►
From YouTube: SEP 22, 2021 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2021.
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=894628&GUID=641D5E17-B7BF-4DC1-B561-B293E0801E95
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
All
right,
thank
you
good
evening.
My
name
is
rolando
bonilla.
I
am
the
chair
of
the
san
jose
planning
commission.
Welcome
to
the
planning
commission
meeting.
This
meeting
is
being
held
via
zoom
conference
call
due
to
the
coven
19
crisis.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
may
also
view
and
listen
to
the
meeting
on
live
stream,
cable,
tv,
granicus
and
youtube
following
roll
call.
During
summary
of
hearing
procedure,
we
will
review
how
the
public
may
provide
comment
during
today's
session.
Welcome.
Let's
do
a
roll
call.
A
A
B
Young
here
let
the
record
reflect
that.
As
of
this
moment,
commissioners,
lord
noise
and
oliveria
are
not
present.
That
may
change
as
we've
seen
all
right
summary
of
hearing
procedures.
The
procedure
for
the
hearing
is
as
follows:
after
the
staff
report,
applicants
and
appellants
may
make
a
five-minute
presentation.
B
City
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identified
the
items
they
want
to
speak
on.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
hand,
feature
on
zoom
click,
star
9
on
your
phone,
or
you
may
call
408,
535-3505
or
email
planning,
support
staff
at
san
jose
ca.gov
and
identify
your
name
phone
number
and
what
item
or
items
you'd
like
to
speak
on,
as
your
name
is
called
city
staff
will
unmute
you
to
speak
after
we
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
B
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony
the
applicant
and
appellate
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Planning.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers
response
to
commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
unmute
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
B
B
The
planning
commission's
action
on
rezonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.120.400
of
the
municipal
code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
to
the
city
council
on
rezonings
and
pre-zonings.
B
Commissioner,
here
now
welcome,
you
are
welcomed.
Thank
you
for
that.
Robert
all
right
call
the
orders
and
orders
of
the
day
I'm
going
to
move
item
2
to
immediately
behind
item
7d.
That's
really
the
only
change
we
have
with
that.
We
will
now
move
to
deferrals
and
removal
from
calendar
staff.
Do
we
have
any
items
to
defer
today?
Anyone
in
the
public
wish
well
actually
staff.
Do
we
have
any
items
that
are
for
today.
B
E
A
A
B
D
B
B
C
C
B
C
C
The
hearing
before
the
planning
commission
is
a
de
novo
hearing,
which
means
that
the
planning
commission
considers
the
permit
request
anew
at
this
time.
The
staff
would
like
to
clarify
that
the
staff
report
erroneously
states
that
there
is
a
13
foot
rear
setback
when
there
is
actually
a
6
inch
rear
set
back
proposed.
B
C
C
C
The
project
is
subject
to
and
meets
the
standards
of
the
downtown
design
guidelines,
except
where
exceptions
have
been
requested
and
recommended
for
approval
based
on
meeting
their
required
findings.
As
discussed
in
the
staff
report,
these
essentially
include
a
modified
rear
transition,
a
modified
step
back
along
the
front
of
the
building,
a
reduction
in
the
amount
of
action,
active
frontage
and
modified
separation,
distance
from
an
adjacent
potential
high-rise,
building
still
under
review.
C
I
Good
evening
planning
commission,
my
name
is
cassandra:
vanderswoop
environmental
supervising
planner,
stepping
in
for
mirablanco
this
evening
the
city
prepared
a
supplemental
environmental
impact
report
svir
to
the
downtown
strategy,
2040
eir
for
the
marc
residential
project.
The
scir
circulated
for
45
for
a
45-day
period
from
april
29th
to
june
14
2021
and
was
then
extended
to
july
7th
2021
to
allow
for
additional
time
for
additional
comments
in
response
to
neighbors
concerns
during
the
public
circulation
and
comment
period.
I
Staff
received
comments
pertaining
to
a
number
of
resource
areas
analyzed
in
the
scir,
including
aesthetics,
land
use
and
planning
noise,
cultural
and
tribal
resources
and
transportation
staff
addressed
all
of
these
comments.
In
the
first
amendment
to
the
scir,
which
was
posted
on
the
city's
website
on
july
16
2021,
the
scir
found
that
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
less
than
significant
impacts
with
mitigation
measures
incorporated
for
air
quality
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
and
noise.
The
scir
did
not
identify
any
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
and
therefore
no
statement
of
overriding
considerations
is
required.
I
On
july
28,
20
2021,
the
scir,
was
certified
in
the
director's
hearing.
A
sequa
appeal
was
not
filed.
However,
this
evening,
scir
is
presented
as
the
environmental
clearance
for
the
appeals
project
and
certification
of
the
scir
would
provide
the
environmental
clearance
for
the
planning
commission's
actions.
This
evening,
additionally,
staff
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
scir
outlined
excuse
me.
Staff
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
sdir
comments
outlined
in
the
appellant's
recent
september
17
2021
letter.
I
I
In
summary,
the
comment
letter
identified
concerns
of
the
scir
did
not
appropriately
analyze
the
parking
residential
parking
permit
program,
loss
of
privacy
for
surrounding
residential
properties
and
the
proposed
project
buildings
aesthetics.
These
comments
reiterate
comments
that
were
addressed
in
the
appellant's
july.
7
2021,
public
circulation
comment
and
do
not
raise
any
new
information
regarding
parking
and
the
residential
permit
program
and
the
possible
loss
of
proper
privacy.
The
discussion
of
these
items
in
the
seir
are
for
informational
purposes
and
project
description
purposes.
I
Additionally,
a
comment
was
received
today
regarding
why
the
scir
analyzed
a
six-story
44-unit
alternative
and
did
not
consider
or
negotiate
other
project
alternatives.
The
scir
alternatives.
Analysis
section
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
sequa,
section
1516
part
of
me
15126.6,
which
requires
an
eir
describe
a
range
of
alternatives
that
could
attain
most
of
the
project
objectives
and
avoid
or
substantially
lessen
any
of
the
project's
impacts
on
the
environment
and
eir
is
not
required
to
consider
every
conceivable
alternative.
I
Excuse
me,
one
more
time
could
result
in
a
better
conformance
with
the
historic
and
downtown
design
guidelines.
The
fcir
determined
that,
while
most
of
the
proposed
project
would
not
would
not
result
in
significant
unavoidable
impacts,
the
reduced
development
alternative
would
be
the
environmentally
superior
option,
as
it
would
achieve
most
of
the
project's
objectives
and
would
result
in
reduced
construction
impacts.
I
C
C
C
C
The
additional
appeal
details
include
number
one
on
the
issue
of
lack
of
proper
neighborhood
outreach.
The
appellant
identified
the
issue
as
the
fact
that
there
were
was
only
one
city-led
community
meeting,
and
that
meeting
was
held
over
zoo
staff
response
to
that
issue.
As
detailed
in
the
stack
report,
the
project
followed
council
policy
6-30
for
public
outreach
activities.
C
Staff
response
the
appellant
requested
a
set
of
plans
on
july
7th
2021
and
was
set
it
sent
a
digital
plan
set
on
july.
8Th
city
hall
was
closed
due
the
pen
due
to
the
pandemic
at
the
time
and
did
not
open
to
the
public
again
until
august
2nd,
so
paper
plans
could
not
be
provided
on
the
date
that
they
were
requested.
C
C
C
The
next
issue,
the
appellant,
stated
that
the
project
should
be
excluded
from
the
residential
permit
parking
program,
because
street
parking
is
limited
and
the
dense
project
would
further
impact
parking
staff
response.
This
project
is
in
the
south
of
university
neighborhoods,
also
known
as
sun
residential
permit
parking
zone.
C
Additional
appeal
issues
included
in
the
email
received
on
september
17th,
where
concerns
about
the
downtown
design,
guideline
exceptions
and
the
environmental
impact
report.
As
cassandra
mentioned
in
her
verbal
report,
this
project
is
subject
to
the
downtown
design
guidelines
and
the
guidelines
allow
exceptions
under
limited
circumstances.
C
C
C
Most
recently,
an
email
from
the
housing
action
coalition
was
received,
which
may
not
have
made
it
into
the
public
com
comments,
exhibit
whose
email
included
a
petition
with
27
signers
in
support
of
the
project
because
of
the
because
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan
goals
for
downtown
and
the
required
findings
for
the
special
use
permit
can
be
made.
Staff
recommends
that
the
planning
commission
deny
the
appeal
and
uphold
the
planning
director's
approval
of
the
special
use
permit
with
the
update
to
section
4c
of
the
resolution.
K
J
J
This
project
is
focused
on
addressing
one
just
one
segment
of
the
deep
regional
and
san
jose
need
for
housing,
particularly
student
housing.
We're
particularly
excited
about
this
student-focused
housing
project.
This
particular
opportunity
to
invest
and
bring
vibrant
housing
for
students
at
475,
south
fourth
street.
J
It's
been
a
process
which
was
begun
in
march
of
2020,
and
we
have
reshaped
the
project
based
on
comments.
We've
received
along
the
way,
balancing
the
complex
competing
design
challenges
of
an
infill
site
to
make
this
project
the
best
it
can
be,
and
so
this
evening
we
seek
your
consideration
and
upholding
of
the
approval
in
the
project.
K
K
K
K
K
It's
intentional
both
for
the
residents
and
for
neighbors
for
residents.
This
shape
maximizes
access
to
daylight
and
outside
air
stuff.
That
is
more
important
now
than
ever
for
neighbors.
This
design
also
allows
maximum
relief
from
the
neighbors,
which
allows
for
more
light
and
more
views
for
from
both
sides.
K
This
is
our
road
map
of
how
this
design
came
about,
while
there's
a
lot
on
here.
What
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
is
the
orange
lines
on
this
map
and
what
these
points
denote
is
points
of
collaboration
on
the
top.
We
showed
the
collaboration
here
with
the
city
concerning
sequel
and
planning.
Issues
on
the
bottom
is
all
of
our
points
of
collaboration
with
the
community.
K
K
The
first
most
important
thing
is
the
setback
prior.
Our
building
was
all
the
way
up
to
this
dotted
line.
You'll
see
on
the
right
we've
since
moved
the
building's
massing
15
feet
back
away
from
our
neighbor
to
the
rear.
This
increased
the
distance
between
our
buildings
above
the
third
floor
from
40
feet
to
almost
40
to
almost
55
feet.
K
K
B
L
B
B
N
B
O
B
O
O
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
know
where
you
got
that
information,
but
we
were
told
there
would
not
be
any
more
community
meetings
and
we
asked
for
it
and
they
said
no
because
of
covid
all
the
outreach
that
we
found
out
that
was
done
by
the
by
the
developer
was
actually
not
offered
to
myself
as
the
property
owners
owner
the
clippers
that
are
property
owners
that
come
up
to
this
building
or
any
of
the
existing
tenants.
Nothing.
We
got
absolutely
nothing,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
we
filed
the
appeal
to
get
to
the
project.
O
That
is
why
that
there's
a
parking
issue,
because
the
project
does
not
have
the
money
to
do
pile
driving
to
bring
the
parking
below
one
story.
They
are
also
using
cheap
outside
cladding
because
of
their
budget.
We
find
that
the
the
claim
that
this
is
a
affordable
housing
project
with
15
units
are
affordable
for
750
beds.
O
This
is
a
for-profit
dormitory
and
that's
what
it
is
throwing
in
15,
affordable
housing
does
not
change
the
classification.
The
rear
setback
on
the
concrete
wall
needs
to
be
addressed.
It
was
also
brought
up
by
the
director's
hearing.
I
need
at
least
three
feet.
My
property
is
a
landmark.
I
have
to
access
the
back
wall.
My
neighbor
is
also
got
wood
carports.
O
O
The
noise
and
privacy
issue
is
not
acceptable.
There
are
on
the
second
story
of
right
next
to
the
wall.
They
have
party
areas
green
areas
all
around
the
project
which
will
be
looking
into
the
picture
windows
for
all
the
properties
around
this
one
and
what
we're
asking
for
is
a
seven
foot
green
wall.
So
we
have
privacy,
the
aesthetics
of
the
outside
blue
building
being
in
blue,
has
does
not
match
this
historic
neighborhood,
where
we
have
over
20
properties
that
are
either
landmarks
or
structures
of
merit
within
a
reasonable
amount.
O
O
The
speakers
for
the
appellates
both
said
that
this
is
an
amenity-rich
neighborhood.
There
is
nothing
here.
I've
been
here
30
years.
I
own
four
properties
here.
The
only
grocery
store
is
a
vietnamese
store
on
second
street,
and
that
is
closing
because
the
property
has
been
bought.
So
the
parking
half
a
mile
away
is
a
huge
issue
for
us.
The
exemptions,
because
of
the
physical
strength
constraint,
goes
back
to
our
initial
problem.
With
this
project.
It's
too
big
for
the
footprint.
O
We
have
no
problem
with
the
20-story
building.
We
know
we're
going
to
get
more
of
those
we're
in
the
downtown
core,
but
the
design
of
this
building
is
is
wrong.
It
doesn't
fit
and
it's
detrimental
to
all
the
property
owners
and
the
tenants
that
are
already
here
and
if
you
look
at
the
mitigations
on
it,
they
are
very,
very
liberal
and
I've
never
seen
anything
like
that,
and
I've
dealt
with
a
lot
of
properties
in
my
years
here,
probably
about
50
different
prop
projects,
if
not
more.
O
I
also
do
not
understand
why
they're
saying
that
the
h
shape
of
the
building
is
a
benefit
to
the
neighbors
there's,
no
way
it's
a
benefit
for
the
neighbors,
and
that
totally
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
Also,
the
parking
entrance
on
third
street
is
right
next
to
the
apartments
where
it
should
be
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
building
away
from
the
apartments,
because
that's
also
where
they
plan
on
putting
their
dumpsters.
Thank
you.
B
N
N
All
right
so
pardon
the
lengthiness,
but
it
really
is
important
to
read
this
into
the
record
in
full.
So
here
it
starts
as
conditions
of
approval
regarding
san
jose's
ellis
act,
ordinance,
part
11
of
chapter
17.23
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
property
owners
who
own
residential
property
subject
to
the
apartment.
Rent
control,
ordinance
parts,
one
through
nine
of
chapter
17.23
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
must
comply
with
the
ellis
act.
N
Ordinance
requirement
set
forth
under
part
2
of
chapter
17:
point
23
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
residential
property,
subject
to
the
apartment,
rent
ordinance
chapters
1
through
9
of
chapter
17
point
23
of
I'm
sorry.
I
reread
that
portion
29
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code
include
rent
stabilized
units
which
are
rental
units
in
any
guest
house
or
any
multiple
dwelling
building
for
which
a
certificate
of
occupancy
was
issued
on
or
prior
to
september,
7
1979
or
was
offered
or
available
for
rent
on
or
before
this
date.
N
N
The
section
applies,
regardless
of
the
occupancy
status
of
each
covered
unit
when
the
building
was
withdrawn
from
the
residential
rental
market
and
regardless
of
whether
a
displaced
tenant
exercises
a
right
to
return
b.
If
a
building
containing
a
covered
unit
is
demolished
and
new
units
are
built
on
the
same
property
and
offered
for
rent
or
leased
within
five
years
of
the
effective
date
of
withdrawal
of
the
building
containing
the
covered
unit.
N
In
the
event
that
section
17.23
310
b
is
amended
to
change
the
annual
general
increase
limit
c
waiver
for
projects
with
on-site
affordable
units.
If
at
least
20
newly
constructed
rental
units
are
being
created,
the
re-control
requirements
under
this
section
will
be
waived
in
the
event
that
owner
one
develops.
N
2,
which
provides
that
50
of
all
newly
constructed
rental
units
located
on
the
property
where
the
covered
unit
was
demolished
shall
be
deemed
rent
stabilized
units
subject
to
the
apartment,
rent
ordinance,
title
17,
chapter
23
of
this
code.
Any
new
units
made
subject
to
the
apartment,
rent
ordinance,
which
are
in
excess
of
the
number
of
demolished
cupboard
units,
shall
remain
subject
to
the
annual
general
increase
limit
of
the
monthly
rent
charged
for
the
previous
12
months
for
the
rent
stabilized
unit
multiplied
by
5.
N
N
B
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
address
really
quick.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
time
to
do
this,
but
I
just
wanted
to
address
some
of
the
issues
that
steve
brought
up,
mr
cohen,
the
appellant.
During
his
time.
First
thing:
the
community
meeting
steve
claims
that
there
were
only
four
people
at
the
community
meeting.
We
have
a
zoom
spreadsheet
with
attendees,
including
32
members
of
the
public,
and
one
call
in
on
september,
17th
2020
for
the
community
meeting
and
also-
and
we
have
that
list
available
also.
C
L
Great
thank
you,
commissioners
and
also
everyone.
Member
of
the
public.
My
name
is
vivian
and
I'm
the
senior
analyst
for
the
rent
stabilization
program
with
the
housing
department,
and
so
this
project
we've
been
working
with
the
developers
and
essentially
there
are
two
apartments
as
part
of
the
three
building
that
are
going
to
be
demolished
and,
as
a
result,
any
rent,
stabilized
or
rent
control
department,
meaning
that
these
are
apartments
built
before
1979
anytime.
These
types
of
apartments
are
demolished.
L
There
is
what
is
our
local
ellis
act
ordinance
and
what
that
means
on
a
more
granular
level
is
that
there
are
two
types
of
say
like
re-control,
of
what
happens
to
new
units
that
are
built
on
parcels
containing
formally
demolished
rent-controlled
apartments.
So
in
this
case
there
are
two
aspects.
The
first
part
is
re-control.
L
We
control
just
simply
means
that
any
rent
increases
would
be
subject
to
five
percent
rent
increases
every
12
months,
which
is
consistent
to
our
current
apartment,
rent
ordinance.
Now
the
recontrol
provisions
can
be
broken
down
to
two
levels
and
it's
the
greater
of
so
one.
It's
either
the
number
of
units
that
are
demolished
that
are
protected
in
this
case
15
or
it
would
be
half
of
the
number
that
is
going
to
be
built.
So
in
this
case
is
240..
L
L
The
second
option
which
was
discussed
is
having
a
waiver.
If
on-site,
affordable
units
are
built,
and
so
it's
20
of
the
new
units,
so
20
of
240
will
bring
us
to
48,
and
so
in
this
scenario
the
there's
an
overlap
to
make
things
a
little
bit
more
nuanced
of
sp
330,
which
is
a
state
requirement,
and
so
what
that
would
mean
sp
330
is
a
one
for
one
kind
of
replacement.
So
that's
where
the
15
comes
from,
and
that
is
affordable.
L
But
in
this
particular
project,
there's
an
overlap
because
the
ellis
act
ordinance
is
local
and
it's
more
restrictive
and
so
absent
of
an
ls
act.
Ordinance,
the
replacement
will
just
be
sp
330,
which
be
15.
in
the
city
of
san
jose.
There's
a
local
ls,
app
ordinance,
meaning
that
layers
on
top
and
therefore
it
would
need
to
be
right.
Now
the
development
is
15,
affordable
units.
We
would
need
to
meet
up
to
with
my
napkin
math
right
now
up
to
48.
B
G
G
B
A
A
We
are
in
support
of
this
project
and
would
urge
you
to
support
it
as
well.
I
think
we
all
know
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
dire
housing
shortage
here
in
san
jose
and
in
the
surrounding
area.
So
it's
really
important
that
we
build
more
housing
at
all
levels
of
affordability
and
that
clue
includes
market
rate
housing.
We
also
feel
like
it's
really
important,
not.
A
This
project
any
further,
I
do
think
the
parking
program
is
pretty
innovative
and
will
be
utilized,
and
I
feel
unfortunate
that
the
appleton
thinks
that
there
are
no
amenities
in
the
area
as
the
sofa
district
is
close
by
and
building
more
homes
near
the
sofa
district
will
support
those
businesses
which
I
know
are
struggling
through
covid.
So
thank
you
for
the
consideration
of
my
comments.
Q
Okay,
hello,
this
is
anthony
nispell.
I
hope
you
can
hear
me.
No
amendment
amenities,
yeah,
we
there's
no
grocery
stores
anywhere
close.
I
think
trader
joe's
is
about
as
close
as
you
can
get
right
now
for
for
groceries.
But
let
me
let
me
I
hope
it's
not
in
vain
to
make
a
criticism
steve
brought
up.
Is
that
there's
the
parking
entrance
is
it's
just
just
next
to
the
corner
of
williams.
This
is
where
I
live.
Q
If,
if,
if
there's
gonna
be
say
on
monday,
10
dipsy
dumpsters
placed
there,
that's
that's
an
awful
menace.
You
have
three
people
rifled
through
those
and
so
forth.
You
got
the
dump
trucks
coming
in.
I
wish
they
would
put
those
to
the
north
of
the
building-
maybe
it's
too
late
now
to
make
that
amendment,
but
that's
important
also
the
working
hours
7
a.m
to
7
p.m.
This
is
a
residential
area.
G
District
in
which
it's
proposed
and
should
be
scaled
down
envision
san
jose
2040
general
plan
supposedly
protects
the
quality
of
existing
neighborhoods,
but
it
seems
to
be
of
ignored
here.
The
23-story
glass
building
will
never
blend
with
one
two
and
three-story
craftsmen
and
victorian
homes.
This
is
the
first
intrusion
of
towers,
east
of
the
downtown
core
into
a
thriving
neighborhood
and
should
be
should
have
been
planned
with
more
thought
of
the
future.
K
F
K
E
E
I
noticed
that
the
first
slide
of
the
developers
had
it
had
caltrans
and
and
bart
listed,
and
neither
one
of
those
are
anywhere
near
that
thing
also
they
mentioned
that
it
would
be
student
housing
and
then
one
of
the
city.
People
said
that
this
is
not
suit
student
housing.
So
I'm
concerned
with
that.
E
Also
the
fact
that
everything
about
the
building
meets
city
guidelines
I
feel,
like
the
guidelines
were
developed
specifically
for
this
building
and
others
like
it,
so
that
the
fact
that
the
building
meets
those
guidelines
is
kind
of
is
kind
of
silly.
Also,
I
think
one
minute
per
person
based
on
how
many
much
time
the
other
people
have
is
kind
of
bad.
F
Good
evening,
thank
you,
chair
and
commissioners
for
the
opportunity.
My
name
is
brian
bates.
I
am
a
downtown
resident.
I
live
a
few
blocks
from
this
location.
I
am
calling
in
to
offer
support.
I've
lived
downtown
a
long
time
and
appreciate
the
innovative,
innovative
parking
solution
that
has
been
brought
forward
here,
increased
spaces
on
site
and
there
are
already
a
good
number
of
us
living
downtown
who
park
offsite
and
walk
to
our
vehicle.
F
Q
Hi,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
thank
you,
so
I
am
an
east
side
resident
and
advocate
for
affordable
housing
in
san
jose
and
would
like
to
advocate
in
favor
of
this
project,
as
it
generally
furthers
san
jose's
housing
goals
and
brings
more
supply
to
san
jose.
However,
with
the
caveat
that
this
project
hopefully
include
in
the
future
actual
affordable
housing
for
students,
15
units
of
affordable
housing
in
the
midst
of
our
housing
crisis,
with
students
in
san
jose
who
are
homeless
is
unacceptable.
Q
48
units
would
be
more
reasonable
and
preferable,
as
staff
mentioned.
If,
if
that
could
actually
be
the
case,
more
than
48
would
be
even
more
preferable.
Obviously,
students
were
if
this
is
to
actually
be
student
housing,
then
it
must
be
actually
affordable
to
the
average
student,
not
just
wealthy
students.
Moreover,
my
cali,
my
caveat,
includes
that
community
outreach
be
bolstered
as
the
project
moves
forward
as
clearly
efforts
have
been
determined
by
some
of
the
community
to
be
lackluster
thus
far.
Thank
you.
A
N
Housing
and
I
applaud
the
use
of
parking
lifts,
especially
to
accommodate
the
residence
cars,
but
I
do
have
concerns
about
the
affordability
of
the
housing
for
students
who
are
often
working
part-time
minimum
wage
jobs.
So
I
do
agree
that
the
15
affordable
units
is
not
enough.
I
think
that
the
applicant
should
consider
the
48,
if
not
more,
affordable
units,
especially
because
san
jose
has
the
highest
rate
of
unhoused
students
in
the
csu
system.
N
F
This
this
streams
of
section
8
housing,
that's
what
it's
going
to
become
it'll
just
become
all
low-income
housing
it'll
be
a
halfway
house.
That's
what
always
happens
in
downtown
san
jose,
because
the
students
don't
have
the
money
or
they're
there,
only
so
many
months
of
the
year
or
they
scratch
the
place.
It's
not
going
to
be
for
students
there's
going
to
be
no
parking
there.
F
Well,
because
that's
the
new
trend,
I
mean
sam
ricardo
likes
this
project
because
it
probably
has
some
cool
bike
racks
next
to
a
bike
lane,
but
it's
not
going
to
work.
This
is
going
to
be
section
8,
it's
going
to
be
a
joke.
It's
going
to
be
another
folly
in
downtown
san
jose
mark
my
words.
There
hasn't
been
anything.
That's
been
worth
anything
in
this
downtown
nobody's
living
down
there
in
the
new
high
rises,
they're
all
bought
by
speculators.
F
G
A
A
E
Thank
you.
My
name
is
steve.
Borkenhagen
and
I've
lived
and
worked
downtown
for
about
50
years.
My
entire
adult
life
and
I've
been
trying
to
help
build
a
real,
vital
urban
center
in
our
city,
going
back
to
the
70s.
It
was
not,
it
was
not
a
mature
urban
center
and
the
missing
link
has
really
always
been
residential
density.
E
This
is
a
huge
investment
by
a
thoughtful
developer.
I
fully
support
this
project
and
I
hope
you
all
do
also.
The
really
the
lifeblood
of
downtowns
and
of
small
businesses
is
residential
density,
and
so
this
is
a
wonderful
opportunity,
so
plea,
please
let
these
developers
spend
their
own
money
to
build
something
really
important
for
our
city.
Thank
you.
E
R
Good
evening,
chair
bonilla
members
of
the
commission,
scott
nice
executive
director
of
san
jose
downtown
association.
We
first
saw
this
project
more
than
a
year
ago.
In
our
design
committee,
I
would
say,
wrote
a
somewhat
critical
letter
of
it.
There
were
many
improvements
that
that
we
sought
in
the
project,
and
earlier
this
year
we
had
a
encore
meeting
with
the
development
team
and
they
addressed
most
of
the
issues,
and
I
do
want
to
impress
upon
the
commissioners
how
unusual
that
is
that
you
have
a
developer
that
is
responsive.
R
You
heard
that
they
addressed
some
of
the
setback
issues
they
actually
added
height,
that
we
felt
addressed
some
of
the
boxy
nature
originally
of
the
building.
They
addressed
some
of
the
parking
concerns
we
didn't
get
everything
we
still
have
the
transformers
on
on
the
first
floor
facing
4th
street,
but
this
has
been
a
responsive
project.
G
G
We
own
the
property
right
next
to
where
this
development
is
happening,
and
we
are
for
development,
but
I
do
have
some
serious
concerns
about
this.
This
project,
looking
just
today
for
the
first
time
being
able
to
see
the
photos
that
they
provided,
where
they
have
the
setbacks
so
close
to
the
actual
fourth
street
itself.
G
Literally,
you
cannot
see
one
of
our
buildings.
It
totally
hides
one
of
the
units
with
that
also
being
said
that
particular
side
or
that
building
that's
being
hidden
from
those
photos
is
also
where
they
are
wanting
to
put
where
the
cars
come
in
and
the
garbage
cans
and
everything
come
in.
So
that
means
that
our
tenants
would
have
to
hear
those
cars
entering
and
coming
and
going
and
smell
their
garbage.
G
G
A
H
G
S
S
S
Hi
mike
satergrin
preservation
action
council
I'll
make
my
comments
brief.
I
just
have
two
concerns
with
sort
of
this
project
in
specific,
but
the
project
in
general
is
the
cumulative
impact
of
projects
like
this.
I
think
you
know
it's
called
action
for
us
as
citizens
of
san
jose
to
say.
Oh
okay,
if
this
project
goes
forward
as
proposed,
how
does
it
fit
with
everything
else?
That's
to
come,
you
know:
does
it
become
the
first
domino
that
falls
of
a
significant
number
of
projects
like
this?
S
The
other
thing
I
would
just
make
as
a
general
comment
about
sql
is
you
know
once
project
objectives
are
stated,
you
know
that
in
less
than
half
an
acre
you're
going
to
put
a
23-story
building
with
240
dwelling
units
that
really
really
limits
the
ability
to
have
an
objective
and
reasonable
discussion
of
alternatives.
Thank
you.
B
A
R
I
think
my
internet
is
going
in
and
out,
but
my
name
is
mike
schmidt
and
I
live
in
the
south
university
neighborhood
and
I'd
just
like
to
encourage
mark
williams,
comments,
similar
steve
cohen's
and
also
craig's
comments,
because
we
only
have
one
minute
I'd
like
to
try
to
encourage
you
to
mitigate
some
of
the
negative
consequences
on
the
neighborhood.
For
example,
we
already
the
parking
that
we
have
in
our
neighborhood
is
defined.
R
F
Hi,
my
name
is
brian
prescott,
sorry
about
the
technical
difficulties.
Earlier,
I'm
a
member
of
say
I'm
a
member
of
south
bay
gimbi,
and
I
would
respectfully
urge
you
to
accept
staff's
recommendations
to
approve
this
project,
so
this
project
is
going
to
put
240
units
240
units
of
housing
right
in
downtown.
This
is
the
neighborhood
that
I
live
in
at
about
third
in
san
fernando
I'm
thrilled
to
see
this
go
up.
I
think
the
renderings
are
very
beautiful
and
it's
the
kind
of
building
that
I'd
like
to
walk
by
in
the
future.
F
You
know
there
are
some
thoughts
about
the
parking
I
actually
live
completely
without
a
car
in
downtown
san
jose
and
it's
a
great
place
to
do
it.
I
have
multiple
grocery
stores
I
can
walk
to
today
I
went
to
go
get
a
haircut
and
there
are
about
four
barber
shops
that
I
could
walk
through
from
where
I
live
in
the
future.
It's
just
going
to
get
better
with
vta
research,
destroying
their
service
and
the
bart
station.
That's
coming
in.
This
is
going
to
be
a
great
place
to
have.
J
Excellent,
so
first
I
wanted
to
make
a
clarification
about
the
interpretation
of
the
ellis
act.
I
don't
believe
that
is
the
interpretation
that
the
city
staff
had
previously
inside
I'm
requesting
that
they
revisit
the
that
recontrol
piece
here.
That's
previously
been
documented
that
our
compliance
with
the
city's
iho
is
is
compliant
with
yellowstack,
so
I'm
asking
to
not
make
any
additional
condition
other
than
statutory
law.
J
K
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
hearing
public
comment
was
really
helpful.
It's
nice
to
hear
from
folks
in
the
community
on
specifics
on
our
project,
there's
a
few
items
that
we'd
love
to
address
during
the
q
a
period
things
such
as
the
mural
that
was
mentioned
or
or
address
parking
in
depth.
If
you'd
like
we're
going
to
leave
that
up
to
the
commissioners
to
point
us
to
topics
they
they
want
us
to
respond
to
for
now.
K
We've
listed
them
here,
some
of
them
have
spoken
today.
A
number
of
them
have
written
letters.
You
know
this
process
is
now
culminating
in
hopefully
240
units
of
student-focused
multi-family
investment
in
downtown.
This
is
what
we
see
is
the
future,
and
this
is
a
project
that
we've
deeply
collaborated
with
the
community
on
we've
outreached
numerous
times
and
had
great
conversations
and
only
have
asked
for
more
throughout
this
process.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
I'm
not
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
in
order
to
allow
for
my
colleagues
to
ask
questions
not
only
of
staff
but
equally
of
the
of
the
applicant
as
far
as
any
details
regarding
this
project
so
just
wanted
to
let
the
public
know
that
that's
why
we
do
that
to
allow
my
colleagues
to
commission
to
ask
questions
of
the
parties
that
are
currently
on
on
deck.
So
with
that,
I
will
start
our
wish.
Commissioner
caballero
and
then,
commissioner.
O
Okay,
thank
you.
I
will.
I
know
everybody
wants
to
get
out
I'll
make
it
as
brief.
As
I
can
the
applicant
just
said,
he
did
extensive
community
outreach
and
put
up
a
list
of
all
the
people
he
reached
out
to
it
sure
as
hell
wasn't
anybody
who
owns
property
around
here?
None
of
our
names
were
on
it.
The
south
university
neighborhood
group
was
not
on
it.
The
community
was
not
on
it.
That's
our
whole
point.
O
O
We
send
you
information
for
each
of
the
commissioners
on
what
we're
looking
to
try
to
correct
with
this
project.
Again
we're
not
trying
to
stop
it.
We're
trying
to
fix
it
so
it
fits
with
the
neighborhood
and
that's
what
we're
looking
for.
We
are
looking
to
have
this
project
and
the
the
entitlements
held
until
we
have
proper
community
meeting
with
the
stakeholders
that
actually
live
near
this
project
with
the
developer.
O
So
we
can
look
at
this
project,
make
reasonable
modifications,
so
it
doesn't
have
a
huge
negative
impact
on
us.
My
property
is
a
landmark
I've
owned
this
for
I've
been
here
for
30
years,
the
cliffords
on
the
corner
have
been
there
for
35
years,
we're
all
dedicated
to
the
neighborhood.
We
spent
a
lot
of
money.
O
Our
last
hope,
because
we
have
had
no
other
reasonable
opportunities,
as
we
have
in
other
projects
where
there
have
been
three
or
four
community
meetings
and
no
one
ever
left
satisfied,
but
we
always
found
common
ground
and
that's
what
we're
looking
for
that
opportunity,
which
we
feel
would
make
this
a
better
project
and
everybody
can
walk
away.
No
one's
going
to
be
happy,
but
at
least
it
won't
have
the
amount
of
negative
impacts
that
it
has
done
us
now.
T
Thank
you.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
Well,
hopefully
quick
questions
and
then
just
one
comment.
So
my
first
question
has
to
do
with
that
issue
around
public
outreach,
and
am
I
correct
in
understanding
that
only
public
meeting
was
the
meeting
that
was
held
by
the
city,
and
I
know
that
there's
no
requirement
to
have
additional
public
meetings,
but
I'm
a
lot
of
developers
do
we've
seen
that
over
the
course
of
you
know.
T
Well,
I
have
over
the
course
of
the
last
two
years
that
I've
been
on
the
commission.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
the
number
of
community
meetings,
and
I
know
that
the
city
does
extensive
outreach.
I
think
in
this
case
they
said
you
know
usually
several
hundred,
if
not
thousands,
of
mailings
to
folks
for
those
community
meetings.
So
I
just
want
to
better
understand
the
public
outreach
aspect.
T
K
K
If
you
want
to
set
straight,
our
communication
with
with
our
neighbor
steve
cohen,
starting
way
back
in
april
of
2020,
had
conversations
through
september,
heard
his
comments
in
september
at
an
in-person
meeting
with
steve
in
january,
with
chuck
and
karen,
who
also
spoke
tonight,
steve
very
clearly
said
to
us.
He
did
not
want
to
talk
about
the
project.
He
said
he
would
wait
for
the
circulation
period
for
the
eir
circulation
period
and
make
his
voice
heard.
Then.
T
Alex
I'm
actually
not
talking
about
individual
correspondence,
I'm
really
talking
about
opportunities
that
were
publicized
to
have
a
group
conversation
where
you
all
presented.
So
I
am
seeing
a
7
20
meeting
where
you,
where
some
it
looks
like
you
attended
a
neighborhood
meeting
and
it
looks
like
there.
But
but
the
vast
majority
of
this,
at
least
to
me,
looks
like
individual
communication.
Is
that
their
comment.
K
J
Okay,
I'd
also
like
to
highlight
the
historic
landmarks
commission
meeting
that
was
a
publicly
noticed
meeting.
We
knew
that
historic
adjacencies
were
one
of
the
the
major
items
of
contention
in
the
area.
It
was
so
that
was
our
first
indicator
of
the
public
interest
and,
and
it
was
well
attended,
it
did
have
significant
dialogue
about
the
project.
We
expected
that
that
meeting
was
representative
of
the
historic
consist
constituents
in
the
area.
T
J
L
Thank
you
for
the
question,
commissioner,
and
so
as
part
of
our
ls
act,
ordinance
requirements.
There
are
two
legislations
here
that
are
at
play:
it's
sp330,
which
requires
a
one
for
one
which
makes
it
15
and
there's
another
another
overlap
of
ellis,
which
includes
re-control,
but
also
what
has
been
mentioned
is
similar
to
our
on-site,
affordable,
which,
in
summary,
is
20
on-site,
affordable.
L
L
J
T
L
The
staff
recommendation
just
really
spells
out
more
our
actual
ordinance
language,
and
so
there
isn't
anything
in
there.
We
just
wanted
to
be
able
to
clarify
the
specifics
of
the
ellis
act
ordinance.
So
a
lot
of
what
was
being
read
into
the
record
are
the
statutory
language
from
the
ellis
act.
Ordinance.
B
I
have
to
ask:
when
did
this
language
get
introduced
to
us,
because
it
seems
there
seem
to
be
discrepancies
as
far
as
the
applicant
the
city
is
now
presenting
this?
This
is
feels
very
new
at
the
moment.
Initially
we
were
going
to
get
this.
You
know
language,
highly
technical,
that
candidly
wasn't
really
telling
us
anything
other
than
highly
technical.
B
G
G
I
have
not
been
speaking
to
the
applicant
about
this,
and
I
have
not
spoken
to
staff
about
this,
and
so
all
I
care
about
is
that
the
language
that
you,
that
is
being
asked
to
introduce,
really
spells
out
what
the
city
law
and
state
law
require
of
this
project
to
provide,
as
well
as
the
options
in
accordance
with
the
ellis
act.
The
ellis
act
ordinance
the
local
ordinance,
the
inclusionary
housing,
ordinance,
sp,
330
and
whatever
and
meshes
them
together.
G
So
pardon
me
it
is.
It
is
a
an
accurate
statement
of
the
law
that
applies
to
this
and
it
was
pardon
me
it
was
presented
by
by
housing
and
their
attorney,
and
so-
and
they
are
the
experts
on
this
now.
Having
said
that,
there
are
also
other
sections
of
the
resolution
that,
for
example,
refer
to
a
15
unit,
affordable
requirement,
which
does
not
appear
to
be
accurate,
and
that's
why
previously.
G
I
asked
that,
if
pardon
me
something
that
previously,
why
I
asked
that
if
the
commission
is
inclined
to
or
determines
that,
it
will
approve
this
permit
resolution
that
it
authorized
staff
or
direct
staff
at
the
same
time
to
reconcile
other
sections
of
the
resolution
to
make
to,
for
example,
remove
the
15
unit
requirement
and
make
certain
that
the
ellis
act
is
specified
where
it
needs
to
be.
My
understanding
of
the
law
is
inclusion,
as
vivian
explained
it
is
that
inclusionary
housing
requires
a
certain
percentage.
G
They
also
have
an
alternative
of
a
fee
ellis
act,
I
don't
believe
does,
and
it
has
a
higher
percentage,
that's
required.
So,
by
complying
with
the
ellis
act,
you
will
also
be
complying
with
sb
330
you'll
be
complying
with
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
That's
that's
my
understanding
of
it
and
vivian.
If
you
have
anything
more
to
add
to
that,
I
would
appreciate
it
because
I'm
a
latecomer
to
this.
L
Yes,
of
course,
I'll
be
happy
to
our
housing
department,
sent
out
a
memo
to
the
developers
and
who
we
worked
closely
with
as
well
on
december
3rd
of
2020
and
we've
been
in
close
communication
when
we
were
considering
bringing
back
the
ellis
act,
revisions
back
in
march
of
2020,
which
didn't
happen
because
of
kovid,
and
so
that
item
was
further
delayed.
But
we've
been
upfront
about
the
ellis
act,
ordinance
requirements.
L
We've
been
upfront
that
until
any
revisions
to
the
ls
act
ordinance,
our
current
standard
would
apply
in
which
it's
either
we
control
or
on-site
affordable.
And
so
this
language
here
is
just
to
further
clarify
it.
What's
currently
in
the
staff
report
mentions
ellis,
but
it
doesn't
clarify
exactly
what
the
requirements
are
of
ellis
and
that's
the
clarification
that
we're
hoping
to
to
make
in
the
permit.
T
Should
the
commission
approve,
it
approve
the
staff
recommendation,
and
that
is
still
not
clear
to
to
me
and
I'm
not
sure
about
our
other
commissioners,
because
I
do
understand
that
this
is
a
very
technical
issue,
but
I
think
that
so
you
know
I
won't
speak
for
anyone
else.
I
know
that
affordable
housing
is
extremely
important
to
me.
I
would
love
to
see
more
if
the
ellis
act
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
require
more.
T
I
think
that's
a
great
thing,
but
I
also
recognize
that
that
has
impacts
to
the
financing
of
properties
like
this,
that
it
often
requires
actually
increasing
height,
etc.
And
so
I
think
that
what
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
that
if
we
approve
the
staff
recommendation,
are
we
approving
48
the
requirement
of
48
or
an
in-lieu
of
fee,
but
you're
saying
that,
because
we
have
a
local
ellis
act,
that
they
actually
can't
pay
and
leave
a
fee.
T
B
B
No,
and
actually
you
you
bring
up
a
good
point
and
I
know
we
have
commissioners
in
the
queue
if
there
was
ever
a
time
for
us
to
think
about
that,
it's
it's
it's
definitely
now
in
my
mind,
I
know
we've
got
commissioners
in
the
queue
here,
but
in
my
mind,
we've
got.
You
know,
result
respectfully
vera
acknowledging
that
she's,
not
the
attorney
a
record
for
for
this.
We
we
we're
trying
to
get
an
understanding
of
something.
That's
pretty
pretty
heavy.
B
We've
got
the
developer
disagreeing
with
the
city's
position
we
ourselves
are
trying
to.
I
just
don't
feel
comfortable,
saying
yes
or
no
to
something
of
this
magnitude
when
it
is
clear
that
there's
a
level
of
confusion
right
now,
I
just
don't
think
that's
the
right
look
and
I
definitely
don't
think
it's
the
right
practice.
B
So
I
actually,
I
know
we've
got
folks
lined
up,
but
I
am
willing
to
entertain
a
motion
for
a
deferral
for
two
weeks
from
now.
We
don't
have
to
do
public
comment
all
over
again.
We
can
go
straight
to
this,
but
we
need
to
understand
what's
happening
here.
There
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
inconsistency,
and
this
is
too
important
for
us
to
get
it
wrong.
G
The
motion
would
be
to
actually
continue
the
meeting
to
a
date
certain,
and
so
you
know,
if
it's
the
next
planning
commission
meeting
a
couple
of
planning
commission
meetings
away,
it
could
be
accomplished
either
way
and
just
ask
staff
it
also.
My
suggestion
would
be
that
in
that
time
they
revised
the
resolution
according
to
what
the
recommendation
is.
J
R
I
I
think,
there's
some
other
issues,
one.
The
community's
involvement
in
whatever
is
the
actual
plan.
I
think
we
need
to
continue
that,
certainly
because
that's
their
community
and
two,
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
other
clarity
as
well
in
terms
of
what
the
definition
of
is
a
student-focused
housing.
R
B
G
T
A
A
B
B
T
R
K
B
A
A
A
A
S
A
Like
to
and
I'll
explain
why
I'm
gonna
reconsider
my
vote,
because
I
do
feel
that
it
is
important
to
allow
for
the
residents
to
be
able
to
speak
on
what
is
about
to
happen.
This,
the
the
48
units
will
affect
their
performa,
it's
going
to
affect
how
they
build
out
this
project,
and
so
we
definitely
should.
If
there
are
going
to
be
any
changes
made,
we
definitely
should
consider
allowing
for
the
public
to
have
public
testimony.
A
B
A
F
K
B
B
D
B
D
D
So,
with
regards
to
the
request
to
meet
in
person,
we
are
currently
in
phase
one
which
allows
in
person
only
for
city,
council
meetings,
no
votes
or
commissions
phase.
Two
is
supposed
to
start
october,
4th
2021,
but
it's
a
moving
target
and
we
can't
speculate
whether
by
that
time
they
will
allow
hybrid
or
still
going
to
be
remote.
D
There
was
also
a
request
for
a
brief
presentation
on
robert's
rules
or
order
of
other
101
for
the
benefit
of
the
commission
and
then
motions
or
actions
by
an
appointed
planning
commission
which
are
not
legal,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
vera
addressed.
But
it's
it's
been
recommended
again
and
then
planning
commission
motions
that
are
not
the
domain
of
the
commission,
but
that
of
the
elected
city.
Council.
D
B
All
right,
perfect,
all
right
with
that,
we
will
now
move.
I
guess
we
should
give
no
later
than
end
of
the
week.
We
should,
let's
send
our
preferred
dates
to
city
staff
so
that
they
can
select
the
date.
As
far
as
me,
robert
I'll,
go
on
the
record.
Whichever
date
you
choose
will
make
it
work
for
me,
that's.
D
B
R
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
M
Great,
thank
you,
hello.
Everyone,
I'm
bharat
ramakrishna.
I
would
like
to
speak
about
the
rv
safe
site
parking
located
at
71
vista
montana,
I'm
also
the
president
of
homeowners,
homeowners,
association
here
and
I'll,
be
speaking
on
behalf
of
myself
as
well
as
concerns
raised
by
several
residents
before
that.
I'd
like
to
speak
about
the
issue
of
homelessness,
and
I
really
appreciate
all
the
work
done
by
the
city
and
the
county
and
the
state
on
various
elements.
M
So
there's
not
about
the
homeless,
but
it's
my
comments
are
going
to
be
against
or
about
the
city
for
three
issues
which
I'm
going
to
list.
First
is
for
the
rv
safe
site,
the
residents
weren't
notified
in
the
neighborhood
and,
however,
all
the
other
stakeholders,
including
the
contractors
non-profits
etc,
were
notified.
So
it
is
a
land
use
policy
and
we
would
like
the
state
to
a
city
to
actually
notify
the
residents
number
two.
It's
close
to
a
kid's
park
and
safety
is
a
concern.
We
just
saw
a
rv
jump,
a
red
light
just
coming
out.
P
P
Our
neighborhood
two
feet
away
was
not
notified
and
the
whole
project
was
fast
tracked
due
to
a
false
emergency.
We
need
your
help
preventing
this
from
happening
again.
These
types
of
sites
should
not
be
allowed
in
a
residential
neighborhood
within
a
500
or
600
foot
radius
of
child
sensitive
sites
such
as
daycare,
schools,
libraries
and
parks.
You
should
be
200
feet
away
from
residences,
should
have
the
same
notice
and
public
hearing
process
as
rezoning,
because
it
has
similar
prominent
impact
on
the
neighborhood.
P
Regardless
of
the
duration
of
this
program,
we
must
have
neighborhood
engagement
to
define
and
measure
success
of
this
project
and
periodically
re-evaluate
the
project
and
provide
a
clear
path
to
shut
it
down.
If
it's
not
working,
some
criteria
is
safety,
cleanliness,
overflow,
ambient
crime
and
it's
also
very
expensive.
Please
help
us
keep
our
neighborhood
safe,
find
compassionate
solutions
for
homeless
people.
Help
us
ensure
these
decisions
are
made
responsibly.
A
Thank
you
alma.
You
are
unmuted,
go
ahead
and
yourself
you
very
much
for
your
time,
I'm
also
calling
rith
or
speaking
regarding
the
71
vista
montana
site.
It
was
not
communicated
to
the
residents
only.
We
were
only
given
two
days
notice
prior
to
a
labor
day
weekend,
so
it
was
really
suspicious
and
unseemly
the
way
that
they
they
communicated
this
to
us.
This
is
also
right
next
to
a
child's
part,
children's
park
and
across
the
street
street
kitty
corner
to
a
soccer
field.
A
Basketball
court,
where
kids
play
and
now
our
community
kids
don't
have
or
feel
safe
to
to
play
in
this
area
or
walk
around
the
fenced-in
area.
Is
the
the
city
only
cares
about
what's
inside
the
fenced-in
area
and
it's
creating
a
lot
of
security
issues
outside
the
fenced-in
area.
This
this
area
is
already
over
populated
and
the
site
is
been
deemed
unhabitable
because
it
has
high
levels
of
arsenic.
So
I
don't
understand
how
it
was
deemed
to
be
a
site
for
the
homeless.
It
seems
quite
cruel
that
the
city
decided
to
do
this.
Thank
you.
H
Hello,
this
is
regarding
the
rv
safe
side
parking
at
71.
Mr
montana,
I
would
like
to
reiterate
the
same
concerns
that
my
neighbors
had
expressed.
First,
this
rv
safe
site
is
right
next
to
a
children's
park.
It's
like
it's
it's
a
no-brainer,
such
rv,
safe
site
should
never
be
right.
Next
to
a
children's
park.
H
My
son
has
stopped
going
to
the
park
with
his
with
the
neighborhood
friends
because
of
security
concerns.
Second,
is
the
way
the
rv
safe
site
was
was
identified,
was
lagged
any
transparency
from
the
city,
so
we
would
like
to.
I
would
like
to
request
public
hearings
and
neighborhood
engagement
during
the
decision-making
process,
as
well
as
communicating
with
the
residents
when
such
a
decision
is
made.
Thank
you.
H
H
First,
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
location
of
the
rv
parking
site
that
we
have
right
now
that
is
very
close
to
the
adjacent
to
the
park.
A
children's
play
park,
it's
very
close
to
the
soccer
field
that
kids
play.
It
is
very
close
to
all
the
two
luxury
apartments
and
two,
almost
three
four
neighborhoods
within
that
area,
and
there
are
almost
three
thousand
three
thousand
five
hundred
presidents
living
in
that
same
area
and
we
were
not
informed
anything
without
any
prior
notice.
M
M
I
request
this
commission
to
take
action
to
make
sure
that
such
unplanned
surprises
does
not
happen
in
the
future.
I
have
the
following
examples.
As
a
result
of
this
bad
planning,
I
think
some
of
our
some
of
my
co-residents
here
but
I'll
just
re-mention
them
there's
absolutely
no
notice,
let
alone
discussions
with
the
community
around
the
site.
The
site
is
embedded
in
a
dense
neighborhood
with
around
5000
people
in
close
proximity.
M
M
Another
example,
the
city
has
chosen
this
site
with
no
planning
regarding
how
this
site
affects
safety
and
quality
of
life.
In
this
neighborhood,
I
request
the
planning
commission
to
create
policy
that
guides
the
city
or
prevents
the
city
from
doing
such
rash
and
planned
actions
that
affects
neighborhoods.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
I'm
calling
regarding
the
71,
mr
montana,
I'm
also
a
neighbor.
I
don't
want
to
repeat
all
the
concerns
my
colleagues
and
my
neighbors
raised.
So
I
have
a
couple
of
different
points.
One
is:
does
this
come
under
planning,
commissions
of
purview
and
juice,
addiction
and
the
planning?
H
So
if
not,
I
would
request
you
to
have
a
plan
for
such
safe
sites
in
the
future
and
now
currently
current
sites
to
have
a
proper
location
identified,
and
you
know
as
part
of
the
plan
and
guidelines
all
that
to
the
city.
Second,
is
this
site
that
they
chose?
71
vista
montana
heard
has
arsenic
from
the
disclosures
when
the
site
was
sold
to
city
and
is
it
safe
for
the
the
homeless
people
or
the
the
residents
of
the
rvs
to
be
par
stationed
there?
H
B
O
B
E
E
With
this
park,
there's
homeless
people
in
the
park,
smoking
pot
and
drinking
open
containers
of
beer.
I've
witnessed
that
myself
that
we've
found
a
syringe,
there's
all
kinds
of
stuff.
It's
it's
bad
for
them,
too.
There's
generators
running,
there's
no
water
supply,
there's
all
kinds
of
horrible
things,
so
I
I
encourage
you
to
listen
to
our
or
what
we
have
to
say.
Thank
you.
H
H
The
city
also
had
a
bad
record
of
differing
crimes
in
this
area.
Car
breaking
steps
are
all
being
like
it's
a
normal
thing
over
here,
so
we
do
not
believe
the
security
promises
were
made
are
going
to
be
taken
care,
so
we
already
seen
like
the
weeds
lying
around
on
all
of
those.
So
kids
are
not
very,
I
mean
not
safe
over
here
and
why
the
city
was
not
able
to
find
any
better
place
than
this.
Why
put
in
a
neighborhood
place
here
and
then
making
our
lives
miserable?
H
A
H
Thanks,
so
there
are
two
things
that,
in
addition
to
what
my
fellow
neighborhood
residents
brought
up,
I
wanted
to
mention
this
thing.
The
reason
this
neighborhood
is
edgy
because
of
the
city's
failure
in
providing
a
safe,
neighborhood
and
enforcing
simple
things
like
parking
rules.
It
hasn't
changed
with
this
safe
parking
site.
The
lofty
promises
made
with
the
site
where
now
and
start
failing.
I
haven't
seen
security
twice
in
the
last
two
days
that
shouldn't
have
happened.
H
New
residents
that
are
not
supposed
to
be,
there
seem
to
be
admitted,
and
there
is
trash
in
certain
rvs.
The
conspicuous
nature
of
the
execution
and
labs
and
enforcement
doesn't
improve
our
trust
in
the
city
and
its
intentions
for
hardworking
taxpayers.
Also
who
is
making
the
plan?
Please
visit
these
sites
before
you,
you
know
the
the
decision
shouldn't
be
made
on
paper.
There
should
be
whatever
policies
are
being
followed.
They
should
be
verified
and
checked
like
having
or
not
having
parks
in
the
neighborhood.
H
B
S
Yes,
commissioners,
just
briefly
in
your
retreat,
I
don't
know
that
that
was
an
item
that
was
specifically
discussed
agenda-wise,
but
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
an
agenda
item
for
the
retreat
would
be
a
summary
of
mitigation
measures
when
there
is
going
to
be
a
statement
of
overriding
consideration
on
a
project
relative
to
a
sequa.
I
think
this
might
forestall
litigation
and
other
issues
on
the
back
end
of
projects
that
just
cause
delay.
Thank
you
bye.
Thank
you.