I can appreciate all the testimony presented in this case both by citizens and representatives for the project. Given my support and commitment for intentional communities built around shared spaces, activities and amenities I would have been in favor of the project. I can also appreciate the position councilwoman Houston and 5 others took in opposition of the zoning change. This is why I would have voted in favor to have the opportunity to see a second draft of the proposed project that address concerns, including but not limited to:

• Access by way of emergency services is of the utmost importance, I would want to have a more specific and data driven response from Fire and EMS.
• Could the sale of alcohol be limited to beer and wine?
• Could there be a partnership with a private shuttle service to limit trips? What sort of alternatives to increased vehicles are available?
• Would preventative measure be put in place to limit access for cars to the project in case of anticipated heavy rains or flooding?
• Would there be a comprehensive emergency strategy in the case of heavy rains, flooding or fire?
• What other sources for generating revenue could be implemented? Could access to the market, coffee shop, and bar be limited to use by RV park guests and residents of the surrounding neighborhood in a financially feasible way?
• Could access to the proposed development be limited to pedestrian and bike traffic exclusively with parking and cart service available for the differently abled?