Remarks by Benjamin Peterson
25 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 1
- Play at 1:20:22
“Thanks for your patience. Oh, of course. Um, I want to talk about the gates again. Can you talk about the hours that you'd like on the gates being closed?”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:20:40
“Um, talk about the hours that I like or what, what is your preferred hours of closure on the gates?”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:21:15
“Okay. So they'd be open... most Saturdays as well.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:21:35
“Somewhat related. Was there any wise or was there any talk or thought about putting another gate where the yellow brick road is right now, where the Paseo essentially is and, If not, why not?”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:22:20
“Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Those are my questions. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:34:27
“I absolutely support this project. I think it's beautiful and the addition complements the building, I think, very well and almost balances it out. I'm not an architect, but in many ways, and control for saying this, the north side of Libero, it's barren, and so when you look at the renderings, the windows there and how it steps down makes it look more complete. I think it's beautiful. I am uneasy with the loss of the alley in New York or the Paseo here. And so I understand, yeah, I support the hours of operation. I understand this is private property. I'll go along with what seems to be a…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:39:13
“Not to add, but there is, I personally feel there is something being lost by a gate closure at night, and I just want to put that on the record, that I feel, yeah, we are losing an essential Paseo, but I understand the reasoning for it, but so much HLC, I'm balancing it in my head.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 39:25
“Thank you. In the example that you used and the calculation that you put up, I'm curious, why do we include the entire project in the square footage calculation rather than just the square footage of, like, an example 4.3 units? Doesn't it make sense to charge an in-lieu fee in lieu of the units in terms of the area that we're calculating what they should pay out?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 40:25
“Sorry. Sorry. No, the $3 million one. I apologize. Sorry. I thought that was this one. I'll get there eventually. Sorry, guys.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 42:13
“Okay. I'm sure we'll talk more about that later. I think the only other question I have, and maybe I should have asked this one first, is if one of the goals, which certainly it should be, is to provide flexibility and incentives for developers to choose our program rather than State Density Bonus, how are we thinking about this in light of the potential building back, I'm sorry, building better housing initiative and creating an alternative pathway to that. How are we in conversation about these two things? To make it feasible, as it was mentioned earlier in public comment.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 43:42
“My thinking and my question is, isn't it important to think about how we're structuring this in light of these requirements being potentially in that and these things being in conversation with each other. We're potentially mending this, we're mending that. we're all in the kitchen here together, isn't it important to think about that?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 55:02
“I have kind of a follow-up on what Commissioner Barnwell said and maybe trying to pull together some things here. I think maybe a good question that comes out of the points that you raised is, Has there been any thinking, have we done anything about what the key number is, the sweet spot number is that would incentivize someone to use our local program, as an in lieu fee, to use our local program rather than state density bonus or not building at all? Has there been any thought about where is that sweet spot in terms of incentivization while also reaping benefits for our local housing trust…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:49:07
“No, no, comments. Okay. I thought we were moving to comments.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:03:58
“Okay, we're in comments. I think earlier it was said that developers would like a $0 rate. That's the thing that pencils out. But I hope that there's a number that works more than that. if we do some innovative things and if we provide concessions. And I think one of the contexts of all of this is state density bonus law. I think that's the reality under which we're operating. It's not either we get 10% or we get nothing. It's either they use our local program or they don't build at all or they use state density bonus law. And so I'm really hoping that there's some kind of information that we…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:39:03
“The only thing I would add is in our tables that we had, there was spread of in-lieu fees by methodology, and I would support the $73 that Commissioner Wardlow suggested. based on that, but I understand if the majority isn't there. This would be for the G2 fee out 100%.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:40:03
“Oh, well, yeah, I guess we're talking about the motion. Sure, well... That's where my vote is, but I'm willing to go with where the majority is. In the business district, right? Yes. Well, that's what you said, right?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:40:45
“Okay. Yeah. And so now it would theoretically be discussion on the amendment. We could vote on the amendment and then vote on the motion.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:44:12
“Couldn't we vote on the, since we're considering the motion on the floor, couldn't we consider an amendment to that motion, vote on that amendment, and then vote on the motion? The motion maker has to.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 47:01
“Oh, I'm first. Okay, great. Thank you very much for the presentation and for all the work put into this. Exciting. I have a question. Can you speak to how this is going to interact with the changes that we may be making to our inclusionary ordinance. Um, you know, we, in this program, we are going to mandate the 10% moderate, but on Thursday we're, we were potentially reviewing some changes to that. So how does that work if we make changes to our inclusionary ordinance?”
Planning Commission · Aug 17, 2026
- Play at 47:43
“And then my second question would be, how did we arrive at the decision to include the geographic area and only the geographic area that we did? Thank you. Okay.”
Planning Commission · Aug 17, 2026
- Play at 2:06:25
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Aug 17, 2026
- Play at 51:58
“Thank you. I have a question for the city attorney or for staff. Is the applicant entitled to use state density bonus in this project? Do they have the ability to?”
Planning Commission · Aug 13, 2026
- Play at 52:18
“Can I just ask the applicant why you chose to go through the local planning and not state density bonus?”
Planning Commission · Aug 13, 2026
- Play at 52:51
“And then my second question is, why did you choose rental and not ownership, say condos?”
Planning Commission · Aug 13, 2026
- Play at 58:13
“Oftentimes, when we're up here, developers or those building housing just do the minimum amount of affordable units, and you've gone above and beyond, and I know it's only two, but it is significant, and I'm appreciative of that, and I think we're all appreciative of that up here. I also echo the comments that anything we can do to move projects along quicker will help us get more housing in this place. Thank you.”
Planning Commission · Aug 13, 2026