
he
want
to
come
in
and
discuss
them
here?
We
don't
have
the
time
to
do
an
in-depth
analysis.
O
Same
thing
with
mr
nance.
I've
worked
with
him
many
many
times
and
always
found
agreements,
but
I
don't
think
this
is
the
right
area
to
be
doing
these
kind
of
things.
So
if
he
wants
a
table,
we
can
look
at
it.
I'm
sure
we
can
work
something
out
but
to
make
decisions
that
has
already
looked
at
and
then
just
overturn
them.
I
don't
think
that's
that's
fair
to
their
decision-making
or
mine.
J
O
F
If
I
can
this
one,
I
think,
might
be
a
little
more
challenging
to
just
work
out.
I
mean
dan
the
case
that
he's
making
about
it's
on
an
approved
master
plan,
and
this
neighborhood
already
has
I
mean,
if
you're
going
to
stick
to
that
too?
Are
you
saying
you
could
go
down
from
that
200
feet,
but
as
it
set,
I
mean
you
probably
would
have
to
eliminate
lots
significantly
in
order
to
have
enough
space.
O
G
A
C
A
B
J
A
A
A
A
B
The
applicant
is
actor
in
pedro
arispen.
The
engineer
of
record
is
tc
engineers
and
consultants,
approximately
eighteen
thousand
nineteen
thousand
square
feet
located
north
of
state,
highway,
359
and
east
of
the
ceiling
radio
landfill.
The
zoning
for
the
two
law
development
is
not
alcohol,
as
this
track
is
located
outside
the
city
limits.
The
proposed
use
is
a
residential,
and
the
proposed
number
of
lots
is
two
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view.
B
Absolutely
so,
this
subdivision
is
located
in
los
altos,
which
is
on
the
fringe
of
the
current
city
limits
in
one
of
the
colonias
and
because
it
is
in
the
etj,
the
extratural
jurisdiction,
there
is
actual
dual
authority
with
regards
to
plans
with
the
county
and
the
city.
So
as
the
county
I
mean,
since
the
city
is
also
the
water
and
sewer
provider
in
the
area,
it
has
to
get
approval
from
both
entities,
both
the
city
as
well
as
the
county,
so
they
starting
out
with
the
city
first
at
this
time,.
M
B
The
applicant
is
santa
fe,
webb,
llc,
engineer
of
record
crane
engineering,
approximately
1.3
acres,
located
east
of
cuatro
vientos,
road
and
south
of
state
highway
59.
The
zoning
for
this
element
is
r1
and
r1a.
The
proposed
use
for
the
intent
is
right-of-way
and
it's
no
loss
just
right
away.
Only
general
location
aerial
view.
G
A
B
The
applicant
is
a
xenoplasty
limited,
introduce
record,
is
premier
engineering
and
surveying
approximately
five
and
three
quarters
acres
located
south
of
del
mar
boulevard
and
west
of
pearson
road.
The
zoning
is
b3
and
b4.
The
proposal
uses
commercial.
The
proposed
number
of
lots
is
three
general
location,
aerial
view.
N
A
A
In
motion
we
have
a
second
second,
second
by
the
walina.
All
those
who
are
not
in
favor
of
this
motion
and
signify
by
saying
aye,
not
heard
motion
carries
next
item.
Preliminary
consideration
of
the
plan
of
d
j
alexander
phase
15
alexander
crossing
plaza
lot,
five
block
one
and
lot
five
block:
two:
the
intense
commercial.
B
B
Comments
from
planning
we
do
ask
that
we
strike
comment
number
one
with
regards
to
the
street
and
we're
going
to
be
resolving,
or
the
street
name
will
be
resolving
that.
With
the
with
the
engineer
of
record.
We
already
spoke
to
them
earlier
about
it:
engineering,
traffic
safety
and
utility
coordination
and
water
utilities,
and
the
proposed
motion.
J
J
F
J
F
A
B
The
applicant
is
doug
stanley.
The
engineer
of
record
is
ricardo
ramos,
approximately
four
acres
located
south
of
fm
1472
and
west
of
coal
mine
road.
The
zoning
for
this
development
is
r1.
The
proposed
use
is
commercial.
The
proposed
number
of
lots
is
one
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view
in
the
proposed
flat.
N
G
A
Motion
second
section
all
right:
well,
the
second,
those
who
are
not
in
favor
of
the
motion
signified
by
saying
aye
and
unheard
motion
carries
next
item.
Preliminary
consideration
of
the
replan
of
lot
119
block
three
san
ysidro
southwest
standard
crossing
phase,
one
into
lots;
119
a
and
one
through
119,
f
block
three
and
the
crossing
face
by
the
antennas
commercial.
M
B
The
applicant
is
sanisito
southwest
limited.
The
engineer
of
record
is
held
engineering
and
surveying
approximately
31.66
acres
located
south
west
of
san,
diego
parkway
and
springfieldfield
avenue.
The
zoning
for
this
development
is
v4,
the
proposed
uses
commercial
and
the
proposed
number
of
lots
is
six
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view
and
the
proposed
flat.