►
From YouTube: NOV 17, 2021 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 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=905387&GUID=CB17A4DE-D0FB-4FC5-9AB6-3FC048BC5685
A
A
A
A
B
B
All
right
order
of
business
good
evening,
my
name
is
george
casey
and
I'm
the
vice
chair
of
the
planning
commission.
Welcome
to
the
planning
commission
meeting.
This
meeting
is
being
held
via
zoom
conference
call
due
to
the
covet
19
crisis.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
B
D
D
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
would
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
of
cullen
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
commission.
B
B
The
planning
commission's
actions
on
rezoning,
free,
zonings,
general,
planned
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
that
procedures
for
legal
protest
to
the
city
council
on
rezonings
and
pre-zonings.
C
B
B
B
E
Yes,
the
11
10
minutes.
We
do
want
to
defer
them
to
the
next
planning
commission
meeting
staff
still
needs
additional
time
to
prep
those
minutes,
and
since
these
meetings
were
back
to
back,
it's
a
little
difficult
to
get
them
to
today's
meeting.
So
we
are
requesting
to
defer
11
10
minutes
to
december
first
2021.
D
B
D
B
D
H
This
is
a
planned
development
zoning
to
allow
a
mixed-use
project
of
up
to
408
residential
units
and
a
minimum
of
60
331
square
feet
of
commercial
on
a
2.77
gross
acre
site
located
at
1260
east
santa
clara
street.
This
project
is
located
in
the
roosevelt
park.
Urban
village
plan
with
an
urban
village
land
use
designation,
which
supports
a
project
of
this
intensity
and
type.
H
H
If
and
when
a
development
project
is
submitted
for
the
project
at
a
future
date
that
development
permit
will
be
required
to
comply
with
the
roosevelt
urban
village
plan,
the
development
standards
that
are
approved
as
part
of
this
rezoning
and
any
other
municipal
code
or
policy
requirements.
The
city
has
please
note
that
full
compliance
with
the
roosevelt
park
urban
village
plan
cannot
be
determined
at
this
time,
as
only
the
zoning
is
on
file
and
under
consideration.
H
Compliance
with
things
like
sight
lines
to
the
five
wounds:
portuguese
national
church,
the
interface
with
the
five
wounds
trail.
Full
compliance
with
parking
requirements
and
other
details
cannot
be
evaluated
until
an
actual
development
permit
is
filed
and
the
nuances
of
those
details
are
done
tonight.
We
said
with
the
development
standards
set
up
the
rules
against
which
that
project
would
be
held.
I
Thank
you
jennifer
good
evening,
chair
commissioner.
My
name
is
taisha
lee
supervising
environmental
planner,
so
this
project
completed
an
environment.
I'm
sorry,
an
initial
study
and
mitigated
negative
decoration,
sorry
mouthful
so
is
mnd
for
short,
consistent
with
the
california
environmental
quality
act
sequa,
and
to
examine
the
potential
physical
impact
of
the
of
a
future
potential
foreseeable
project
with
this
rezoning.
I
So
this
ism
d
analyze
the
environmental
impact
of
the
maximum
of
the
zoning
and
allowable
on-site.
This
document
was
circulated
from
december
18
2020
to
january
13
2021,
and
we
received
comments
from
community
members
and
neighbors.
We
provided
responses
to
comments
and
posted
that
up
online
as
well.
On
november
5th,
before
this
meeting
at
107
pm
today,
we
receive
a
letter
from
representatives
of
adams,
roswell,
joseph
and
cordozo,
with
comments
pertaining
to
the
analysis
of
the
ismnd.
I
Please
note
that
this
comment
is
outside
of
the
public
comment
period
of
forsequa.
This
comment
letter
stated
some
concerns,
such
as
city
providing
late
information
to
the
commenter
operation
and
construction,
air,
greenhouse
gas
and
noise
impacts
from
the
project
to
the
environment
was
incorrectly
analyzed.
I
To
reiterate
the
public
comment
period
for
this
iesmd
ended
mid
mid-january
2021
and
this
commenter
was
notified
during
the
public
comment
period
and
no
comments
were
received
from
this
commenter
during
that
time.
In
this
letter
that
we
received
today,
the
commenter
correctly
claimed
that
on
november
3rd
2021,
the
commenter
requested
for
information
pertaining
to
this
project.
Under
the
california
public
records
act,
the
commenter
incorrectly
claimed
that
the
request
was
for
information
pertaining
to
documents
referenced
and
incorporated
incorporated
in
reference
by
the
environmental.
I
I
So
to
reiterate,
there
was
no
request
from
this
commenter
on
the
environment
documents
then,
or
immediately
after
during
the
public
circulation
period.
Therefore,
the
information
provided
now
about
the
environmental
documents
are
untimely
for
the
administrative
record
and
is
outside
of
the
public
comment
period.
I
However,
for
the
purpose
of
full
disclosure
and
good
faith
effort,
staff
has
reviewed
the
comments
received
today
and
looking
at
the
analysis
with
our
environment
consultant
as
well.
Staff
maintain
that
the
ism
d
and
technical
reports
for
air
greenhouse
gas
and
noise
all
demonstrate
evidence
that
the
project
is
in
compliance
with
the
general
plan,
such
as
our
policy
1.7,
for
construction,
noise
for
and
is
consistent
with
the
air
district
standards
and
guidance
for
air
quality
analysis
and
also
the
city
greens,
health,
gas
threshold
for
2030..
I
J
Yeah
good
evening
vice
chair,
casey
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
eric
schnauer,
I'm
a
land
use
consultant
that
represents
the
long
time,
property
owner,
pacific
states,
industries,
and
I
I
want
to
share
the
screen
and
I'm
not
tech,
I'm
not
technologically
advanced.
So
hopefully
I
don't
screw
it
up.
But
before
I
do
that,
I
just
want
to
say
that
you
know
in
my
job
as
a
land
use
consultant.
I
work
with
neighbors
all
over
the
city,
and
this
neighborhood
has
a
very
good
group
of
neighbors
who
have
who
I
know.
J
J
J
J
Okay,
so
let's
just
do
it
this
way,
so
now
you
can
hear
me
right
and
the
development
standards
are
on
the
screen
correct
right.
Okay,
so
I
apologize
for
that.
I
don't
know
what
happened
in
any
case
with
regard
to
the
neighbors
expressed
concerns
and
statements
that
the
zoning
is
inconsistent
with
the
urban
village
plan.
We
want
to
address
that.
So
the
first
thing
to
note
on
here
and
jennifer
can
move
the
cursor,
as
I
talk
notice,
the
asterisk
and
italics
at
the
top.
J
J
That's
it,
and
these
are
the
rules
of
the
zoning,
so
any
any
diagrams
drawings
exhibits
that
were
created
over
time
to
give
the
community
a
sense
of
the
scale
of
this
project.
Those
are
simply
conceptual
and
you
will
not
be
approving
any
of
those
pictures.
You're
only
approving
these
words-
and
these
words
are,
are
the
rules
that
we
have
to
live
by.
So
the
first
stated
concern
of
the
neighbors
was
about
the
interface
with
the
five
wounds
trail.
J
J
That's
though,
I
believe
those
are
the
exact
words
of
the
urban
village
plan
approved
by
the
neighborhood
and
those
are
incorporated
into
the
zoning,
so
the
zoning
is
totally
consistent
with
the
urban
village
plan
and
the
desire
of
this
of
the
community.
The
next
concern
is
building
height
opposite
the
church.
So
if
we
go
back
to
page
two,
we
go
back
to
page
two
under
building
heights
section.
J
So
the
the
rules
highlighted
here
under
height
state
exactly
the
same
words
that
are
in
the
urban
village
plan.
However,
it
even
goes
further
in
that
the
zoning
rules
here
require
that
the
future
development
permit
conduct
with
the
city
conduct
visualizations
to
show
that
the
proposed
height
does
not
negatively
impact
or
interfere
with
the
church
of
five
wounds
church
and
it's
as
detailed
as
showing
which
views
must
be
shown
views
one
through
six,
which
you
can
see
on
the
screen.
J
J
Well,
we
all
right
go
ahead
to
page
one,
sorry
about
that
page,
one
under
additional
plaza
requirements.
The
second
bullet
it
talks
about
the
plaza
itself
having
mediterranean
features.
The
the
plaza
is
a
key
public
feature
of
this
project,
and
it
requires
that
the
plaza
be
designed
with
the
mediterranean
features
then
going
back
to
page
five
under
building
design
first
bullet.
J
J
E
B
K
Just
one
thing
about
the
proposal
that's
being
proposed
here
for
this
empire
development
in
terms
of
the
traffic
has
anybody
on
this
committee
or
anybody
listening
and
never
heard
of
vta,
because
the
reason
I
asked
this
is
because
one
of
the
things
that
could
have
mitigated
the
potential
parking
and
traffic
concerns
is.
This
development
is
right,
near
east
santa
clara
street,
where
the
current
22
23,
as
well
as
522
rapid
buses,
run
along
in
fact,
there's
supposed
to
be
a
stop
right
near
the
20
that
serves
the
28th
street
little
portugal
proposed
bart
station
here.
K
E
L
L
A
Hi,
thank
you.
This
is
erica
valentine
from
local
393,
as
well
as
I'm
a
resident
of
the
city
of
san
jose
for
over
20
years.
I
am
asking
you
to.
Please
can
also
consider
the
biometric
impact
because
of
the
cars,
the
freeways,
the
climate,
the
carbon
and
specifically
the
noise
and
air
pollution
that
it's
going
to
have
on
these
communities.
A
M
M
I'm
here
before
you
today
to
explain
the
city
cannot
rely
on
a
mitigated,
negative
declaration
to
approve
the
rezoning,
ordinance
and
other
future
entitlements
for
this
project.
Instead,
an
eir
must
be
prepared.
An
er
must
be
prepared
whenever
there's
substantial
evidence
to
support
a
fair
argument
that
the
project
may
have
significant
environmental
impacts.
M
However,
our
noise
expert
determined
that
the
city's
mitigation
measures
will
not
be
effective
at
reducing
this
impact.
The
city
must
prepare
an
eir
to
make
sure
that
noise
impacts
to
local
residents
will
be
mitigated
regarding
health
risk.
The
city
claims
that
the
project's
operational
air
pollution
emissions
will
not
cause
a
significant
health
risk,
but
the
city
did
not
conduct
a
health
risk
analysis,
so
it
lacks
proof.
M
In
conclusion,
these
facts
constitute
substantial
evidence
that
the
project
may
have
a
significant
environmental
impact
requiring
the
city
to
prepare
an
eir.
We
urge
the
commission
to
recommend
against
adopting
the
mitigated
negative
declaration
and
against
adopting
the
rezoning
ordinance
until
the
city
prepares
an
eir
that
complies
with
sequa.
Thank
you
very
much.
E
K
All
right
good
evening,
my
name
is
edelman
lopez,
silva
and
I'm
a
second
year
apprentice
with
a
sheet
metal
worker
with
local
104.
I
was
born
and
raised
here
in
san
jose.
I
currently
live
a
couple
miles
away
from
where
this
project
is
going
to
be,
and
I
like
to
support
this
project,
but
there
are
too
many
unknown
about
the
potential
health
risks.
K
This
neighborhood
the
neighborhood
residents
to
the
neighborhood
residence
heart
construction
workers
like
me,
face
a
higher
risk
of
cancer
because
we
we
are
exposed
to
diesel
smoke
and
other
air
pollutions
on
the
job.
The
city
claims
that
emissions
from
this
project
won't
pose
a
significant
health
risk,
but
I
asked
the
city
to
prepare
eir
to
address
the
project's
environmental
impacts,
especially
the
air
pollution.
It
will
generate
for
the
workers
and
the
residents
alike.
Thank
you.
N
Mike
sangren
preservation
action
council
of
san
jose.
Thank
you,
commissioners
for
reviewing
this
project
and
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
this.
My
comments
are
actually
brief.
Tonight
I
do
think
preparing
an
environmental
impact
report
could
be
useful
both
to
the
developer
and
to
the
community.
N
So
I
would
support
that
if
the
planning
commission
can
make
that
happen,
I
think
the
the
thing
that
we
would
want
evaluated
is
the
historic
and
cultural
impact
of
the
project,
specifically
relative
to
the
church.
I
do
acknowledge
what
the
mind
consultant
has
noted,
which
is
that
there
are
five
views
that
were
evaluated
as
a
part
of
the
project
and
I'm
not
necessarily
challenging
that
those
view
that
those
perspectives
were
not
met,
but
you
know
today
that
is
the
most
prompt.
N
The
church
is
the
most
prominent
feature
of
that
entire
area,
and
it
is
a
very
beautiful
feature,
something
that
represents
not
just
historic
historic
place,
but
our
culture,
and
so
I
would.
I
would
ask
the
planning
commission
to
consider,
as
the
land
consultant
has
said,
the
owner
of
the
property
has
been
there
a
long
time,
and
I
presume
that
they
have
a
care
for
the
community
and
for
the
surrounding
development
and
so
preparing
an
environmental
impact
report
seems
like
a
good
thing
to
do.
I
would
just
ask
that
you
do
that.
O
D
O
O
I
have
lived
within
a
block
of
the
empire
lumber
site
for
50
years
now,
and
the
noise
from
highway,
101
and
east
santa
clara
street
is
bad
enough.
Excessive
noise
can
cause
physical,
psychological
and
cognitive
impairment.
You
shouldn't
have
to
raise
your
voice
to
be
heard
your
own
backyard
or
wear
earplugs
to
sleep.
O
I
anticipate
further
degradation
of
quality
of
life
for
the
neighbors
in
the
vicinity
of
the
development.
Should
the
city
allow
it
to
be
under-parked,
meaning
that
residents
and
employees
from
the
development
will
be
circling
the
neighborhoods
spewing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
search
of
scarce
on-street
parking
instead
of
parking
where
they
live
or
work?
O
Finally,
the
fact
that
the
development
is
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan
and
the
roosevelt
park
urban
village
plan
with
respect
to
the
future
five
wounds.
Trail
adjacent
to
the
property
should
disqualify
it
from
rezoning
at
this
time,
the
interrelationship
between
the
orientation,
local
location,
mass
and
scale
of
the
building
per
the
diagrams.
That
have
been
presented
to
us
are
not
appropriate,
compatible
or
aesthetically
pleasing
the
development
defies
the
neighborhood's
intent
in
the
roosevelt
park.
O
O
C
Hi,
thank
you.
My
name
is
brian
poores,
I'm
a
local
393
plumber
and
born
and
raised
in
san
jose,
and
I'm
asking
that
the
commission
perform
a
a
full
environmental
impact
report
before
allowing
this
to
move
forward.
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
climate
issues.
This
project
is
going
to
bring
in
the
area
specifically
noise,
air
pollution
and
and
and
other
other
climate
issues.
So
please
please
consider
doing
your
due
diligence
on
this.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
P
J
J
With
regard
to
the
union
members,
this
is
a
standard
practice
to
drop
a
100-page
letter
the
day
of
the
hearing
and
try
to
cause
chaos
and
confusion
to
get
you
to
act
as
their
pawns
to
deny
or
delay
a
project.
There
are
at
least
29
times
where
the
same
strategy
has
been
deployed
over
the
last
few
years.
I'm
going
to
just
take
a
moment
to
attempt
to
show
you.
J
In
any
case,
I'll
give
up
on
that,
but
I
will
share
with
you
via
email
29
times
the
construction
unions
have
deployed
the
same
tactic
29
times
with
projects
all
over
the
city
of
san
jose.
They
drop
on
your
lap,
the
day
of
the
hearing
or
day
before
a
100
page
letter,
with
lots
of
technical,
rigamarole
and
I'll.
Just
let
you
know
that
all
29
times
the
city
staff,
the
planning,
commission
and
the
city
council
all
found
that
the
city's
technical
analysis
was
adequate
and
complete.
J
Never
has
anyone
found
that
the
claims
of
of
the
construction
union
experts
were
justified
or
supported?
So
you
have
to
ask
yourself:
why
do
they
play
these
games?
Delaying
housing
from
being
built
in
our
city,
and
this
is
an
apartment
building
the
speakers
act
as
if
it
was
a
nuclear
power
plant
or
a
coal
power
plant
or
an
industrial
facility.
It's
an
apartment
building.
J
J
B
Q
Thank
you
chair.
This
question
is
for
professional
planning
staff,
since
we
don't
have
a
project
and
we
just
have
zoning.
What
is
it
in
general
good
practices
of
planning
that
you
would
want
next
to
a
future
bart
station?
What
type
of
intense
development,
with
the
expectation
that
you
would
have
there.
H
Thank
you,
commissioner.
The
type
of
intense
development
it
are
projects
like
this
project
that
are
moving
forward,
so
high
intensity,
mixed
use.
This
has
over
at
408
units
and
then
the
0.5,
far
of
commercial,
so
over
60
000
square
feet
is
pretty
significant.
This
is
the
type
of
project
we
look
for.
In
addition,
it's
going
to
have
the
public
plaza
on
the
corner,
which
is
in
compliance
with
the
five
wounds
plan.
H
Q
Q
Certainly
the
comments
made
about
st
joseph's
basilica,
I
mean
I
can't
imagine
downtown
not
having
any
tall
buildings,
but
I
think
the
if
we
were
looking
at
this
today,
we
might
even
say
that
specific
plan
isn't
really
dense
enough
for
a
bart
station.
Is
that
a
fair
question
that
some
urban
planner
might
ask
in
another
city?
H
So
that
is
something
that
is
coming
to
the
table
and
those
plans
would
be
before
the
planning
commission
when
that
timeline
is
figured
out,
probably
a
couple
of
years
time.
I'm
not
positive
what
the
timeline
is,
but
it
is
something
that's
being
seriously
looked
at
because
of
art
coming
in
and
becoming
a
reality.
Q
Thank
you
and
it
would
seem
that
that
reality
might
actually
happen
with
the
1.2
trillion
dollar
infrastructure
bill.
If
I
saw
the
billions
of
dollars
that'll
be
allocated
to
potentially
to
this
project.
So
so
it
sounds
like
if
anything,
the
density
may
after
this
review,
the
density
may
only
increase
in
this
area.
G
Yeah,
thank
you
vice
chair,
so
we
had
quite
a
few
public
comments
that
took
issue
with
the
mitigative
negative
declaration,
and
I
was
thinking
it
would
be
helpful
if
staff
could
go
into
some
detail
about.
Why
that's
the
case
for
this
proposed
rezoning
and
what
circumstances
warrant
a
mitigated:
negative
declaration
versus
a
full
eir.
I
Thank
you,
commissioner,
so
pertaining
to
the
air
quality
and
the
noise
and
gg,
and
also
the
cultural.
That's
some
of
the
commentary
brought
up.
There's
the
eir
would
really
not
analyze
impacts
differently
than
the
initial
study.
It's
just
a
matter
of
fact
on.
If
there
is
impact,
if
we
will
look
at
things
like
alternatives
right
in
the
initial
study
that
we
currently
have
now
identify
that
there's
no
impact.
That
is
significantly
unavoidable.
Therefore,
there's
no
need
to
raise
it
up
to
an
environmental
impact
report
that
the
ear
that
was
mentioned.
I
So
some
of
the
comments
regarding
that
just
needing
an
er
for
the
sake
of
an
eir
is
not
why
the
city
can
choose
to
go
that
way.
The
project
didn't
have
any
impact
that
would
give
us
the
push
to
say
yeah,
let's
raise
it
up
to
an
eir
and
furthermore,
as
someone
has
mentioned,
that
we
did
look
at
cultural
impacts
pertaining
to
the
church
as
well
and
while
adjacent
are
looked
at.
I
The
initial
study
concluded
that
there
was
no
significant
impact
to
the
integrity
of
that
church,
we're
not
harming
it
physically
and
we're
not
we're
not
putting
a
building
over
it.
Things
like
that
right
and
then
for
the
air,
air
noise
and
ghg
the
the
air
and
the
noise
pertaining
to
construction
operation.
The
project
is
a
mixed
use,
residential
and
commercial,
so
a
lot
of
the
impacts
would
come
from
operations.
I
Construction
is
temporary
and
we
do
look
at
that
and
we
do
have
medication
measure
to
reduce
it
in
a
reasonable
way,
because
the
envision
20
40
general
plan
that
noted
and
stated
and
acknowledged
that
there
will
be
temporary
construction
impacts.
It's
just
what
mitigation
measure
we
can
apply
to
reduce
it
during
the
time
frame.
I
So
we
do
have
that
for
this
project,
the
other
one
was
the
air
quality
and
we
actually
did
have
information
about
operation,
and
we
did
note
that
there
will
be
this
x
number
of
trips
and
with
that
to
tie
to
the
region
goal,
does
it
increase
by
x
amount
and
those
are
disclosed.
So
we
would
have
we've
looked
at
the
common
letter
that
stems
from
that.
D
B
P
P
You
know-
and
I
would
also
mention
just
you
know
again-
touch
that
the
analysis
in
eir
is
not
different
from
the
analysis
that
is
prepared
for
the
initial
study,
except
in
a
few
key
areas,
and
that
is
maybe
related
to
alternatives.
Alternatives
are
shown
when
they
could
reduce
impacts.
That's
insignificant,
especially
impacts
very
good.
That
is
significant
unavoidable,
because
no
significant
unavoidable
impacts
were
identified
in
this
alternatives
would
not
be
very
useful
in
terms
of
reducing
any
impact.
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
that
that's
the
main
core
difference,
otherwise,
the
thresholds.
G
Thank
you
and
if
I
could
ask
a
follow-up
question
so
in
a
situation
like
this,
where
the
proposal
being
considered
is
a
rezoning
but
not
a
project,
how
do
you
analyze?
How
do
you
do
an
environmental
analysis
of
just
a
rezoning?
Do
you
just
consider
the
most
impactful
possible
use
under
the
rezoning
or
how
does
that
work.
I
Yes,
so
in
the
development
standard
we
also
said
at
the
very
top
is
408
units
and
how
many
square
footage
of
commercial.
So
that's
the
that's
the
envelope
that
we
would
analyze
it
for
and
if
the
project
were
to
come
in
later
with
the
pd,
and
it's
going
to
be
beyond
that.
We
would
have
to
do
a
new
analysis
if
it's
within
that,
we
still
have
to
analyze
to
make
sure
that
the
way
that
it's
designed
is
still
consistent
with
what
we've
analyzed
and
approved.
D
F
F
It's
located
within
a
very
close
proximity
to
the
highway
101
freeway,
which
I
assure
you
will
provide
much
more
air
quality
impacts
than
this
project
could,
and
in
fact
this
is
the
exact
kind
of
project
we
want
from
an
environmental
standpoint.
We
want
high
quality
residential
to
be
built
close
to
transit
to
bart
and
the
vta,
because
by
doing
that
we
reduce
the
amount
of
trips
by
automobile.
We
will
have
folks
living
here.
I'm
confident
that
we'll
get
on
the
vta
and
get
on
board
and
go
to
their
workplaces.
F
It's
within
walking
distance
of
a
new
bart
station,
the
vta.
And
finally,
we
are
in
desperate
need
of
new
housing
in
the
city,
whether
it's
market
rate,
affordable,
supportive
and
this
project
would
provide
a
large
amount
of
housing
units
which
is
desperately
needed.
So
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
staff
recommendations.
B
R
Great
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question
about
it.
Excuse
me
my
dog
is
sparking.
Of
course
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question
about
the
trail
concerns
and-
and
I
recognize
that
there
are
design
standards
especially
requires
eyes
on
the
trail,
but
I
just
really
wasn't
understanding
what
the
concerns
from
the
community
were.
J
J
B
B
D
G
B
B
And
the
motion
pass
set
seven
to
three
or
seven
yeses
and
three
absence
or
eight
yeses,
three
apps,
I'm
sorry
all
right.
I
believe
that
closes
out
that
topic
and
we
can
go
to
are
there
any
referrals
from
city
council
boards
or
commissioners
or
other
agencies,
no
referrals,
good
and
welfare?
Is
there
any
report
from
the
city
council.
C
C
Q
Q
D
Commissioner,
I
believe
what
they're
doing
is
they're
taking
sb9
in
the
study
session,
and
it
may
be
mentioned
in
the
item.
But
the
item
is
actually
the
task
force
recommendation
on
opportunity,
housing
which
is
a
little
bit
different.
It
would
be
a
city
ordinance
on
opportunity,
housing
and
my
understanding
is
they're
going
to
be
asking
for
direction
from
council,
so
they
really
are
they're
tied
together,
but
they're
not
the
same
item.