►
From YouTube: OCT 13, 2021 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 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=898042&GUID=A5C78938-9079-4B8F-B2C0-EA3ED856ABBF
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
City
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identify
the
items
they
want
to
speak
on.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raise
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.
A
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony
the
applicant
and
appellant
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.
A
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
planning
commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
planning
commission
may
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public
testimony
ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
If
you
challenge
these
land
use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised
at
the
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
app
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing
the
planning
commission's
action
on
rezonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
council.
A
The
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.120.400
of
the
municipal
code
provides
the
procedure
for
legal
protest
to
the
city
council
on
rezonings
and
pre-zonings.
The
planning
commission's
action
on
conditional
use
permits
is
appealable
to
the
city
council
in
accordance
with
section
20.100.220
of
the
municipal
code.
A
B
We
do
not
have,
and
oh
yes,
we
do
hold
on
one.
Second,
we
have
one
speaker
here:
juan
go
ahead
and
unmute
yourself.
C
Hi,
my
name
is
juan
estrada
and
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
district
5,
united,
as
opposed
to
any
other
roles
I
may
hold,
and
I
wanted
to
make
you
aware
of
something
that
you
are
likely
already
aware
of.
That
is
that
there
is
a
petition
for
san
jose
of
quality
of
life.
You
have
each
received,
I
believe,
about
a
hundred
such
petitions
and
it's
important
to
you.
C
I
know
because
you
value
input
from
residents,
and
I
know
that
your
goal
is
to
try
to
do
what
is
best
for
the
san
jose
community,
and
so
I
urge
you
to
review
the
petition
thoroughly
to
see
what
residents
are
requesting.
In
particular,
there
are
a
couple
of
points.
A
Seeing
none,
I
will
now
move
on
to
item
four
consent.
Calendar.
Are
there
any
public
speakers
on
items
currently
on
the
consent?
Calendar
and
commissioners?
Is
anyone?
Are
there
any
items
you
would
like
to
remove
from
the
consent
calendar?
Let's
start
with
the
public
jennifer
any
any
speakers
on
consent.
A
D
A
A
B
A
The
motion
passes
the
consent
calendar
minus
item
4d
is
approved.
I
will
now
speak
to
why
I
have
pulled
item
4d
and
why
I
would
respectfully
request
a
motion
from
my
colleagues
item.
4D
is
asking
for
us
to
make
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
some
technical
issues.
That,
in
my
mind,
require
a
much
more
formal
presentation
to
this
body.
A
We
are
the
first
time
in
the
history
of
the
city
at
11
and
for
many
this
is
also
the
first
time
that
there
has
been
some
exposure
to
these
technical
issues.
We
are
being
asked
to
make
recommendations
that
include
concepts
from
the
general
plan
task
force
that
address,
for
example,
height
limits
to
accessible
dwelling
units.
A
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
this
having
a
much
more
thorough
conversation,
presentation
and
conversation
with
this
body,
I
do
want
to
make
it
much
more
of
a
practice
moving
forward
that
items
of
this
magnitude
that
require
that
we
put
our
name
on
them
as
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council
actually
have
the
proper
vetting
at
this
level
from
both
presentation
standpoint
and
a
question
standpoint.
In
many
ways
this
has
been
inspired
by
the
amount
of
energy
I'm
seeing
in
this
group
in
terms
of
questions
and
pushing,
I
think,
that's
healthy.
A
I
think
that's
required
so
because
of
that,
because
of
the
fact
that
we're
being
asked
to
put
our
name
on
this
because
of
the
fact
that
this
is
something
that,
although
it
may
seem
mundane
to
the
planning
department,
does
have
ramifications
in
terms
of
application
of
policy
here
in
san
jose.
So
with
that
being
my
piece,
I
would
kindly
entertain
emotion
from
my
colleagues
to
defer
this
item
for
two
weeks
to
the
next
meeting
of
the
planning
commission
for
a
formal
presentation.
E
Sure
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
push
out
two
weeks.
A
Perfect,
I
got
casey
with
the
motion
and
did
I
catch?
Was
it
a
tie
between
cavallo
and
or
nellis
weiss.
A
Oh
well,
well
there
you
have
it
so
we
we
we
will.
We
will
give
the
the
deferral
intern
to
the
our
newest
member
of
this
body,
commissioner
ornelas
wise
for
the
second,
but
I
appreciate
the
the
the
support
from
commissioner
tauren.
So
with
that
I
will
go
for
a
vote.
The
vote.
E
And
just
chair
to
understand
is
it,
do
you
don't
believe
the
staff
report
is
sufficient?
I
do
not
and
is
have
you
have
you
laid
out
what
specifically
you
want
from
staff.
A
G
Present,
yes,
this
is
aparna
from
the
planning
department,
hi.
E
Arpana
you've
heard
the
chair's
concern.
Are
you
able
to
explain
the
staff
report
to
the
planning
commission
this
evening.
G
I
think
the
chair
wanted
us
to
highlight
one
particular
item,
which
was
for
the
height
exceptions.
I
just
would
like
to
reiterate
that
all
of
the
items
that
we
have
enlisted
in
this
particular
report
are
all
corrections
to
what
was
already
previously
accrued,
or
they
are
minor
clarifications,
and
especially
with
the
height
as
well.
We
are
not
really
changing
any
of
the
hype
recommendations,
but
we
are
just
merely
providing
additional
clarification
so
that
the
public
find
it
easier
to
interpret
and
comprehend.
A
Porn,
I
I
appreciate
that,
but
minor
modifications
and
corrections
have
big
impacts
and
I
think
the
bigger
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
particularly
with
the
new
body
here.
We
do
need
to
get
into
the
practice
of
walking
us
through
some
of
these.
What
you
consider
minor
or
do
have
impacts,
and
again
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
that
this
is
a
new
group,
the
group
that
hasn't
met.
So,
commissioner
oliveira,
you
know
I
I
appreciate
where
you're
coming
from,
but
I
mean
at
this
point
we
do
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
and.
E
E
A
Commissioner
olivierio,
if
anyone
always
has
something
to
say
and
it
is
respected
and
it
is
welcome,
it
is
you
I
I
I
I
I
I
you
you
have
the
floor
at
every
meeting.
We
we
always
step
back
and
listen
to
your
deliberation.
Look
I
I
I
said,
ask
the
question:
ask
the
question
after
your
question.
I
will
call
for
a
vote.
A
Good
night
to
see
you
all
right,
so
one
thing:
yes,
I
apologize.
B
Oh
not
a
problem,
I
just
I
you
know
just
from
a
from
a
technical
perspective,
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying
chairman,
that
this
is
on
the
consent
calendar
and
normally
it's
just
done
by
emotion
and
then
we
we
we
sweep
it
through,
and
I
and
I
I
appreciate
what
you're
doing
here,
because
some
of
us
are
new
to
this
and
some
of
the
plan.
You
know
some
of
this
is
new
to
some
of
us
who
haven't
lived
in
san
jose
for
many
many
years
right,
for
you
know
our
whole
lifetime.
B
B
B
A
A
With
that,
I
think
we
are,
I
will
now
move
to
item
five,
the
public
hearing,
actually
no
vera.
We
maintained
the
hearing
open
from
three
weeks
ago,
correct.
A
So
we
are
continuing
the
public
hearing
and
at
this
point,
do
the
city
staff
have
the
opportunity
to
present
again
or
do
we
go
straight
to
deliberation
just
to
clarify.
D
Well,
my
understanding
is
that
they
have
issued
a
supplemental
memo
and
you
should
probably
ask
them-
and
I
believe
housing
has
a
presentation-
correct.
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
this
item,
but
that's
my
understanding.
So
you
may
ask
staff
to
present
the
additional
information,
because
I
know
you
had
a
number
and
when
I
say
you
I
mean
planning
commission
had
a
number
of
questions
last
time,
and
so
they
are
probably
going
to
be
able
to
respond
to
those
for
you.
H
H
All
right,
okay,
so
this
evening,
I'm
going
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
information
that
was
included
in
the
memo
that
the
housing
department,
provided
that
includes
clarification
regarding
requirements
under
the
city's
ellis
act,
ordinance,
the
city's
inclusionary
housing,
ordinance
and
also
the
california
housing
crisis,
act,
the
senate
bill,
330
or
otherwise
known
as
sb
330.
H
H
So
sb
330
requires
that
housing
development
projects
approved
on
or
after
january,
1
2020
need
to
replace
any
protected
units
that
are
existing
or
existed
on
the
site
within
the
last
five
years.
Prior
to
the
proposal,
protected
units
are
defined
in
three
different
ways,
so
first
units
that
have
existing
affordability,
restrictions,
second
units
that
are
rent
stabilized
and
have
been
over
the
last
five
years
and
then
third
units
that
were
withdrawn
from
the
rent
stabilization
within
the
last
10
years
and
units
that
are
or
were
occupied
by
lower
income.
Households.
H
The
sb
330
replacement
units
must
be
the
same
size
and
specifically
have
the
same
number
of
bedrooms
as
units
that
were
removed
and
must
have
rent
an
income
restrictions
for
at
least
55
years
for
households
that
are
at
the
same
or
lower
as
the
last
tenant
who
remains
in
the
units
in
determining
whether
units
are
low
income
and
protected.
That's
the
last
kind
of
category
and
probably
the
most
difficult
to
to
know
right
away.
H
If
that
category
applies
essentially
the
law,
the
the
requirements
incorporate
another
state
law,
which
is
the
density
bonus
law
that
allows
a
determination
of
the
last
and
last
tenant
income
level,
and
what
this
means
is
that
whoever
the
last
remaining
tenant
is
living
there,
whatever
their
income,
is,
can
actually
apply
to
all
of
the
removed
units.
H
If,
if,
for
some
reason,
it
is
not
possible
to
contact
the
the
tenants
who
may
have
moved
on.
H
They're
also
eligible
for
relocation
benefits
for
this
project.
The
conditions
will
need
to
be
revised
to
reflect
that
there
are
16
protected
units
that
need
to
be
replaced,
adding
one
additional
two-bedroom
unit
and
the
affordable
housing
cost
for
the
16
units
will
be
restricted
for
lower
income
households
with
rents
not
to
exceed
30
percent
of
80
of
the
area.
I'm
sorry
of
60
of
the
area,
median
income.
H
Next,
I
want
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
ellis
act,
ordinance
requirements
in
this
situation.
The
owner
intends
to
demolish
15,
rent
stabilized
units
that
are
covered
by
the
ellis
act
ordinance
and
the
ordinance
lays
out
the
city's
requirements
for
withdrawal
of
a
building
containing
rent
stabilized
units
in
order
to
satisfy
the
ellis
act,
ordinance,
there's
three
requirements
so
first,
the
owner
must
provide
a
notice
to
that
of
an
intent
to
withdraw
the
building
from
the
rent
from
the
rental
market
to
the
city
number
two.
H
They
must
provide
proper
unit,
proper
notice
and
relocation,
assistance
to
impacted
tenants
and
third,
they
must
record
a
city
approved
memorandum
against
the
parcels
with
rent
stabilized
buildings,
with
the
county
within
10
days
after
providing
the
city
with
a
notice
to
withdraw
the
city's
ellis
act.
Ordinance
also
requires
that
50
of
the
newly
constructed
units
must
be
subject
to
the
apartment,
rent
ordinance.
H
Now
the
ls
act
does
include
a
waiver
to
this
recontrol
provision,
and
these
recontrol
requirements
may
be
waived
if
the
owner
develops
20
of
the
total
projects,
rental
units
and
are
restricted
to
be
affordable.
So
that
is
another
option
for
a
developer.
When
considering
the
requirements
under
the
ellis
act,
ordinance.
H
I
also
wanted
to
cover
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
requirements,
so
under
the
inclusionary
ordinance
any
new,
any
new
residential
development
must
be,
must
comply
with
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
and
the
option
that
the
this
developer
has
chosen
to
meet
the
requirements
under
the
inclusionary
ordinance
is
the
option
to
pay
the
in-lieu
fee.
They
have
not.
They
have
not
selected
the
option
to
provide
on-site,
affordable
units,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
a
note
that
in
this
case
paying
the
in-lieu
fee
will
not
meet
the
obligation
under
the
other
requirements.
H
Now
the
really
the
important
question
is:
how
can
we
move
forward
with
this
project
in
order
to
meet
all
of
these
requirements
simultaneously?
H
So
really,
there
are
two
options:
there's
option
a
and
option
b,
so
in
option
a
what
the
developer
could
do
is
provide
120
units
that
are
subject
to
the
apartment,
rent
ordinance
and
will
be
subject
to
them
for
essentially
as
long
as
they
exist,
and
then
they
could
pay
the
in
luffy
and
they
could
provide
16
units
that
are
restricted
to
low-income
households.
H
H
So
in
this
case,
instead
of
providing
units
that
are
subject
to
the
apartment,
rent
ordinance
in
the
new
development,
what
they
could
do
is
they
could
choose.
The
waiver
under
the
ls
act
ordinance
to
actually
create
affordable
units
on
site
and
they
would
have
to
have
48
of
those
units
in
order
to
meet
the
20
percent
requirement
threshold
in
order
to
receive
a
waiver
and
those
48
units
would
have
to
be
restricted.
H
And
in
this
case,
the
48
units,
if,
as
long
as
the
affordability
levels
all
meet
the
same
requirements,
they
can
actually
serve
as
they
could
serve
as
on-site,
affordable
and
meet
the
requirements
for
the
inclusionary
ordinance
and
they
can
also
meet
the
requirements
under
sb
330..
So
in
that
case
the
48
units
could
be
built
and
meet
all
of
the
three
requirements,
so
that
is
also
an
option
for
this
project.
Moving
forward
and
again,
I
just
want
to
state
that
these
are
the.
H
H
With
that.
That
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
A
E
H
That's
a
good
question,
so,
what's
what's
new
about
about
this
specific
project?
Is
the
sb
330
requirements?
Sp
330
is
new
and
this
will
be.
H
As
far
as
I
know,
this
is
most
likely
the
first
project
that
will
be
moving
forward
that
is
coming
under
sb
330..
We
have
others
too,
that
we
are
working
with,
but
I
think
this
one
is
the
furthest
along.
E
And
follow-up
question:
has
there
been
if
you
know
of
any
other
cities
that
have
faced
the
same
situation
with
sb
330.
H
Yes,
this
is
a
law
that
applies
to
all
of
california,
so
there
are
several
cities
who
are
working
through
sb
330
requirements
and
just
trying
to
kind
of
put
together
a
program
around
the
law
and
are
actively
working
through
that
now.
E
Hi
city
attorney
vera,
so
just
to
understand
state
law
typically
supersedes
local
ordinances.
But
in
this
case,
from
your
vantage
point,
both
apply
and
should
apply
or
is
it
an
interpretation
that
could
be
a
disagreement.
D
I
that
would
be
a
question
for
the
housing
legal
council,
but
my
my
impression
is
and
again
I
do
not
work
with
the
ellis
act
regularly,
so
that
I,
because
I
don't
represent
the
housing
department,
but
the
ellis
act
ordinance
is
adopted
under
the
ellis
act,
which
is
a
state
law.
So
it
is
a.
It
is
an
ordinance
which
implements
the
state
law,
which
is
the
ellis
act.
I
I'm
a
housing
attorney,
and
I
think
I
can
answer
the
question,
but
it
basically
mirrors
what
bearer
was
stating
so
the
the
ellis
act
ordinance
is
essentially
implemented
based
on
how
state
law
allows
local
jurisdictions,
who
have
rent
control
ordinances,
permitting
them
to
create
an
ordinance
locally.
That
allows
the
landlords
to
withdraw
the
units
from
the
rental
market
and
if
they
decide
to
construct
new
buildings
on
the
site,
to
subject
a
percentage
of
those
units
to
rent
control.
I
So
this
is
consistent
with
what
state
law
allows
for
under
the
government
code
section
and
it
can
work
in
tandem
with
sv330
such
that
the
city
can,
with
in
other
cities,
are
doing
this
as
well.
The
city
can
require
that
a
portion
of
the
units
be
recontrolled
or
in
the
case
of
san
jose,
they
can
waive
the
recontrol
if
they
build
on-site,
affordable
housing
and
they
can
meet
sp
330
requirements,
as
well
as
the
lsac
ordinance
requirements.
E
And
chris,
from
your
understanding,
you
don't
know
of
any
other
city
that
has
entitled
a
development
yet
in
california
that
has
faced
this
and
what
judgment
they
made.
I
A
C
J
Yeah,
thank
you
so
also
thank
you
to
chris
and
rachel
for
coming
here
tonight.
It's
been
really
informative
and
also
just
comment
following
up
on
what
commissioner
ovary
was
asking
about,
I
mean
my
understanding.
Is
very
few
cities
in
california
have
something
analogous
to
san
jose's
ellis
act,
ordinance
and
also
our
lsat
ordinance.
Just
doesn't
come
up
that
often.
I
think
this
might
actually
be
the
first
project
that
would
potentially
move
forward
since
it
was
adopted.
J
I
could
be
wrong
about
that,
but
I
have
a
question.
I
don't
know
if
any
representatives
from
the
developer
are
here,
but
I
know
there
was
some
contention
in
the
past
meeting
and
I
don't
know
if
the
project
proposal
was
put
together
with
these
requirements
in
mind.
So
I'm
curious
if
it
if
the
developer
is
still
ready
to
move
forward
at
this
point
or
if
they
need
to
retool
things.
So
I'm
just
curious
like
what
is
do
we
have
anybody
here.
A
A
F
B
J
Okay,
thank
you,
and
I'm
also
just
to
confirm
this
might
be
a
question
for
chris,
but
I'm
guessing
like
most
requirements
that
this
is
something
that
would
just
be
a
requirement
for.
Excuse
me,
a
certificate
of
occupancy,
so
there's
not
really
a
tight
timeline
on
the
developer,
choosing
if
they're
going
to
how
they're
going
to
comply
with
it
right.
H
Okay,
I
was
just
going
to
say
so.
This
actually
needs
to
be
ironed
out
prior
to
that
point
in
the
process
so,
prior
to
the
planning
department,
issuing
a
demolition
permit,
we
need
to
have
a
an
understanding
of
how
the
ls
act
requirements
are
going
to
be
met,
so
that's
required
there
and
then
prior
to
the
issuance
of
building
permit.
We
need
to
have
sb
330
all
figured
out,
and
so
it
turns
out
that
the
issuance
of
the
demo
permit
and
the
building
permit
are
essentially
about
the
same
exact
point
in
the
process.
H
J
Gotcha
and
the
sorry
just
one
more
question
and
just
to
clarify
for
the
purposes
of
our
discussion
tonight
I
mean,
given
that
that's
part
of
the
permitting
process.
That
would
be
something
that
staff
and
the
developer
would
work
together
to
iron
out
and
is
not
doesn't
really
have
any
bearing
on
what
decision
we
would
make
tonight.
Is
that
correct.
F
So,
commissioner,
typically
these
arrangements
are
at
the
back
end
of
planning.
The
planning
approvals
will
go
through
and
then
housing
department
will
coordinate
with
the
developer.
They
have
to
review
their
affordable
housing
implementation
plan
to
their
satisfaction
and
approval.
Before
any
other
grading
permits,
demolition
permits,
building
permits
will
be
issued,
so
it's
a
condition:
condition
of
project
approval.
J
Gotcha,
thank
you
for
the
answers
to
all
my
questions
appreciate
it.
Thank.
A
You,
commissioner,
noir
commissioner
cantrell,
see
your
hand
is
still
up.
Did
you
have
a
question?
Oh
no,
that's
that's
a
no
do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
the
commission.
Commissioner
torrance.
B
All
right,
thank
you
chair,
so
this
is
for
mr
sununu,
I'm
wondering
if
you're
leaning
toward
plan
a
or
plan
b
that
housing
laid
out
for
us,
or
if
at
this
point
you
don't
have
a
leaning,
we
don't
have
a
leaning
work,
there's
a
myriad
of
factors
that
we'll
just
explore
as
we
go
forward,
including
financing
and
market
conditions.
So
we
we
don't
have
a
preference
at
this
point.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thanks.
A
Any
other
comments
from
my
colleagues:
okay.
Well,
commissioner,
that's
wise.
B
I
just
have
a
clarification
for
staff
in
regards
to
process
like
when
you
know
the
state
comes
up
with
some
different
laws
such
as
this,
and
you
have
different
projects
in
the
pipeline.
At
what
point
you
know,
do
you
add
a
condition
when
the
project
is
in
in
the
middle
of
approval
like
when
did
this
sb
330
become
into
effect.
A
B
I
D
It
also
just
if
I
can
add
it
also
remember.
It
also
depends
on
which
of
the
state
housing
laws
you're
talking
about,
because
some
of
the
laws
have
their
own
provisions
about
when
an
application
is
deemed
complete,
and
also
some
of
them
require
us
to
only
put
on
certain
housing
projects
only
put
conditions
on
them
that
that
we
can
do
at
the
time
that
they
of
the
preliminary
application.
We
don't
even
have
to
have
the
complete
application,
so
it
really
depends
on
the
housing
law.
D
We've
had
a
number
of
projects
and
a
number
of
considerations
under
sb
330
and
a
lot
of
what
the
planning
commission
is
not
going
to
see
a
lot
of
these
projects.
Quite
frankly,
because
many
affordable
housing
projects
go
through
a
ministerial
process,
that's
required
by
state
law,
it's
non-discretionary.
D
B
Yeah,
thank
you.
No,
I
think
it's
fantastic
and
I
commend
the
developer,
for
you
know:
creating
affordable
housing
in
san
jose.
So
thanks.
Thank
you.
Staff
too,.
B
I
just
want
a
clarification
from
rachel
on
so
on
option
a
it's
120
units,
50,
recontrolled,
correct
and
option
b,
it's
actually
so
the
36
and
the
16
don't
combine.
They
actually
just
count
towards
the
48.
H
So
the
48
okay,
so
in
option
b.
If
the
developer
were
to
choose
to
provide
48,
affordable
units
on
site,
then
essentially
those
48
units
would
meet
the
obligation
under
both
the
inclusionary
ordinance
and
under
sb
330..
So
it's
like
those
48
would
count
for
the
16
and
the
I'm
sorry.
I
have
all
the
numbers
mixed
up
in
my
head
hold
on.
H
So
they
don't
add
up
they
just
basically
the
48
would
meet
the
ellis
act
requirement,
it
would
meet
the
inclusionary
requirement
and
it
would
meet
the
sb
330
requirement
simultaneously.
B
H
H
B
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
because
I
was
a
little
confused
by
the
36
and
the
16
because
that's
up
to
52,
but
we
have
48
so
just
wanted
to
make
sure.
Okay,
thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
it.
B
F
C
H
It's
all
done
at
building
prior
to
building
permits
so
before
any
construction
begins.
That's.
H
A
Okay,
well
seeing
none.
I
will
weigh
in
to
this
conversation.
First
of
all,
I
do
want
to
take
this
time
to
thank
staff
for
their
work
for
that
deeper
dive.
If
we
all
recall
three
weeks
ago,
there
was
some
some
confusion,
understanding
that
needed
to
take
place
and
clearly
that
time
was
not
only
well
used
but
helped
in
terms
of
the
the
framing
of
tonight's
conversations.
A
I
do
want
to
also
take
the
time
to
thank,
not
only
all
parties
involved,
my
colleagues
for
having
the
the
the
patience
and
the
understanding
that
we
did
need
to
get
to
this
point.
So
again,
I
think,
as
we
move
forward
this
issue
aside,
one
of
the
things
I
will
be
looking
for
is
these,
where
we
can
to
take
those
deeper
dives
to
really
explain
this
process
to
this
commission,
because
I
see
us
as
the
community's
portal
to
really
have
this
conversation
before
it
goes
to
the
city
council
or
wherever
else.
A
E
A
I
A
A
B
A
That
the
motion
passes
ten
in
favor,
zero
in
opposition
and
one
recused
in
commissioner,
garcia
or
upstate.
A
F
Yes,
we're
going
to
use
this
opportunity
to
remind
commissioners
to
provide
their
receipts
and
our
proof
of
attendance
to
our
admin
staff,
but
I
believe
they
have
received
everything
so
far.
So
no
other
feedback
unless
commissioners
would
like
to
share
their
thoughts
from
their.
A
Perfect-
and
did
I
see
you,
have
you
raised
your
hand
raised
commissioner.
E
Oh
I'm
sorry,
I
raised
it
to
ask
a
question
about
the
upcoming
study
session,
so
I'll
wait
till
the
appropriate
time.
A
Sure,
item
d,
commission,
calendar
and
study
sessions
do
we
have
any
item
7d
one
review
and
approved
2022
planning,
commission
meeting
schedule.
A
B
A
B
F
Mr
check,
can
you
please
confirm
who
seconded
the
motion.
A
It
was
that's
a
great
question
who
did
this.
A
It's
me,
it
was
me
literally.
I've
got
my
kids
walking
into
my
room
delivering
dinner,
so
my
apologies
for
getting
distracted.
Okay
item
7d
study
sessions
scheduled
for
10
27
for
general
plan
for
your
review.
Do
we
have
any
comments
on
that?
Commissioner?.
E
Thank
you,
chair
staff.
Could
you
share
what
are
the
bullet
points
or
the
outline
of
this
there's
a
lot
of
proposals
coming
from
the
general
plan
task
force,
and
I
know
the
city
council
has
requested
to
hear
certain
items
separately.
So
I'm
just
curious.
Is
this
everything
or
following
the
council
direction
of
some
of
the
items.
F
It
is
my
understanding
this
will
be
following
the
council
direction,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
we
do
have
any
citywide
staff
here
to
give
feedback
on
the
synopsis
and
if
not,
we
can
do
so
at
the
next
meeting.
D
If
not,
maybe
the
only
the
only
thing
I
know
that's
being
taken
separately
on
the
four-year
review
is
coyote
valley,
that's
being
taken
a
little
bit
earlier.
E
Actually,
in
the
mayor's
budget
message,
it
separated
the
eliminating
single-family
house
zoning
topic
as
well.
D
Yeah,
that
is
a
that
is
an
issue
that
the
council
is
having
a
study
session
on,
because
sb9,
which
was
approved
this
year,
modifies.
Perhaps
what
staff
needs
to
do
so?
Staff
is
having
a
study
session
on
sb,
9
and
10
with
the
council.
E
D
I
don't
believe
there's
anybody
present
from
from
michael
brio's
staff.