►
From YouTube: September 27, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
going
to
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
September
27th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
Dyess,
our
customer
allison
consul
member,
a
goodman
and
council
member
Gordon.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
We
have
five
items
on
the
agenda
today.
We'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
items
number
three
through
five
number.
A
Three
is
the
denial
of
a
rezoning
s,
application
submitted
by
Tanis
tannaz
to
rezone
property
located
at
2606
Penn
Avenue.
North
number.
Four
is
the
approving
of
a
determination
that
the
environmental
assessment
worksheet
is
not
required
for
the
art
and
architecture.
Building
development
and
number
five
is
the
approval
of
a
rezoning
application
submitted
by
Margaret
Miller
and
Janice
Rowland
camp
to
rezone
the
property
located
at
30
to
1530
through
Avenue
South.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
committee
members
on
these
items,
or
would
anyone
like
to
pull
anything
off
for
discussion?
Councilmember,
Gordon,
I'd.
A
A
C
Thank
committee
members,
chair
Schrader.
As
you
know,
the
City
Council
introduced
an
interim
ordinance
establishing
a
moratorium
on
the
creation
of
new
product
tobacco
products,
shops
and
issuance
of
new
tobacco
licenses
on
August
31st
of
this
year.
Several
weeks
ago,
that
ordinance
was
introduced
by
a
consumer
McConnell.
C
Si
ped
has
CPI
Development
Services
has
initiated
a
working
group
with
cpad
business
licensing,
as
well
as
our
health
department
to
move
forward
with
this
study
during
the
moratorium
as
you're
also
aware
that
the
City
Council
has
taken
actions
in
recent
years
to
restrict
the
sale
of
flavored
and
menthol
tobacco
products.
Those
products
are
both
allowed
only
in
liquor
stores
or
exclusive
tobacco
products
shops.
At
this
point.
C
During
recent
months,
in
particular,
we've
seen
a
substantial
increase
in
the
number
of
tobacco
product
shops
and
applications
for
those
shops.
In
2017
there
were
25
tobacco
product
shops
citywide.
There
are
now
40
licensed
tobacco
product
shops
with
an
additional
14
shops.
Pending
you
see
a
map
of
the
distribution
of
those
tobacco
product
shops
with
the
purple
representing
those
that
have
been
pending
or
that
are
pending
or
have
been
established
in
the
last
year,
and
the
other
sort
of
yellow,
colored
ones
are
those
that
have
been
established
for
a
year
or
more.
C
We've
also
seen
a
number
of
requests
for
shopping
centers
through
a
conditional
use
permit
somewhat,
because
of
a
quirky
definition
that
we
have
for
shopping
centre.
Essentially
when
a
gas
station,
for
example,
that
set
back
from
the
street
wants
to
divide
up
into
multiple
tenant
spaces
that
ends
up
being
called
under
our
zoning
ordinance
a
shopping
center
we've.
So
we've
seen
a
number
of
those
instances
where
existing
gas
stations
or
convenience
stores
have
attempted
to
carve
out
a
smaller
spot
within
the
existing
structure.
And
again
those
have
been
deemed
to
be
shopping.
C
Again,
we're
help
we'll
have
a
cross-department
team
that
will
look
at
a
number
of
issues,
including
those
shown
on
your
screen,
particularly
examining
the
concentration
of
these
uses
and
the
implications
of
that
we'll
also,
of
course,
look
at
best
practices
from
peer
cities
in
bringing
forward
a
recommendation
to
you
within
the
next
year.
With
that,
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
Well,.
A
Thank
you
very
much
is:
are
there
any
questions
for
staff
seeing
none
well.
Thank
you
very
much
at
this
point.
I'll
open
the
hearing,
the
public
hearing,
those
our
wish
to
speak
should
sign
in
with
the
clerk
and
we'll
have
two
minutes
which
will
be
tracked
by
the
timer
by
the
clerk
and
before
you
start
just
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Is
there
anyone
else?
Anyone
here
to
speak
up
on
this
issue?
D
Good
morning,
committee
members,
my
name,
is
Silvia
Amos
and
I
have
lived
at
1918
Thomas,
Avenue
North
for
the
past
32
years
and
I
am
a
lifelong
resident
of
North
Minneapolis
I
stand
here
today
in
support
of
the
tobacco
shop.
Moratorium
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Women's
Auxiliary
of
the
Minnesota
State
Baptist
Convention,
and
have
spent
the
last
two
years.
Educating
members
of
the
stair-step
Foundation,
a
coalition
of
denominational
and
nondenominational
African
American
churches
in
the
Twin
Cities
on
the
harmful
effects
of
menthol
tobacco.
D
I
am
also
part
of
the
coalition
that
came
before
you
to
advocate
for
the
menthol
tobacco
restriction.
Since
the
ordinance
passed
stores
have
come
forward
and
ask
permission
to
split,
so
they
can
continue
to
sell
menthol
on
their
tobacco
shop
side.
This
is
extremely
concerning
to
me,
as
this
will
diminish
the
impact
of
this
life-saving
policy.
One
thing
my
community
doesn't
need
is
more
tobacco
shops.
We
have
more
than
enough
tobacco
already
and
the
resulting
impact
has
been
deadly.
A
moratorium
will
give
you
time
to
study
the
issue
and
come
up
with
a
long-term
solution.
E
Good
morning
my
name
is
Emily
Anderson
and
I
live
at
41
36
Columbus
Ave
in
Ward
8
I,
am
here
today
also
in
strong
support
of
the
proposed
moratorium
on
new
tobacco
licenses.
I've
been
in
tobacco
control
advocate
for
more
than
10
years.
In
that
time,
I've
worked
on
many
policies
aimed
at
helping
people
quit
smoking
and
making
sure
young
people
never
start.
E
In
the
first
place,
I
can
honestly
say
that
the
policy
I'm
most
proud
of
as
a
longtime
resident
of
the
city
as
a
mom
of
two
young
girls
and
is
a
public
health
advocate,
is
the
restriction
on
menthol
tobacco.
This
council,
passed
last
year,
simply
put
you
save
lives
with
that
vote.
Unfortunately,
since
the
ordinance
passed,
many
gas
station
and
corner
stores
have
asked
permission
to
split
so
that
they
can
sell
menthol
tobacco
in
their
tobacco
shop
and
continue
to
sell
food
beverages
and
other
items
in
their
main
store.
E
One
of
these
stores
at
38th
in
Chicago
is
just
two
blocks
from
my
house
and
even
closer
to
a
church
and
a
Phelps
park,
both
of
which
serve
large
numbers
of
youth
on
a
daily
basis.
This
store
plans
to
partition
off
just
their
tobacco
counter
from
the
rest
of
the
store
so
that
they
can
sell
menthol
from
that
counter.
E
There
is
no
plan
for
an
outside
entrance
to
me
the
sounds
like
business
as
usual,
and
it
flies
in
the
face
of
the
intent
of
the
menthol
ordinance,
which
is
to
protect
the
health
of
our
entire
community.
Let's
be
honest
businesses
you
know
usual
only
protects
the
tobacco
industry.
I
hope
that
you'll
vote
in
support
of
the
moratorium
on
tobacco
licenses
and
work
to
preserve
the
intent
of
the
menthol
tobacco
restriction.
By
doing
so,
you
won't
share
a
healthier
future
for
our
city.
Thank
you.
A
F
Meeting
members,
my
name
is
Paul
Pentel,
225,
Upton,
Avenue,
South
I'm,
a
physician
and
director
of
the
tobacco
dependence
clinic
at
Hennepin,
County,
Medical,
Center
I'm,
also
the
ward
7
representative
on
the
public
health
advisory
committee
and
I'm
here
to
convey
that
committee's
support
for
the
moratorium.
So
our
committee
supported
the
original
menthol
amendment
and
the
rationale
for
that
hasn't
changed.
The
request
from
convenience
stores
to
spin
off
tobacco
shops
is
a
deliberate
attempt
to
circumvent
the
purpose
and
the
impact
of
the
existing
methyl
amendment.
F
F
A
G
G
I
believe
as
we
move
forward
with
new
zoning
in
the
city.
I
also
think
that
we
need
to
pay
attention
to
where
tobacco
shops
and
convenience
stores
can
be
located.
If
we're
going
to
see
a
fairly
significant
up,
zoning
of
the
entire
city,
these
uses
could
become
more
prevalent
in
more
places,
not
less,
and
so
ultimately,
I
had
the
good
fortune
of
appointing
someone
to
the
public
health
advisory
committee
because
he
knew
more
than
most
other
people
about
this
issue
and
I
feel
it's
my
job
to
pay
attention
to
the
experts
and
people
like
dr.
G
Pentel
in
order
to
move
this
forward.
This
is
an
example
of
the
system
working
where
you
pick
someone
for
an
advisory
committee,
because
you
believe
in
their
expertise-
and
you
know
that
that
expertise
will
help
lead
the
government
entity
to
the
right
place
and
I'm
very
appreciative
of
dr.
patel's
life
work
on
this
issue
as
well
as
you
standing
up
for
residents
of
the
seventh
Ward
as
well
as
you
do
to
help
us
get
to
this
point.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
A
H
B
Thank
you
very
much
mr.
chair
I'm
happy
to
move
this
forward
as
the
one
of
the
authors
of
the
flavor
tobacco
and
then
the
mental
tobacco
regulations.
We
talked
about
this
potential
problem.
I
think
we
anticipated
it
a
little
bit.
We've
also
reviewed
some
of
the
potential
solutions
to
it,
but
clearly
we
need
more
time
to
get
a
handle
on
it
and
I
appreciate
this
approach,
and
this
idea
and
support
us
in
taking
some
time
to
study
it
and
and
in
the
meantime,
preventing
more
tobacco
shops.
B
Think
if
we
have
the
right
approach
to
where
we
locate
tobacco
shops
and
people
might
realize,
we
do
have
lots
of
regulations
about
liquor
stores
and
how
many
of
there
can
be
or
spacing
requirements,
etc.
So
I
think
we've
got
some
tools
to.
We
can
get
in
place
and
I
think
with
a
few
months.
We
can
figure
it
out
and
the
moratorium
is
a
reasonable
step
to
take.
I
I
This
mirror
sort
of
effect
happening
with
this
with
you
know,
with
this
sort
of
phenomenon
of
folks
when
in
a
rezone
and
I
think
it
was
articulated
really
well
by
staff
that
you
know
a
rezone
wouldn't
just
allow
for
at
the
tobacco
shop,
it
would
allow
a
whole
host
of
other
uses
and
and
also
even
some
of
the
business
owners
that
I
think
we're
really
doing
their
due
diligence
to
get
to
go
through
the
whole
process.
You
know,
we
kind
of
you
know
I
kind
of
came
into
the
situation
of
oh
well.
I
J
You
mr.
chair
I
was
one
of
the
co-authors
of
one
of
the
tobacco
regulations
we
passed
last
term
with
councilmember,
Gordon
and
I.
Think
I
would
echo
that
that
we
knew
that
there
would
be
this
issue
as
we
worked
to
restrict
access
to
tobacco
products
in
response
to
calls
from
our
community,
and
particularly
the
youth
in
our
community,
to
prioritize
their
and
I.
Think
part
of
the
issue
is
the
consequence
of
our
zoning
that
tries
to
combine
use
based
regulations
with
size
and
bulk
race-based
regulations
and
that's
a
little
bit
in
the
weeds
of
zoning.
J
But
you
know
right
now:
our
zoning
code
doesn't
really
separate
the
two
it's
so
it's
it's
really
not
perfect,
and
so
you,
in
order
to
get
a
bigger
building,
you
need
a
high
or
zoning
classification,
but
those
higher
zoning
classifications
also
allow
for
many
more
uses
and
so
I
think
in
this
next
round
and
then
we're
gonna.
Try
do
a
better
job
of
figuring
out
how
we
regulate
uses.
J
That's
a
little
bit
separate
from
how
we
regulate
the
size
of
buildings
and
I'm
excited
about
that,
because
I
think
we'll
see
fewer
of
these
conflicts
when
we
do
that,
all
that's
to
say,
I
also
am
NOT.
A
big
fan
of
moratoriums
and
I
really
want
to
appreciate
the
work
that
councilmember
Cano
did
to
build
support
within
the
council
and
really
make
the
case
for
why
this
was
needed
and
I
think
it
is.
It
is
appropriate
and,
and
the
right
thing
to
do
so.
J
We
have
the
time
that
we
need
to
create
a
fair
regulation
that
doesn't
you
know
that
doesn't
prioritize
some
business
owners
over
others.
That's
also
a
concern
that
I
have
often
when
we
restrict
access
to
a
thing,
we're
privileges
who
are
already
in
the
market
or
have
more
access
or
more.
You
know,
access
to
legal
services
in
and
further
marginalizing
business
owners
who
don't
have
those
resources
and
I
think
we
want
to
be
careful
about
how
that
plays
out.
A
Not
seeing
any
other
questions
I'd
just
like
to
add
my
voice
said
I'll
be
enthusiastically,
endorses
well
and
also
extending
you
know
my
thanks
to
councilmember
accountable
for
all
of
her
work
over
the
last
couple
months
to
see
this
I
also
want
to
extend.
This
has
been
a
challenge
for
the
Planning.
Commission
is
something
that
they
look
to
us
for
direction
on
policy
and
on
the
zoning,
and
so
with
this
moratorium,
we'll
send
that
clear
message
and
that
very
much
helps
more
trying
to
build
a
city.
A
I
also
want
to
echo
councilmember
Goodman's
point
as
we
look
toward
zoning
reform
and
building
healthy
resilient
communities.
Thinking
about
where
tobacco
shops
are
is
definitely
a
key
part
of
that.
With
that,
councilmember
Gordon's
motion
is
before
that's
all
owns
those
in
favor,
say:
aye
hi,
all
those
opposed
the
eyes
have
it,
and
the
motion
carries.
K
Thank
you
very
much
good
morning,
council
members.
Item
number
two
on
today's
agenda
is
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
to
deny
a
certificate
or
appropriateness
and
historic
variance
that
would
allow
for
an
underground
parking
garage
within
the
structure
at
4:24
Washington
Avenue
north.
The
structure
is
in
the
Minneapolis
warehouse,
historic
district
on
August
21st,
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission,
adopted
staff
findings
and
denied
both
applications.
The
applicant
is
now
the
appellant
and
they
appealed
the
decision
of
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission.
K
We
were
informed
earlier
or
late
last
week
that
the
app
the
appellant
and
their
representation
were
not
going
to
be
available
for
this
morning's
cause.
A
judicial
public
hearing
I
was
also
informed
prior
to
that
that
one
of
the
adjacent
property
owners
and
president
of
the
homeowners
association
at
security,
warehouse,
lofts
and
5th
Avenue
loss
was
also
not
able
to
make
this
morning's
meeting.
So
with
that
there
was
a
request
for
continuance
for
one
cycle
to
the
October
11th
zoning
and
planning
committee,
for
which
we
would
hear
and
take
testimony
from
those
individuals.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
staff?
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
with
that.
The
the
today's
hearing
was
publicly
noticed,
so
I
will
open
it
to
the
public
in
case
anyone
is
present
to
testify,
but
and
I
will
not
close
the
hearing
until
we
hear
this
on
its
continuance
is
anyone
here
did
anyone
here.
Speaking
today
will
be
heard,
I
mean
the
testimony
will
become
part
of
the
record.
Would
anyone
be
willing
to
what
is
anyone
interest
in
speaking
today
on
the
site?
A
Anyone
interested
in
speaking
last
chance
all
right,
seeing
no
additional
speakers
I'll
move
to
continue
the
hearing
and
consideration
of
the
appeal
to
the
next
meeting
for
this
committee,
which
is
scheduled
on
October
11th.
All
those
in
favor
say:
aye
hi,
all
those
opposed.
They
know
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
carries
will
now
turn
to
a
number
for
which
council
member
Gordon
pulled
off
the
consent
agenda
for
discussion,
and
if
we
could
hear
it
introduction
by
staff.
L
Good
morning,
chair,
Schrader,
council
members-
this
is,
we
are
here
this
morning,
as
a
petition
was
filed
with
the
Minneapolis
or
Minnesota
Environmental
Quality
board,
requesting
and
preparation
of
an
environmental
assessment
worksheet
for
the
art
and
architecture
development
project,
which
is
located
at
33
26
through
50
University,
Avenue,
South
East
on
September
5th
that
you
could
be
assigned
the
city
of
Minneapolis
as
a
responsible
governmental
unit
determining
if
the
petition
was
complete
and
valid.
According
to
the
petitioner.
L
The
proposed
development
includes
a
14
story,
building
with
208
dwelling
units
and
approximately
34,000
square
feet
of
commercial
space
in
it's
267,
structured
parking
spaces
and
also
the
retention
of
the
existing
art
in
architecture.
Building
on
June
25th,
the
Minneapolis
Planning
Commission
approved
the
land
use
applications
to
allow
the
development
to
move
forward
and
on
August
17th.
The
Minneapolis
City
Council
deny
two
separate
appeals
coming
out
of
this
committee
regarding
the
decisions,
the
Minneapolis
Planning
Commission,
approving
those
land
use
applications.
The
denial
of
the
appeals
by
the
City
Council
in
turn
improves
the
project.
L
L
It
is
undisputed
that
the
project
does
not
meet
any
of
the
mandatory
alw
categories
contained
in
the
minnesota
rules.
Therefore,
it
is
implied
that
the
petitioners
urging
the
city
to
prepare
discretionary
eaw,
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
concludes
that
any
alleged
effects
pertaining
to
natural
resources,
including
historic
or
aesthetic
resources
of
the
Tower
Hill
Park
area
in
the
power
of
Prospect
Park
water
tower,
were
addressed
through
the
regulatory
process.
The
development
side
is
not
historically
designated,
nor
is
it
located
in
a
historic
district,
either
at
the
federal
national
or
local
level.
L
A
historic
preservation
related
considerations
are
not
relevant
when
considering
development
on
this
site.
Any
alleged
effects
pertain
to
construction
of
the
proposed
development
and
its
impacts
on
the
surrounding
area
will
be
addressed
through
the
existing
regulatory
process.
That
would
follow
when
obtaining
those
building
permits
and
any
alleged
effects
pertain
and
hazardous
materials
would
also
be
addressed
through
the
existing
regulatory
process.
The
petitioners
have
not
met
their
burden
of
showing
that
the
project
may
have
the
potential
for
significant
environmental
effects
in
the
city.
L
I
B
The
staff
findings
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
what
the
other
regulatory
actions
and
things
were
going
to
do
to
mitigate
the
concerns.
I
think
that's
one
of
the
big,
bigger
arguments
and
I
know.
We've
certainly
already
in
our
approvals
put
conditions
having
to
do
with
the
hill.
The
nearby
yards
I
think
there's
going
to
be
requiring
some
plans,
but
I
think
there's
three
big
things
that
they
talked
about
in
the
petition.
One
is
essentially
impacts
on
the
aesthetics
and
historic
resource.
L
As
far
as
the
impacts
to
the
Tower
Hill
Park
and
the
witch's
hat
tower,
we
find
that
the
process
that
occurred
through
the
Planning
Commission
the
appeals
process,
the
zoning,
a
planning
committee
and
ultimately,
at
the
decision
by
the
City
Council,
addressed
the
impacts
on
the
aesthetic
and
the
historic
aspects
of
the
witch's
hat
tower
there.
Water
tower
excuse
me,
as
that
was
a
point
of
discussion
through
that
that
process
that
has
already
occurred
and
the
City
Council
has
already
denied
this
appeals
ultimately
approving
the
project,
finding
that
there
were
no
impacts
to
that.
B
Do
we
have
any
I
mean
that
seems
to
be?
It
has
been.
One
of
the
problems
with
this
whole
project
is
what
people
are
most
concerned
about
was
a
view
to,
and
from
and
I
don't
think
we're.
We
have
much
regulatory
tools
to
regulate
that
review
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
I've
ever
seen
a
environmental
impact
statement,
that
kind
of
called
that
out
or
anything
so
have.
M
Chair
council,
member
Gordon
in
the
context
of
local
designation,
I,
can't
think
of
one
I
would
suggest
that
there,
you
know
absent
a
protected
property
interest,
there's
very
little
in
law
that
protects
if
you
shed,
particularly
if
you
expand
the
notion
in
this
context.
If
there
is
a
view
shed
issue,
a
protection
issue
here
would
extend
to
a
radius
for
that
would
affect
all
developments
surrounding
the
entire
witch's
hat
tower.
M
But
one
could
see
that
there
could
be
a
protection
for
an
open
space
element
or,
if
you
shed
within
a
designated
Historic
Site,
assuming
that
the
the
the
open
space
element
or
the
view
shed
independently
in
and
of
itself
and
within
the
context
of
the
site,
was
worthy
of
consideration
as
a
historic
resource
itself.
But
that's
not
the
case
with
with
what
we're
presented
with
here.
B
Okay
and
as
I've
indicated,
I
think
other
meetings
I'm
curious
about
what
we
could
do
to
help
look
at
view
sheds,
but
I
think
it
would
be
better
if
we
did
that
in
a
thoughtful
way
in
a
more
general
way
and
I
mean.
Obviously
there
are
some
landmarks
that
are
famous
for
being
a
view.
Sight
probably
I
mean
you
think
of
the
Eiffel
Tower
or
something
like
that.
You
think
of
the
city
hall,
clock.
F
B
So
and
I
know:
that's
not
protected
were
working
here,
so
I'm
not
I'm
a
little
bit
on
the
fence
about
this
I
think
that
generally
I
think
doing
due
diligence
is
worthwhile
I
think
if
we
were
gonna
consider
an
environmental
impact
worksheet.
We
should
probably
should
have
done
it
before
this
point
and
we
probably
should
have
looked
at
this
and
considered
it.
So
this
does
seem
a
little
bit
like
a
something
coming
at
the
end.
M
Mr.Chair
accounts,
Marburg
or
I'll,
just
reiterate
the
standard,
because
this,
the
state
legal
standard,
a
tissue,
geyser
decision
you,
you
have
said
that
it's
subjective
I,
would
agree
with
that,
but
nonetheless,
just
to
reiterate
again
environmental
review.
The
purpose
of
it
and
eaw
in
particular,
is
just
as
an
information
gathering
tool.
It
has
no
regulatory
effect
over
a
proposed
project.
M
It's
it's
been
stated
many
times
it's
not
to
be
used
as
a
delay
tactic
in
that
regard.
It
only
finds
utility
when
the
review
is
conducted
in
advance
of
regulatory
decisions
that
will
be
made
by
a
decision-making
body
such
as
yourselves
and
then
you
can
take
into
account
the
information.
That's
been
gathered,
the
mitigation
measures
proposed
and
you
can-
and
it
can
achieve
that
utility
by
the
decision
making
body
choosing
to
incorporate
those
measures
in
its
approvals,
and
then
they
have
the
enforceable
effect.
M
So
in
and
of
itself
it's
it's
it's
it's
just
an
information
gathering
tool.
The
standard
is
that
the
petitioners
in
this
case,
with
a
citizen
petition
for
an
EI
W
as
part
of
their
submission
to
the
EQB.
They
were
required
to
present
material
evidence
of
the
development
projects,
potential
for
significant
environmental
effects,
and
so
that
is
the
standard
that
you
use.
Using
the
petition.
That's
been
presented
that
I
think
Hillary
very
capably
addressed
in
terms
of
the
the
the
the
projects
been
approved.
M
They
haven't
pulled
their
building
permits
yet,
but
in
terms
of
that
regulatory
review
that
has
already
occurred
and
many
many
conditions
were
imposed
on
the
development
in
a
variety
of
ways
and
then
the
remaining
regulatory
authority
with
regard
to
the
to
the
building
permits,
but
the
standard
is,
is
whether
the
evidence
presented
by
the
petitioners
shows
that
there
may
be
the
potential
for
significant
environmental
effects.
If
you
feel,
if
you
determine
that
it
does,
you
have
to
order
environment
a
review
and
if
it
doesn't,
you
don't
I'm.
A
M
Know
III
would
just
go
back
to
to
Hilary's
response
to
the
question
from
the
first
question
from
councilmember,
Gorton
I
think
she
really
accurately
addressed
the
review
processes
that
have
already
occurred.
This
was
a
project
that
had
a
number
of
applications
that
underwent
review
by
the
Planning
Commission.
There
were
two
separate
appeals
by
neighborhood
residents
in
opposition
to
the
project.
Those
appeals
were
heard
at
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
and
then
the
decisions
that
were
made
from
that
committee
ultimately
to
approve
the
project
with
a
number
of
conditions
that
were
newly
imposed
at
the
committee.
M
M
The
I'm
just
trying
to
remember
the
the
second
burger
question,
but
but
just
again
in
general,
when
when
a
project
is
proposed,
the
law
contains
certain
mandatory
categories
where
a
development
team
has
to
prepare
an
environmental
assessment
worksheet
and
it
it
is
a
number
of
categories
of
use,
types
or
development
intensity,
and
it
has
threshold
standards
that
you
apply.
The
project
that
proposed
projects
turns
against
to
determine
whether
a
mandatory
environmental
assessment
worksheet
is
required
and
for
this
particular
project
it
was
not
did
not
meet
any
of
those
mandatory
thresholds
and
so
effectively.
M
The
citizen
petition
now
is
arguing.
Theirs
is
trying
to
make
the
case
for
why
the
project
should
have
an
e
aw
prepared,
even
though
it
did
not
meet
any
of
those
mandatory
thresholds.
It
is
sort
of
an
argument
for
the
council
to
order
a
discretionary
aw,
but
it's
only
discretionary
in
the
sense
that,
if
it,
if
it,
if
it
meets
that
standard,
if
there
may
be
potential
for
significant
environmental
effects,
you
have
to
order
it.
Conversely,
if
it
doesn't
you
don't.
B
Often
do
we
do
a
has
this
ever
happened
before
I
mean
I.
I
know
that
when
it's
mandatory
early
triggered
and
I
really
appreciate
that,
because
it's
the
law
is
really
clear
about
that,
and
then
it's
really
obvious
and
everybody
understands
why.
How
often
do
we
do
have
we
have
we
ever
done
an
environmental
worksheet
from
a
petition
like
this
one,
it
wasn't
mandated
or
required
in
your
recent
memory,
I'm
trying
to
think
back
and
I
did
hear
about
around
the
email
area.
Maybe
we
did
that
and
that
would
have
been
many
years
ago.
The.
L
Citizen
petition
that
we
received
was
in
regards
to
the
Commons
Park
and
its
relationship
to
birds
safe
class
in
the
stadium,
and
at
that
time,
is
that
the
City
Council
did
deny
the
request
to
do
an
e
aw.
In
that
case,
an
a
you
AR
had
already
been
done
for
the
downtown
east,
the
Wells
Fargo
Ryan
development,
which
addressed
the
environmental
effects
or
study
those
mental
effects,
and
so
because
an
environmental
review
had
already
been
done.
We
did
deny
that
mr.
M
Chair
I'll
just
note
that
these
have
come
up
in
the
past,
but
that,
to
my
knowledge,
the
city
has
never
ordered
in
the
eaw
pursuant
to
a
citizen
petition
after
you've
already
approved
the
project.
Yes,
they
have
now
pulled
their
building
permits
yet,
but
I
can't
think
of
a
single
situation,
a
similar
situation
where
that
has
occurred
so.
B
Looking
back
at
the
views
of
the
height
or
something
like
that,
that's
already
been
approved
and
we're
not
supposed
to
use
the
worksheet
to
look
back
at
what
we've
already
approved
we'd
be
using
it
to
look
back
at
the
building
permit
and
maybe
the
wrecking
permit
and
some
other
things,
and
essentially
nothing
in
there
would
give
us
any
authority
to
say
anything
about
the
the
height
or
the
views
anyway.
Is
that
the.
M
A
J
A
M
Mr.
chair
there's
no
requirement
in
the
law
for
a
hearing
or
additional
testimony
when
considering
a
citizen
petition,
the
city
historically
has
not
done
so
it's
at
most.
It's
been
a
discussion
item,
if
not,
if
not
consent
and
and
and
again,
I
harkens
back
to
the
to
the
fact
that
the
petitioners
have
to
at
the
outset
present
their
material
evidence
in
their
petition.
So.
A
J
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
note
that
I
know
that
this
project
has
been
very
you
know,
discussed
and
debated
in
the
ward
and
the
council.
Member
Gordon's
office
has
been
working
diligently
to
address
community
concerns
around
the
project.
As
has
been
stated
many
times,
the
projects
has
already
been
approved
and
is,
at
the
stage
of
you,
know
consideration
for
its
building
permits
and
so
for
us
to
take
this
action
today,
I
think
would
be
disingenuous.
G
G
A
Thank
you
and
I'd
like
to
echo
those
things
too.
I
mean
when
it
is
a
public
hearing,
it's
fair
to
all
right
now.
It's
just
a
matter
of
who
is
able
to
say
can
I
get
to
speak
and
work
with
the
chair
of
other
council
members
and
that's
not
that's
not
an
open,
transparent
process.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
here,
not
seeing
councilmember
Gordon
I.
B
Appreciate
that
I
think
that
makes
sense
and
I'm
sure
that
if
it
was
noticed
it
just
from
what
I
know
about
my
community,
lots
of
other
people
would
have
come
and
they
would
have
had
some
thoughts
on
this.
This
is
a
very
controversial
project,
as
I'm
sure
you're
all
aware,
and
there's
really
no
way
that
I'm
not
going
to
be
disappointing
people.
However,
I
vote,
saying
that
I
will
note
that
this
decision
of
this
committee.
D
B
Looks
like
the
decision
will
be
to
support
the
staff
recommendation
will
go
forward
to
the
City
Council,
and
so
people
will
have
opportunities
to
try
to
have
meetings
and
try
to
reach
out
to
council
members
individually.
You
can
always
do
that
and
send
information
and
make
sure
they
have
briefings
and
so
to
see.
If
you
can
make
your
case
either
way
to
them.